GE Aims to Steal F-35 Engine Production!

All about the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the (cancelled) General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3144
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post13 Jul 2016, 22:14

It is enough to make me wonder what happens if an F119 is "opened up". Best speed-engine for TacAir since the J79, but who wins the afterburning match?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 662
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post13 Jul 2016, 22:18

Not sure either if it would simply be a "drop-in" for the F-35.

It was structurally relatively easy for the F16 to go from a small to a big air intake, but for the F-35?
This mod would require major structural air intake changes.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3154
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post13 Jul 2016, 22:18

gideonic wrote:I was thinking that such an engine would also allow considerably higher top-speed for the F-35. The high bypass-ratio of the engine is the main reason for the current Mach 1.6 ceiling right? I mean even with the current thrust F-35 would otherwise be capable of more. With more thrust aswell, it should also allow supercruise, let alone faster top-speed.

Actually, the ceiling of Mach 1.6 is because that's what was desired. Whether that was because going faster is just not operationally useful or because some part of the aircraft can't handle a higher speed, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the engine is actually capable of pushing it up to Mach 1.8.
I'm thinking that the new engine would be tuned for max subsonic efficiency and maybe a higher supersonic cruise.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Online

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2542
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post13 Jul 2016, 22:24

As is, the F-35 can exceed M1.6. The issue is that at the moment, there's no budgeting for the certifications at higher speeds. It has been flown to M1.67 (and possibly faster.)
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5167
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Jul 2016, 22:27

very shiny
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1009
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77006

Unread post13 Jul 2016, 23:00

gideonic wrote:
bigjku wrote:
My understanding is it's basically a new type of engine overall. Rather than a fixed bypass ratio it can change so that one engine can alter from being very high bypass for high efficiency cruise and go to quite low bypass for high speed turbojet like work. So you can basically have greater than F135 like efficiency when you want it and then have F119 like high speed performance when you want that.

Overall the new engine tech being worked on is the most crucial thing for steps forward in military aviation. Fighters are going to get heavier and longer ranged and need this. Plus this feeds into a parallel program for rotorcraft which see an even greater direct benefit from the power and efficiency. In 15 years any program that doesn't have this will seem hopelessly outclassed in my view.

I was thinking that such an engine would also allow considerably higher top-speed for the F-35. The high bypass-ratio of the engine is the main reason for the current Mach 1.6 ceiling right? I mean even with the current thrust F-35 would otherwise be capable of more. With more thrust aswell, it should also allow supercruise, let alone faster top-speed.


You are assuming that they want or need higher speed than what they get today. The operational, going-to-war-speed seem adequate compared to all other fighters. Based on countless stories on this forum, pilots rarely or ever have the need, or chance, to go higher than M1.6, so perhaps they took that into account when they designed the aircraft. Why design for M2.0, if it is not needed nor operationally practical. More range and less fuel consumption on the other hand seems to be a hot commodity for whatever military vehicle you can dream up. A good quote I have seen here and other places is: "There can never be too much fuel, unless you are on fire."
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3154
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post13 Jul 2016, 23:04

lamoey wrote:You are assuming that they want or need higher speed than what they get today. The operational, going-to-war-speed seem adequate compared to all other fighters. Based on countless stories on this forum, pilots rarely or ever have the need, or chance, to go higher than M1.6, so perhaps they took that into account when they designed the aircraft. Why design for M2.0, if it is not needed nor operationally practical. More range and less fuel consumption on the other hand seems to be a hot commodity for whatever military vehicle you can dream up. A good quote I have seen here and other places is: "There can never be too much fuel, unless you are on fire."

While a 30% increase in range may not qualify as "game changing", it's pretty monstrous for the already long-ranged F-35.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3797
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Jul 2016, 08:43

wrightwing wrote:As is, the F-35 can exceed M1.6. The issue is that at the moment, there's no budgeting for the certifications at higher speeds. It has been flown to M1.67 (and possibly faster.)



I'll have to dig it up but I saw a recent quote from Billie Flynn. Stating he regularly takes the F-35 past Mach 1.6 :twisted:


So, it doesn't sound like the Mach 1.6 is anything close to the max speed for the Lightning.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3797
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Jul 2016, 08:45

count_to_10 wrote:
lamoey wrote:You are assuming that they want or need higher speed than what they get today. The operational, going-to-war-speed seem adequate compared to all other fighters. Based on countless stories on this forum, pilots rarely or ever have the need, or chance, to go higher than M1.6, so perhaps they took that into account when they designed the aircraft. Why design for M2.0, if it is not needed nor operationally practical. More range and less fuel consumption on the other hand seems to be a hot commodity for whatever military vehicle you can dream up. A good quote I have seen here and other places is: "There can never be too much fuel, unless you are on fire."

While a 30% increase in range may not qualify as "game changing", it's pretty monstrous for the already long-ranged F-35.


EXACTLY! :D
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3797
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Jul 2016, 08:50

popcorn wrote:How many F-35 users will have the money to swap out F135s for the new adaptive engines and logistics tail? Maybe for new-build F-35s but operating a mixed fleet will complicate things. The F135 Block 1 upgrade may be a more compelling option.



You maybe surprised as fuel is expensive and fighters consume a lot of it! :shock:
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6931
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post14 Jul 2016, 10:56

Corsair1963 wrote:
popcorn wrote:How many F-35 users will have the money to swap out F135s for the new adaptive engines and logistics tail? Maybe for new-build F-35s but operating a mixed fleet will complicate things. The F135 Block 1 upgrade may be a more compelling option.



You maybe surprised as fuel is expensive and fighters consume a lot of it! :shock:

Someone will have to do the numbers but I think replacing a perfectly serviceable F135s wih sexy new engines will cause a serious case of sticker shock and indigestion.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4341
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post14 Jul 2016, 12:34

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:It is enough to make me wonder what happens if an F119 is "opened up". Best speed-engine for TacAir since the J79, but who wins the afterburning match?


The GE4:

GE4%20Max%20AB.jpg


70,000lbs of goodness. Granted, it's just a wheeee bit bigger than an F119. :P
"There I was. . ."
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post06 Aug 2016, 00:37

sferrin wrote:
blindpilot wrote:(although I am made mindful that the F-4 Phantom was pretty much proof that even a brick can hit Mach 2 if you have enough thrust,
BP


The other lesson from the F-4 is that more power could end up meaning less speed (see F-4K vs the J79 powered models).


That was because the Spey engines the UK insisted on rather than uprating the J-79 (higher thrust needed to launch from their smaller carriers) were also "fatter" with a larger frontal area. As speed increased drag rose to the point where it overcame the extra thrust to the point that Spey powered F-4s were slower.
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post06 Aug 2016, 00:57

vilters wrote:Not sure either if it would simply be a "drop-in" for the F-35.

It was structurally relatively easy for the F16 to go from a small to a big air intake, but for the F-35?
This mod would require major structural air intake changes.



Keep in mind that during early development the decision was made to increase the size of the intake over the original design, and my understanding is that all F-35s have this larger intake. The F135, as the earlier, lower risk F119 derivative "leader" in the always intended two engine program was too far along in design to exploit this but the F136, being the planned moer clean-sheet "follower" alternative was still early enough in design to exploit this. Might be why it was said to run cooler at any given thrust level.

In any case, my point is that the F-35 may have anticipated this need and might already large enough intakes.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4341
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post06 Aug 2016, 01:53

aaam wrote:
sferrin wrote:
blindpilot wrote:(although I am made mindful that the F-4 Phantom was pretty much proof that even a brick can hit Mach 2 if you have enough thrust,
BP


The other lesson from the F-4 is that more power could end up meaning less speed (see F-4K vs the J79 powered models).


That was because the Spey engines the UK insisted on rather than uprating the J-79 (higher thrust needed to launch from their smaller carriers) were also "fatter" with a larger frontal area. As speed increased drag rose to the point where it overcame the extra thrust to the point that Spey powered F-4s were slower.


Yep. Fatter nozzles too. (More base drag.)
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Engine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest