Latest F-35 AA-1 test flight photos (Flight 24 thru 26)

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2008, 08:28
by dwightlooi
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Looking sleek and pretty...

RE: Latest F-35 AA-1 test flight photos (Flight 24 thru 26)

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2008, 12:09
by SnakeHandler
Nice!

RE: Latest F-35 AA-1 test flight photos (Flight 24 thru 26)

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2008, 15:18
by checksixx
Man...I can't wait to see this thing muscle into a 9g turn at an airshow...

RE: Latest F-35 AA-1 test flight photos (Flight 24 thru 26)

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2008, 15:22
by SnakeHandler
I can't wait to fly some High Aspect BFM with it. I finally got to do some today after a few months of PGMs and OpSat. It's nice to pull 9 again. We don't get to do it nearly enough.

RE: Latest F-35 AA-1 test flight photos (Flight 24 thru 26)

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2008, 15:41
by Guysmiley
Is the F-35 going to be AoA limited like the Viper? I don't mean to the same limit, but in general? Obviously the F-22 isn't. Or is that the kind of thing that doesn't get a decision until the test flights are complete and the envelope is "fully explored"?

RE: Latest F-35 AA-1 test flight photos (Flight 24 thru 26)

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2008, 16:43
by cywolf32
I can't see why some people think the F-35 is an ugly airplane!! I think its an awesome looking aircraft. It just looks the buisness to me, esp. compared to the euro canards. :notworthy:

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2008, 17:39
by checksixx
Dumb question:

Any reason they didn't clip the horizontal stabs like they did on the Raptor? I'm guessing its an airflow issue, but I'd love a firm answer if anyone knows.

-Check

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2008, 05:18
by AeroG33k
Potentially stupid question: Can anybody tell me what the item I highlighted in this picture is? I'm guessing it's the APU/IPP exhaust but I really don't know. It seems...big...

Image

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2008, 23:38
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Based on the metallic tone around it I would guess an exhast of sorts sure, but why there? To hide the emission?

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2008, 01:17
by LMAggie
Yes, thats the IPP exhaust area. The dark spot is the exhaust hole and the light colored material surrounding it is a special material developed to withstand the high temps from the IPP and be LO at the same time (which is extremely hard).

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2008, 01:37
by RamsteinPilot526
Yeah, I say IF anything ever replaces, or joins, the Viper, then the 35 should be it.

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2008, 01:57
by LMAggie
I wanna know what that red mark is on the main engine nozzle. Perhaps they forgot to remove the "Remove Before Flight" tag?! lol

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2008, 02:02
by vegasdave901
Great, has that IPP exhaust always been located there?! Another mod I missed in making my model, now I have to add it in. :x Any close pics?

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2008, 02:17
by LMAggie
Well the IPP has always existed, but the exhaust has changed location. In fact, the exhaust is on the bottom on one variant. That photo is actually one of the few shots I've seen where you can see the IPP exhaust.

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2008, 22:30
by sprstdlyscottsmn
man, what a nice looking plane. I cant wait to get a good model of it or get a good flight sim.

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2008, 16:30
by brancwp
Well why not come out and fly ours! :wink:

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2008, 17:59
by johnwill
Checksixx wrote:
Dumb question:

Any reason they didn't clip the horizontal stabs like they did on the Raptor? I'm guessing its an airflow issue, but I'd love a firm answer if anyone knows.

-Check


Not a dumb question at all. I can't give you a definitive F-22 answer, but based on F-16 experience (note the Block 15 big tail is clipped) the reason is probably runway clearance. There are specific ground rules (heh heh) about tail/runway clearance - rotate the airplane until the aft fuselage contacts the runway, deflect tail full trailing edge down, and one main gear fully compressed with a flat tire - no tail/runway contact allowed.

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2008, 19:17
by checksixx
I'm talking about the horizontal stabs, not the tail...

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2008, 05:12
by SixerViper
OK, I'll bite--what does IPP stand for?

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2008, 05:28
by VprWzl
Word on the atreet is that it will have an AOA limit, but that it will be much higher. (Something like the Hornet's, not nearly as limited as the Viper's.)

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2008, 05:58
by johnwill
checksixx,
So am I. Horizontal tail, Horizontal stab - same thing. Guess I don't see how you could confuse anything I said as pertaining to anything but the horizontal tail. If so, I apologize for the confusion.

To get picky about it, there is no horizontal stabilizer on airplanes with all-moving tails, such as all fighters for the past fifty or sixty years. Prior to that most if not all airplanes had two-piece tails. The fixed part was called the stabilizer and the moving part was called the elevator.

Many people still use the term stabilizer or stab, and I guess it's ok, because everyone knows what is meant. The folks who build the airplanes call the horizontal control surfaces "horizontal tails" on all the drawings and T.O.s.

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2008, 05:59
by LMAggie
SixerViper wrote:OK, I'll bite--what does IPP stand for?


Integrated Power Package.

Just a fancy term for the APU. It's bad when you explain acronyms by using other acronyms!

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2008, 06:10
by checksixx
Sorry for the confusion John...so you have no answer to my question then, and I have no idea why you posted what you did, but thanks for trying.

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2008, 06:54
by johnwill
Well, let's go back and try again then. By extending what I said a bit, I thought you'd be able to see that the F-35 doesn't need to clip the tails (or stabs if you will) because they have sufficient tail/runway clearance. One reason may be that the F-35 tail has a little positive dihedral on the tail, thus increasing ground clearance.

I should have mentioned the tail dihedral the first time, as maybe that would have helped you understand what I was trying to say (poorly).

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2008, 01:16
by habu2
LMAggie wrote:
SixerViper wrote:OK, I'll bite--what does IPP stand for?


Integrated Power Package.

Just a fancy term for the APU. It's bad when you explain acronyms by using other acronyms!

Umm, it's a bit more than an APU...

Try APU/ECS/JFS/PTMS/(insert additional acronyms here)....

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2008, 03:12
by LMAggie
habu2 wrote:
LMAggie wrote:
SixerViper wrote:OK, I'll bite--what does IPP stand for?


Integrated Power Package.

Just a fancy term for the APU. It's bad when you explain acronyms by using other acronyms!

Umm, it's a bit more than an APU...

Try APU/ECS/JFS/PTMS/(insert additional acronyms here)....


Semantics. Simple answer for a simple question.

Re: RE: Latest F-35 AA-1 test flight photos (Flight 24 thru

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2008, 03:57
by Corsair1963
cywolf32 wrote:I can't see why some people think the F-35 is an ugly airplane!! I think its an awesome looking aircraft. It just looks the buisness to me, esp. compared to the euro canards. :notworthy:




Like the Raptor it has a bird of prey look to it! Personally, I think it more aggressive looking than the former.............of course that is just my personal opinion. 8)

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2008, 06:36
by Scorpion1alpha
VprWzl wrote:Word on the atreet is that it will have an AOA limit, but that it will be much higher. (Something like the Hornet's, not nearly as limited as the Viper's.)


Think: combining the F-16's speed, energy, and turning abilities with F-18's slow speed and high AoA envelope. If you're a Viper driver and are going to transition to the Lightning, I think you're going to like it.

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2008, 07:09
by Corsair1963
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
VprWzl wrote:Word on the atreet is that it will have an AOA limit, but that it will be much higher. (Something like the Hornet's, not nearly as limited as the Viper's.)


Think: combining the F-16's speed, energy, and turning abilities with F-18's slow speed and high AoA envelope. If you're a Viper driver and are going to transition to the Lightning, I think you're going to like it.




Let's not forget the sheer power of the P&W F-135...............Man, its going to be part F-15, part F-16, and part F/A-18! Personally, I doubt anybody is going to be disappointed with its flight performance......I think the critics of the Lightning are in for a big surprise! :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2008, 21:33
by Raptor_claw
Couple photos from the tanker during air refuel testing.
Photo credit goes to Liz Kaszynski....

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2008, 08:43
by SnakeHandler
That canopy bow HAS to go.

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2008, 19:05
by checksixx
Yeah, I noticed in the pictures that it seems to be in the worst place possible...

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2008, 22:34
by AeroG33k
Wow, those are great pictures. I agree, the canopy bow seems somewhat obstructive and but I'd imagine it's necessary for the through-canopy ejection system while allowing a for a birdstrike-proof front section or else it wouldn't be there. But remember that the Distributed Aperture System is supposedly able to make the pilot see "through" the airframe. Is that confirmed yet? I wonder how effective that will be in practice...

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2008, 02:11
by LMAggie
AeroG33k wrote:Wow, those are great pictures. I agree, the canopy bow seems somewhat obstructive and but I'd imagine it's necessary for the through-canopy ejection system while allowing a for a birdstrike-proof front section or else it wouldn't be there. But remember that the Distributed Aperture System is supposedly able to make the pilot see "through" the airframe. Is that confirmed yet? I wonder how effective that will be in practice...


No-bow transparencies are heavy given that they have to be extremely thick to meet bird-strike requirements. Simply put, you'll take a performance penalty for a no-bow canopy. AeroG33k, that's good point. Only time will tell what the scope of that system will be. It will have to go through extensive pilot trials before a final config is found.

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2008, 05:35
by Raptor_claw
A different (and high-res) pic has been posted on the LM site....


http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/pres ... efuel.html

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2008, 05:51
by Corsair1963
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:man, what a nice looking plane. I cant wait to get a good model of it or get a good flight sim.



That makes two of us.............I would love a 1/48th scale F-35 for my desk! 8)


Note: Panda Models of China does make one. Yet, is in a piece of junk! :?

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2008, 20:49
by Yoram777
here are some more pics

flight 24:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image


First US Air Force Flight:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

8)

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2008, 21:53
by AeroG33k
Beautiful Aircraft! For some reason those pictures got me thinking about a delta-winged 2-seat tactical bomber variety with wings that extend from the intakes incorporating the horizontal stabs...I know, but one can dream.

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2008, 22:07
by Corsair1963
I like the pick between the F/A-18 Hornet and the F-35A! Really, shows how clean the Lightning is compared to your average 4th Generation Fighter. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 didn't have extraordinarily quick acceleration rates! :notworthy:

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2008, 22:11
by Corsair1963
AeroG33k wrote:Beautiful Aircraft! For some reason those pictures got me thinking about a delta-winged 2-seat tactical bomber variety with wings that extend from the intakes incorporating the horizontal stabs...I know, but one can dream.



Personally, I don't see why the F-35 couldn't be stretched to include a second crewman and more fuel/weapons! Really, considering the numbers projected for the F-35. The bomber version would only add value...... :wink:

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2008, 02:16
by dwightlooi
Corsair1963 wrote:
AeroG33k wrote:Beautiful Aircraft! For some reason those pictures got me thinking about a delta-winged 2-seat tactical bomber variety with wings that extend from the intakes incorporating the horizontal stabs...I know, but one can dream.



Personally, I don't see why the F-35 couldn't be stretched to include a second crewman and more fuel/weapons! Really, considering the numbers projected for the F-35. The bomber version would only add value...... :wink:


You may need an engine upgrade for that. As it is right now, the F-35 is not an underpowered aircraft, but it is does not have excess power to spare like an F-22 either. At 50% fuel the F-35's power to weight ratio is about the same as an SU-27/30 in full afterburner (~1.16:1). In dry thrust it is slightly better -- 0.75:1 for the F-35 vs 0.72:1 on the SU-27. Given that it is a capable of carrying adequate combat loads while remaining a very clean aircraft we can expect very competitive performance and even superior performance in some portions of the envelope.

Add another fuselage plug, more weight, a second dude, etc. and all of ti goes away.

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2008, 03:44
by Corsair1963
dwightlooi wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
AeroG33k wrote:Beautiful Aircraft! For some reason those pictures got me thinking about a delta-winged 2-seat tactical bomber variety with wings that extend from the intakes incorporating the horizontal stabs...I know, but one can dream.



Personally, I don't see why the F-35 couldn't be stretched to include a second crewman and more fuel/weapons! Really, considering the numbers projected for the F-35. The bomber version would only add value...... :wink:


You may need an engine upgrade for that. As it is right now, the F-35 is not an underpowered aircraft, but it is does not have excess power to spare like an F-22 either. At 50% fuel the F-35's power to weight ratio is about the same as an SU-27/30 in full afterburner (~1.16:1). In dry thrust it is slightly better -- 0.75:1 for the F-35 vs 0.72:1 on the SU-27. Given that it is a capable of carrying adequate combat loads while remaining a very clean aircraft we can expect very competitive performance and even superior performance in some portions of the envelope.

Add another fuselage plug, more weight, a second dude, etc. and all of ti goes away.



Personally, I doubt thrust would be a problem! First, because a bomber version would not require the thrust to weight ratio of a fighter. Second, the GE F-136 is suppose to make much more power than its P & W cousin. Either way power or lack thereof shouldn't be a issue.........Note: The proposed FB-35 would likely have a larger wing with more lift!

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2008, 03:52
by AeroG33k
The second cockpit could fit mostly within the space for the lift fan, without the need for another fuselage section (just a modified forward one), but the larger delta wing would have to pick up the slack of fuel capacity. T/W wouldn't be critical, for the reasons corsair pointed out. Structural concerns would be the biggest concern for me, although given commonality between F-35A and F-35C, it seems doable, especially since a delta wing would reduce wing loading. The delta wing would be optimized for high subsonic or even supersonic cruise. That, along with some low observable/low drag under-wing pods for 4 small diameter bombs would be a very nice alternative to the FB-22 which seems to have been scrapped.

Heck, I'm still thinking of a 2-seat F-35 with the C's wing and dorsal AESA's in the weapons bays for a combat-capable mini-AWACS, but that's just me dreaming.

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2008, 04:41
by Corsair1963
AeroG33k wrote:The second cockpit could fit mostly within the space for the lift fan, without the need for another fuselage section (just a modified forward one), but the larger delta wing would have to pick up the slack of fuel capacity. T/W wouldn't be critical, for the reasons corsair pointed out. Structural concerns would be the biggest concern for me, although given commonality between F-35A and F-35C, it seems doable, especially since a delta wing would reduce wing loading. The delta wing would be optimized for high subsonic or even supersonic cruise. That, along with some low observable/low drag under-wing pods for 4 small diameter bombs would be a very nice alternative to the FB-22 which seems to have been scrapped.

Heck, I'm still thinking of a 2-seat F-35 with the C's wing and dorsal AESA's in the weapons bays for a combat-capable mini-AWACS, but that's just me dreaming.



That's the beauty of the F-35 design! Just mix and match..... :D Another thing to consider the price for a Bomber Version of the F-35 would be much more reasonable than a likely conversion of the F-22 for the same role! Especially, important in the export market! Think of all of the Strike Eagles and Tornado's that will need to be replaced in the coming decades..... :wink:

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2008, 15:00
by Guysmiley
Is it just me or are there some "fit" issues with the canopy? Looks like there's a pretty significant gap between the front edge of the canopy and the fuselage.

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2008, 21:38
by LinkF16SimDude
Photog may have snapped it when the latches were in transition and hadn't sucked the thing down completely (or as it was just released)(?). The in-flight close up looks like it's a pretty seamless blend.

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2008, 03:20
by That_Engine_Guy
Corsair1963 wrote:Personally, I doubt thrust would be a problem! First, because a bomber version would not require the thrust to weight ratio of a fighter. Second, the GE F-136 is suppose to make much more power than its P & W cousin. Either way power or lack thereof shouldn't be a issue.........Note: The proposed FB-35 would likely have a larger wing with more lift!


I would agree on the first and third points
1 an FB variant would not need a high thrust/weight ratio
2 an FB variant would have a larger wing for a heavier load.

But as I mentioned in another thread.
That_Engine_Guy wrote:According to "Jane's" here are some given performance ratings

GE F136
40,490lb MAX
26,090lb MIL

PW F135
43,000lb MAX
28,000lb MAX


GE's site for the F136 says "Thrust Range: 40,000 lbs."
PW's site for the F135 says "Thrust: 40,000 lb"

Like the PW-229 and the GE-129 they are probably VERY close; IE "29,000 lb Class" :wink:

Since..
"The F136,is being designed to be installationally interchangeable with the F135, and also to respond in precisely the same way to all interfaces between engine and pilot so that in theory a future F-35 pilot would not know which type of engine was installed in his aircraft."


I doubt there would be a BIG difference in thrust or the pilot may notice? :shrug:


Look at the historical improvements to the PW F100 and GE F110 as an example....

The F100-PW-100 started out at about 24,000 lbs of thrust at MAX and about 15,000lbs at MIL. The PW-229 grew to 29,000 and 18,000 respectively, which accounts for a 19% increase at MAX and 24% improvement at MIL.

The original F110-GE-100 made about 28,000 and 16,500 respectively but only increased power a bit with the GE-129 to 29,000 and 17,000. About 4% at MAX and 3% at MIL.

In the PW-232 and GE-132 both engines could reach 32,000 at MAX but clearly PW had a greater "thrust growth" over the life of the F100 design. Both engines were said to be capable of about 37,000 MAX if used with an "ideal" inlet.

Either company can push power up in their engine design. As technologies mature and develop over the years they are included in new and modified parts. As engines mature they will tend to increase overall performance through increased durability, economy, weight savings, or power. (In any combination)

:2c: PW isn't going to fall for the same trick they did the last time. "Build us an engine of about 25,000lbs MAX to these specifications based off your previous design so we save money, but then we're going to throw money at your competitor to enter their design years later based off a totally new design not constrained by previous factors. Oh and after your engine has been in use for 10 years allowing us to figure out exactly what we didn't like, we'll tell your competitor that information too so they can be sure their initial design doesn't seem like more of the same. This is the size of the inlet too, so build your engine to use only this much air... You can't have any more because the design of the airframe is final, but..." :roll:

I'd think they've learned their lesson and the F135 will posses plenty of growth margin so they'll be able to crank up the power in later "dash models" and compete with the perceived "newer" F136 of GE. :2c:

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2008, 03:53
by Corsair1963
Personally, this is the first time I've heard of the GE F-136 making less than the P & W F-135! As a matter of fact many sources claim high 40's and I have even seen 50's. Yet, that is just off the web. So, I have no hard facts and most sources would have to be considered suspect at best. So, I guess I will have to yield to your greater knowledge. That is until something more official comes along.........That said, is a F-100/F-110 really a fair comparison to the F135/F-136???? As the former two are much closer in design than the latter two. :2c:

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2008, 10:47
by That_Engine_Guy
I was just illustrating the point if the GE F136 hits the street with say 4K more thrust, that the PW F135 may have a little more to give to even things up again. Much like the increases in the F100 to even things up.

Lets not forget the F100/F110 were not "installationally interchangeable" as the JSF (F-35) program has required. Even if the engines' basic designs are totally different they still have to fit the same hole, with the SAME intake, and same interfaces, etc so that they are truly interchangeable.

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2008, 14:14
by checksixx
GE's have traditionally drank a lot more gass also...there is a trade-off. That very fact ran one F-16 driver out of fuel after the ANG unit started receiving GE powered vipers.

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2008, 17:38
by dwightlooi
Well...

(1) P&W has published 43,000 lbs / 28,000 lbs in a press release document.
(2) GE has not published anything.
(3) The only documentation of the F136 that making significantly more thrust came from the proposed version for the X-32 with 52,000 lbs in reheat. This may or may not be of the same diameter as the currently firmed up F-35 engine envelope which can no longer be changed to suit an engine.
(4) Having said that, if the F136 is based on the F120, it may have a LARGER core than the F135 which is based on the F119. This is because the F120 -- aside from the variable bypass feature (which won't be on the F136) also has a BIGGER core than the F119. This being the case MAY mean that it has a higher thrust potential -- especially in dry thrust. It MAY also mean that given a constrained maximum diameter, it may have a lower bypass.

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2008, 21:44
by Lightndattic
Guys, lets not forget that the F110 wasn't a clean sheet design 10 years after the F100 came out. It was developed from an engine that was already making 30,000+ pounds of thrust, the F101.

The F-119 and F-120 were closely matched during the ATF competition. It would seem their offspring would be similarly performers.

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2008, 00:21
by SnakeHandler
Back to the canopy bow for a second. It is a problem for me just because it increases my vis lookout workload unless the synthetic vision system works as advertized. Just saying that it could be an issue and I'd personally take the added weight of the clear canopy to be guaranteed a clear view. One reporter's opinion.

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2008, 00:52
by That_Engine_Guy
Lightndattic wrote:Guys, lets not forget that the F110 wasn't a clean sheet design 10 years after the F100 came out. It was developed from an engine that was already making 30,000+ pounds of thrust, the F101.

The F-119 and F-120 were closely matched during the ATF competition. It would seem their offspring would be similarly performers.


The F110 wasn't a "clean sheet" design, I will agree with that, but it was tailor designed/fit to compete directly with the F100. The F100 that was chosen to power the F-16 due to being used in the F-15. It was done to keep down costs of the "cheap" fighter down by limiting engine development costs.

PW didn't have the luxury that GE had being the "alternate engine". PW was given a design specification that the F100-PW-200 had to meet. Intake performance, thrust requirements, etc, etc. Ten years later GE was only required to fit in the same hole as the PW. Almost none of the interfaces are the same, nor are engine limits, or support equipment and the basic airframe was even modified so that the GE would develop the promised thrust increase.

:2c: I'm glad to see that the JSF/F-35 program is working to keep both engines truly interchangeable. I still have my doubts of any force having mixed types, as it doubles maintenance/logistics/deployment costs over the life of the entire program.

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2008, 13:57
by Lightndattic
SnakeHandler wrote:Back to the canopy bow for a second. It is a problem for me just because it increases my vis lookout workload unless the synthetic vision system works as advertized. Just saying that it could be an issue and I'd personally take the added weight of the clear canopy to be guaranteed a clear view. One reporter's opinion.


The STOVL version and the desire for commonality kills the thick, one piece canopy. It's so much quicker to go through the canopy, than to wait for it to clear. That's a few seconds that might make all the difference for a B Model pilot who's having a bad day.

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2008, 04:39
by LMAggie
SnakeHandler wrote:Back to the canopy bow for a second. It is a problem for me just because it increases my vis lookout workload unless the synthetic vision system works as advertized. Just saying that it could be an issue and I'd personally take the added weight of the clear canopy to be guaranteed a clear view. One reporter's opinion.


I'm no fighter pilot, but I assume most would rather have performance. And, as another poster pointed out, this may be a moot point because the new HMD may eliminate the bow. But that is just speculation right now.

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2008, 14:57
by SnakeHandler
Let's hope for the best.

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2008, 19:49
by sferrin
dwightlooi wrote:Well...

(1) P&W has published 43,000 lbs / 28,000 lbs in a press release document.
(2) GE has not published anything.
(3) The only documentation of the F136 that making significantly more thrust came from the proposed version for the X-32 with 52,000 lbs in reheat. This may or may not be of the same diameter as the currently firmed up F-35 engine envelope which can no longer be changed to suit an engine.


Sounds like you've got that mixed up with the F135 that was in the X-32 which in fact did reach 52,000lbs in full after burner.

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2008, 20:04
by checksixx
Wasn't that a static sea-level test uninstalled in the aircraft?

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2008, 00:41
by That_Engine_Guy
Yes the test engine for both the X-32 and X-35 were PW F119 prototypes using the name "JSF119-". Any facts, figures or feats from the fly-off were solely PW. Don't believe me? look at the photos of all the JSF prototypes and see that beautiful PW Eagle logo.

Formal release of the final RFP for JSF was expected on 7 March 1996, but was delayed to June 1996, with contract award date in November 1996. X-32 and X-35 designations allocated to demonstration phase which was planned to conclude in February 2001, although it now appears likely to continue until mid-year; successful teams will each build two aircraft, with CTOL version to fly first. STOVL versions to fly second and participate in assessment and demonstration of hover and transition qualities.

Three candidates were in contention for weapons system concept demonstration (WSCD), originating from Boeing, Lockheed Martin and McDonnell Do uglas/British Aerospace/Northrop Grumman.

All three contenders chose Pratt & Whitney's F119 engine for their WSCD proposals, although a General Electric/Allison/Rolls-Royce team secured a US$7 million contract in March 1996 to examine alternative power plants. These were based on the General Electric F110 and YF120 engines, with the latter being chosen in May 1996 following Congressional directive aimed at fostering competition and also overcoming possible impact of developmental or operational problems with the F119. Further US$96 million multiyear contract awarded in February 1997 to cover technology maturation and core engine development of YF120-FX version over four year period; this likely to result in follow-on development programme starting in 2001, culminating in full-scale EMD from 2004. If necessary, it is planned that the F120 engine will be available from the 72nd production aircraft onwards.


Remember the X-32B had a direct lift system. (No LiftFan) All the propulsive effort was from the main engine. The F-35B figures often combine LiftFan, Roll duct, and Main Engine thrust for a combined total. This may be why the X-32 cited a higher thrust than the X-35?

Another thing to remember is the JSF119 engines in both JSF candidates were prototypes. Prototype engines often do not have the reliability or maintainability of a production engine. That said, it may have produced 52,000lbs of thrust at MAX but how long would that engine have lasted? 4000 cycles? 2000 cycles? less? After making the engine production ready, some performance/features may be lost or gained.

Perfect example is the F100-PW-232 (not produced) that was "tested" up to 37,000 of thrust on a test-stand. At that rate it would have barely made 4000 cycles in my opinion. When it was ran at "-229 thrust levels" it was said to double the cycle life of the PW-229, lowering the overall cost of ownership. Tuned to 32,000 as offered for the F-16 Block 62 (to compete with the GE-132) the engine would have had greater life than a PW-229 but with more thrust, but not quiet twice the life expectancy.

Back to the GE F136, it hasn't even flown yet...
...The F136 engine is a 40,000+ lb. thrust, combat engine that will be available to power all variants of the F-35 for the US military and eight partner nations... ...The first full System Development and Demonstration (SDD) engine is scheduled to begin testing by early 2009, with first flight in the F-35 to follow in 2010.... ...The SDD phase is scheduled to run through 2013; the first production F136 engines are scheduled to be delivered in 2012 for the F-35 Lightning II aircraft....

Posted TODAY at GE: http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscent ... 80320.html

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2008, 19:13
by Pilotasso
PAK FA is the domain of internet speculation... there is no defined design yet, at least not in the public domain.

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2008, 06:36
by Creative
I loved the X-35 but i'm lovin' this bird even more. Remarkable that it makes such a dull gray paint job look good!