- Posts: 653
- Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 04:06
spazsinbad wrote:I'm looking for documentation about the state of any sea going corrosion proofing for the F-35B STOVL engine. I can guess also.
delvo wrote:Why would B's engine not have the same corrosion resistance requirement as C's?
MIL-HDBK-516B Section 19 'Materials' wrote:(This section is applicable for Navy and Marine Corps aircraft only. This section is not required for Air Force or Army aircraft. Materials criteria are addressed throughout the MIL-HDBK-516B. If section 19 is used, the using aircraft or rotorcraft system office should tailor out the materials related criteria throughout the rest of the document as nonapplicable since these criteria may be in conflict with section 19.)
Materials comprise the entire flight vehicle including air vehicle structure, air vehicle subsystems, propulsion systems, electrical power systems, mission systems, crew systems, and armament/stores systems.
TYPICAL CERTIFICATION SOURCE DATA
1. Design criteria
2. Materials properties data and analysis
3. Environmental effects data and analysis
4. Galvanic compatibility data and analysis
5. Effects of defects data and analysis
6. Hazardous materials data
7. Material trade study results
8. Design of experiments results
9. Statistical process control data
10. Nondestructive inspection (NDI) criteria
11. NDI plan and records
12. NDI probability of detection data
13. Preproduction verification test data
14. First article destructive test data
15. Wear and erosion data
16. Material specifications
17. Process specifications
18. Finish specifications
19. Metallic materials properties development and standardization (MMPDS)
20. MIL-HDBK-17, Polymer Matrix Composites
21. Material safety data sheets
22. Contractor policies and procedures
23. Quality records
24. Defect/failure data
25. Fracture control plan
26. Fracture critical parts list
river_otter wrote:The corrosion-resistant materials have been previously cited as why the A is the only model with any thrust growth potential. The C's engine materials are less heat-resistant. It literally can't produce more thrust without failing durability specs.
river_otter wrote:The B has no thrust growth potential even though the turbine engine is identical to the engine in the A. Re-design of the 3BSM and lift-fan drive to handle it would be prohibitive.
river_otter wrote:The A's engine has been tested to over 50,000 lbf while still meeting durability specs.
PW Press Release of Oct. 18, 2010 wrote:The high temperature margin test which took place at Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) in Tennessee involves intentionally running the engine to turbine temperatures beyond design conditions while simultaneously operating the turbomachinery at or above 100 percent of design conditions.
“While these are conditions the F135 engine will not experience during normal field operations, the purpose of this test is to demonstrate design margin at the most extreme operating conditions that could possibly exist,” explained Tyler Evans, director of F135 engine programs. “This is without a doubt one of the most demanding tests for an F-35 engine and the F135 passed the test with flying colors.”
The test also demonstrated the F135 propulsion system’s ability to produce margin relative to thrust with this engine producing 28 percent more thrust than the specification requirement.
river_otter wrote:While the current exhaust tunnel wouldn't handle much over 43,000 lbf, re-designing a fairly straight tube for a future block upgrade or F-35D wouldn't be that difficult.
spazsinbad wrote:TEG said: "Spaz in his comprehensive pursuance of reference data". And 'Spaz' thanks 'TEG' but will need to reread the material several times - I suspect - to comprehend it. And many thanks.
That_Engine_Guy wrote:Now a little @ Otterriver_otter wrote:The corrosion-resistant materials have been previously cited as why the A is the only model with any thrust growth potential. The C's engine materials are less heat-resistant. It literally can't produce more thrust without failing durability specs.
Not that the materials are less heat-resistant, it's that the additional heat MAY pass USAF/USA spec (to which we have no evidence) but MAY not USN/USMC at that temperature. (also to which we have no evidence) With their increased tolerance of corrosion due to salt environments, additional heat would only accelerate deterioration.
That_Engine_Guy wrote:What I'm getting at is this; the -100/-400/-600 can all make the thrust when asked more of them, but the -400/-600 MAY not make USN/USMC corrosion tolerance requirements at the 'increased' level.
That_Engine_Guy wrote:river_otter wrote:The B has no thrust growth potential even though the turbine engine is identical to the engine in the A. Re-design of the 3BSM and lift-fan drive to handle it would be prohibitive.
The F135-PW-600 is limited to it's 'thrust growth potential' by the additional components of the 'propulsion system' as you stated; yes, but the basic engine CAN produce additional thrust that is unusable by the 'system' as a whole in STO/VL flight. In CTOL flight, the additional thrust COULD be available.
That_Engine_Guy wrote:river_otter wrote:The A's engine has been tested to over 50,000 lbf while still meeting durability specs.
Who said that?
That_Engine_Guy wrote:Passing with 'flying colors' does not equal meeting durability specifications for an engine's entire life cycle limit. What it likely means is that the engine didn't fail during that excursion or exhibit immediate or un-flyable damage. Needless to say if one operated an engine beyond temperature and RPM limits on a consistent and regular basis, it will NOT live as long as it's counterparts that conform to the specification limits.
That_Engine_Guy wrote:Exhaust Tunnel?
Augmentor Duct? Augmentor Duct and Nozzle Module? Three Bearing Swivel Nozzle? What we talking here?
That_Engine_Guy wrote:So long as it's straight like the -100's arrangement, the -400 and -600 (in CTOL mode), have essentially the same exhaust path profile. All 3 engine sub-types are rated at 43K MAX in CTOL mode. If the -100 can hit 128% MIL power during test, why wouldn't the -400/-600 in CTOL?
And what is your F-35D here? A two seat F-35A? Increased performance F-35B or F-35C?
madrat wrote:So if a customer was going to operate said -C model strictly over land then they should be able to use the -A engines after being uprated?
spazsinbad wrote:Preparing the F-35C for the Carrier Eric Tegler on October 3, 2011
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... 9D-legs-2/
"...The same can be said for the F-35’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine. Save for some attached accessories for the B model, there are no significant changes to the 43,000-pound thrust engine whether situated in an A, B, or C model. Buus added that the engine has the same thrust rating across all three variants and that no special anti-corrosion or FOD (foreign object damage) tolerance modifications have been made for the F-35C.
“I’d go so far as to say nothing at all. It’s the same engine.”... QUE?
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests