Latest F135 brochure

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

energo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 520
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post18 Dec 2008, 21:45

Latest P&W brochure.

Edit: Updated pages.

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Attachments
pw1.jpg
pw2.jpg
pw3.jpg
Some info from a previous brochure.
Last edited by energo on 19 Dec 2008, 19:03, edited 3 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2312
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post18 Dec 2008, 23:22

Nice info...

Interesting to see the STOVL version looses almost 2000lbs of thrust due to the extra turbine work.

I like some of the maintenance times too... If they're accurate.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG
Offline

LowObservable

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 16:34

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 00:40

6.6:1 T/W. w00t.
Offline

LmRaptor

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 08 Jun 2007, 12:00

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 01:15

They are probably including the inlet in the engine weight - ie the whole propulsion unit as opposed to just the engine+nozzle.
Studying Aerospace Engineering at the University of Bristol (UK)
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2312
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 01:59

LowObservable wrote:6.6:1 T/W


Unless, that is, the engine actualy weighs less than the "do not exceed weight" and it only makes the 43000lbs thrust quoted.

:2c: I bet it is under that weight... but who knows how much under?

PW used many weight saving measures just as LM did with the airframe.

I would venture to guess the F135's T/W ratio would fall somewhere between 8.5 and 10. I'm basing this on the IHPTET program goals and the "reported" 37% increase in T/W the program had achieved by 2000. The increase was based on "state of the art" in 1987 which would have been the F100-PW-229 which entered service in 1989.

Figure the The F100-PW-229's T/W is about 7.7/1 and increase it by 37%... 10.5/1

Now the F135 will have the obvious additions to keep things "common" between variants, so it may suffer some from that.

Well that's my :2c: Any other input or thoughts?

Graphic REF: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/pr ... ts/3-4.pdf

Keep 'em Flyin' :thumb:
TEG
Attachments
IHPTET.jpg
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 02:16

Yeah....for the jet engine troopers... if a part from the engine itself comes loose and damages the blades or whatever... is it really "foreign" object damage (FOD)? Is there ever non-foreign object damage? :lol:


The wording in this is fun....


http://www.reuters.com/article/Aerospac ... 4120081216
- ELP -
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2312
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 02:59

elp wrote:Yeah....for the jet engine troopers... if a part from the engine itself comes loose and damages the blades or whatever... is it really "foreign" object damage (FOD)? Is there ever non-foreign object damage? :lol:


Yes; the technical term is DOD "Domestic Object Damage"; meaning part of the engine.

Such as a bolt from the inlet anti-ice system coming loose and falling into the inlet, or if a blade lock falls out of the compressor and does further damage.

FOD being "Foreign" means it does not come from the engine's part list.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG
Offline

SixerViper

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 20:32

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 05:27

Damn--36 years of fixing jets and doing FOD walks. I'd heard of engines eating their own fan/turbine blades before, but today is the first time I'd ever heard of DOD. And it makes perfect sense! Goes to prove you can learn something every day.
F-106A/B '69-'73
F-105D/F '73-'81
A-7D/K '81-'91
F-16C/D '91-'05
SCUBA bum '05-Present
Offline

ATFS_Crash

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2006, 00:28

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 07:54

SixerViper wrote:Damn--36 years of fixing jets and doing FOD walks. I'd heard of engines eating their own fan/turbine blades before, but today is the first time I'd ever heard of DOD. And it makes perfect sense! Goes to prove you can learn something every day.

So now you can be perplexed and entertained that the department of defense has the same acronym. In some ways it's also a synonym.
How many F-22s and JSFs could have been bought with $700 billion? Correct that.

Make that $1.7 Trillion.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2312
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 13:22

SixerViper wrote:today is the first time I'd ever heard of DOD. And it makes perfect sense!


Guess you don't read engine related mishap investigations?

Here is one (of only 2) PW-220 mishap from FY2000...

The first F100 mishap involved an F-16CG on an air-to-air training mission. During a G-awareness exercise, the MP felt aircraft vibrations. Shortly thereafter, he declared an emergency due to a compressor stall. After selecting SEC (secondary engine control) the ME stagnated. The MP made three airstart attempts, none of which were successful. Approaching the minimum controlled ejection altitude, the MP successfully ejected and was recovered uninjured. The MA impacted the side of a mountain and was destroyed.

Investigation revealed that the initial vibrations were the result of compressor stalls initiated by DOD (domestic object damage) from the liberation of a rear compressor variable vane (RCVV) inlet guide vane (IGV). The RCVVs are movable vanes at the front of the compressor used to control airflow and increase stall margin. One of the vanes had cracked due to fatigue and was ingested into the compressor, resulting in damage to the downstage blades and vanes. The damage reduced the engine's high power stall margin. As the compressor stalled, the Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC) responded appropriately by reducing fuel flow and opening the nozzle to recover from the stall. During one of the stall recovery events, the MP selected SEC, which prevented the DEEC from performing its stall recovery function, and the engine stagnated. Transferring to SEC or advancing the throttle in SEC while the engine is stalling will usually result in stagnation. During the subsequent engine stagnation and first restart att empt, overtemperature damage occurred to the high-pressure turbine, reducing the engine's airstart capability.

Laboratory analysis of the remaining portion of the liberated IGV showed it had been cracked during the module's previously scheduled depot inspection and, due to the inspection process in place at the time, the crack was not detected. Damage to the IGV prevented a root cause determination. Both the depot overhaul process and the pilot's emergency checklist have been revised to keep this chain of events from occurring again.


Being an "engine guy" I ALWAYS read the engine related mishaps for information. Each year there is also a summary of engine mishaps that group things like Birdstrikes, FOD, DOD, Material Failure, etc. Mishaps are also grouped by engine type, and aircraft type.

DOD is a term not used much outside of engine mishaps or actual engine production/repair (DOD can also be introduced to engines during repair/buildup) FOD is often the catch-all term that overshadows DOD.

Birdstrikes are another "FOD" that is often segregated as it is so specific and covered by a separate control program that we all know as "BASH" (Bird Air Strike Hazard)

Keep 'em flyin' (FOD & DOD Free!) :thumb:
TEG
Offline

LowObservable

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 16:34

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 16:12

I'm not surprised by the 6.6:1. Big engines tend to have lower T/W and the LP turbine and shaft are oversized compared with a forward-flight-only engine. And there's no way you could include the inlet, which is an integral part of the airframe.
Offline

dwightlooi

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1170
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 00:14

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 17:46

LowObservable wrote:I'm not surprised by the 6.6:1. Big engines tend to have lower T/W and the LP turbine and shaft are oversized compared with a forward-flight-only engine. And there's no way you could include the inlet, which is an integral part of the airframe.


Actually, bigger engines tend to have higher T/W ratios. Airflow, strucutural weight vs strength, etc are all favorable to bigger engines. Big engines tend to be more fuel efficient and have higher T/W ratios than smaller ones, all else being constant.

The 2-stage LPT does add weight though. And I am not sure what is included in the 6504 lbs... could be the intakes, the generators, the accessory boxes, etc. Basically, it is unclear if the stated weight is for the engine or for the propulsion system as a whole.

Looks like we can confirm the 43,000 lbs rating though. The vertical thrust level of 40,550 lbs also came in higher than previously stated levels (38,700 lbs).
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4338
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 19:24

It's a powerhouse to be sure. I read something once that when sucking air through the inlets instead of open source (i.e. test stand) that the F-135 only loses 5% of its thrust. Surely all the electronics that get hooked up to the turbines for power will draw more power but how does this compare to installed losses of 4th gen fighters?
"Spurts"

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

LowObservable

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 16:34

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 19:31

Errm, no. For instance, there's no 25K+ engine that matches the 9:1 and better of the EJ200 and F414. And the J85-GE-21 was almost 7.5:1, way back when. Smaller engines get higher rotational speeds, and there's a tendency for disks to gain weight in a square-cube fashion. The downside is that smaller engines tend to have worse performance retention.

The F135 is a heavy engine. Fact of life.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2312
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post19 Dec 2008, 20:52

Well our friend J@nE'$ says that the F136 is in the "4300lb" class for weight, but the numbers for the F135 are still classified.

Given the F136 has a weight of "about" 4300lbs, and gives a thrust rated at 40500lbs (given at the same site) that would yield a rough 9.4/1 T/W ratio for the GE entry.

If one can assume the F135 to be a similar weight (they need to be close or the weight/balance of the aircraft would be negatively affected by interchangeability) of about 4300lbs, and a given thrust of 43000lbs in the brochure above you get a T/W ratio of about 10/1.

Now as thrust figures and weight "classes" go, they can play out a little more or less.

The F100-PW-229 for the Viper only weighs 3800lbs dry, while the F119 is cited as "Classified, but similar to the F100" Even if the F136 is 1000lbs heavier than a PW-229 it would still only weigh 4800lbs, and at 43000lbs of thrust that is still a T/W ratio of almost 9/1.

Now I'll admit the F135 will weigh more than the F100 or F119, but it has also had more weight restrictions and scrutiny than previous engines. I'll as I said above, it can't be too much different than the GE F136 without upsetting the balance of the aircraft if/when the GE is used.

I'll stick with my educated guess of a T/W ratio between 8.5 and 10 for BOTH engines... :2c:

I highly doubt 6.6/1 is even close; even VarkVet can tell you the TF30-P-111 had a T/W ratio of about 6.2/1 and that was decades ago... :roll: Anyone read the IHPTET chart above? It did cite a 37% INCREASE in T/W ratio... The F-35's motor won't have a lower T/W ratio than the F-16.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG
Next

Return to F-35 Engine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests