Engines of Innovation

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

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 753
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post19 Apr 2019, 02:27

count_to_10 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:The problem with LNG is that even as a liquid, it is not dense. It has more energy per kg than gasoline but only has 2/3rds the energy per liter. What you will end up with is much larger tanks to go the same range vs AvGas. Then there is the whole issue of weight increases from larger tanks and other modifications needed to keep it in it's liquid form in flight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

So, a bullet into a tank full of jet fuel is containable. What happens when a bullet penetrates a LNG tank?



An aircraft that requires a cooling system of this type isn't going to be exposed to .50 cal API.

IIRC, even the modern JP-8 fuel systems are vulnerable to 25mm HEI and above which are
the modern threat ammunition types.
Offline

f119doctor

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2019, 00:07

Unread post19 Apr 2019, 23:36

It is interesting that the Reaction Engine pre-cooler is almost identical to the heat exchanger that Pratt & Whitney build in the late 1950s for the Suntan 304 engine project, which was intended for a liquid hydrogen powered Lockheed aircraft flying at 100k, 2.5 Mn. This was a completely different engine cycle, with the heat exchanger taking fan discharge air heat to vaporize the liquid hydrogen fuel to drive the turbine, then burning the hydrogen in an afterburner after the heat exchanger.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/ch8-9.htm

The Reaction Engine project is using the heat exchanger to absorb the inlet temperature heat from M3+ flight to be able to run a relatively standard jet engine behind it.
P&W FSR (retired) - TF30 / F100 /F119 /F135
Previous

Return to F-35 Engine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests