F-119 thrust

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post19 Dec 2015, 19:45

I Just wonder.. How can the F119 and F135 possible share the same core??

The latter has all the different physical measurements.
If different fan stages has different diameter between them, then by deffinition they do not share the same engine core.

Core = the complete hot section of the engine.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5873
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post19 Dec 2015, 19:59

borg wrote:I Just wonder.. How can the F119 and F135 possible share the same core??

The latter has all the different physical measurements.
If different fan stages has different diameter between them, then by deffinition they do not share the same engine core.

Core = the complete hot section of the engine.


They don't use the same core. Think of the F119 as the starting point. (Much like the B-1B's F101 was the starting point for the F110.)
"There I was. . ."
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post19 Dec 2015, 20:15

Why are people trying to link them..?

Even if they are from the same produsent, it doesn't mean anything.
This is two completly different engines.
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post20 Dec 2015, 00:05

mixelflick wrote:When we first started flying airshows with the F-22, we publicly announced the 40,000lb thrust...and then in subsequent years went back to the 35,000lb figure.


I guess that answers my question... :)[/quote]


No problem. There are a few video's taken at Langley real early on...before the official demo's started...that you can hear the announcement. I'll try to dig a few up for you. I've also got the 'dozer' in cockpit video's somewhere...the figure is also put out there in one of them.

Cheers.
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post20 Dec 2015, 00:15

eloise wrote::? :shock: am i the only one who have no idea what going on here?


Some people believe that their opinion's equal facts...others make assumptions...he's doing both. I just put out the facts that I can put out. What anyone does with the info is their own business. What my role was back then is absolutely irrelevant...he's just busy trolling as usual.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post20 Dec 2015, 01:10

sferrin wrote:They don't use the same core. Think of the F119 as the starting point. (Much like the B-1B's F101 was the starting point for the F110.)

:cheers:

Well.... it depends what you read.
PW BACKGROUND F135 wrote:The F135 evolved from Pratt & Whitney’s F119, the technologically advanced engine exclusively powering the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 Raptor. The common core of the F119 and F135 has more than 400,000 hours of operational use, offering proven dependability and unmatched single engine safety. The F119 recently achieved hot section full-life capability of 4,325 total accumulated cycles and depot inspection has validated the robustness and sustainability of this 5th generation engine. The F135 benefits from these F119 technologies and is designed to significantly lower lifecycle cost.

REF: http://www.sanfordgrowth.com/uploads/fi ... ground.pdf

Or...
Tom Johnson, Chief Engineer F119/F135 wrote:The F119 engine shares mature core components with the F135 engine, which provides tremendous benefits from a cost and durability standpoint. This will benefit the F-35 program with respect to engine maturity, single engine safety, and reduced sustainment costs.

REF: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 35871.html

So it boils down to being 'the core' or 'core components' which could be a specific % of the core.

GE has always said the F110/F101/F108/F118 are "based on the same core" (and it's how the USAF funds improvement and parts contracts) but it would almost always 'differ' somewhat; I'd venture to guess the cores would be over 50% common between the engine versions, but not more than 90%, but I still feel as though you could say "these engines are based on the same core" - same basic design, layout, technology, airflow, build, maintenance, etc. No you can't take the core of the F110 and put it into the F108, but they are almost the same as far as jet engines go if you were to compare them with other GE engine lines.

:2c: In the end, the term is used rather loosely. I think it's safe to say either the F119 and F135 have "the same core", or "have similar cores", though they are most certainly not 'common' or interchangeable between the two engines. (Like GE has done with their line) The cores of each specific engine will always differ in minor aspects from one another but will look very much the same on paper. They will almost always share technology, funding, and improvements when it comes to USAF contracts with PW.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5873
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Dec 2015, 01:10

checksixx wrote:Some people believe that their opinion's equal facts...others make assumptions...he's doing both.


My "assumptions" are based on the fact that half the time you don't know what the hell you're talking about and your overweening appearance of self-importance. In other words you have the appearance of a poser. Then when asked to explain why anybody should listen to you you refuse. Another key characteristic of a poser. I'd add your lack of professionalism to the list but that goes without saying.

checksixx wrote:I just put out the facts that I can put out.


You put out "facts" huh? Really? Like your rabid insistence than the F-22 doesn't have radar blockers in it's exhaust? (A "fact" that not only was common knowledge at the time but had had pictures of it published.) Uhm, yeah. . .I think your definition of a "fact" needs a bit of work.

checksixx wrote:What my role was back then is absolutely irrelevant...


It's completely relevant. If you're going to appeal to your supposed authority you'd better have something to back it up with other than "don't you dare ask me to qualify my position". That's what posers do. That's what small men who want you to think they're important do.

checksixx wrote:he's just busy trolling as usual.


Sure sweetie. Asking you what your qualifications are (because you want us to just take your word) is trolling. :roll: Lemme guess, you're so secret-squirrel you'd have to kill us all if you told us right? Right? Judas.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5873
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Dec 2015, 01:15

That_Engine_Guy wrote:
sferrin wrote:They don't use the same core. Think of the F119 as the starting point. (Much like the B-1B's F101 was the starting point for the F110.)

:cheers:

Well.... it depends what you read.
PW BACKGROUND F135 wrote:The F135 evolved from Pratt & Whitney’s F119, the technologically advanced engine exclusively powering the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 Raptor. The common core of the F119 and F135 has more than 400,000 hours of operational use, offering proven dependability and unmatched single engine safety. The F119 recently achieved hot section full-life capability of 4,325 total accumulated cycles and depot inspection has validated the robustness and sustainability of this 5th generation engine. The F135 benefits from these F119 technologies and is designed to significantly lower lifecycle cost.

REF: http://www.sanfordgrowth.com/uploads/fi ... ground.pdf

Or...
Tom Johnson, Chief Engineer F119/F135 wrote:The F119 engine shares mature core components with the F135 engine, which provides tremendous benefits from a cost and durability standpoint. This will benefit the F-35 program with respect to engine maturity, single engine safety, and reduced sustainment costs.

REF: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 35871.html

So it boils down to being 'the core' or 'core components' which could be a specific % of the core.

GE has always said the F110/F101/F108/F118 are "based on the same core" (and it's how the USAF funds improvement and parts contracts) but it would almost always 'differ' somewhat; I'd venture to guess the cores would be over 50% common between the engine versions, but not more than 90%, but I still feel as though you could say "these engines are based on the same core" - same basic design, layout, technology, airflow, build, maintenance, etc. No you can't take the core of the F110 and put it into the F108, but they are almost the same as far as jet engines go if you were to compare them with other GE engine lines.

:2c: In the end, the term is used rather loosely. I think it's safe to say either the F119 and F135 have "the same core", or "have similar cores", though they are most certainly not 'common' or interchangeable between the two engines. (Like GE has done with their line) The cores of each specific engine will always differ in minor aspects from one another but will look very much the same on paper. They will almost always share technology, funding, and improvements when it comes to USAF contracts with PW.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG



Thanks. :notworthy: I knew they changed the geometry, airflow, and some of the materials (apparently some in the F119 were pretty spendy and they wanted to get the cost down), but my impression was they'd diverged so much that they were essentially different cores by this point.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2108
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post20 Dec 2015, 08:01

I am not sure who in the right this time, checksix or sterrin. But I do agree that there are so many people here and many aviation foruma claims that they are pilots or something similar, I am rather skeptical about that :roll:
because i have no way to be sure whether they saying the truth or not since most of them often say very generic things ( things that are true but rather common knowledge)


That being said there are also many members that gives me the impression that they are pilots or engineers because of the impressive amount about knowledge they demonstrated rather than having to appear authority ( for example : Sprut, Johnwill, Andraxxuss, hornet firnn, TEG.. etc)
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5873
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Dec 2015, 16:28

eloise wrote:I am not sure who in the right this time, checksix or sterrin. But I do agree that there are so many people here and many aviation foruma claims that they are pilots or something similar, I am rather skeptical about that :roll:
because i have no way to be sure whether they saying the truth or not since most of them often say very generic things ( things that are true but rather common knowledge)


That being said there are also many members that gives me the impression that they are pilots or engineers because of the impressive amount about knowledge they demonstrated rather than having to appear authority ( for example : Sprut, Johnwill, Andraxxuss, hornet firnn, TEG.. etc)



Meh. I probably should just let it go and let people make their own decisions. You're right, there are some awesome people here, and many much more knowledgeable than you'll typically find on other forums. IMO checksixx is not one of them. :2c:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3708
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post20 Dec 2015, 20:07

deadseal wrote:
lol

it is futile
all your planets belong to us

and by us i mean anyone in the USAF you clown


LOL
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post20 Dec 2015, 21:38

eloise wrote:iam not sure who in the right this time, checksix or sterrin. But i do agree that there are so many people here and many aviation foruma claims that they are pilots or something similar, iam rather skeptical about that :roll:
because i have no way to be sure whether they saying the truth or not since most of them often say very generic things ( things that are true but rather common knowledge)


That being said there are also many members that gives me the impression that they are pilots or engineers because of the impressive amount about knowledge they demonstrated rather than having to appear authority ( for example : Sprut, Johnwill, Andraxxuss, hornet firnn, TEG.. etc)


I'm not concerned if anyone thinks I'm right or wrong, and I've made no claims to be anything I'm not...just putting the information out there. But the bottom line is that I'm not going to start posting my position anywhere, my resume, etc., just because someone is demanding it...no one here should be expected to do that. All you need to know is that my response to the OP was factual. I was there and it was what 'we' were told was releasable information. Should anyone doubt it...that's their right to do so. Doesn't affect me one way or another, nor does anyone's opinion of me.

So back to the topic...40K of thrust each was what was being put out publicly...then the official demo was approved and thats when they went back to the 35K thrust 'class' spec...
Offline

Scorpion1alpha

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 1826
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:47

Unread post20 Dec 2015, 21:54

After reading some of the comments here, particularly the reported posts, I've thought about closing this topic. Instead, the topic shouldn't be burdened by two particular posters with their tit for tat spat.

This will serve as fair warning to both "sferrin" and "checksixx. The posts in this topic will be left here to serve a visual documentation for EVERYBODY to see.

Take it "outside" i.e. "PM" or wherever, but not here. Further like posts will not be tolerated and if continued, could result in more severe actions.
I'm watching...
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post21 Dec 2015, 00:38

Scorpion1alpha wrote:After reading some of the comments here, particularly the reported posts, I've thought about closing this topic. Instead, the topic shouldn't be burdened by two particular posters with their tit for tat spat.

This will serve as fair warning to both "sferrin" and "checksixx. The posts in this topic will be left here to serve a visual documentation for EVERYBODY to see.

Take it "outside" i.e. "PM" or wherever, but not here. Further like posts will not be tolerated and if continued, could result in more severe actions.


Not taking it anywhere but another board. You all want to deal with his trolling, even after his previous warnings, go right ahead. I'm done. This board has gone to crap.
Offline

deadseal

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 561
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2008, 01:17

Unread post21 Dec 2015, 01:13

sferrin wrote:
eloise wrote:iam not sure who in the right this time, checksix or sterrin. But i do agree that there are so many people here and many aviation foruma claims that they are pilots or something similar, iam rather skeptical about that :roll:
because i have no way to be sure whether they saying the truth or not since most of them often say very generic things ( things that are true but rather common knowledge)


That being said there are also many members that gives me the impression that they are pilots or engineers because of the impressive amount about knowledge they demonstrated rather than having to appear authority ( for example : Sprut, Johnwill, Andraxxuss, hornet firnn, TEG.. etc)



Meh. I probably should just let it go and let people make their own decisions. You're right, there are some awesome people here, and many much more knowledgeable than you'll typically find on other forums. IMO checksixx is not one of them. :2c:

dude, you are waaaay outta line. what the hell is wrong with you?....he said some thrust numbers and you poked at them with the "what is we" crap...we all know you know what the hell he was talkin about and you had to be a big dickhead and ruin it. just have fun and listen to what he says...is it not true that the engines were rated at those numbers? ****** prove your point instead of being the how did you put it" weak man" or" little" man of the group and attack him for what? not agreeing with you? you are the clown sferrin....grow up dude...not everyone has to agree with you. I have found on this site with my whole debacle with huggy.....alot of non-fighter pilots dont like fighter pilots opinions. If you dont want F-16 pilots on F-16.net thats fine...then put a big disclaimer on the top of the webpage.....as for the moderator...i think you should drop a hammer on sferrin for jumpiung down checksixxs throat for no reason other than he didnt agree with him. and oh by the way i have no clue who checksixx is, but he doesnt talk stupid regarding actual pilot sh*t for what it is worth.
I think you should look at the exchange again,have some honor, and apologize. IMHO.......
******* with your "there are some really smart people but checksixx isnt one of them" bullshit....
Look I know you are a smart dude that is probably a nice guy too, but you just top roped when it wasn't necessary

moderators need to step up here
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests