F-16.net

sferrin wrote:Re: Follow on engine size (NGAD) this is from this weeks AvWeek:

NGAP.JPG

Is the NGAP an Adaptive Cycle Engine like the XA100 & XA101???

Corsair1963 wrote:

sferrin wrote:Re: Follow on engine size (NGAD) this is from this weeks AvWeek:

NGAP.JPG

Is the NGAP an Adaptive Cycle Engine like the XA100 & XA101???

What's, "NGAP" stand for?

sferrin wrote:

Corsair1963 wrote:

sferrin wrote:Re: Follow on engine size (NGAD) this is from this weeks AvWeek:

NGAP.JPG

Is the NGAP an Adaptive Cycle Engine like the XA100 & XA101???

What's, "NGAP" stand for?

NGAP stands for Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion. Yet, does Adaptive Propulsion mean the same as Adaptive Cycle? Hence my question..........

sferrin wrote:Re: Follow on engine size (NGAD) this is from this weeks AvWeek:

NGAP.JPG

IMHO

Something with both core and fan sizes similar to F119, with maybe slightly more thrust due to higher pressure would be enough for NGAD. And then in the economy mode the effective core size would be smaller.

AFAIK the main improvements of NGAD vs f-22 are range and even lower RCS.

Because the economy mode gives much better subsonic fuel-efficiency compared to F119, range of NGAD would be better even if it was just re-engined f-22, so the plane does not have to be much bigger to have better much better range than what f-22 has. Also, they could even survive with slightly lower AB t/w ratio than in f-22.

But for F-35, bigger core (than in F135) is desired for better dry thrust improvement, mostly for better supercruise. And bigger fan (than in NGAP) is desired to 1) have more air for more AB thrust 2) get high bypass ratio for good fuel ecomomy when core size is also increased while keeping reasonable dry thrust.

Corsair1963 wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Corsair1963 wrote:Is the NGAP an Adaptive Cycle Engine like the XA100 & XA101???

What's, "NGAP" stand for?

NGAP stands for Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion. Yet, does Adaptive Propulsion mean the same as Adaptive Cycle? Hence my question..........

Yes. Why would they spend all the effort to put it into a new engine for the F-35 and then leave it off in the NGAD engine?

sferrin wrote:Re: Follow on engine size (NGAD) this is from this weeks AvWeek:

NGAP.JPG

Steve Trimble from Aviation Week stated that" AETP is a for a single-engined, 45,000lb-thrust fighter (aka F-35).

NGAP is for a twin-engined fighter with ~30,000lb-thrust for each engine." So for NGAD total thrust is even lower than F22?

Did I miss something?

pauggle wrote:

sferrin wrote:Re: Follow on engine size (NGAD) this is from this weeks AvWeek:

NGAP.JPG

Steve Trimble from Aviation Week stated that" AETP is a for a single-engined, 45,000lb-thrust fighter (aka F-35).

NGAP is for a twin-engined fighter with ~30,000lb-thrust for each engine." So for NGAD total thrust is even lower than F22?

Did I miss something?

The NGAD will use two ACE (Adaptive Cycle Engine) in the 45,000 - 50,000 lbs thrust class. Future versions of the F-35 "may" use one of them...

Corsair1963 wrote:

pauggle wrote:

sferrin wrote:Re: Follow on engine size (NGAD) this is from this weeks AvWeek:

NGAP.JPG

Steve Trimble from Aviation Week stated that" AETP is a for a single-engined, 45,000lb-thrust fighter (aka F-35).

NGAP is for a twin-engined fighter with ~30,000lb-thrust for each engine." So for NGAD total thrust is even lower than F22?

Did I miss something?

The NGAD will use two ACE (Adaptive Cycle Engine) in the 45,000 - 50,000 lbs thrust class. Future versions of the F-35 "may" use one of them...

From what I learned, AETP (XA100 & XA101) is for F35. NGAP (No demonstrator yet) is for NGAD. Though it makes sense that NGAP may be physically smaller than AETP, I don’t think the thrust class would be significantly lower.