WT Forums

Home | WT Forums | Hogpedia | Warthog blog | Hosted sites
It is currently 14 May 2025, 21:44

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2003, 17:30 
Offline

Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 13:28
Posts: 2210
What are the variables to an existing airframe on how much thrust it can acquire?

I am curious if the Super Hornet can get up to 30,000 max thrust in each of its engines without comprimising too much.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2003, 11:09 
Offline

Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 13:28
Posts: 2210
Thanx for the input Stress.
How'd you know this question was directed at you?
<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Your pretty good at being objective so I want to ask you if there's any advantage in performance of the SH(a modified current airframe) to the new ones currently being developed?(ie F-22)




Edited by - Tritonal on Aug 05 2003 10:43 AM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2003, 11:24 
Offline

Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 13:28
Posts: 2210
I also have read that the strakes on the Hornet have been increased in area which allows for a bigger inlet/future engine growth.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2003, 12:36 
Offline

Joined: 28 Feb 2003, 00:18
Posts: 1157
The F-14 was designed from day one with larger thrust engines in mind. The original design called for a derivative of the PW F-100 that would power the F-15. The F-14 was suffering budget issues, thus the Navy pulled out of the cost share program with the USAF for the PW F-100, and went with the best avaliable option at the time for a turbo-fan powerplant, and that was the PW-TF30. They never forsaw that they would be stuck with it for 30 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2003, 17:07 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
hey stress, even adding fuel will reach it's limits pretty quick I'm guessing as the ox/fuel ratio will richen up pretty quick without additional airflow. I suspect MAX nacelle airflow capability will be found just in excess of whatever is flowing through there when the engine is in full AB.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2003, 18:04 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
The reason for the moving (variable geometry) intakes on aircraft like the F-15, F-14, and F-4 has to do not with AoA, but with speed.

Ahh…..precious speed.

You see, no matter how much thrust a turbine engine produces, it will start to run out of steam as it approaches Mach 1.8 to 1.9. The turbine engine can only use airflow that comes in at a certain velocity or slower. As aircraft go beyond Mach 1.8 to 1.9, the intakes must re-orient themselves to slow down air velocity to useable levels.

So, as an F-15 moves past Mach 1.8, the intakes adjust their ramp angle to slow down air velocity to useable levels. This allows the F-15 to continue through Mach 2.0 al the way to Mach. 2.5

This is the principal that applies to the following aircraft

B-1A (Mach 2.2)
F-15 (Mach 2.5)
F-14 (Mach 2.4),
F-4 (Mach 2.2)
F-111 (Mach 2.2)
SR-71 (Mach 3.4+)
And others from that design era.

Aircraft that have fixed geometry intakes are basically limited in their top speed due to the inability of the intakes to slow down air to useable levels at those speeds.

NOTE:
This is completely independent of thrust to weight ratio F-16 and F-15 have comparable T:W ratios, but the F-15 is WAY faster due to its VG intakes.

Aircraft with fixed intakes include:

B-1B (Mach 1.2+)
F/A-18 (Mach 1.8)
F/A-18E/F (Mach 1.8)
F-16 (Mach 1.9+)
F-35 (Mach 1.8 projected)
F/A-22 (Mach 2.0 released)

A major point to note here is that Variable Geometry intakes are no longer included in modern aircraft design. Their movement, by nature, greatly increases the RCS of the aircraft which is not permitted anymore. The F-18, F-16, F-35, and F-22 all have SIGNIFICANTLY lower RCS than the aircraft listed above.

The B-1 program is almost a perfect example of what the VG intake does for speed. The original B-1A called for an aircraft that had a Mach 2.2 dash capability and as such, the GE F101 engines were fitted with complex variable intakes that allowed such speeds. The revised B-1B proposal did not call for that capability, so the variable intakes were replaced with simplified fixed intakes (and RCS screens) that limited the top speed to about Mach 1.2. In both cases, the engine was a 30,000 lb. Thrust GE F101 with few differences so the entire difference between Mach 1.2 and 2.2 was the intake system!

A secondary function of the VG intake is to maintain a smooth flow of air over the compression sections so you will notice movement during BFM, and AoA situations, but those are secondary functions easily solved with a fixed intake of sufficient design.

Make no mistake, their main purpose is max speed, but that’s really no longer necessary in this world. That’s why the VG intake will cease production with the last F-15 that ever rolls off the line…..

The F-15's Variable Ramps are constantly moving except for while they have WOnW. With WonW the ramps are commanded full down by the Air Inlet Controllers or Air Data Processors when the ramp switch is set in the Auto position,hydraulic power is available and cooling airflow is sufficient enough for operation. Which type of computer is controlling the aircraft depends on what modification the aircraft has.

The ramps can also be commanded down by maintainers using the A/B test switches located under doors 6L/6R. There is also a safety cutout switch built into both 10L/10R which working independently of each other. This function is builtin to ensure if someone has 10L/10R open that the first ramp won't crush them under the door if the ramps are commanded down.

Once inflight the ramps will move independently depending on not only speed but AOA. Depending on the speed and how much the ramp has to actually move because of a bank the ramp opposite of the turn will actually adjust up accordingly to allow for sufficient airflow. This is due to the disturbed airflow that is being generated across the nose of the aircraft.

Also yet another thing to note about the F-15's Variable Ramps is that when coming through the 1.4 to 1.5 MACH range the Diffuser ramp and Bypass doors will begin to function. Reason for this is to bleed off the oblique shockwaves that are created at this speed. If the diffuser ramp or bypass door fail to operate properly then a Inlet failure light will illuminate and they aircrew will throttle back.

The First Ramps lip will disipate as much of the shockwave as it can and so will the lower lip of the intake. The diffuser ramp will then bleed off the remaing oblique shockwave as it enters the intake itself. The bypass door is there so the remaining shockwaves that are being bled off by the diffuser ramp will exit at the top the aircraft. Also built-in to the first, second and diffuser ramps is tiny holes to bleed of standing static pressures. This is to keep from getting whats called duct buzz pressures built up in the intake. Excessive static pressures will cause the engines stall or stagnate.

Meanwhile, the PS2 probe that exists on the front of P&W -220 and -229 will monitor the impact pressures and static pressures. If any abnormalities exist between the AIC or ADP's calculations and the DEEC and EDU's calculations then a fault will be tripped and a Engine Control Light and Inlet lights will illuminate.

Though these may seem as very basic it's a critical part of flight for the F-15

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2003, 19:09 
Offline

Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 13:28
Posts: 2210
That was a very interesting read,
Thanx Biggie<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

OT: I would like to see the SH up to 30,000lb thrust in each engine so that it has a positive T:W ratio when it's max. loaded.






Edited by - Tritonal on Aug 06 2003 4:23 PM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2003, 13:15 
Offline

Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 13:28
Posts: 2210
Hey Stress, why was your explanation deleted?

I wanted to reread that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2003, 14:08 
Must've been him.

Wasn't me.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2003, 15:37 
Offline

Joined: 10 Mar 2003, 14:49
Posts: 426
[quote]


A major point to note here is that Variable Geometry intakes are no longer included in modern aircraft design. Their movement, by nature, greatly increases the RCS of the aircraft which is not permitted anymore. --------

Lot more maintenance required also. They found out in Nam they didn't need the top end speed either. Very few birds busted through Mach. Let alone having all the external crap hanging which limited top end.

Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2003, 16:14 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
Very true Ezy Jack,

No Bomb Mule with external stores flies in the supersonic region for many reasons. Transonic drag is a wall that creates nothing more than Increased Fuel burn (Good Bye Deep Strike) Damage to precision ordnance, hardpoints, airframe. This was the purpose of the B-1A/B Deep Supersonic Strike with internal stores.

We have not used this capability to date in any war other than in a few rare cases with the B1.

The Defense Dept. has made severe mistakes in Defense planning by not continueing the funding of the Bones and increaseing the numbers of Conventional B1's in inventory

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2003, 16:49 
Does anyone know how efficient the Aardvark was at supersonic flight with just an internal load?

I would think it would be comparable to the Bone.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2003, 18:43 
Offline

Joined: 10 Mar 2003, 14:49
Posts: 426
[quote]
Very true Ezy Jack,

No Bomb Mule with external stores flies in the supersonic region for many reasons. Transonic drag is a wall that creates nothing more than Increased Fuel burn (Good Bye Deep Strike) Damage to precision ordnance, hardpoints, airframe. This was the purpose of the B-1A/B Deep Supersonic Strike with internal stores.

------------

Yup. I recall Phantom drivers telling me, with a 300 gallon external, the drag induced meant they actually had 100 gallons usable. I never flew em so don't know the exact specs. Phantom drivers I knew had some serious time in them including Nam.

From WW2 on ( You can make a case earlier), good airframes we hung hardpoints on them.

The Viper is the current bomb mule. Been reading they are having airframe problems from hanging crap off a sweet airframe when it's slick.

I gotta admit some of the shots of MH-53Es, with all of the crap they are hanging off it is pretty awesome.

Even some EZs are hanging some pods off them for luggage holding.

Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2003, 20:13 
Offline

Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 13:28
Posts: 2210
Is anyone familiar with the conformal-fuel tanks that are used in with the new Viper, how are they performing?

I wonder if they can acquire a Modular weapons bay in which the weapons stores can be protected and aerodynamically optimal. I have some ideas.
I wish I remembered how to use auto-CAD.


I've also seen a fully-loaded SH demo where it pulled some crazy high AoA, super-manuvers that would drop most planes.






Edited by - Tritonal on Aug 07 2003 11:08 PM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2003, 23:23 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
dont know much about them except they look like an RCS nightmare! Frontal might still be ok but side elevation has got to be horrid.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 08 Aug 2003, 00:43 
Offline

Joined: 28 Feb 2003, 00:18
Posts: 1157
When you hang ordanance from an fighter it becomes a new animal...So are the g-loading figures, speed, and range all realitive to a clean airframe configuration, or do they average it with a moderate loadout as per its mission requirements? (eg) can and F-15C still perform as advertised with a full loadout of AAM's and external fuel?

I know that the F-14 design does allow relatively drag free ordance stores in the "tunel" between the engine nacelles as compared to say an F-18 which carries the bulk of its ordanance on exteral hardpoints on its wings.

So to sum this up...what impact does ordanace have on a fighters raw performance?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 08 Aug 2003, 03:37 
Offline

Joined: 10 Mar 2003, 14:49
Posts: 426
[quote]
So to sum this up...what impact does ordanace have on a fighters raw performance?


---------

It sucks.

Tis a reason I miss the real bomb truck. Old A-6 with a full loadout could push it up to 550knots. It would leave Phantoms and A-7s loaded out in the dust.

It's seldom you ever see a slick wing.

Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2003, 03:03 
Offline

Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 13:28
Posts: 2210
I've tried to find other recent posts from Stress and they've been all deleted!?
Wonder what happened?



Edited by - Tritonal on Aug 09 2003 09:00 AM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2003, 11:40 
It wasn't me.

I have no idea except that perhaps he deleted them???

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2003, 14:06 
Offline

Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 13:28
Posts: 2210
I hope he didn't jump ship.
Would be ashamed to lose him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2003, 04:52 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
When you hang ordanance from an fighter it becomes a new animal...So are the g-loading figures, speed, and range all realitive to a clean airframe configuration, or do they average it with a moderate loadout as per its mission requirements? (eg) can and F-15C still perform as advertised with a full loadout of AAM's and external fuel?

I know that the F-14 design does allow relatively drag free ordance stores in the "tunel" between the engine nacelles as compared to say an F-18 which carries the bulk of its ordanance on exteral hardpoints on its wings.

So to sum this up...what impact does ordanace have on a fighters raw performance?


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Chad it all depends what charts you are looking at and or articles you are referenceing. What you read in media reports is its service performace, or performance margin that is expected throughout its service life,and not raw data and or Heavy performance in the field. So those reports are bland at best.

We've done some testing with the GE-129's and P&W -229's. Lets just say the F-22 isn't the only aircraft capable of super cruise.

When we did some engine testing and mind you this was on a F-15B model. The top speed listed was 2.55+ with it's true actual top speed classified. This plane was able to do a true "supercruise" just as the F-22. It had to have a special paint job in order to keep the standard paint from being stripped off by the speeds. The plane warped intakes and melted the wind screen. Now that in itself should be an idea of just how fast it was going....... <img src=icon_smile_cool.gif border=0 align=middle>

Supercruise is the abilty to pass through the transonic region without the use of burners. The JTF proposal design request and Raptors are designed to take this to a serviceable 1.6 with stores.

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2003, 05:42 
Offline

Joined: 10 Mar 2003, 14:49
Posts: 426
[quote]
The plane warped intakes and melted the wind screen. Now that in itself should be an idea of just how fast it was going....... <img src=icon_smile_cool.gif border=0 align=middle>

-----------------------------------

I have a RAAF source, that stated they took a F-111 out on a final flight for a retiring Colonel and they stretched it out to Mach3.2 and singed it some. Along the lines of melted wind screen and warped some other stuff.

Sounds like the old Eagle has some serious speed to play with.

Hell I am just looking to pick up another 50-100 knots on my Long EZ.

Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2003, 13:00 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Hell I am just looking to pick up another 50-100 knots on my Long EZ.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Think Jato.

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2003, 13:47 
Offline

Joined: 10 Mar 2003, 14:49
Posts: 426
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[quote]Hell I am just looking to pick up another 50-100 knots on my Long EZ.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Think Jato.


-------------

Actually thinking of PDE. Check www.ez.org

Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2003, 21:06 
Offline

Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 13:28
Posts: 2210
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>When we did some engine testing and mind you this was on a F-15B model. The top speed listed was 2.55+ with it's true actual top speed classified. This plane was able to do a true "supercruise" just as the F-22... <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Mudd,
You probably have the most experience here on directly testing airframes- what do you think of the F-22 program? A needless extravagence?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group