| Revision as of 16:31, 24 February 2021 editHcobb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers14,752 edits →Unit Cost - Numbers?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:14, 18 December 2024 edit undoNimbus227 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,897 edits →Source: Rply | ||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WPAVIATION|class=B | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | |||
| {{WikiProject Aviation | |||
| | b1=yes <!--Referencing & citations--> | | b1=yes <!--Referencing & citations--> | ||
| | b2=yes <!--Coverage and accuracy --> | | b2=yes <!--Coverage and accuracy --> | ||
| Line 6: | Line 8: | ||
| | b5=yes <!--Supporting materials --> | | b5=yes <!--Supporting materials --> | ||
| |Engines=yes}} | |Engines=yes}} | ||
| }} | |||
| == Fuel used for this engine == | |||
| ==Thrust contradictions== | |||
| How is it that the connected article, '']'' says the F135 produces 165kN thrust and this article says the F135 delivers 178kN as well as miraculously managing to bleed air to the roll posts each producing 8.7kN and drive a gearbox which also provides 80kN of thrust. Someones sums don't add up - get it right or leave it out! | |||
| I've been trying to find out what fuel is used in the F-35B engine and I've not had much luck. I've heard both JP-5 and JP-8 but no search seems to come up with a result. They talk about thrust & weight but never about fuel type. Is there a source I'm missing and shouldn't it be either on the engine page or the F-35 page? ] (]) 03:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :There are a lot of people who assume things they don't even know about. | |||
| :The popular answer seems to be JP-8/F-34 which is supported by . Fuel type is a parameter of ] but it's only meant for generic ]/] types apart from a few exceptions that use exotic fuel like ]. One reason that fuel types are not generally listed in aircraft or aircraft engine articles even when known is that it could break ]/], we don't want ground crews and pilots checking Misplaced Pages for servicing their aircraft! ] ] 15:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually this article states that the engine delivers a total thrust of 276kN, far greater than the 165kN stated on the F-35 page. Perhaps someone was just attempting to list the stats like in the F136 page, but failed to do so correctly. I think it's obvious that the Air Force would not want to switch from a 276kN engine to a 178kN one. According to http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_mil_f135.asp and http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence_aerospace/products/combat/f136/tech.jsp both the 135 and 136 have the same thrust though they are probably just rounded figures. ] 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Engine weight and thrust-to-weight ratio under American standard and Russian/Chinese standard == | |||
| :::I've edited the engine thrust stats to the ones stated . I used google calculator to convert the pounds of force to kiloNewtons and when summing up the total thrust, I got 177 kN, which if correct, means that the F-35 article is wrong about the 165 kN. ] 14:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As far as I know, the Russian and Chinese standard engine weight does not include the nozzle and control system, so when calculating the engine weight and thrust-to-weight ratio, they should be calculated in two cases: the American standard and the Russian(Chinese) standard. | |||
| :The F135 has multiple measures of thrust. One is the dry thrust at about 25k Lbs. One is wet thrust (when the afterburner is on) which exceeds 40k lbs. Additionally there is thrust while in hover, which is the sum of the lift fan's cold thrust, and the thrust coming out of the roll posts and the nozzle which is again in the realm of 40k lbs. Afterburner is not used for hovering. (duh) | |||
| This is why many Chinese sources say that F119 has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 9+ but current entry of the F119 states that the thrust-to-weight ratio of the F119 is just 7.0 . | |||
| :: To add a little more confusion to the chaos, I've added a specs table using Jane's performance numbers for the engine, which are slightly different than what's in the article. I tend to trust Jane's, so as I edit this article I will try and update the numbers to be consistant. - ] (]) 12:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Their is another way to prove my point of view. Su-35 weighs 19t and max thrust of AL-41F-1S is 14t. | |||
| ==Neutrality?== | |||
| F-35A weighs 13.3t,and max thrust of F135 is 19.5t. | |||
| There are a couple spots here that sound a little off to me. | |||
| The thrust-to-weight ratio of Al-41 is 8.8 and that of F135 is just 6.7 under the current entries. But the thrust-to-weight ratio of Su-35 is JUST 2×14÷19≈1.47，and that of F-35A is 1×19.5÷13.3≈1.47. | |||
| This may be caused by the difference in engine weight standards between the two sides. | |||
| Improvements to current F135 entry: | |||
| ''"The F135 propulsion system already proved that it can meet these diverse requirements, during preliminary flight testing of the Boeing X-32 and Lockheed Martin X-35 aircraft in 2000." | |||
| I think this can be reworded to say something like "The F135 first flew as the engine that powered both of the JSF competitiors, the Boeing X-32 and the Lockheed Martin X-35".'' | |||
| We already know the weight of the YF119-PW-100L prototype without the divergent nozzle section is approximately 3,900 lb, and Pratt & Whitney's brochure clearly stated that the F135 weighs 1,500 pounds more than the F119. So the weight of the F135 is approximately 3900+1500=5400lb | |||
| I also think the following line should be removed; the article is about the engine, not the F-35. | |||
| Russian/Chinese standard. | |||
| ''"As planned, new F-35 aircraft will replace the F-16 Fighting Falcon, AV-8B Harrier II, and F/A-18 Hornet." '' | |||
| Considering that the engine weight and the thrust-to-weight ratio in the AL31 entry clearly cited Russian sources, engine weight and thrust-to-weight ratio of the F135 under Russian standard（Chinese standard）should be listed in addition. ] (]) 15:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Also, I think this paragraph (below) needs to be rewritten a bit: | |||
| :If I understand correctly you are describing ] and ] of sources to arrive at some unpublished values? That is not going to happen. The only 'standards' applied to Misplaced Pages engine articles is that appropriate measurement systems are used (Imperial, SI, Metric) and that the values come from a ]. Misplaced Pages is a general encyclopedia. ] ] 16:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ''"Propulsion system support and maintainability are further enhanced by the F135's maintenance-focused design. It has approximately 40 percent fewer parts, which also improves reliability. All line-replaceable components (LRCs) can be removed and replaced with a set of six common hand tools. And, the F135 has a 50 percent lower infrastructure support requirement compared to current engines. The F135 produces 40,000 lbf (180 kN) of thrust, the most ever in a fighter engine."'' | |||
| ::For example, many reliable Chinese literature consider F119 to have a thrust-to-weight ratio of 9.0+, which is not the same as the value given in the original entry. Which one should be selected when editing the entry？ ] (]) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Those Chinese literature have been published in various journals and is publicly available. ] (]) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some English sources also give different ratio. ] (]) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Source == | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| F-35 Lightning II,Mark Ayton,Key Publishing Ltd,https://www.scribd.com/document/545351245/F-35-Lightning-II | |||
| :Go for it. Most of that sounds like brochure wording, as some users tend to just copy in sections from company sources. - - ] (]) 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | Please add this ] (]) 18:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :Source is not accessible, requires sign up to Scribd.com. Also states clearly that it is AI-enhanced. ] ] 19:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Agreed, those changes are good. -] (]) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| There are also issues over claims of costs, like: "In 2013 the price of the F135 increased by $4.3 billion.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBREA3G27K20140417 |title=Cost to buy F-35 up 2 percent; to operate down 9 percent: Pentagon |last1=Shalal |first1=Andrea |date=17 April 2014 |website=www.reuters.com |publisher=Thomson Reuters |accessdate=18 April 2014}}</ref>". A single engine does not cost 4.3 billion thats the price on a contract for an unspecified number of engines. Someone needs to clean this article up its a mess of FUD.] (]) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==Current Rework (Jul 09)== | |||
| I've started to rework this article. My main goals are to flesh out the technical information based on what's available, do a better job of citing, and rewrite the sections that read like they're press release copy (which they are).I would also like to add more images. Feel free to point out specific areas that need help. Thanks! ] (]) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Design Section=== | |||
| I have started a bit of work on the design section and I'm trying to be respectful of the original author's contributions, but I'm having a bit of trouble. It mostly reads (as pointed out earlier by BilCat) like brochure copy, and that's what I'm guessing it's from. That said, I'm sure there's some useful info in there, but I just don't understand some of it. For example the paragraph that starts ''"A feature of the F135 STOVL engine is flow multiplication..."''. I think that's talking about just the lift fan system, but I'm not sure. Any idea how to reword that, or should I just bulk rewrite it? ] (]) 15:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====LiftFan Thrust (HCobb)==== | |||
| The wording you added seemed misleading to me. While the total thrust in STOVL is close to wet thrust in conventional mode, they're not comparable. 20,000lbf of that lift is coming from the lift fan, which in the vertical axis, not the horizontal. Comparing that to the afterburning thrust is misleading because that liftfan thrust isn't used to propel the aircraft forward. Maybe that paragraph in the article needs to be rewritten to clarify that that thrust is basically in the vertical direction, not the horizontal. ] (]) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :100% of the thrust goes vertical so the lift fan is acting as a pure additive to the main engine thrust. ] (]) 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Hmm, your rewording is better, but I still don't like what it's implying, and there are a few "errors" IMO. First, afterburning flight isn't always supersonic flight; rewording that to say afterburing thrust (or wet thrust) would be better I think. I also think that stating that the lift fan uses no additional fuel and generates no additional heat is unsourced at best or just wrong at worst. I'm not sure if the engine uses more fuel or not when the clutch engages for the lift fan. I'm sure it doesn't use as much as the afterburer (which is what you seem to want to say), but it's definitly possible it uses more fuel to keep the LP sections turning. Secondly, it definitly generates more heat. Not in the way that you seem to mean (afterburner exhaust heat), but turning all those parts and compressing/blowing air through the lift fan definitly generates more heat. I think you're just trying to make the point that the lift fan adds a lot of thrust to the engine for STOVL, which is true, but I don't think you're going about it the best way. Just leave the line about how much thrust that STOVL system generates compared to the wet thrust and that is fine IMO. (wow that was long, sorry) ] (]) 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I apologize for the lack of ] function in the File:JetEngineGraph-LiftFan.PNG, but it is kinda hard to show both mixed (turbofan) and unmixed (turbojet/turboshaft) functions in the same engine. The F135 engine and LiftSystem concepts are complex and not easily understood, and give rise to many misunderstandings and false assumptions. I have tried to show a different angle with that diagram and the File:LiftThrust-small1.PNG, but I would like a discussion on how to present the engine more clearly. The LiftSystem article does not allow F135-functions to be included, but I do not think they can be separated, as the dual power cycle of the F135 is critical for the operation of LiftSystem. ] (]) 11:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Development== | |||
| I've made a couple of changes to rationalize the failure details since they were based on a few poorly worded sources as well as poor interpretation of the source in one instance. Hope that's ok.] (]) 20:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Design== | |||
| This section was a bit disjointed, I think, because it is made up from contributions from many editors. I have tried to tidy it up still keeping those contributions except: | |||
| removed statements which gave a personal interpretation of what is described in cited sources, removed sales brochure-type terminology, removed duplicated details.] (]) 23:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Unit Cost - Numbers? == | |||
| Nothing on unit cost except for "continuing the unit cost decreases," "substantial cost growth," and "below the cost of the F119"? | |||
| Decreases from what number? Growth from what number? What (number) below what other number? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == "serious readiness problem" == | |||
| https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/12/an-engine-shortage-is-the-newest-problem-to-hit-the-f-35-enterprise/ | |||
| Why is this not notable? ] (]) 16:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:14, 18 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pratt & Whitney F135 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion metFuel used for this engine
I've been trying to find out what fuel is used in the F-35B engine and I've not had much luck. I've heard both JP-5 and JP-8 but no search seems to come up with a result. They talk about thrust & weight but never about fuel type. Is there a source I'm missing and shouldn't it be either on the engine page or the F-35 page? CycloneSteve (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- The popular answer seems to be JP-8/F-34 which is supported by this photo of an F-35 being refuelled. Fuel type is a parameter of Template:Jetspecs but it's only meant for generic Avgas/Avtur types apart from a few exceptions that use exotic fuel like JP-7. One reason that fuel types are not generally listed in aircraft or aircraft engine articles even when known is that it could break WP:NOTGUIDE/WP:NOTMANUAL, we don't want ground crews and pilots checking Misplaced Pages for servicing their aircraft! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Engine weight and thrust-to-weight ratio under American standard and Russian/Chinese standard
As far as I know, the Russian and Chinese standard engine weight does not include the nozzle and control system, so when calculating the engine weight and thrust-to-weight ratio, they should be calculated in two cases: the American standard and the Russian(Chinese) standard.
This is why many Chinese sources say that F119 has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 9+ but current entry of the F119 states that the thrust-to-weight ratio of the F119 is just 7.0 .
Their is another way to prove my point of view. Su-35 weighs 19t and max thrust of AL-41F-1S is 14t. F-35A weighs 13.3t,and max thrust of F135 is 19.5t. The thrust-to-weight ratio of Al-41 is 8.8 and that of F135 is just 6.7 under the current entries. But the thrust-to-weight ratio of Su-35 is JUST 2×14÷19≈1.47，and that of F-35A is 1×19.5÷13.3≈1.47. This may be caused by the difference in engine weight standards between the two sides.
Improvements to current F135 entry:
We already know the weight of the YF119-PW-100L prototype without the divergent nozzle section is approximately 3,900 lb, and Pratt & Whitney's brochure clearly stated that the F135 weighs 1,500 pounds more than the F119. So the weight of the F135 is approximately 3900+1500=5400lb Russian/Chinese standard.
Considering that the engine weight and the thrust-to-weight ratio in the AL31 entry clearly cited Russian sources, engine weight and thrust-to-weight ratio of the F135 under Russian standard（Chinese standard）should be listed in addition. 湾岸2024 (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly you are describing personal analysis and synthesis of sources to arrive at some unpublished values? That is not going to happen. The only 'standards' applied to Misplaced Pages engine articles is that appropriate measurement systems are used (Imperial, SI, Metric) and that the values come from a reliable source. Misplaced Pages is a general encyclopedia. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For example, many reliable Chinese literature consider F119 to have a thrust-to-weight ratio of 9.0+, which is not the same as the value given in the original entry. Which one should be selected when editing the entry？ 湾岸2024 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Those Chinese literature have been published in various journals and is publicly available. 湾岸2024 (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some English sources also give different ratio. 湾岸2024 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Source
F-35 Lightning II,Mark Ayton,Key Publishing Ltd,https://www.scribd.com/document/545351245/F-35-Lightning-II Please add this 湾岸2024 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Source is not accessible, requires sign up to Scribd.com. Also states clearly that it is AI-enhanced. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)