Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:23, 28 July 2009

Aviation: Aircraft Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Thrust contradictions

How is it that the connected article, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 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!

There are a lot of people who assume things they don't even know about.

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. AAK 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the engine thrust stats to the ones stated here. 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. AAK 14:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Neutrality?

There are a couple spots here that sound a little off to me.

"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".

I also think the following line should be removed; the article is about the engine, not the F-35. "As planned, new F-35 aircraft will replace the F-16 Fighting Falcon, AV-8B Harrier II, and F/A-18 Hornet."

Also, I think this paragraph (below) needs to be rewritten a bit:

"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."

Any thoughts? - SidewinderX (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Stub-Class aviation articles
• Stub-Class aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles