Category: Propulsion

Well, Obama is In a Conundrum

No Comments

The Defense appropriations bill that recently passed the Senate has a (sort of) repeal of the discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law.

It also has funding for the F136 alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the White House opposes, so now the Pentagon staff is throwing around a veto threat on this issue:

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program: The Administration strongly objects to provisions of the bill which could limit the procurement of the 42 aircraft requested in the President’s FY 2011 Budget. The onerous restrictions impose unacceptable schedule and budget risks on the JSF program. While the Department believes the restructured development schedule is achievable, failure to achieve any one of the criteria would affect the procurement decision with significant impact on unit cost, production ramp, and TACAIR force structure. The Department’s F-35 procurement request is in line with independent manufacturing studies, risk review recommendations, and the FY11 request reflects an optimized production. If the final bill presented to the President contains provisions that would seriously disrupt the F-35 program, the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.

(emphasis original)

If Obama is looking for an excuse to kill DADT because of cowardice, this would be it.

If Obama really wants to repeal DADT this year, than he has a decision to make.

So, which is it, the lady or the tiger?

Your F-35 Clusterf%$# Update

No Comments

The big news is that, notwithstanding the assertions of the Pentagon and Lockheed-Martin, delays continue apace, with the Pentagon Comptroller saying that the aircraft purchase will have to be cut if the cost continues to escalate, (File that under, “Well, Duh!”) as well as concerns that the 13-month schedule slip is overly optimistic.

It should be noted that this is confirmed by reports in the Startlegram*, which, being the home town paper for the F-35 assembly line, is both in a position to be in the know, and not inclined to come out against Fort Worth’s biggest employer.

We also have Bill Sweetman noticing in the DOD press release that full rate production is delayed to 2016, about a year after where it would start with the claimed 13-month slip.

We are also seeing reports that the Israeli Air Force is extremely concerned about the delays.

You can see a report of the bald-faced lying by Lockheed and the Pentagon, where they claim that everything is hunky dory, but it makes one inclined to invoke Samuel L. Jackson from Pulp Fiction, “Does Marsellus Wallace look like,” because they are seriously f%$#ing with us.

We also have non-movement, basically heat but no light on the F136 alternate engine, with the Defense Department releasing a report saying that adding a 2nd engine was “cost neutral,” only the study did not address the value of:

  • Hedging risks.
  • Greater responsiveness from contractors as a result of competition.
  • Providing alternate growth paths.
  • Industrial base preservation.
  • Potential for innovation from a 2nd contractor.

The DoD wants to cancel the F136 because they want the plane in deployment before Congress realizes how expensive it is.

Another interesting note is that the Memorandum of Agreement specifically allows participating nations to choose the F136 engine.

One should note that the Pentagon’s estimate of development costs are twice that of GE/Rolls Royce’s, and this has led the Chairman and leadership of the House Armed Services Committee to call bullsh%$ on the report.

*The Fort Worth Star Telegram.

Another Challenger to the Lycoming/Continental GA Engines

No Comments
Click top 2 for Large Pics

In this case, it’s the liquid cooled 120° V-6 Adept aviation engine Adept 320T avgas/mogas engine.

I’m dubious on market success, given that it has to use gasoline, though it is automotive fuel (mogas) compatible.

The cost, and relative unavailability of the fuel is what is driving people toward small turbine and diesel engines.

I came across their web site in a strange way, they were mentioned in an ad for Autodesk® CAD products on the back cover of the ASME magazine, Mechanical Engineering, and looked at their technology.

The basic features of the engine are:

  • 320 hp out of 3.2 liter. I’m not sure of the RPM.
  • Higher speed than legacy horizontally opposed twins, with a reduction gearbox.
  • The engine, “has a fairly over-square bore/stroke ratio (98mm x 70mm),” which they claim keeps piston speed below that of the current engines.
  • Liquid cooling.
  • Operates on 94 Octane fuel, obviating the need for the increasingly scarce 100LL
  • 2000 Hour TBO.
  • They are not looking into helicopter applications, but they might at a later time.

There is a relatively uneventful video of an engine run at the bottom of this post.

JSF Engine Update

No Comments

The F136 alternate engine was running on the test stand, and sustained minor damage, which led people to rumors that the combustor needed to be redesigned.

It now turns out that the problem is much less severe than originally reported. The damage was from a lug that attaches the diffuser to the combustor that came loose during testing.

Obviously, this is not something that you want happening on an aircraft in flight, though the damage was minor, and not noticed until the engine was torn down after a test run, but it’s a not uncommon thing to have happen at this state of the development process.

Well, Here’s a Shocker

No Comments

It appears that Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), the favorite rent-a-crowd for corporate interests, like Microsoft, Tobacco, and Jack Abramhoff, has now weighed in against the GE/Rolls F136 alternate engine for the JSF:

The group is lambasting congressional funding for a second F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine, made by General Electric and Rolls-Royce.

In the process, the nonprofit watchdog organization is spending as much as an estimated $2 million on advertising that includes posters in D.C. Metro trains, paper and digital ads in Capitol Hill publications and billboards in several districts across the country.

But wait, there’s more:

CAGW refuses to disclose the campaign’s expenses, but it appears to represent a sizable chunk of its total budget.

In 2008, CAGW’s total revenue, which includes the nonprofit and its lobbying arm, the Council of Citizens Against Government Waste, was $5,158,515.

…

Pratt & Whitney spokeswoman Erin Dick said that her company “is not paying for the CAGW ads.” When asked whether Pratt & Whitney donated to CAGW, Dick said that the company does not disclose the public interest groups it supports.

CAGW and Pratt & Whitney share the same ad agency, Sullivan Higdon & Sink, based in Wichita, Kan., according to a Bloomberg report in August.

That same month, Pratt & Whitney said that it was erroneously [“erroniously”, Ha!] named the paid sponsor of a video made by the agency on behalf of CAGW. Since then, the paid sponsor reference has been changed, and the advertising group said that CAGW and Pratt & Whitney are separate customers, according to Bloomberg.

….

A 2006 Finance Committee report, published by the minority Democratic staff but backed by the Republican chairman at the time, tracked how convicted ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff enlisted tax-exempt groups on behalf of his clients. The report documented how Abramoff got CAGW, among other groups, to publish articles and news releases on behalf of his clients, and then directed tens of thousands of dollars to the taxpayer groups.

(emphasis mine)

Seriously, why anyone takes CAGW seriously is completely beyond me.

Delay for Boeing, Airbus Next Gen 100 Seaters

No Comments

We now have reports that both Airbus and Boeing are looking at engine upgrades to the A320 and B-737 so as to delay the introduction of new models.

When you look at where things right now, with Boeing having outsourced its knowledge to the point that the 787 and 747-8, and Airbus still behind schedule on A380 deliveries and up to its hips in getting the A350 into development,* it is far from surprising that they putting off new development.

Airbus is in a better situation here, since the 737 has had clearance with its engines ever since it went to high bypass ratio turbofans with the -300, and because Boeing seems to be incapable of finding its ass with both hands.

Boeing went all outsource everything starting in the late 1990s, while Airbus didn’t, and as a result, they seem to be lacking basic skill-sets to actually get a plane into service.

Part of this is the difference between the two cultures: In America a skilled work force is seen as a cost, rather than an asset, as it is in Europe, and part of it is European politics, which makes it much more difficult for EADS to ship jobs from Hamburg or Toulouse.

*As well as the clusterf$#@ that is the A400M military transport, but that is technically a separate division, so it’s in the footnotes.

GE Promises 56,000 Lb Thrust F136

No Comments

Bradley Perrett at Ares notes that GE/Rolls Royce has had this this thrust number floating around since at least 2002, and would compare quite favorably to the 43,000 lbs of thrust available in the F135.

It’s clear that the F136 has a larger core than the F135, but at this point GE/Rolls is arguing that this can allow for greater reliability, and perhaps a few hundred pounds more thrust in STOVL mode for the F-35 JSF

The latter looks significant, as the Royal Navy is looking at a “shipborne rolling vertical landing,” basically a relatively low speed (under 150 km/h) non-arrested (!) landing on a carrier to increase bring-back weapons load and to reduce wear and tear on the engines, for vertical landings.

My guess, as is Mr. Perrett’s, is that the 56,000 lbs is the number that they are designing to for the purpose of creating a margin which would allow for reduced maintenance and capacity for upgrades.

In order to go from 43,000 lbs of thrust to 56,000 pounds of thrust in the JSF, I think that there would have to be some major airframe modifications, because there has to be more air flowing through that engine to get that performance, so I would expect significantly altered air inlets, no small change in a stealth aircraft, to realize that thrust level.

One interesting aside in the article, is the “cost” of the lift fan system that was chosen as the winner in this competition: both the GE/Rolls and P&W engines for the original fly-off for between Lockheed-Martin’s X-35 and Boeing’s X-32 delivered a lot more thrust in wingborne mode using when configured Boeing’s direct lift concept.

Thrust-Vectoring EJ200 for Typhoon

No Comments

So it looks like Eurojet is looking at getting into the thrust vectoring game.

It also looks like they will be selling it on improved economics, based on the use of lower thrust settings for takeoff and landing, and improved straight-line performance through reduced trim drag, rather than any massive increase in agility.

This is not surprising: At the speeds at which combat generally occurs, aerodynamic surfaces just work better.

For all the play over airshow maneuvers like the Cobra, etc., you have to be out of energy and very slow for them to work, which mirrors Colonel Fornof’s talks on dealing with the thrust vectoring F-22 and Su-30MKI, where he says that using thrust vectoring creates opportunities for the opposing aircraft to shoot you down.

Sounds like the old truism of air combat, “Speed is life,” remains true.

Video:

Hypersonic Engine Pr0n

No Comments

Lockheed Martin and P&W’s Rocketdyne division are working on a hybrid propulsion system for hypersonic flight, (paid subscription required) which uses a turbojet to take off and accelerate to Mach 2+, with a dual mode ramjet (DMRJ), it does supersonic combustion at higher speeds, taking over beyond that, with the turbojet being cocooned.

It’s kind of a “Son of Blackswift.”

As it currently stands, wind tunnel tests are proceeding on the DMRJ (phase 1), with a system integrating both the turbojet and ramjet being testing together in phase 2, and eventually testing of the system in flight.

F136 Alternate JSF Engine Update

No Comments

So, the House-Senate Conference Committee agreed to fund the F136 alternate engine for the JSF, despite a qualified veto threat from the White House.

By qualified, I mean that “sources in the WH” have said that they would “recommend a veto,” if the engine were funded, which is quite different from the flat out statement that Obama would veto anything with the F-22 white elephant Raptor.

While the weak veto threat is one of the reasons that supporters of the alternate engine have gained momentum, there is also the fact that Pratt & Whitney is doing back-flips on cost and schedule in order to try to kill the RR/GE F136 engine, which reinforces the idea that they see a real threat their profit model for the F135 engine.

Additionally, the idea that the program managers can squeeze P&W just as hard if there is no competitor out in the wings is plainly ludicrous, and the F100/F110 “engine war” of the 1980s clearly shows that.

The reason that the DoD is fighting the alternate engine at this point, is because they really want the JSF, and even a small amount of money, even if it pays ten fold dividends further out, may push the JSF further down the delay/cost escalation/procurement cuts cycle.

Ashton Carter* pretty much says that flat out when he says that, “The crux of the analysis is that the additional upfront costs of a second engine are very clear and very real and the possible savings associated with a hypothesized competition in the future are much harder to estimate.”

That being said, the development of the F-136 is not going perfectly. The manufacturers just had to halt testing following the discovery of damage to the turbine, described as “nicks and dings”.

Aero Diesel Video Pr0n

No Comments

Avweb produced two videos on the operation and description on Diamond’s Austro AE300 engines.

The nickel tour is that they are heavier than Thielert’s engines, but are promised to be much more durable.

A typical design decision is that the Austro has a heavier cast iron block, but this allows for the engine to be rebuilt.

I’m wondering why they didn’t sleeve an aluminum block. That would appear to me to give the best of both worlds, though my experience with sleeved engines is locomotive engines, which are sleeved iron blocks, I might be missing something.

They are promising a 1000 hour TBO, and hope to extend that significantly as Diamond gets information from the field on the first engines..

Engine Analysis

Flight Evaluation

F136 Saga Continues

No Comments

Well, the Senate Appropriations Committee cut funding for the F136 alternate engine for the JSF, though the committee chair, Daniel Inouye (D-HI) has made it clear that he wants it back when the conference report comes out.

In any case, it’s clear that the White House’s opposition to continuing work on an alternate engine is soft, as the discussions between the Pentagon and GE/Rolls on a firm fixed price for the engine, are continuing, and GE is promising a, “formal unsolicited Fixed Price offer,” in the next week or so.

I’m not sure if the DoD is seriously looking at proposals, of if they are just trying to browbeat Pratt & Whitney though.

JSF Engine Update

No Comments

There is actually a fair amount going on here, with the F135 engine experiencing a test at supersonic conditions on the test stand. They discovered bits of engine, specifically fan tips on the integrally bladed first and second stage fans, flying out the nozzle at the back.

At this point, there is no evidence of foreign object damage, they have found no missing bolts or the like, but the cause is still unclear.

Along with this news, we have a report that defense acquisition chief Carter has ordered a high level investigation of the state of the F135 engine, particularly with regard to cost and schedule, as there are reports that it’s about 30% over budget.

It’s kind of ironic than that the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee eliminated funding for the alternate F136 engine a few days ago, though chairman Inouye strongly implied that it would find its way to funding in conference committee.

I think that the primary motivator for killing the F136 engine is because they want to save money now, even if it costs more later, but the cost and technical issues with the F135 would seem to make this less likely.

Neat Tech: Nutating Engine

4 Comments

Nutation is what a coin does toward the end of its motion when you spin it, when it wobbles around the edge, and rotates at the same time.

The Nutating engine is similar to a Wankel rotary, only instead of having a triangular rotor that orbits and spins around the crankshaft, it has a disk that wobbles as it rotates (bottom pic for animation).

The military is funding the development of an aluminum prototype, which promises to double (or more)the power to weight ratio for small engines, where turbines lose much of their advantage.

Right now, they are looking at a power to weight ratio of 1.6:1 or so, which is a pretty remarkable number.

A NASA study (PDF) is also available.

On the F135/F136 Debate

No Comments

Well, we have Pratt & Whitney talking to the press about how very serious they are about containing costs, even though the latest estimate shows that its price will increase to $8.3M an engine, up from $6.7 million in the most recent DoD estimate. (H/T ELP Defens(c)e Blog)

People who cover defense for a living are noting that also there is no real indicator of a cost savings by killing the F-136, it just saves a few pennies now at the expense of a few dollars later.

In any case, the DoD is in full “cover your ass” mode with Secdef Gates telling Program Executive Officer, General David Heinz, to sit down and shut up, because he is being too forthcoming about potential benefits.

We also have dueling consultants on Aviation Week’s Ares weblog, with retired general Michael Hough (GE-Rolls Royce), dsaying that there was never a competition between the engines, and retired general Mike Loh (P&W) claiming that the bidders in the program competed the engines and selected the F136.

As it turns out, General Loh is lying. The bidders for the JSF, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and McDonnell-Douglas, never competed the engines, they simply selected an engine for the prototypes, and since the F119, the basis of the F135 engine was already in production, they deemed it more mature for the prototype effort. (see also
here)

It should be noted that the competition is already saving money for the government, as P&W is now offering a fixed price for the first 100 of their engines, in response to the GE-Rolls Royce fixed price offer.

BTW, as to the idea that P&W has their sh%$ together in regard to cost and performance? Maybe not, because the government is sending a team of fixers to evaluate the progam, a good indication of cost and schedule problems.

Vasimr Proceeds to Higher Power Tests

No Comments

30 kw first stage test


VX -200 Prior to entering Test Chamber


In vacuum chamber

The Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (Vasimr) is slated to enter higher power testing. (paid subscription required)

The first stage, a 30kw system, has been successfully tested, and they are now working on a 2nd stage, which will boost the power of the unit to around 200 kw.

The performance benefits, the ISP (basically fuel economy) is more than 10 times that of chemical rockets, would be very significant if this can be made to work.

For example, it could take the time for a transit to Mars from 180-200 days to about 40 days.

Prior posts here.

In an Outbreak of Sanity, India Seeks to Buy, Rather Than Develop Tejas 2 Engine

No Comments

The Indian AF recently rejected proposals for foreign aid to develop the indiginous Kaveri engine from the Gas Turbine Research Establishment, and now the India’s Aeronautical Development Agency has requested proposals for complete engines from both Eurojet (EJ200) and GE (F-414) for an off the shelf proposal.

All in all, this a good move, though I am kind of surprised that the IADA is nto also looking at the Klimov RD-33, later versuions of which are in the 20,000 lb thrust range, and is already in service.

The JSF Engine War

No Comments

Desert Storm air commander, retired General Chuck Horner, makes some very good points as to why we should continue to fund the F136 alternate engine, though the obvious caveat is that he is consulting with GE, who is a part of the F136 team.

Basically, he recites a litany of problems, both from when he was commanding squadrons, and issues with the Saudi Air Force, where the Pratt & Whitney was unresponsive to customer concerns, and their F100 engine was unreliable and over priced, and whenever the competing GE F110 came up, the problems got fixed.

I recall reading about problems with the engine, and how it led to the USAF to fund development of the F110, then called the F101-DFE (Derivative Fighter Engine).

There were problems with reliability, price, and support that were fixed very quickly once there was a competitor on the horizon.

It appears to me that the F135 engine for the JSF is headed down the same path, we have P&W going though a number of cost cutting initiatives, promising that the engine will fall in price, while the manufacturer is saying that the cost savings as production ramps up may not meet expectations.

Much of the fair back from the Pentagon is, I think directed about getting copies of the F-35 JSF made now, and to hell with future operating costs.

The budget item for continuing development this year is small, about ½ billion, or less than the cost of 3 full aircraft, and promises real savings, and performance improvements, in the future.

BTW, as to nonsensical arguments against the F136 engine, we have CNO Gary Roughead saying that having two engines would be too much of a burden on a carrier, despite the fact that just for the fighters, there were 4 separate engines in the 1990s on carriers, the F404 for the F/A-18 C/D, the F414 for the F/A-18 E/F, the TF30 for the F-14 A, and the F110 for the F-14 D.

Additionally, the S-3 was still being deployed with the TF34 engine.

By the time that the F-35 enters naval service, there would be two types of fighters on deck, and either 2 or 3 engines, which would be a lower logistical load.