F110-EPE proposals

F-2

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
22 May 2020
Messages
694
Reaction score
1,211
I was wondering if anyone had some knowledge of two enhanced F110 engines

Even though the F110 is one of the highest thrust fighter engines in operation, GE has developed plans for further performance increases, should our customers need them. We have defined three growth steps that could increase F110 thrust to more than 40,000 pounds (178 kilo- Newtons ). The first step would deliver a 15 to 20 percent thrust increase to about 33,000 to 35,000 pounds (156 kilo- Newtons ). Engine ratings will depend on customer requirements. As an alternative, this step could provide a 40 percent increase in engine parts life at current thrust levels. Development work is already underway, and the engine will be qualified in 1998. Hardware modifications would include the high efficiency three stage integrally bladed disk - or blisk - fan adapted from the F118 engine on the B-2 bomber. We would also apply an advanced augmentor design using air-cooled radial flameholder and spraybar assemblies adopted from the YF120 and F414 engines. This low cost derivative design will greatly extend flameholder life. Survivability features could be incorporated to reduce engine thermal and radar signatures.



Our second growth step would build on Step One to deliver performance in the 36 to 37 thousand pound thrust range (about 160 kilo- Newtons ). To accomplish this, we would employ the latest CFM56 high-efficiency core. Dual use of this advanced engine core will lead to lower development costs and improved reliability for both engine programs. We would also introduce a long-life combustor with a laser-drilled multi-hole cooling pattern ; an air-cooled low pressure turbine, and a dual channel FADEC. While increasing performance and reliability, we also expect to cut engine acquisition cost compared with today’s F110 engine. This will be done by using Quality Function Deployment and Design to Cost methods to select those technologies that satisfy critical customer requirements at the lowest life cycle cost. In the third growth step, we could provide 40 thousand pounds of thrust by simply scaling up the blisk fan. However, the increased fan diameter and higher airflow would demand a larger inlet and structural modifications to existing F110 applications. Variable cycle engine technology, as first employed on our YF120 for the Advanced Tactical Fighter program, may also be used on the F110. A variable cycle engine can provide thrust tailoring throughout the flight envelope and delivers greater flexibility than a fixed cycle turbofan of the same size.


Now the first engine is the F110-GE-132, the second seems to be the maximum thrust growth option of that engine often site as 36500, basically a F110-ge-132 with a CFM56-7 core. But the last one is interesting, a 40000lbf F110 with variable cycle capabilities. Does anyone know anything about this engine? I’m curious how much bigger the fans would have to have been and how much airflow it would have needed.

It seems both of these where JSF engine candidates.
 
 

GE DEVELOPS F110, F414 ROADMAP​

STANLEY W. KANDEBOJULY 171995
GE DEVELOPS F110, F414 ROADMAP
PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY
STANLEY W. KANDEBO
PARIS
General Electric plans to test an improved performance fan that could boost the durability of the F110-100 engine by as much as 30%.
The new, three-stage, integrally bladed disk (blisk) fan is based on the improvedefficiency, wide-chord-fan technology developed for the Fl18—the engine that powers the B-2 bomber.
The fan will be mounted on an Fl 101 29 improved performance engine for the test this September at GE's Evendale, Ohio, facility. If successful, the fan could be retrofitted into existing Fl 10-1 29s beginning as early as 1998. The FI 10s would receive the new fans as their current components near the end of their cyclic lives, Robert Griswold, FI 10 project manager, said.
General Electric and the U.S. Air Force hope to retrofit FI 10-129 powerplants with blisk fans to extend the engine's life and increase its resistance to foreign object damage. GE estimates that the Fl 1 8-derived fan could boost the life of the F1 1 0's core to 6,000 total accumulated cycles, an increase of 1,500 cycles from the current 4,500-cycle limit. If applied toward thrust, the increased-efficiency fan could boost engine power by about 15% compared with the Fl 10-1 29.
The company also is investigating a new radial augmenter for the Fl 1 0 and could begin developing the component before year-end. It would be based on technology developed for the YF1 20 engine that has already been incorporated into the F414, which will power the F/A-l 8E/F.
Radial augmentors use cooling air to reduce fuel spraybar temperatures and increase component life. The cooled spraybars also reduce coking, which improves component performance, Griswold said.
Taken together, the upgraded fan and the increased-durability augmenter constitute the first step of a three-step growth path. This plan details how the company's existing engines could be modified to satisfy current and evolving military propulsion requirements. Each of the improvements is directed at lowering maintenance or acquisition costs, improving specific fuel consumption or increasing thrust.
The improved FI 10 engine is being targeted at existing aircraft such as the F-15 and F-16. In addition to satisfying retrofit markets, GE believes new sales of these aircraft could develop if the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program is delayed.
The second Fl 1 0 growth step builds on the first set of improvements. It swaps the existing Fl 1 0 core for one based on the CFM56-7 powerplant. Even though the existing FI 10 and CFM56-7 core engines have nearly the same airflow capacities, the newer CFM56-7 core is more efficient and therefore better poised for growth, Griswold said. Specifically, the CFM56-7 core would allow the company to moderately boost engine thrust without cooling the first stage of the lowpressure turbine.
Also being considered for inclusion in the second growth step is a new engine control system, which would be based on
technology defined for the YF1 20 and incorporated into the GE F414. According to Griswold, the F414's controller is the next step in technology. "It is a 'smarter' controller and has more diagnostic capability to reduce maintenance costs."
THE NEW CONTROLLER and increased-efficiency core together could boost FI 10 thrust as much as 20-25% beyond that of the current FI 10-129, allowing the powerplant to generate as much as 36,000 lb. of thrust. Even more thrust could be generated if the FI 10 incorporated some variable engine features, he said.
The company's third projected growth step would allow the FI 10 to produce nearly 40,000 lb. of thrust by adding an
increased airflow blisk fan. The diameter of this higher airflow fan would be larger than that of the current Fl 10-1 29, departing from the strategy of the first two
growth steps. Adding the larger diameter fan would change the installation diameter of the upgraded Fl 1 0 and require aircraft fitted with the new engine to have a higher flow inlet. The need for a bigger inlet would severely limit or exclude use of the upgraded engine in existing airframes. Consequently, the real market for the powerplant would be a conventional version of JAST, Griswold said.
In addition to defining a roadmap for its FI 10 engine, GE has tentative plans for increasing the thrust of its F414 powerplant. The first step would be to raise engine thrust by about 1 0% around 2005.
This would be accomplished by increasing engine temperatures and adding higher temperature turbine alloys to maintain component life, Dennis Williams, vice president and general manager of GE Aircraft Military Engines, said.
THE COMPANY ALSO WOULD add an allblisk compressor. Integrally bladed disks are currently used in the first three stages of the F414's seven-stage compressor.
The second of the F414's projected growth steps would provide about 15% more thrust than today's F41 4. GE engineers would accomplish this by combining the improved core developed under the first growth step with a larger fan and a new low-pressure turbine. Despite the thrust increase, the engine would continue to fit into the F/A-l 8 E/F's installation envelope.
The final step would target an engine in the 29,000-lb.-thrust class. To generate this thrust level, the engine would maintain the core and fan developed under the earlier growth steps and add a new two-stage low-pressure turbine. Afterburner and nozzle modifications also would be necessary.
Markets for this engine could be a new aircraft or a significantly modified version of the F/A-l 8E/F that featured a new inlet, Williams said.
AWST
 
The F-14 is likely the only aircraft with inlets that could handle the airflow requirements of a 36-40k F110. The F-15 and F-16 would need major, drag inducing intake mods. Remember, the F-14 inlets were optimized for 28-30K lb thrust engines from day 1. The F-15/16 inlets were optimized for 23-25k.
 
The F-14 is likely the only aircraft with inlets that could handle the airflow requirements of a 36-40k F110. The F-15 and F-16 would need major, drag inducing intake mods. Remember, the F-14 inlets were optimized for 28-30K lb thrust engines from day 1. The F-15/16 inlets were optimized for 23-25k.
The 40k F110 seems to have been a low cost JSF proposal, the 36k engine seems to have the same requirements as the F110-ge-132.
 
The F-14 is likely the only aircraft with inlets that could handle the airflow requirements of a 36-40k F110. The F-15 and F-16 would need major, drag inducing intake mods. Remember, the F-14 inlets were optimized for 28-30K lb thrust engines from day 1. The F-15/16 inlets were optimized for 23-25k.
As if the F-14D wasn't fast enough with ~32k F110s... Imagine 40k!
 
My goodness! You'd have even less range than a Baby Hornet and its' KA-6D escort! Just think how fast you could get to Bingo.
 
Offsetting penalties; no loss of down. ('sides, you said F-14D up there ;)).
 
As if the F-14D wasn't fast enough with ~32k F110s... Imagine 40k!

Did the F-14 ever have the 32k variants of the engine? I thought they had the baseline versions. For that matter, did any plane other than the Emirati f-16s get that version of the engine?
 
Did the F-14 ever have the 32k variants of the engine? I thought they had the baseline versions. For that matter, did any plane other than the Emirati f-16s get that version of the engine?
The -129s? I'd have to look it up.

But as it sat, the F-14D could supercruise with the engines it had whether 29k or 32k. Going up to 40k would have had them supercruising about .3 Mach faster and a top speed about that much higher up as well.
 
The -129s? I'd have to look it up.

But as it sat, the F-14D could supercruise with the engines it had whether 29k or 32k. Going up to 40k would have had them supercruising about .3 Mach faster and a top speed about that much higher up as well.
The f-14D could supercrusise? Presumably without anything on the hard points.
 
Grumman claimed that the Super Tomcat 21, which would have reshaped wing gloves and the F110-GE-429 (naval variant of the -129 IPE), would be able to supercruise at Mach 1.3 or so. While there are higher thrust variants of the F110 planned, these reflect static thrust figures that may not automatically translate into higher supercruise. That requires the engine to have some distinctive attributes to generate high specific thrust and do so while the fan and compressor can withstand high temperatures due to inlet heating from supersonic compression.
 
Grumman claimed that the Super Tomcat 21, which would have reshaped wing gloves and the F110-GE-429 (naval variant of the -129 IPE), would be able to supercruise at Mach 1.3 or so. While there are higher thrust variants of the F110 planned, these reflect static thrust figures that may not automatically translate into higher supercruise. That requires the engine to have some distinctive attributes to generate high specific thrust and do so while the fan and compressor can withstand high temperatures due to inlet heating from supersonic compression.
No, this was specifically the -D, not the ST21. Something like Mach 1.2?
 
The F-14B/D with the F110-400 isn't capable of supercruise, and perhaps capable of just under Mach 1.1 without afterburners, similar to the F-15 and F-16. The propulsion system simply isn't designed for it.
Still supersonic without afterburner, just not doing Mach 1.6 or whatever the USAF magic number is.
 
The F-14, F-15, and F-16 may have been able to reach between Mach 1 and 1.1 without afterburners, but this doesn't represent tactically useful supersonic performance, since fuel burn is much greater for not much increase in speed, whereas the F-22 is capable of Mach 1.6+ supercruise while still having a useful combat radius.
 
The F-14, F-15, and F-16 may have been able to reach between Mach 1 and 1.1 without afterburners, but this doesn't represent tactically useful supersonic performance, since fuel burn is much greater for not much increase in speed, whereas the F-22 is capable of Mach 1.6+ supercruise while still having a useful combat radius.
So do you think the Super Tomcat 21 could supercruise at Mach 1.6 with the 40k engines?
 
So do you think the Super Tomcat 21 could supercruise at Mach 1.6 with the 40k engines?
If it's an F110 variant, I would say it's unlikely. It comes down to the thermodynamic cycle, bypass ratio, and other design aspects of the engine, which is not something you can just determine with thrust figures alone. A 40,000-lbf thrust engine that has a high bypass ratio and generates most of its thrust augmented would not be optimal for supercruise. What you want is high specific thrust, which requires high exhaust velocity and high nozzle pressure ratio. Also important is the structural ability for the engine to maintain its rotor RPM for the fan and compressor at supersonic speeds due to inlet heating from supersonic compression. Most military turbofans including the F110 aren't designed for this and may hit temperature limits that forces them to back off on the RPM.

Now, if the Tomcat can equipped with the F119 like the ASF-14 proposal, perhaps it can hit those supercruise speeds, although given that the F119 is quite a massive engine with a large diameter and a long nozzle, it may not be able to fit into the engine bays or have other interfacing issues.

@F119Doctor can explain in more detail, but this is the gist of why simply simply pointing to a static thrust value doesn't guarantee supercruise.
 
If it's an F110 variant, I would say it's unlikely. It comes down to the thermodynamic cycle, bypass ratio, and other design aspects of the engine, which is not something you can just determine with thrust figures alone. A 40,000-lbf thrust engine that has a high bypass ratio and generates most of its thrust augmented would not be optimal for supercruise. What you want is high specific thrust, which requires high exhaust velocity and high nozzle pressure ratio. Also important is the structural ability for the engine to maintain its rotor RPM for the fan and compressor at supersonic speeds due to inlet heating from supersonic compression. Most military turbofans including the F110 aren't designed for this and may hit temperature limits that forces them to back off on the RPM.

Now, if the Tomcat can equipped with the F119 like the ASF-14 proposal, perhaps it can hit those supercruise speeds, although given that the F119 is quite a massive engine with a large diameter and a long nozzle, it may not be able to fit into the engine bays or have other interfacing issues.
The F119 is a 48" diameter, just like the F100/F110.
 
Can the f-22 still supercruise with anything on its wings? I thought it could only supercruise at all because all its ammo is internal, wich makes this whole conversation rather pointless .
 
Can the f-22 still supercruise with anything on its wings? I thought it could only supercruise at all because all its ammo is internal, wich makes this whole conversation rather pointless .
I mean, if the F-14 with the 40k engines could supercruise with 4x Sparrows/AMRAAMs or with only 4x Phoenix in the tunnel, it might be comparable.

But I haven't heard about the conditions where the F14 w/F110 could break mach without burners.
 
The F119 is a 48" diameter, just like the F100/F110.

And remember F-14 inlets and engine bays were designed for the larger diameter F-401.

The F119 is a considerably larger engine than the F100 and F110 with a notably larger inlet and overall diameter. I’m not sure whether or not it exceeds the TF30 or F401 in terms of diameter, but you would also have challenges in terms of the interfacing with the duct and mounting points. For instance, the F119 has quite a large ring for controlling the variable vanes. I recall reading somewhere that even Grumman felt that the ASF-14 with the F119 wouldn’t be worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have military thrust and full AB thrust vs altitude graphs for the F401 engine? I have a friend who's been searching for them for around a month.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom