Search results for query: afterburning J52

I concur with Overscan's assessment of the P&W designation system. Just to give an example: The proposed 15,000lb st non-afterburning F100 turbofan was designated PW1115. Similarly, the PW1120 was a 20,000lb st afterburning turbojet. It follows that the PW1212 was a 12,000lb st variant of...

It's a little more complicated than that. For one, the civil engine, the JT8D, was a significant modification of the J52 in its own right, only slightly larger than the J52 but over 1000 lbs heavier, and a bypass jet, to boot. And then the RM8 was practically an entire redesign - the engine had...

...1980s) So, anyone seen info on the PW1216? The Airforceworld article says: I believe it is saying it consists of a PW1212 (non-afterburning J52 variant) with the afterburner from the WP-7BM / WP-13. The J-52 wasn't used with an afterburner in US service, to the best of my knowledge...

There was no afterburning version of the J52... ever... unless you include the Viggen's RM8 - which is an afterburning version of the JT8D - which was a turbofan using a J52 core. I must update my above post - I forgot the J71 in the Demon had an afterburner... so I have to change my J57...

Also, the RM8 is gigantic for a fighter engine. The J52 is 2300-lb engine, and while adding an afterburner will make it heavier I seriously doubt it'll come out anywhere near the 5200-lb RM8.

The F404 was a lot less maintenance-needy than the J52 (something like 2-3 times the running hours between planned maintenance procedures and at least twice the "mean time between failures"), had far fewer parts (making for shorter work-times for identical procedures & repairs), and had a much...

Yup, that completely blew my mind recently. The J52 went through the Viggen via a civilian variant from an airliner. Of course they had to create an afterburner for it, as neither a Scooter nor an airliner had it in the first place.

I have known of this modification for some time, but have never been able to find out if it retained supersonic performance. Interesting if it did because that would technically mean it could supercruise. I wonder how many of the very slippery late 50s fighter designs with anaemic afterburning...

Atar 8K50 was a non afterburning 9K50. The former for the S.E the latter for the F1. Check my thread to see what a mixed F1 / S.E might have been. Of course the J52 of Skyhawk fame had better potential including with an afterburner. Guess what ? the S.E nearly got a Skyhawk engine in '73. The...

There are sooooooo many fun little combos just waiting to happen. As was pointed out to me.. the J-52 is a derivative of the J-57 so you could use a scaled down version of the AB from it if you are wanting. I think the max width on the J-65 in the Tiger was at the AB which was 41 inches...

An afterburning variant of the Pratt & Whitney J52 turbojet is the PW1216 which was proposed as one of several powerplant options for the cancelled US-Pakistan Grumman Project Sabre II.

The J52 was first flown (in its short-life cruise missile engine form) in 1957 - the same year the A-6 was submitted to the USN for its TS149 type specification. The manned-aircraft-rated YJ52-6 ( developmental version, not production) was fitted in the first A-6 (YA2F-1), and flown on April 14...

The Avon RA.24R's AB weighed 650lbs (3028lb dry weight engine only, 3,679lb with reheat), with a ~5,000lb thrust boost from 11,250lb to 16,100lb. No converging-diverging nozzle, but according to Rolls Royce that didn't provide any benefit at speeds under Mach 1.3.

Thing is you DON'T need a afterburner for a J52 F-5. It's dry thrust depending on model goes from equal to the max thrust installed in the Canadian F-5As (8,500 to 8,600) to 20% more than F-5E (12,000 to 10,000). You just made F-5... supercruising.

...flight. https://aviationsmilitaires.net/v3/kb/aircraft/show/6992/dassault-super-mystere-b4 I would say that even with a non-afterburning J52 the Saa'r (that was the israeli name of the J52 SMB-2) could go supersonic in a steep dive. In horizontal flight however it would probably remain...

Unconnected but I always wondered how exactly AFVG was supposed to work as a fighter with such anemic engines.

Considering that an afterburning J52 was one of the engines considered for one of the FC-1s predecessor designs, I don't think it too outlandish, esp. since there was an afterburning version of its turbofan cousin. For a MiG-21 'clone', a J79 makes a lot of sense since it's much the same type...

I found these information about the non-afterburning derivatives of the General Electric F404 turbofans in Turbofan and Turbojet Engines: Database Handbook (2007) by Élodie Roux: SOURCE: Roux, Élodie. (2007). Turbofan and Turbojet Engines: Database Handbook (pp. 181, 183). Blagnac, France...

My favorite engine option for the F11F Tiger is the afterburning J52. Yes it did exist! It would have done wonders to the F11F's combat radius, climb rate and top speed. I'll paste below a few things I wrote in a different forum from my research on this topic. Now applying the same 56%...

I remember something like that convo in regards a low end version of the super tiger for non nato nations and a single engine F-5 yeah it would have been a totally sweet little package given that the J-85 on AB was a thirsty little hippo EDIT: Another fun one, though utterly irresponsible and...