Search results for query: afterburning J52

...a swap 25 years ago seemingly without too much problem. So F404 and J52 must be of comparable sites. There are discussion about "afterburning J52s" on this forum. In fact the Viggen RM-8 engine was a scaled up - civilian - afterburning J52 ...

My suggestion: if you need a J52 with afterburner, ask the Swedes for the Viggen engine. Through the civilian JT8D, it was exactly that: an improved, afterburning J52. Hmmm, a Skyhawk - Tiger - Viggen trio with the same basic engine, now that would be something to behold.

Note that Singapore's A-4s were all A-4B & A-4C models... they had the J65*, not the J52 (A-4Es and later only). J65-W-20 (A-4Cs, retrofitted to A-4Bs to replace 7,700 lb.s.t. -16s): thrust 8,400 lb.s.t.; weight 2,795 lb; length 130"; diameter 37.7"; SFC .90; airflow 120 lb/sec J52-P-408 (in...

I think we discussed the possibility of a J52 F-5 elsewhere, but seems to me it would be a pretty interesting option. Dry thrust varied from 8,500 lbf in J52-P-6 to 11,200 lbf ( and 12,000 for J52-P-409). So the single J52 was more/comparable thrust with a pair of J85 running on afterburner...

I think an afterburning J52 turbojet rather than J-79; J-79 is too big.

J52 was scaled down from J57. It could have had a scaled down version of the J57 afterburner.

...- J52-408 had 11,200 lb.s.t.. J79 proposed (and tested) for the F-16/79 (-119) had 12,050 lb.s.t. dry - J52-409 proposed (and tested) for A-6G and reworked EA-6Bs had 12,000 lb.s.t.. The ONLY reason J79 had more thrust was its afterburner. That's why the answer to "AFTERBURNING J52 is "use...

Did F-20 have notably more drag than F-5? Because in practical terms that's what a J52 F-5 is. An F-20 without the afterburner.

I didn't suggested that: rather, to get a J52 afterburner "for free" from the Swedes and, voilà, a competitor to the J79.

Okkaaaaay so I was looking at Aerion atempts at finding an engine for their SSBJ. It happens that they tried a smart trick related to the JT8D. Which was a civilian J52. And then Wikipedia mentionned it was used as basis for the Viggen engine. So that made it supersonic. Hence the core was both...

That would be nice but as usual I am thinking no AB on this to keep her speed in the Mach 1.1-1.2 range because of that US policy on restricting super fast jets in parts of the world. But given the Mirage is available I am reasonably sure that it will get the sale because of that policy.

An afterburning J52 would be J57 I think, but F-5 probably doesn't need an afterburner at the end of the day as Hound Dog was supersonic. It might want one to fight MiG-21 but that's why F-20 was made in the first place I guess.

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...

...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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...