Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Redesign the Defiant and Cali?; homegrown Pinto, Hummingbird, etc
Topic Started: Feb 22 2006, 09:01 PM (4,508 Views)
pj_aranda
Member
[ *  *  * ]
yeah ang galing ng mga imaginations ng taong nag design ng mga eroplanong yan. sana kahit drawing man lng may mag post ng philippine LCA at MCA
you will never make me sing "internationale"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jammerjamesky
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Here are some sample engines that might possibly fit in to the Cali

J85 Model

Posted Image
Flight Trainer
GE's J85 engine plays a vital role in training new military jet pilots

Engine Overview
The J85 augmented turbojet is a powerplant for high performance trainers and tactical aircraft. With more than 75 million flight hours experience on military and commercial models, the J85 offers the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any production engine in its class in the free world.

J85 engines first entered service in 1960. More than 6,000 engines flying in a number of applications remain in active service in 35 countries. Current plans for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) call for J85-powered aircraft to be in service through 2040.

Found on these aircraft:
T-38
F-5E/F Tiger II
Introduction: 1960

Thrust Range: 2,850 - 5,000 lbs


J79 Model

Posted Image
Phantom Engine Two J79 engines power the F-4 Phantom fighter aircraft, one of the most versatile aircraft ever produced.

Engine Overview
Until the creation of the Mach 2 J79, most engines had been designed essentially independently of the aircraft they eventually powered. The J79 was the first GE engine designed with the sophistication provided by already developed and demonstrated components and advanced instrumentation techniques for projecting test performance.

The J79's first flight took place in Schenectady, New York in 1955. The J79 was placed in a bomb bay of a J47-powered B-45 Tornado. The engine was tested by lowering it from the bomb bay into the air stream. The four J47s were shut down and the J79 powered the B-45.

The J79 was first flown aboard the XF4D and later set a world altitude record at 91,249 feet and a speed record of more than 1,400 miles per hour in a F-104 Starfighter.

The J79 was later selected to power the F-4 Phantom. At the time of its introduction, the J79 was the most advanced turbojet ever designed. To date, more than 2,500 engines are still in service and are projected to continue through 2020.

Found on these aircraft:
B-58
F-4
F-104
Kfir
A3J Vigilante (RA-5)
F-16/79
Introduction: 1954

Thrust Range: 17,820 - 18,730 lbs.

F404 Engine Family

Posted Image
Proven Performance
The F404 engine proves its performance every day as it continues to power front line fighters for armed forces around the world.

Engine Overview
The performance and reliability of F404 engines have set the standard for modern fighter engines. The engine family powers multiple aircraft performing a broad spectrum of missions from low-level attack to high-altitude interceptors.

The combat-proven F404 has accumulated millions of engine flight hours serving the U.S. Navy, Marines and Air Force, as well as the military forces of Australia, Canada, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, South Africa and India.

In the early 1980s, Northrop installed the F404 in its F-5G single-engine fighter later designated the F-20.

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force flew a non-augmented version of the F404 in Lockheed's F-117A Stealth fighter.

In the late 1980s, GE delivered the first production F404 engine for McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornets ahead of schedule. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps had chosen the engine in the mid-1970s to power their basic fleet fighter and attack aircraft.

In addition, Sweden selected the RM12, an upgraded F404 in partnership with Volvo, to power its new, all-purpose fighter, the JAS 39 Gripen.

Found on these aircraft:
T-50
F/A-18
F-117A
JAS 39
A-4S Super Skyhawk
India LCA
X-31 EFM
Introduction: 1980

Thrust Range: 10,500 - 18,100 lbs

F110 Family Engine

Posted Image
Dependable Power
Building on its success in commercial aviation, the durable CFM56 engine is used to power a variety of U.S. and foreign aircraft. The F108 is a military version of the popular CFM56-2 commercial engine and the new CFM56-7 also serves in a variety of missions around the world.

Engine Overview
Utilizing the same core design as the F101, the F110 engine was created by adding different fan and afterburner packages to tailor engine performance to the desired aircraft application.

The F110 engine has been the engine of choice for the F-16 since there was an engine choice for that aircraft. Conceived as an alternative to the Pratt & Whitney F100, the F110 is designed to provide significantly higher performance, greatly improved reliability, and sharply reduced operation and support costs.

Fully 86% of the USAF F-16C/Ds and 75% of all front line, combat coded F-16s are powered by the GE F110.

The Air Force of the Republic of South Korea selected the F110 engine to power its new twin-engine F-15K fighter aircraft. This decision creates yet another new application for the popular F110 engine. The F110 engines will be assembled through a licensing agreement with Samsung Techwin Co., LTD. GE will assemble the initial production engines, with final engine assembly of engine kits transitioning to Samsung early in the program.

Growth versions of the F110 have been conceptualized up to thrust ratings of 36,000 pounds. The latest F110, the F110-GE-132 continues to be delivered to Lockheed Martin and flight testing on the F-16E/F aircraft is underway.

Found on these aircraft:
F-14
F-15
F-16
Introduction: 1979

Thrust Range: 27,000 - 32,000 lbs


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jammerjamesky
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
PW Jet Engines

F100 Family

The Power Plant of Choice.

Powering all of the world's current F-15 figher aircraft and the F-16 fighter aircraft in 21 countries, Pratt & Whitney's family of F100 engines is the mainstay of air forces worldwide. With more than 6,900 engines produced and over 16 million flight hours, the F100 is the safest and most reliable fighter engine in the world.

Continuing the rich history of F100 safety and reliability, the F100-PW-229 is the most mature Increased Performance Engine (IPE) available and is the engine of choice for air forces worldwide. It is the only IPE engine operationally matured in both the F-15E and F-16 Block 52 aircraft. Using technology developed from the F119 and F135 engine programs for the F/A-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the current production PW-229 incorporates modern turbine materials, cooling management techniques, compressor aerodynamics and electronic controls.

In addition to offering the most technologically advanced IPE available, Pratt & Whitney offers a comprehensive range of maintenance management programs and engine overhaul services to meet all customer requirements. These programs provide customers with low-cost maintenance solutions and superb operational readiness.

When you want the safest, most mature and most cost-effective propulsion system for your fighter aircraft, one company and one engine stand out - Pratt & Whitney's dependable F100 family of engines.

Engine Characteristics

Thrust: 23,770 - 29,160 lb
Weight: 3,740 lb
Length: 191 in
Inlet Diameter: 34.8 in
Maximum Diameter: 46.5 in
Bypass Ratio: 0.36
Overall Pressure Ratio: 32

Airplanes Powered
F-15
F-16

Rolls-Royce Engine
Jet Engine ID: 143
Country: UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:Viper 632
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating :wet) 17.66 kN (3,970 lb)
Weight:dry) 376.5 kg (830 lb)
Airflow :6.5 kg (58.4 lb)/s
Arrangement:8A
BPR:0
Diameter:740 mm (29.1 in)
Length:,806 mm (71.1 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:142
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:iper 535
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating:wet) 14.94 kN (3,360 lb)
Weight :(dry 358 kg (790 lb)
Airflow:3.9 kg (52.7 lb)/s
Arrangement:8A
BPR:0
Diameter:740 mm (29.1 in)
Length:,806 mm (71.1 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID 141
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:Trent 976
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating :wet) 338 kN (76,000 lb)
Weight :dry) 5,806 kg (12,800 lb)
Airflow:1,179 kg (2,600 lb)/s
Arrangement:1F, 8A, 6A
BPR:8
Diameter:2,794 mm (110.0 in)
Length:4,369 mm (172.0 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:140
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:Trent 895
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating:(wet) 425 kN (95,500 lb)
Weight:(dry) 5,981 kg (13,186 lb)
Airflow:1,217 kg (2,684 lb)/s
Arrangement:1F, 8A, 6A
BPR:5.79
Diameter:2,794 mm (110.0 in)
Length:4,369 mm (172 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:139
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:Trent 892
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating:(wet) 411 kN (91,300 lb)
Weight:(dry) 5,957 kg (13,133 lb)
Airflow:1,200 kg (2,645 lb)/s
Arrangement:1F, 8A, 6A
BPR:5.7
Diameter:2,794 mm (110.0 in)
Length:4,369 mm (172.0 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:138
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:Trent 772
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating:(wet) 320 kN (71,100 lb)
Weight:(dry)4,785 kg (10,550 lb)
Airflow:897 kg (1,978 lb)/s
Arrangement:1F, 8A, 6A
BPR:4.9
Diameter:2,474 mm (97.4 in)
Length:3,912 mm (154.0 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:131
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:RB211-524G/H
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating:(wet) 273 kN (60,600 lb)
Weight:(dry) 4,387 kg (9,671 lb)
Airflow:728 kg (1,604 lb)/s
Arrangement:1F, 7A, 6A
BPR:4.3
Diameter:2,192 mm (86.3 in)
Length:3,175 mm (125.0 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine:ID 137
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:Trent 600
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating:(wet) 306 kN (68,000 lb)
Weight:(dry) 4,719 kg (10,400 lb)
Airflow:922 kg (2,032 lb)/s
Arrangement:1F, 8A, 6A
BPR:8
Diameter:2,474 mm (97.4 in)
Length:3,912 mm (154.0 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:136
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:Trent 556
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating:(wet) 252 kN (56,000 lb)
Weight:(dry) 4,719 kg (10,400 lb)
Airflow:858 kg (1,892 lb)/s
Arrangement:1F, 8A, 6A
BPR:8.5
Diameter:2,474 mm (97.4 in)
Length:3,912 mm (154.0 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:135
Country:UK
Manufacturer;Rolls-Royce
Engine model:Tay 651
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating;(wet) 68.5 kN (15,400 lb)
Weight:(dry) 1,533 kg (3,380 lb)
Airflow:193 kg (425.5 lb)/s
Arrangement:1F+3A, 12A
BPR:3.1
Diameter:1,138 mm (44.8 in)
Length:2,405 mm (94.7 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:134
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:Tay 611, 620
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating:(wet) 61.6 kN (13,850 lb)
Weight:(dry) 1,422 kg (3,135 lb)
Airflow:176 kg (388 lb)/s
Arrangement:1F+3A, 12A
BPR:3.18
Diameter:1,118 mm (44.0 in)
Length:2,405 mm (94.7 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:133
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:Spey 807
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating:(wet) 49.1 kN (11,030 lb)
Weight:(dry) 1,096 kg (2,417 lb)
Airflow:91.6 kg (202 lb)/s
Arrangement:5A, 12A
BPR:0.96
Diameter:825 mm (32.5 in)
Length:2,456 mm (96.7 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:132
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:Spey 512
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating:(wet) 55.8 kN (12,550 lb)
Weight:(dry) 1,168 kg (2,574 lb)
Airflow:94.3 kg (208 lb)/s
Arrangement:5A,12 A
BPR:0.71
Diameter:942 mm (37.1 in)
Length:2,911 mm (114.6 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:126
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:535C
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating:(wet) 166.4 kN (37,400 lb)
Weight:(dry) 3,309 kg (7,294 lb)
Airflow:518 kg (1,142 lb)/s
Arrangement:1F, 6A, 6A
BPR:4.4
Diameter:1,877 mm (73.9 in)
Length:3,010 mm (118.5 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:144
Country:UK
Manufacturer:Rolls-Royce
Engine model:Viper 680
Take-off rating:(dry)
Take-off rating:(wet) 19.39 kN (4,360 lb)
Weight:(dry) 379 kg (836 lb)
Airflow:27.2 kg (60.0 lb)/s
Arrangement:8A
BPR:0
Diameter:740 mm (29.1 in)
Length:1,806 mm (71.1 in)
Classification:Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID:127
Country UK
Manufacturer Rolls-Royce
Engine model 535E4B
Take-off rating (dry)
Take-off rating (wet) <191.7 kN (43,100 lb)
Weight (dry) 3,261 kg (7,189 lb)
Airflow 522 kg (1,150 lb)/s
Arrangement 1F, 6A, 6A
BPR 4.3
Diameter 1,892 mm (74.5 in)
Length 2,995 mm (117.9 in)
Classification Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID 130
Country UK
Manufacturer Rolls-Royce
Engine model RB211-524B
Take-off rating (dry)
Take-off rating (wet) 222 kN (50,000 lb)
Weight (dry) 4,452 kg (9,814 lb)
Airflow 671 kg (1,480 lb)/s
Arrangement 1F, 7A, 6A
BPR 4.4
Diameter 2,180 mm (85.8 in)
Length 3,106 mm (122.3 in)
Classification Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID 129
Country UK
Manufacturer Rolls-Royce
Engine model RB211-22B
Take-off rating (dry)
Take-off rating (wet) 186.8 kN (42,000 lb)
Weight (dry) 4,171 kg (9,195 lb)
Airflow 626 kg (1,380 lb)/s
Arrangement 1F, 7A, 6A
BPR 5
Diameter 2,154 mm (84.8 in)
Length 3,033 mm (119.4 in)
Classification Jet Engine

Jet Engine ID 128
Country UK
Manufacturer Rolls-Royce
Engine model Pegasus 11-61
Take-off rating (dry)
Take-off rating (wet) 105.9 kN (23,800 lb)
Weight (dry) 1,932 kg (4,260 lb)
Airflow 208 kg (459 lb)/s
Arrangement 3F, 8A3
BPR 1.2
Diameter 1,222 mm (48.1 in)
Length 3,485 mm (137.2 in)
Classification Jet Engine
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pj_aranda
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Alin kaya dyan ang pinaka reliable? All I know is the Orenda built J85 is good
you will never make me sing "internationale"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cyklonmetal
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
except for the non afterburning version of the J85 which has already been fitted to the Cali, all the other engines mentioned are a bit too large. The J85 version fitted on to the Cali has a diameter of around 18 inches, the J79 diameter is around twice that at approximately 38 inches, F110/F100 are up to 45 or more inches in diameter depending on the exact model. closest engine fit would be the Larzac used to power the Alpha Jets. produces about the same power as the nonafterburning J85 around 3,000 lbs. weighs around the same too at 600 lbs approximately so you wont really have weight distribution problems. Plus you wont have stuctural mods required when fitting high power engines to the Cali airframe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
truegrit


Cali or Super TEMCO can be fiited with the J85-17A as per engineered by Lewis Shaw which increases the performance of the Super Temco aircraft. Like the jet's max speed is now at 550mph and installing additional Fuel Tanks on Wingtips also increases its cruising distance.

Its impossible for the Cali to be fitted with other engines like the J79 and F404....

The best way that we can re-engineer the CALI is to installed it with an Elbit Avionics so that it can fire AA missiles like the Python 4 and an effective radar....which probably needs to redesigned the NOSE of the aircraft to installed a new radar.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Manokski
Member
[ *  *  * ]
gritpaladin
Mar 4 2006, 05:33 PM
Cali or Super TEMCO can be fiited with the J85-17A as per engineered by Lewis Shaw which increases the performance of the Super Temco aircraft. Like the jet's max speed is now at 550mph and installing additional Fuel Tanks on Wingtips also increases its cruising distance.

Its impossible for the Cali to be fitted with other engines like the J79 and F404....

The best way that we can re-engineer the CALI is to installed it with an Elbit Avionics so that it can fire AA missiles like the Python 4 and an effective radar....which probably needs to redesigned the NOSE of the aircraft to installed a new radar.

FYI, the PAF Cali already incorporates a lot of the improvements done by Lewis Shaw plus a few more including incorporating 6 hardpoints on the wings which where plumbed for fuel so it could carry wing tanks to extend the range, not to mention the J-85 engine which was the biggest change next to the wing change. The engine, except for the afterburner section, was for all intents and purposes the same as those carried by the F-5A.

The whole intent of the program when it was initiated was to replace the F-86, T-28, and SF-260 in a variety of roles including ground attack and advanced trainer. It would have required avionics upgrades but was as close to production as it could have been had not funding been pulled.

It was an amazing aircraft to watch during its many test flights over Villamor since it obviously had a very good power to weight ratio. We had the jigs, the plans and everything. Too bad.

If we were to start production now, probably the most cost effective improvement would be new avionics. The engine combined with the airframe was pretty good already at the time, though of course would be long in the tooth now but still viable.
Manokski's ORBAT www.HueyBravo.net
Manokski's Orbat
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
truegrit


Thanks for the information Manoski...also i noticed that the PAF Cali aircraft really has incorporated enhancements in design since it was powered by a F5A engine as published by local newspaper during Marcos time (with a picture).

I think I was in HS then and makes me proud that our country got our own Jet Aircraft....

Anyway, what was the cause of the crash on the Single-seater CALi aircraft sample that we had?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tora^2
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Posted Image

If we are to develop an existing type further, IMHO, it's better that we focus on a more recent high-performance design like the L159 or even the F20.

However, there's one thing our aeronautical design engineers should work on if they ever revive the Super Pinto even as only a 1-off prototype

Quote:
 
The elevator trim tab system had a serious design flaw in its actuation linkage, resulting in a springy system that permitted the trim tab to go into a flutter mode at higher speeds. The trim tab flutter drove the left hand elevator and horizontal stabilizer into their own flutter mode, resulting in the left hand horizontal stabilizer breaking away from the airplane, carrying the elevator with it. 


The mishap took place during a test flight and the pilot was highly skilled enough to retain control of El Pinto.
Posted Image



JOIN UP!
POWER UP!
DO MORE MORE WITH LESS!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
City Hunter
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Sir possible, not all of those "cute pics" are just drawings. Some actually saw combat or performed the roles required of them. Admittedly, a lot of the whole were just concepts and only some reached prototype stage. But these were used by the victors in developing their own designs.

With the use of modern technology we can do great shortcuts and savings on how to use these old designs for our needs. Today, computer simulation could help solve a lot of issues even before the first piece of metal is cut.

And as for the issue of this project's importance it is that important. And not only will it help maintain our sovereignity and security but may even answer those questions about affordable yet effective medicines. I have not mentioned it here as this is an air force section but did mentioned it on another. I too realized that not answering the needs of other projects will only cause negative issues on this kind of venture.

If we are to go on with developing the Cali into a modern LCA and even as a civilian aircraft we would need to ask for outside help. And this is where counter-trading comes in. I realized that ours were badly managed and contracted in the past thus producing poor results. If only the officials and us ordinary people had been more vigilant and vocal maybe things wouldn't be this way. While others used the modernization of their armed forces also as a stepping stone to improving not only their medicines but also other sectors why can't we equally do so? The problem then is not that the Cali and Defiant project would bleed the country's coffers dry but it is the officials and bean counters and us too.

This is why I'm trying what I could to analyze and broadcast our ideas to those who make the decisions. And if opportunity permits, I would take that next step to be one of those who would do that decision.

Going back to the topic, I haven't gotten around to the engine question for the Cali lately but have checked on some old references about what advances made in avionics. The Russians then had already presented and offered for sale a compact radar unit that may fit our F-5s and maybe with a bit of modification to our Cali.

But if I were the project leader, I would design the initial production of the Cali as simple as possible. And it to be a day fighter too. I want our boys to train and hone their skills and not depend on the aircraft's systems. Once they progress, we could always add on the advanced systems. This way, when things get tough, they can still fight well even when the advanced systems are down and cannot be supported immediately. This is why on my previous postings I advocated that the Gripen B be chosen as the next PAF MRF. While our new boys are training to be as good as the old warriors, the old warriors are improving their skills and would one day help those new boys with the advanced equipment.

And this thread was started to bounce around the idea and maybe find some new info that may prove useful.

Also, I received a letter for Sen. Jinggoy Estrada - through his chief secretary - that they had received my letter about our ideas for improving and modernizing the AFP. Hopefully, I could follow it up soon with a better one especially on that counter-trade idea.
Command is about authority, about appointment to a position. Effective leadership is different. It must be learned and practiced in order for it to rise to the level of art. You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader. You can certainly command without that sense of commitment but you cannot lead without it; and without leadership, command is a hollow experience. .. a vacuum often filled with mistrust and ignorance.

Gen. Eric K. Shinseki
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Philippine Air Force · Next Topic »
Add Reply