Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is the J79 30% heavier than the R-25?

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • AbitNutz
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Dec 2005
    • 154

    Why is the J79 30% heavier than the R-25?

    For engines of similar size and performance that developed during the same time period, The GE J79 is listed as having a weight of about 3,800 pounds while the Turmansky R25 is listed at 2,600 pounds.

    Are they so dissimilar of design that the J79 ends up that much heavier or is equipment not included in the R25 weight that are added into the J79 number?
  • Trident
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • May 2004
    • 3965

    #2
    Originally posted by AbitNutz View Post
    For engines of similar size and performance that developed during the same time period, The GE J79 is listed as having a weight of about 3,800 pounds while the Turmansky R25 is listed at 2,600 pounds
    Same period? There's 10+ years between them - that's a lot considering how fast the state of the art was evolving at the time.

    Originally posted by AbitNutz View Post
    Are they so dissimilar of design that the J79 ends up that much heavier or is equipment not included in the R25 weight that are added into the J79 number?
    Both, I would guess. The J79 certainly has a *lot* more compressor & turbine stages, with associated heavy, forged rotor discs (17+3 stages, as opposed to 8+2 on the R-25) and apparently the blading in the compressor is stainless steel throughout, rather than titanium in the first few stages on the R-25. So I'd expect the R-25 to be a fair bit lighter in an equal comparison, but I'm not sure this fully accounts for a 30% difference.
    sigpic

    Comment

    • Cherry Ripe
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jul 2009
      • 564

      #3
      As Trident notes, 30% isn't that surprising given that the J79 ( -17 ) has about 32% higher compression ratio than the R-25-300 and a vastly better time-between-overhaul ( 2000+ versus 400 hours ). More spinning stuff, longer lasting, better made. The Soviet engine was really designed for a short, high-power usage given that the expected combat life of its host would be measured in single-digit hours.

      An interesting investigation might be between the J79 and the R35, both about the same weight and compression ratio but very different in thrust. Again the R35 'suffers' from a very low TBO in exchange for higher performance. The candle that burns twice as bright...
      Last edited by Cherry Ripe; 5th February 2017, 08:09.

      Comment

      • paralay
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Aug 2005
        • 1411

        #4
        J-79 engine was captured in Vietnam. Lulka studied and made the engine AL-21F

        Click image for larger version

Name:	J79-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	253.7 KB
ID:	3672924 Click image for larger version

Name:	0_1a06b2_e61320a3_XXL.jpeg.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	321.8 KB
ID:	3672929
        Last edited by paralay; 5th February 2017, 14:05.

        Comment

        • MadRat
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Aug 2006
          • 5033

          #5
          Soviet engines have less than stellar harmonics and suffer from a degree of shaft twisting when pushed hard. They wear out disproportionately in shorter time, because the engineers pushed a false narrative popular with leadership. Keep it simple, create it to be producible, and (most importantly) make it work.
          Go Huskers!

          Comment

          • AbitNutz
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2005
            • 154

            #6
            Suppose an entity/country decided to buy up all the surplus Mig 21's and rebuild them for sale on the open market. In their quest for sales, they have determined that they would have a far better product if they were to re-engine the Mig 21 with a Western engine....sort of like the Israeli's did with the Mirage/Kfir.

            What Western engine would you use? Would it be the J79? I understand that you may wish to use a Russian sourced engine but this is not your decision. It must be a Western engine because they believe they will get most of their sales from the West...Would any Western engine, in your opinion, make it a better or worse, aircraf?

            Comment

            • swerve
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2005
              • 13610

              #7
              From published numbers all of the following fit with space to spare, are lighter, give more thrust & have better sfc than the R-13.
              EJ200
              F414
              RM12
              M88
              F404

              I expect that they're also much more reliable.
              Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
              Justinian

              Comment

              • MadRat
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Aug 2006
                • 5033

                #8
                Since those engines actually have more life than the airframes, you only need one engine for every four or five airframes.

                Honestly, if you could make it stealth then a new build might be worthwhile as a pointblank interceptor. But it would be hard to justify anything costing more than $35 million each. At that point you essentially are pushing for a trainer that goes Mach 2. Not too many modern jets that size get anywhere near that performance, so you're asking for something completely new build. I think that's why many of us were hoping the Northrop Grumman N400 was going to revive something akin to an F-20A.
                Go Huskers!

                Comment

                • MSphere
                  Senior Member
                  • Feb 2010
                  • 8983

                  #9
                  Originally posted by MadRat View Post
                  Since those engines actually have more life than the airframes, you only need one engine for every four or five airframes.

                  Honestly, if you could make it stealth then a new build might be worthwhile as a pointblank interceptor. But it would be hard to justify anything costing more than $35 million each. At that point you essentially are pushing for a trainer that goes Mach 2. Not too many modern jets that size get anywhere near that performance, so you're asking for something completely new build.
                  = JF-17 / FC-1

                  Comment

                  • JangBoGo
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jan 2011
                    • 1509

                    #10
                    Originally posted by MadRat View Post
                    Since those engines actually have more life than the airframes, you only need one engine for every four or five airframes.
                    Since you are generally talking about Western engines in comparison to the Russian ones. A simple oogle search and wiki gives us these approx figures...

                    Limiting it currently to American fighters and PW F-100 powerplants.

                    Total F-16 (all blocks) produced till now - 4,573 nos
                    Total F-15 (all blocks) produced - 1,198 nos

                    Of that

                    62% (approx 2,835) of all F-16 uses PW-F100 series engines = 2,835 engines
                    99% (approx 1,186) of all F-15 uses PW-F100 series engines = 2,372 engines

                    Total = approx 5,207 x PW-F100 engines for 4,021 x F-16/15.

                    But PW says that they have produced over 7,200 x F100 engines for the teen fighters till now.

                    And your theory says there is hardly any need to change a western engine for the entire life of an aircraft. If that is the case, for what purpose did the PW make those extra 2,000 x F100 engines for???

                    Comment

                    • JangBoGo
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jan 2011
                      • 1509

                      #11
                      Originally posted by swerve View Post
                      From published numbers all of the following fit with space to spare, are lighter, give more thrust & have better sfc than the R-13.
                      EJ200
                      F414
                      RM12
                      M88
                      F404

                      I expect that they're also much more reliable.
                      Can you also put the unit cost of each of those engines to give a clearer picture as to what kind of upgrade in financial terms we are looking at?

                      Comment

                      • swerve
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jun 2005
                        • 13610

                        #12
                        No I can't, because I don't know the prices. AFAIK prices aren't fixed for such things, but are decided contract by contract.
                        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                        Justinian

                        Comment

                        • TomcatViP
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Nov 2011
                          • 6108

                          #13
                          intuitively, the 404 swap will be the most economical.

                          Comment

                          • AbitNutz
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Dec 2005
                            • 154

                            #14
                            There are more Mig 21 airframes laying about than almost any other make of jet fighter....How many thousands of those things did they make? And they were good aircraft! It seems that if they were able to be reclaimed instead of letting them rot in the weeds and put into service with reliable, serviceable engines a great many more airforces would be able to be equipped with good quality aircraft that will last and not bankrupt their nation.

                            Just a pipe dream...but a refreshed 404 equipped Mig 21 would be cool....sorta of a model T fighter jet...just out gas in it and fly.

                            Comment

                            • MSphere
                              Senior Member
                              • Feb 2010
                              • 8983

                              #15
                              Originally posted by AbitNutz View Post
                              There are more Mig 21 airframes laying about than almost any other make of jet fighter....How many thousands of those things did they make? And they were good aircraft! It seems that if they were able to be reclaimed instead of letting them rot in the weeds and put into service with reliable, serviceable engines a great many more airforces would be able to be equipped with good quality aircraft that will last and not bankrupt their nation.

                              Just a pipe dream...but a refreshed 404 equipped Mig 21 would be cool....sorta of a model T fighter jet...just out gas in it and fly.
                              Whatever you have described here, has already happened.. The line at AVIC was churning out new-built F-7s until mid 2013.. There was no need to put anything as expensive as an F404 in there, WP-13F did the job solidly at a fraction of the price. And since the original design was greatly limited by the size of the cone, they needed a version with lateral intakes which could incorporate a relatively decent radar, a decent turbofan and a decent glass cockpit.. and that is the JF-17.. (now discounting the JL-9 which might be even more a direct successor to the type, albeit with very limited potential, IMHO).

                              Comment

                              • MSphere
                                Senior Member
                                • Feb 2010
                                • 8983

                                #16
                                Originally posted by JangBoGo View Post
                                Can you also put the unit cost of each of those engines to give a clearer picture as to what kind of upgrade in financial terms we are looking at?
                                Ballpark figures:

                                EJ200 - GBP 3.4 million in FY2009
                                F414 - US $4.8 million in FY2000
                                M88 - US $5.5 million in FY1995
                                F404 - US $2.84 million in FY1995, $4.16 million in FY2007
                                RD-93 - US $2.67 million in FY2005

                                http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/pre...tranche-3.aspx
                                https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...8-price-28080/
                                http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...(june-21).html
                                http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...sept.-22).html
                                http://www.geaviation.com/press/mili..._19951101.html
                                http://www.geaviation.com/press/mili..._20070207.html
                                http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...china/ws13.htm
                                Last edited by MSphere; 7th February 2017, 00:05.

                                Comment

                                • swerve
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jun 2005
                                  • 13610

                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
                                  intuitively, the 404 swap will be the most economical.
                                  Yeah, I expect so. And the cheaper the better, because as MadRat implies, the airframes probably won't have much life left, except for F-7s.
                                  Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                  Justinian

                                  Comment

                                  • MadRat
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Aug 2006
                                    • 5033

                                    #18
                                    I'm thinking that they could significantly reduce overall size from several perspectives using a much lower volume engine. The original MiG-21 was around 13,000 lb st thrust wet and could push through Mach 2. Smaller engines can reach that thrust at far lower volume, weight, length, and width. And modern electronics would make them only about 400% more capable at 65% of the original's weight.
                                    Go Huskers!

                                    Comment

                                    • TomcatViP
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Nov 2011
                                      • 6108

                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                      Yeah, I expect so. And the cheaper the better, because as MadRat implies, the airframes probably won't have much life left, except for F-7s.
                                      That would be interesting semantically: how would you then call an engine swap? A molt?

                                      Comment

                                      Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                      Collapse

                                       

                                      Working...
                                      X