Read the forum code of contact
By: 19th December 2001 at 23:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: F-5 engine upgrade?
Unless there's a comparable sized engine with the thrust rating of the J85, then i don't think it's likely to be a twin engine replacement. Single engine repalcement have lot's more candidate engines, but that would require a serious modification to the aft fuselage and the intake. I think many would rather buy the up and coming advanced trainers/LIFTs for doing the same tasks.
By: 20th December 2001 at 04:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: F-5 engine upgrade?
As I recall the F-20 Tigershark(?) was the ultimate F-5 evolution but no one would buy it because they wanted the F-16 or that other one build by MDC. It was of course a single engine design.
Regards.
By: 20th December 2001 at 10:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: F-5 engine upgrade?
yeh but the single engine turbofan would have been much better than the j85. of course th eus didn't want it to succede they had thier f-16 with j-?? (turbojet) - they tried flogging it but no one was that gulable. the people who wanted an f-5 replacment are starting now and you have -the at-50 (south korea -most promising), the iranin project (very little known), gripen (possible in this class), etc
the us have got out of what looked IMHO to be a porfitable game but the countries that brought f-5s have either moved on to bigger aircraft and brought trainer or have just got combat caperable trainers.
rabie :9
By: 20th December 2001 at 17:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: F-5 engine upgrade?
"Upgrading" to a turbofan just wont work on the F-5 just as it didnt work on the F-4.The j-85 is incredably efficient,infact the F-5 has one of the best power to performance ratios of any fighter ever made.Going to a turbofan would actually reduce range.When you compare the performance specs from the F-20 to the F-5,the improvement is surprizingly small compared to the gigantic difference in power.
sauron-the taiwan fighter uses garret turbofans(bizjet engines).The other major user of the j-85 is the A/T-37 draggonfly.
By: 20th December 2001 at 17:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: F-5 engine upgrade?
What ever happend to the F-5 C/D?
I know they did excist at one point, but I don't know much abouw it.
JW
By: 20th December 2001 at 18:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: F-5 engine upgrade?
The F-5 is one of the aircraft that I see right now as being a big product when it comes to upgrades. You can get quite a lot out of this little fighter if you upgrade it correctly. New engines would be a good idea. The engines on the Ching-Kuo would be a perfect choice. Each produces nearly 10,000 pounds of thrust. That would give the F-5 twice the thrust overall. Likewise I've always believe the T-37/A-37 series should have had an engine upgrade.
By: 20th December 2001 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: F-5 engine upgrade?
Oh yeah, forgot to add this. The reason the F-4/Spey combination (which I know you are referring too) never worked is because the Spey was larger than the J-79 by a good deal. At least in width. It required greater airflow and thus the intakes had to be redesigned on the F-4K's and F-4M's. This resulted in a low of top speed at high altitude (although ironically the Spey Phantom was slightly faster down low than the J-79 Phantom) A turbofan engine will/has worked in the F-4. The Israli's proved that when they worked with Boeing on the Super Phantom. This was to have two PW1120 engines in it. They were more powerful and more fuel efficient than the J-79's. The aircraft demonstrated greatly improved performance. The only reason they never went through with the upgrade was that funding fell through. This same reason (at the same time period) was what killed the Lavi program. Too great, "what could have beens" aircraft killed by lacking of funding...such a shame.
By: 20th December 2001 at 19:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: F-5 engine upgrade?
like i said, if you can find an existing higher thrust engine with similar dimensions...but, no, you're not going to get a new engine design, it costs quite a lot these days just to come up with a new engine. The problem is that most engines are either much smaller than the J-85 or much larger. Even the F-125s are much much larger than the J-85s. It really is a remarkable tiny turbojet. It actually would cost less for a single engine replacement than a twin because modifying fuselages are relatively cheaper. Even a higher rating twin engine replacement most likely would have to redesign the inlets anyways for the higher air flow(unless that stays the same).
By: 20th December 2001 at 20:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: F-5 engine upgrade?
scooter-The F-20 is an F-5 with better engine performance.Is it a better jet overall?I dont think so,effiecencywise.
phantom-The isreali F-4 "turbofan" your refering to is basically just a F-100 core.Yes its better than the J-79,but its not a turbofan(the outer spool is mainly for cooling.
By: 20th December 2001 at 20:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: F-5 engine upgrade?
scooter-Ofcourse theres a market for engines more powerfull than the j-85,but theres no way in hell your going to make a turbofan with the same diameter as the j-85 thats more powerfull than the j-85.The j-85 is pretty much top of the line for turbojet technology,it moves huge volume of air very effecienly.Making large fans like on turbofans dont nessesarily make engines more powerfull,but spread out the useful load in the same kind of way 1st gear or overdrive spread out the usefull power in your car.
By: 20th December 2001 at 21:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: F-5C/D & engine specs
I'm not sure about the F-5D designation, but F-5C was the designation given to the modified F-5A's that were sent to SE Asia during the mid-60's for the Skoshi Tiger program which was a combat eval for the F-5 in Vietnam.
I don't believe it will be practical to upgrade the powerplant of the F-5 series, if it was I'm certain one of the companies offering the F-5 upgrades would have jumped on it. I would imagine it is difficult to find a suitable replacement for the tiny J-85. The dimensions I have for the J-85-GE-21 are as follows: Dry weight 684 pounds, length 112.5 inches including afterburner, width 21 inches. For comparison the ITEC TFE1042-70 of the Ching Kuo weighs 1,360 pounds, is 140.2 inches long and 30.8 inches in width. Specific fuel consumption is similar between the two, with the newer engine having a slight advantage.
Mike
By: 20th December 2001 at 22:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: F-5 engine upgrade?
It sounds like the fog is appearing! Turbofan engines used in military aircraft are of a low bypass ratio type. They can also be known as bypass turbojets.
Personally I'd refer to it as a low bypass turbofan... others will disagree!!
By: 20th December 2001 at 23:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Engines
Oh, I didn't realize the F125 in the Ching-Kuo was that much larger. Guess that won't work then. Sounded good at least. :) Well, what about GE taking the J-85 and updating it to more modern standards. Surely modern technology can help produce an almost identical engine with more power and better fuel efficiency. Now that I think about it, the J-85 is really a wonder of technology. Also, why did the USAF never put the J-85 in their very large fleet of T-37 Tweet jet trainers. The A-37 Dragonfly was fitted with them. Are they too powerful for the airframe of the T-37?
By: Anonymous (not verified) - 19th December 2001 at 22:15
With so many F-5's still in service. Wouldn't a engine upgrade or replacements be in order? The Tiger II is a fine little fighter but, it needs more power and range. Many are still around and have been recently upgraded with new radars and avionics. With two engines and hundreds still in service. There must be a large market? Russia would be a good candidate. Along with France, Germany, U.K., etc. etc.)