WT Forums

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
We seem to be going in circles here. Replaceing intral compontents of the exstisting engine is a far cry from replacing the engine as a system.
Replacing the enigne would require many other modifications to the aircaft to include the mounts, monitering systems, integrating with current avionics, and intergrating with the T-Quad. Not the T-Quad will be a lot easier to deal with after Suite III changes it to solid state but we would be scraping plans for the IEPU and other various Suite IV mods would go back to the drawing board to get new engines. It won't happen in the hogs life time.
Now if your talking about TCTO's to the current TF-34's on the airframe to make the thing more effient, that might happen and it would be great for the A-10. Itergrating such changes would also be relatively painless comparded to the daughting thought of changing the engine in its entirety. Most of the proposels and scuttlebut I hear say that any TCTO's being done will be for fuel effientcy and engine life. There also may be plans to replace many of the APU's parts with civilian spec part as a cost savngs plan. None of these proposals will make the jet fly faster.

I did read your post and I am intimately familiar with ASIP's, VGH, FSMP, and other more temporary systems useing during mods. I also personally added the first IEPU to OT&E aircraft and delt with the TEMS/ADR integration the first time around. Next it may also be intragted with the CDU and possibly added to the bus. These kinds of plans would not be made if the engine was going to change.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well...I'm to far "our of the loop" to know...but...just because a current MOD is happening doesn't mean that it won't "go away" so to speak...if a contract is awarded & begun, it has to finsh....same thing is happening with the F-15s right now...won't go into detail, but lets just say lots of Depot work is happing now for nothing because it will be replaced soon...oh well...so is the way of the government...

<img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/70th.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/Mav_shot.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/25.jpg" border=0>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Same thing happened with F-111s prior to retirement. Stuff was already paid for, so it would get installed, then the jet would head for the boneyard a month later.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
We seem to be going in circles here. Replaceing intral compontents of the exstisting engine is a far cry from replacing the engine as a system.
Replacing the enigne would require many other modifications to the aircaft to include the mounts, monitering systems, integrating with current avionics, and intergrating with the T-Quad. Not the T-Quad will be a lot easier to deal with after Suite III changes it to solid state but we would be scraping plans for the IEPU and other various Suite IV mods would go back to the drawing board to get new engines. It won't happen in the hogs life time.
Now if your talking about TCTO's to the current TF-34's on the airframe to make the thing more effient, that might happen and it would be great for the A-10. Itergrating such changes would also be relatively painless comparded to the daughting thought of changing the engine in its entirety. Most of the proposels and scuttlebut I hear say that any TCTO's being done will be for fuel effientcy and engine life. There also may be plans to replace many of the APU's parts with civilian spec part as a cost savngs plan. None of these proposals will make the jet fly faster.

I did read your post and I am intimately familiar with ASIP's, VGH, FSMP, and other more temporary systems useing during mods. I also personally added the first IEPU to OT&E aircraft and delt with the TEMS/ADR integration the first time around. Next it may also be intragted with the CDU and possibly added to the bus. These kinds of plans would not be made if the engine was going to change.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well...I'm to far "our of the loop" to know...but...just because a current MOD is happening doesn't mean that it won't "go away" so to speak...if a contract is awarded & begun, it has to finsh....same thing is happening with the F-15s right now...won't go into detail, but lets just say lots of Depot work is happing now for nothing because it will be replaced soon...oh well...so is the way of the government...

<img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/70th.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/Mav_shot.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/25.jpg" border=0>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Same thing happened with F-111s prior to retirement. Stuff was already paid for, so it would get installed, then the jet would head for the boneyard a month later.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Saw the same thing with the first two rounds of BRAC....totally redo base housing, new BX, new commissary....a month later the last GI leaves the base...heck...Plattsburg AFB still had units of Base housing being remodeled after the base was officially closed....

<img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/70th.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/Mav_shot.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/25.jpg" border=0>

_________________

Coach, well said and I agree 100% NOTHING is worth cutting the A-10 force!

422 wrote- "I did read your post and I am intimately familiar with ASIP's, VGH, FSMP, and other more temporary systems useing during mods."

Hehe that's what I thought, ASIP stands for Aircraft Structural Integrity Program and FSMP stands for Force Structure Maintenance Plan which have nothing to do with temporary or any other mods for that matter. They are the programs with insure the structural integrity of the aircraft itself for the next 20+ years.


<img src="http://www.warthogpen.com/bs/sig1.jpg" border=0>

422 said "Next it may also be intragted with the CDU and possibly added to the bus."

Ok you've peeked my interest, why would you intergrate TEMS with the CDU?

====
You can run but why die tired.
============================

_________________


Faugh ah Ballaugh ~ Clear the Way

< boomer walks in, looks at scattered body parts lying about and spaketh>

Oh Snipe, visage what thine hath wrought. <img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle>
another day at Rancho Warthog.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Yeah, it's like a powder keg in here.

Who knew?

LOL

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

First off, Coach, your right on target. I couldn't agree more.

Next is Hogpen. This shows that you know nothing Crew Dawg. Before coming to me saying that ASIP and TEMS are unrelated you would be right except for the fact that I was speeking in regaurds to TEMS/ADR. Now that you have shown where you expertise does not lye I will give you a brief synopsis. TEMS/ADR took VGH (Yes VGH was brought back to the airframe) and paired that data with the ASIP's, (specificaly with the counting accelerometer in Pnl F-44 on the back wall to be percise) and used that data to pair with TEMS inputs to combine this information in what will be refered to as the IEPU (I is for INTERGRATED as in ITERGRATED with other avionics.)

Before you start testing people Hogpen first know what YOUR talking about. Cause in this case you showed complete and total ingnorance to the issues.

Now having defended my flame.....Hitler ask again after Suite IV, its cool shit.

Hey BTW Hogpen I also happen to have been the Primary ASIP moniter for by squadroun but thx for letting me know what it stands for, props to ya.

ROFL OK thanks for splain' that to this old Crew Dawg.<img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>

<img src="http://www.warthogpen.com/bs/sig1.jpg" border=0>

As far as the TEMS debate goes, the EPU & IEPU for that matter are not tied to the TF-34. The KC-135's used the same EPU as the A-10 for years. So even if we did get new engines the TEMS argument holds no water at all.

True enough MUGS the debate left engines a while ago. We've been off subject for a bit. lets roll back to the real question at hand. Should new engine be added to the Hawg? Also if they should then will new engine ever be a reality? My stance is that while performance at altitude and better gross wieght at take off would be great I don't think it is essential that the Hawg get new engine. IMHO I don't think we'll see new engines. I think Coach summed it up best though and I'll jump on that band wagon.

LOL, Come full circle on this one.

Maybe I dont know shit either but I know there was a working group here a couple o' weeks ago doing something or other with our engine guys having to do with new engines.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

Cool deal, I hope I've been wrong cause anything that will keep the Hawg alive longer is good in my book.

Coach summed it up perfectly. I couldn't phrase it better if I tried

Crew Chiefs make it happen..... PIL SUNG!

has water injection ever been considered for the TF-34?...

your all saying one of 2 things...
A: the hog could do with more power at high altitude and take off...
B: Replaceing the TF-34 with a bigger engine is proving to be difficult..

point B rules out replaceing the existing engines with essentailly the same thing on a bigger scale.
asfar as i can see this leaves 2 distinct possibilities...
A: changing the bypass ratio of the engine... this would increase thrust, increase high altitiude performance and top speed of the aircraft at the expense of more noise, more wieght, lower fuel economy, decreased low altitude performance and reduced tolarance of battlefield damage.
B: Looking at ways to improve the TF-34 or another engine of equal size and stats... this basiclly involves ulling more air in compressing it more and expelling it faster... and water injection seems like it might work.... the only catch is that you have to have a water tank... so the a-10's range would drop a little...

am i wrong?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
has water injection ever been considered for the TF-34?...

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Can turbofan engines utilize water? Honest question, since I'm not an engines guy. The last plane I remember that used water were SACs A-model KC-135s and their P&W J57-P59W turbo<b>jets</b>. If a turbofan can use water, then we get into the problem of:

A. where to locate the water tank and of what size.
B. the added weight of the water onboard, plus tank, plus plumbing (obviously prior to it's use), and any gains/losses from that both weight/CG-wise and performance-wise.



Edited by - type 7 on Jun 10 2004 07:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
"If you don't know shit, just keep your pie hole shut!"

Thunderstruck.....Just thought I would let you know I do know my shit!!!!!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Those quiet professionals who do know their shit don't have to prove it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I am...<yada yada yada run-on sentence>...every day I realize how dumb pilots can be when they are flying and having to explain over and over how the jet really works.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Surely you jest. In reality, you explained the same thing once to each of the 30 different pilots in the squadron.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So for you to respond that I don't know my shit is a farse and you can stick it for all I care but don't you dare tell me I don't know anything cause I could run laps around your happy ass when it comes to the technical expertise of the greatest airframe to come into the Air Force existence FAG!!!!!!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Whew. Guess you told me. Even tried to call my sexuality into question. If you actually speak with the run-on sentences you type, after a sentence like that one quick punch to the lower sternum would knock the wind out of you until next week.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Chili
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Listen up, before someone gets in your chili, Chili. Shut your pie hole, learn to speak/type proper English, know when your input is wanted, then engage your pea-sized brain before opening your alligator-sized mouth to expound on your vast knowledge in an attempt to impress those around you.

As a wise old patch-wearer once told me, "Never miss an opportunity to shut the fuck up."

ATTACK!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
ATTACK!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Thunderstruck, just wondering if you were ever assigned to the 75th?

====
You can run but why die tired.
============================

_________________


Faugh ah Ballaugh ~ Clear the Way

Damn it is hot in here.

As far as the water injection idea goes I'd like to hear more about it. I've honestyly never heard of such a thing. Anyone got any info or links, I'd read the hell out'a them.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
As far as the water injection idea goes I'd like to hear more about it. I've honestyly never heard of such a thing. Anyone got any info or links, I'd read the hell out'a them.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

http://roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~propulsi/p ... water.html

for those who are either a little confuse or just lazy... ie. cant be screwed clicking on the link and reading all that...

the main thing that limits the thrust of a jet engine is heat... you can pump more and more fuel into an engine and watch it go faster and faster..... and then your turbine blades melt...

rolls-royce have solved the problem to a certain part in their new trent engines by introducing hollow turbane blades that are fed with a continues circulation of air to keep them cool...

the other way... lick your finger and blow on it... notice how it gets cold...? in a similar but different way... adding water to the engine either before the compressors or before the combustion chamber cools down the air allowing a greater change in temperature to take place... and as we all know... as things heat up they expand... and the more the air exapands the more thrust is produced...

the other thing water enjection does is it increases the density of the air... which allows even more thrust to be produced...

and to answer a quaetion... water injecting can be used with any combustion engine... jet, petrol, diesel... anything...
the reason you may not have heard about it lately is because it causes a lot of complexity and extra wieght... so aircraft engine companies have opted for finding other ways of creating extra thrust... and yes, water injection was used widely in turbojets and turboprops...

Its considered a little of an out dated technology... but in this perticular case it might work very well...

Water injection has only been used to incresses thrust (USAF) during take-offs because it uses so much water the weight almost off-sets the gain. To use it during the entire flight or have a water tank to use "when needed" whould burn so much money in fuel (in say 10 years use) you could buy new engines and save the trouble. Not even counting the cut in fuel and weapons needed to carry the water.

Ugly But Well Hung

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Water injection has only been used to incresses thrust (USAF) during take-offs because it uses so much water the weight almost off-sets the gain. To use it during the entire flight or have a water tank to use "when needed" whould burn so much money in fuel (in say 10 years use) you could buy new engines and save the trouble. Not even counting the cut in fuel and weapons needed to carry the water.

Ugly But Well Hung
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, that is my understanding too. My meager knowledge on water injection is that it was on most F-105's (P&W J-75) and it was needed only on take off. (Republic jets had the reputation for needing every foot of runway, and then some. Have you heard the term "Lead Sled"?) It had a 36 gal (300 lbs) tank and used it all up pretty quick. The fuel flow during takeoff was about 850 lbs/min. I don't know the fuel/water ratio. If the ratio was 6/1 it would last about 2 minutes. I guess it could have been used for other temporary max thrust situations too (dodging SAMs downtown?), I just didn't hear about it. On the A-10, 300 lbs of water would last a lot longer, say 6-8 minutes. It still is not clear if that is useful. I also don't remember if there was a maintenence down side to water injection. I'm suspicious of that since it is not used much now.

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"It may be crap to you, but it's bread and butter to us"

_________________
????

Cool Idea, kinda like cold air induction. Thx for the info all, I started reading up a little since my post and had a few questions for the engine types. Would the bypass ratio have to be changed to allow for the additional thrust in the jet pipe? Also just a deliverly system would also have to be added to the engine to drive the water in. Anyone think the accesory gear box could be modified or would the apu have to drive the water pump? And one more, would the engine fan speed increase enough to possibly do damage? These are all hypethetical of course.

Peace

Here's another crazy question, but if such a system were made could the current methanol tank for the windscreen wash or something similar be used. Drawing a line to the engine. This way CG would be lass adversly affected. Just a thought.