SNECMA M88

[Bhurki]

I'm not sure if there's a separate thread for M88, so asking this here.

Does M88 core have any verified growth potential (proposals for newer variants etc)?

Due to the changing admin in the US, there's a feeling in indian circles that India might get sanctioned over its purchase of S400, and so a partial ban on F404/414 may ensue, leading to derailment of the recently cleared Tejas Mk1a and upcoming variants like Mk2 based on these engines.

France has, in recent history, proposed for helping India in achieving operational capability of its Kaveri jet engine. It was to be bundled in with a deal of extra rafales if ever bought.

Is it possible for M88 to be used in these aircrafts, in an augmented variant of upto 9 ton thrust?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That’s a good question for the propulsion section. Moved.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

SNECMA planned an M88-3 of higher thrust, but that was cancelled. The M88-4 ECO demonstrator showed thrust growth to 20,250lbs but was in need of a launch customer - presumably won't fit the Rafale?

M88-2 & M88-4E ECO demonstrator
A/B thrust (lb) 17,000 20,250
Dry engine thrust (lb) 11,250 13,500
A/B specific fuel consumption (kg/daN.h) 1.70 1.70
Dry engine specific fuel consumption (kg/daN.h) 0.80 0.80
Air flow rate (kg/s) 65 72
Turbine Inlet Temperature (K) 1,850 (2,871°F) 1,850 (2,871°F)
Pressure ratio 24.50 27
Bypass ratio 0.30 0.30
Length (in) 139 142
Inlet diameter (in) 27.5 31
Weight (lb) 1,977.50 2,171.50

https://www.safran-aircraft-engines.com/sites/snecma/files/fiche_m88_2011_ang_hd.pdf

F414 is longer (154 in) with greater mass flow rate (77.1 kg/sec) but inlet diameter is the same as the high thrust M88 at 31 in

https://www.geaviation.com/sites/default/files/datasheet-F414-Family.pdf

 

[Bhurki]

..

Thanks for the numbers.

F414 is longer (154 in) with greater mass flow rate (77.1 kg/sec) but inlet diameter is the same as the high thrust M88 at 31

Yes, i suppose just like the F414 was created by increasing the bypass rate, cold core augmentation, M88 could, in theory, undergo the same process.
Such a lengthened variant could very well be housed in the same volume as the F414, since thats what the Mk2 is designed upon.

Any reference as to what was were the financial expenditure for creating F414 from F404(r&d account)?

 

[Trident]

The divergent section of the F414 con/di nozzle will account for a large chunk of the length difference, so engine bay dimensions should be even closer. Either way, the difference is small enough that it could be easily accommodated by extending the M88-4Eco tail pipe or afterburner plenum slightly (IIRC the tail pipe extension to the F110-GE-100 for installation in the F-14 as the -GE-400 amounted to about 1m!). So if HAL can live with a 9% thrust deficit, the Eco could serve as an essentially off-the-shelf replacement.

 

[nmeier23]

SNECMA planned an M88-3 of higher thrust, but that was cancelled. The M88-4 ECO demonstrator showed thrust growth to 20,250lbs but was in need of a launch customer - presumably won't fit the Rafale?

It appears the M88-4E is provided to Rafale's already: https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/

 

[TomcatViP]

Albeit without the thrust increase IMOHO.

 

[nmeier23]

That is possible. It seems to be very difficult to actually find published thrust data on the -4E variant.

 

[F-2]

Albeit without the thrust increase IMOHO.

That is possible. It seems to be very difficult to actually find published thrust data on the -4E variant.

SNECMA planned an M88-3 of higher thrust, but that was cancelled. The M88-4 ECO demonstrator showed thrust growth to 20,250lbs but was in need of a launch customer - presumably won't fit the Rafale?

It appears the M88-4E is provided to Rafale's already: https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/

That’s because the naming is very confusing it’s actually the M88-2 4E (enhancement 4) not the M88-4. I’m not sure if this is a common translation issue or a case of names being reused.

 

[nmeier23]

Albeit without the thrust increase IMOHO.

That is possible. It seems to be very difficult to actually find published thrust data on the -4E variant.

SNECMA planned an M88-3 of higher thrust, but that was cancelled. The M88-4 ECO demonstrator showed thrust growth to 20,250lbs but was in need of a launch customer - presumably won't fit the Rafale?

It appears the M88-4E is provided to Rafale's already: https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/

That’s because the naming is very confusing it’s actually the M88-2 4E (enhancement 4) not the M88-4. I’m not sure if this is a common translation issue or a case of names being reused.

Ah. So I've got the following variants of the M88 then:

-1
-2
-2 4E (although most references to this I've now seen as "-2E4", not 4E)
-3
-4 ECO (or is the ECO a -2 version?)

Is this all the known variants?

NM

 

[F-2]

Albeit without the thrust increase IMOHO.

That is possible. It seems to be very difficult to actually find published thrust data on the -4E variant.

SNECMA planned an M88-3 of higher thrust, but that was cancelled. The M88-4 ECO demonstrator showed thrust growth to 20,250lbs but was in need of a launch customer - presumably won't fit the Rafale?

It appears the M88-4E is provided to Rafale's already: https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/

That’s because the naming is very confusing it’s actually the M88-2 4E (enhancement 4) not the M88-4. I’m not sure if this is a common translation issue or a case of names being reused.

Ah. So I've got the following variants of the M88 then:

-1
-2
-2 4E (although most references to this I've now seen as "-2E4", not 4E)
-3
-4 ECO (or is the ECO a -2 version?)

Is this all the known variants?

NM

All I know of M88-1 seems to have been the dev model. M88-2 was used from the first 1989 run, 1990 installation on the Rafale A and installation on the four prototypes but still not considered the “final” engine which was done by 1996. I guess E1-4 are developments of the m88-2?

1990 timeline

According to German wiki the UAE was interested in the M88-3 but French wiki mentions issues with center of gravity as of 2010.

 

[F-2]

Apparently the M88-1 was originally a lower thrust engine for early 80s EFA requirements. It was worked on for four years before being superseded by the more powerful M88-2 which was considered necessary in its own right. This is the first time I’ve been made aware the M88-1 was a design for a production engine in its own right. https://web.archive.org/web/2014101...bal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986 - 0630.html


It still wasn’t expected for the Rafale A but it might have been ready earlier

air force | french air | avion de | 1983 | 2068 | Flight Archive

FRENCH AEROSPACE Snecma develops M88 The M88 two-shaft augmented turbofan is the basic element of a new engine family which Snecma has designed to meet the requirements of both air-superiority

web.archive.org

 

[F-2]

http://elodieroux.com/ReportFiles/ModelesMoteurVersionPublique.pdf

M88 and M53 thrust curve, I think uninstalled.

 

[TomcatViP]

But Isn't that a thesis on a modeling law for engine performance?

 

[F-2]

But Isn't that a thesis on a modeling law for engine performance?

It’s apparently accurate though. The M53 data was used by Razbam for their mirage 2000 simulator and had it verified by the French Air Force as accurate. Presumably the same could be said about the M88.

 

[totoro]

http://elodieroux.com/ReportFiles/ModelesMoteurVersionPublique.pdf

M88 and M53 thrust curve, I think uninstalled.

Shouldnt those be installed thrusts? With part of the envelope (say beyond mach 2) being simulated, theoretical, with some other inlets?

Otherwise i dont know how one would get variable speed and altitude numbers if it was uninstalled thrust?

 

[F-2]

http://elodieroux.com/ReportFiles/ModelesMoteurVersionPublique.pdf

M88 and M53 thrust curve, I think uninstalled.

Shouldnt those be installed thrusts? With part of the envelope (say beyond mach 2) being simulated, theoretical, with some other inlets?

Otherwise i dont know how one would get variable speed and altitude numbers if it was uninstalled thrust?

F119 doc corrected me on another forum. I was originally told otherwise and was parroting what I was told. But it does seem to make more sense installed.

 

[Scorpion82]

-2 4E (although most references to this I've now seen as "-2E4", not 4E)
-3
-4 ECO (or is the ECO a -2 version?)

Is this all the known variants?

NM

4E is actually the ECO variant with reduced SFC and longer life time and MTBO.

2E4 (E = Ettape in this case) was an enhanced version introduced around 2004 or so, it replaced the earlier E1 on F1 standard aircraft.

 

[BBCRF]

http://elodieroux.com/ReportFiles/ModelesMoteurVersionPublique.pdf

M88 and M53 thrust curve, I think uninstalled.

A rather weak engine

 

[F-2]

http://elodieroux.com/ReportFiles/ModelesMoteurVersionPublique.pdf

M88 and M53 thrust curve, I think uninstalled.

A rather weak engine

As I understand the goal was a more efficient F404 class engine in a smaller package. It seems to have meet that? Plus better supersonic performance.

 

[F-2]

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP87T01127R001300050010-8.pdf

CIA report with some interesting stuff on the M88 project and M88-1.