Comparison of modern fighter turbofans

[overscan (PaulMM)]

So, trying to compile some actual information on modern engines. additions and corrections welcome.

* indicates estimates or uncorroborated figures.

Russian Engines

Designation	Layout	Mass Flow	Comp Ratio	Bypass Ratio	Weight kg	Inlet Dia. m	Max Dia. m	Length m	TET K	Dry Thrust	A/B Thrust kg	Special Thrust kg	SFC Cruise	SFC Mil	SFC A/B	Engine Life h
AL-41F1? Izdeliye 30	3/5/1/1				1450*				2000-2100	11000*	17000*	18000*
AL-41F1 Izdeliye 117	4/9/1/1						1.18*	4.942*		9000	14500	15000	0.655
AL-41F1S Izdeliye 117S	4/9/1/1	122kg/s*			1604	0.932	1.18*	4.942	1745	8800	14000	14500		0.77	1.78	4000
AL-41F Izdeliye 20	3/6/1/1*	135kg/s*			1600*		1.28*	4.990*	1873		18000
AL-31F	4/9/1/1	110kg/s	23:1	0.59	1530	0.905	1.18	4.945	1665	7770	12500	-	0.67	0.75	1.92	1500

Note: Allegedly no AL-41F prototype got close to 18000kg thrust.

US Engines

Designation	Layout	Mass Flow kg/s lb/s	Comp Ratio	Bypass Ratio	Weight kg lb	Inlet Dia m in	Max Dia m in	Length m in	TET K F	Dry Thrust kgf lbf	A/B Thrust kgf lbf	SFC Cruise lb/lbf*h	SFC Mil lb/lbf*h	SFC A/B lb/lbf*h	Engine Life cycles or hours
F135-PW-100/400	3/6/1/2		28:1*	0.57	2,913 6,422	1.092 43	1.17 46	5.588 220	2,260 3,600	12,700 28,000	19,504 43,000				4,000h
F119-PW-100	3/6/1/1		26:1*	0.3*	~2,270 ~5,000	~1.0 ~40	~1.3 ~50	4.978 196	1,922 3,000	11,793 26,000	15,875 35,000				8,650c
F136-GE-100	3/5/1/3	172.4 380					~1.2 ~48			12,700 28,000	19,504 43,000				4,000h
YF120-GE-100	2/5/1/1 3/4/1/1			0.32*						>10,659 >23,500	15,875 35,000
F110-GE-132	3/9/1/2	124.7 275	33.3:1	0.68	1,837 4,050	0.906 35.66	1.18 46.5	4.62 181.9		8,618 19,000	14,741 32,500				8,600c
F110-GE-129	3/9/1/2	122.4 270	30.7:1	0.76	1,778 3,920	0.906 35.66	1.18 46.5	4.62 181.9	1,783 2,750	7,781 17,155	13,381 29,500	0.58	0.688	2.10	12,000c
F100-PW-232 (229A)	3/10/2/2	124.7 275			1,860 4,100	0.88 34.8	1.18 46.5	4.851 191		9,117 20,100	14,741 32,500				8,600c
F100-PW-229	3/10/2/2	112.5 248	32:1	0.36	1,737 3,829	0.88 34.8	1.18 46.5	4.851 191	1,622 2,460	8,074 17,800	13,227 29,160		0.76	1.94	12,000c
F414 EPE	2/6/1/1	84.8 187	30:1								11,793 26,000				4,000h
F414-GE-400	3/7/1/1	77.1 170	30:1	0.25	1,109 2,445	0.787 31	0.889 35	3.91 154		6,668 14,700	9,979 22,000		0.84	1.85	4,000h
F404-GE-402/102	3/7/1/1	66.2 146	26:1	0.27	1,035 2,282	0.711 28	0.889 35	3.91 154	1,760 2,708	4,990 11,000	8,029 17,700		0.81	1.74	4,000h

Note: The original F404-400 has BPR of 0.34. The YF119-PW-100L had a longer length of 5.156 m (203 inches) due to prototype nozzle structure.

European Engines

Designation	Layout	Mass Flow kg/s	Comp Ratio	Bypass Ratio	Weight kg	Inlet Dia m	Max Dia m	Length m	TET K	Dry Thrust kgf	A/B Thrust kgf	Special Thrust	SFC Cruise	SFC Mil	SFC A/B	Engine Life h
EJ200	3/5/1/1	77	26:1	0.4	990	0.74	0.85	4.00	1800	6120	9200	(9700)	n/a	0.77	1.7	6000
(EJ230)	(3/5/1/1)	n/a	(30:1)	(0.4*)	(>1000*)	(0.74)	n/a	n/a	n/a	(7340)	(10500)	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
M88-2	3/6/1/1	65	24.5:1	0.3	897	0.696	n/a	3.53	1850	5100	7650	n/a	n/a	0.78	1.67	n/a
(M88 ECO)	(3/6/1/1)	(72)	(27:1)	(0.3)	(986)	(0.79)	n/a	(3.61)	(1850)	(6120)	(9200)	n/a	n/a	(0.78)	(1.67)	n/a

Chinese Engines

Others

 

[Archibald]

Grabs popcorn and wait for the next post.

 

[timmymagic]

So, trying to compile some actual information on modern engines.

On the chart should AL-41F1? Dry thrust be 11,000 rather than 1,100?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

So, trying to compile some actual information on modern engines.

On the chart should AL-41F1? Dry thrust be 11,000 rather than 1,100?

Yeah.

 

[Hanse]

What about things like the F100-232, F414 EPE, etc? Also, they ran the F110-132 at 36,500 lbs thrust (though limited in service to 32,500, apparently for longer life).

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Haven't finished the US table yet.

 

[GTX]

A lot of the detailed information on modern engines is classified so will be difficult to get. That said sources such as "Turbofan and Turbojet Engines: Database Handbook" by Élodie Roux are useful.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

A lot of the detailed information on modern engines is classified so will be difficult to get. That said sources such as "Turbofan and Turbojet Engines: Database Handbook" by Élodie Roux are useful.

Sure. I'd prefer manufacturer data where available but that is sparse for the latest engines. We can record the data points we do have though.

The AL-41F1 Izdeliye 117 is basically similar to F110-GE-132 in technical terms - a modernization of AL-31F using judicious application of advanced technologies to an existing engine design. Improved fan, better turbines allowing it run hotter.

Izdeliye 30 appears to be a spiritual successor to Izdeliye 20 (the OG AL-41F) scaled down to fit the AL-31F diameter and with a bunch of learnings from SaM-146 collaboration with SNECMA. It should be broadly at F119 level of technology, but we don't know enough to say how competitive it is.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

What about things like the F100-232, F414 EPE, etc? Also, they ran the F110-132 at 36,500 lbs thrust (though limited in service to 32,500, apparently for longer life).

You keep mentioning this like its something special, but ALL engines can run hotter and make more thrust on the bench. The final chosen rating balances thrust with reliability and engine life.

In an effort to be competitive on thrust the Russians have put engines into service with "emergency" higher thrust modes that are not intended for normal use - the MiG-21 had this back in the day. I don't think the US has felt the need to do this, but obviously it could be done if necessary.

 

[Hanse]

What about things like the F100-232, F414 EPE, etc? Also, they ran the F110-132 at 36,500 lbs thrust (though limited in service to 32,500, apparently for longer life).

You keep mentioning this like its something special, but ALL engines can run hotter and make more thrust on the bench. The final chosen rating balances thrust with reliability and engine life.

In an effort to be competitive on thrust the Russians have put engines into service with "emergency" higher thrust modes that are not intended for normal use - the MiG-21 had this back in the day. I don't think the US has felt the need to do this, but obviously it could be done if necessary.

Who's talking about "emergency capability"? The F100-232 was a real engine as was/is the F414 EPE.

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

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

What about things like the F100-232, F414 EPE, etc? Also, they ran the F110-132 at 36,500 lbs thrust (though limited in service to 32,500, apparently for longer life).

You keep mentioning this like its something special, but ALL engines can run hotter and make more thrust on the bench. The final chosen rating balances thrust with reliability and engine life.

In an effort to be competitive on thrust the Russians have put engines into service with "emergency" higher thrust modes that are not intended for normal use - the MiG-21 had this back in the day. I don't think the US has felt the need to do this, but obviously it could be done if necessary.

Who's talking about "emergency capability"? The F100-232 was a real engine as was/is the F414 EPE.

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

I was replying to

Also, they ran the F110-132 at 36,500 lbs thrust (though limited in service to 32,500, apparently for longer life).

Of course the F100-232 F414 EPE need to be added. As I said above, its still a work in progress. You can always post links or data here if you want to be helpful...

 

[Trident]

Izdeliye 30 appears to be a spiritual successor to Izdeliye 20 (the OG AL-41F) scaled down to fit the AL-31F diameter and with a bunch of learnings from SaM-146 collaboration with SNECMA. It should be broadly at F119 level of technology, but we don't know enough to say how competitive it is.

I doubt Saturn had anything to learn from the French in this regard, at least nothing that would be applicable to military engines. The collaboration appeared to be more about securing Safran's CFM reliability credentials and MRO experience. TRDD-2005, the Russian counterpart to the DEM21 project that formed the template for the French-supplied SaM146 core, was quite a bit more ambitious.

EU Engines

Designation	Layout	Mass Flow kg/s	Comp Ratio	Bypass Ratio	Weight kg	Inlet Dia m	Max Dia m	Length m	TET K	Dry Thrust kgf	A/B Thrust kgf	Special Thrust	SFC Cruise	SFC Mil	SFC A/B	Engine Life h
EJ200	3/5/1/1	77	26:1	0.4	990	0.74	0.85	4.00	1800	6120	9200	(9700)	n/a	0.77	1.7	6000
(EJ230)	(3/5/1/1)	n/a	(30:1)	(0.4*)	(>1000*)	(0.74)	n/a	n/a	n/a	(7340)	(10500)	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
M88-2	3/6/1/1	65	24.5:1	0.3	897	0.696	n/a	3.53	1850	5100	7650	n/a	n/a	0.78	1.67	n/a
(M88 ECO)	(3/6/1/1)	(72)	(27:1)	(0.3)	(986)	(0.79)	n/a	(3.61)	(1850)	(6120)	(9200)	n/a	n/a	(0.78)	(1.67)	n/a

Maybe one of our Japanese members can add what is known about the XF9-1?

EDIT: forgot to add a comment on the EJ200 war setting - this is claimed by various sources, including the old typhoon.starstreak.net site (I have found a reference in a news article too though). Stated to be 95kN.

 

[Trident]

I was replying to

Also, they ran the F110-132 at 36,500 lbs thrust (though limited in service to 32,500, apparently for longer life).

Yup, triple red-line endurance test, most likely - a condition that is never encountered in operational service.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

The lifespan of American engines, at least for P&W, isn’t really measured in hours, but total accumulated cycles (TAC), and it corresponds to engine usage rather than strictly time. For instance, I think spooling up from idle to full afterburner would constitute some cycle quantity, and a long flight with little throttle variation may have fewer cycles than a short flight with lots of throttle variations. Literature has suggested that the F119 has a lifespan of 8,650 TAC and depot overhaul at 4,325 TAC. I’m not sure if all US engines follow this method of measurement.

The AL-41F1 Izdeliye 117 is basically similar to F110-GE-132 in technical terms - a modernization of AL-31F using judicious application of advanced technologies to an existing engine design. Improved fan, better turbines allowing it run hotter.

I’m not sure if the two engines can be directly compared. I believe the AL-41F1 is more optimized for supersonic operation than the F110-GE-132, as it was contracted by Sukhoi specifically for its PAK FA submission. I would expect that it may have better dynamic thrust at the right-hand side of the envelope.

As far as the 36,500 lbf thrust that was test on the -GE-132, I don’t find it particularly relevant since that was performed in a test environment, likely had parameters adjusted in ways that simply aren’t done in operational environments, i.e. not representative of true operational thrust rating.

 

[TR1]

Izdeliye 30 appears to be a spiritual successor to Izdeliye 20 (the OG AL-41F) scaled down to fit the AL-31F diameter and with a bunch of learnings from SaM-146 collaboration with SNECMA. It should be broadly at F119 level of technology, but we don't know enough to say how competitive it is.

I doubt Saturn had anything to learn from the French in this regard, at least nothing that would be applicable to military engines. The collaboration appeared to be more about securing Safran's CFM reliability credentials and MRO experience. TRDD-2005, the Russian counterpart to the DEM21 project that formed the template for the French-supplied SaM146 core, was quite a bit more ambitious.

Ironic, since the Safran parts turned out unreliable and their support spotty.

 

[Trident]

Well, not *exclusively* the Safran parts, but yeah, they contribute - contrary to reputation. Part of this is that the engine remains stuck in a relatively early stage of maturity though. Sluggish sales of the SSJ airframe (due to the delays and deteriorated political situation) simply do not support investments into ironing out teething troubles from Safran's point of view. Catch-22, enter PD-8.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I doubt Saturn had anything to learn from the French in this regard, at least nothing that would be applicable to military engines. The collaboration appeared to be more about securing Safran's CFM reliability credentials and MRO experience. TRDD-2005, the Russian counterpart to the DEM21 project that formed the template for the French-supplied SaM146 core, was quite a bit more ambitious.

The reference is from an article by a Saturn designer, who specifically said they wanted to learn from the French. Now, what they wanted to learn might not be applicable to AL-41F, but it might be.

 

[helmutkohl]

Izdeliye 30 appears to be a spiritual successor to Izdeliye 20 (the OG AL-41F) scaled down to fit the AL-31F diameter and with a bunch of learnings from SaM-146 collaboration with SNECMA. It should be broadly at F119 level of technology, but we don't know enough to say how competitive it is.

I doubt Saturn had anything to learn from the French in this regard, at least nothing that would be applicable to military engines. The collaboration appeared to be more about securing Safran's CFM reliability credentials and MRO experience. TRDD-2005, the Russian counterpart to the DEM21 project that formed the template for the French-supplied SaM146 core, was quite a bit more ambitious.

EU Engines

Designation	Layout	Mass Flow kg/s	Comp Ratio	Bypass Ratio	Weight kg	Inlet Dia m	Max Dia m	Length m	TET K	Dry Thrust kgf	A/B Thrust kgf	Special Thrust	SFC Cruise	SFC Mil	SFC A/B	Engine Life h
EJ200	3/5/1/1	77	26:1	0.4	990	0.74	0.85	4.00	1800	6120	9200	(9700)	n/a	0.77	1.7	6000
(EJ230)	(3/5/1/1)	n/a	(30:1)	(0.4*)	(>1000*)	(0.74)	n/a	n/a	n/a	(7340)	(10500)	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
M88-2	3/6/1/1	65	24.5:1	0.3	897	0.696	n/a	3.53	1850	5100	7650	n/a	n/a	0.78	1.67	n/a
(M88 ECO)	(3/6/1/1)	(72)	(27:1)	(0.3)	(986)	(0.79)	n/a	(3.61)	(1850)	(6120)	(9200)	n/a	n/a	(0.78)	(1.67)	n/a

Maybe one of our Japanese members can add what is known about the XF9-1?

EDIT: forgot to add a comment on the EJ200 war setting - this is claimed by various sources, including the old typhoon.starstreak.net site (I have found a reference in a news article too though). Stated to be 95kN.

XF9-1

Designation

Layout

Mass Flow kg/s

Comp Ratio

Bypass Ratio

Weight kg

Inlet Dia m

Max Dia m

Length m

TET K

Dry Thrust kgf

A/B Thrust kgf

Special Thrust

SFC Cruise

SFC Mil

SFC A/B

Engine Life h

XF9-1

3/6/1/1

1

4.80

2100

11000

15000

sources

https://www.ihi.co.jp/ihi/technology/review_library/review/2020/_cms_conf01/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2020/06/30/07_ronbun1.pdf

XF9 (エンジン) - Wikipedia

ja.wikipedia.org

https://www.mod.go.jp/atla/img/kousouken/news_20170628.pdf

unfortunately thats about it.. i checked around and these are the same 5-6 info being spread around.
another site on the engine listed this. lots of NA

・形式：アフターバーナ付低バイパス比 ┃
ターボファンエンジン　　　　　　　　┃
・最大直径：N/A　　　　　　　　　　　 ┃
・空気取り入れ口直径：約1m 　 　┃
・全長：約4.8m 　　　　　　　　　　 ┃
・重量：N/A　　　　　　　　　　　　 ┃
・圧縮機:ファン3枚・圧縮機6段 　 　┃
・燃焼器:アニュラ型　　　　　　　　　 ┃
・タービン:1段低圧・1段高圧タービン ┃
・推力：11t(108kN)ー15t(147kN)以上　　┃
・タービン入口温度：1800度以上　　　 ┃
・推力重量比：N/Aは　

 

[Trident]

The reference is from an article by a Saturn designer, who specifically said they wanted to learn from the French. Now, what they wanted to learn might not be applicable to AL-41F, but it might be.

If the source does not spell out what specifically Saturn was hoping to learn, I would assume the lessons applied mainly to peculiarities of the commercial airline operations environment. This is a topic a CFM participant would certainly be able to teach a thing or two about and not something to which Saturn had much useful exposure of its own. Perhaps also lean manufacturing using modern CAM equipment. By contrast, the classic performance parameters we are tabulating here are an area where Russia has been consistently ahead of France for some time, and especially so with respect to military engines.

・タービン入口温度：1800度以上

Going by Google Translate this is the target for TET, so about 2100K (according to the MoD pdf 1800 is in units of Celsius).

 

[helmutkohl]

The reference is from an article by a Saturn designer, who specifically said they wanted to learn from the French. Now, what they wanted to learn might not be applicable to AL-41F, but it might be.

If the source does not spell out what specifically Saturn was hoping to learn, I would assume the lessons applied mainly to peculiarities of the commercial airline operations environment. This is a topic a CFM participant would certainly be able to teach a thing or two about and not something to which Saturn had much useful exposure of its own. Perhaps also lean manufacturing using modern CAM equipment. By contrast, the classic performance parameters we are tabulating here are an area where Russia has been consistently ahead of France for some time, and especially so with respect to military engines.

・タービン入口温度：1800度以上

According to Google Translate this is the target for TET, so about 2100K (similar to Izd. 30).

thanks, have updated!

im actually wondering what engine Japan should use in their next aircraft.. continue working on their domestic engine, adopt what the British are using, or combine both?

 

[F119Doctor]

The lifespan of American engines, at least for P&W, isn’t really measured in hours, but total accumulated cycles (TAC), and it corresponds to engine usage rather than strictly time. For instance, I think spooling up from idle to full afterburner would constitute some cycle quantity, and a long flight with little throttle variation may have fewer cycles than a short flight with lots of throttle variations. Literature has suggested that the F119 has a lifespan of 8,650 TAC and depot overhaul at 4,325 TAC. I’m not sure if all US engines follow this method of measurement.

The F100 series of engine, module, and internal component life is measured in cycles, although other parameters are tracked, such as Engine Operating Time (EOT) which is used to measure the age of most external components such as gearbox, fuel controls, etc. The F110 engine uses similar tracking, with the F119 and F135 using updated and more sophisticated methods of tracking of measuring actual damage accumulation on the components.

For the F100-100/200/220/-220E engines a TAC cycle was defined as one Shutdown to Mil Power to Shutdown cycle, plus 1/4 of a TAC cycle for each Mil to Idle to Mil throttle transient. The -229 added another counter that added a 1/40th of a TAC cycle for each Mil to Part Power to Mil transient. The -220/220E engine modules have a 4000 TAC cycle depot overhaul interval, the -229 modules have a 4300 TAC overhaul interval, and the -229EEP modules have a 6000 TAC interval. Note that AB cycles have no effect on the TAC count.

The F119 modules do have a 4325 TCY (Total Calculated Cycles - note the name change) depot inspection interval. By specification, all cold section hardware was required to have a 8650 TCY life, while hot section hardware could be replaced at 4325 TCY. Many of the components last much longer than those requirements, with the recurring depot inspection at 4325 TCY.

This cycle method of life tracking is an average life of various components, and only remains valid if the engine is operated by the pilots as expected. Some components are damaged more by engine shutdown (worst thing in the world for turbine disks), while others are more damaged by Mil to Idle to Mil transients and don't care about shutdown. The original F100-100/200 engines aged much faster than expected because the F-15 and F-16 pilots had so much thrust that they cycled the throttles back to slow down much more than they did in the F-4, for example, generating many more cycles per flying hour than the engineers originally expected or designed for.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

Note that AB cycles have no effect on the TAC count.

That makes sense, AB is downstream of the turbine and turbomachinery, with the nozzle being the only major component that would cycle.

I do know that the F119 has fewer fan and compressor stages than the F100, which contributed to lower parts count and presumably better reliability. Do you anticipate the adoption of three-stream adaptive cycle engines to see an increase in parts count?

 

[nmeier23]

A lot of the detailed information on modern engines is classified so will be difficult to get. That said sources such as "Turbofan and Turbojet Engines: Database Handbook" by Élodie Roux are useful.

Not to be super pedantic, but to provide traceability of sources: he sourced a significant amount of the data in his book from my website, errors and all: http://jet-engine.net

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

A lot of the detailed information on modern engines is classified so will be difficult to get. That said sources such as "Turbofan and Turbojet Engines: Database Handbook" by Élodie Roux are useful.

Not to be super pedantic, but to provide traceability of sources: he sourced a significant amount of the data in his book from my website, errors and all: http://jet-engine.net

Élodie? A she, I'd think.

 

[nmeier23]

Ah, could be. I should have been non-specific and said "they".

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It's a female name usually, but who knows.

 

[LMFS]

Russian Engines

Designation	Layout	Mass Flow	Comp Ratio	Bypass Ratio	Weight kg	Inlet Dia. m	Max Dia. m	Length m	TET K	Dry Thrust	A/B Thrust kg	Special Thrust kg	SFC Cruise	SFC Mil	SFC A/B	Engine Life h
AL-41F1? Izdeliye 30	3/5/1/1				1400 (1)		1.2 (2)	5 (2)	2000-2100	12000 (3)	18000 (4)		0.67 (5)
AL-41F1 Izdeliye 117	4/9/1/1				1370 (6)		1.18*	4.942*		9000	15000 (6)		0.655
AL-41F1S Izdeliye 117S	4/9/1/1	122kg/s*			1604	0.932	1.18*	4.942	1745	8800	14000	14500		0.77	1.78	4000
AL-41F Izdeliye 20	3/6/1/1*	135kg/s*			1600*		1.28*	4.990*	1873		18000
AL-31F	4/9/1/1	110kg/s	23:1	0.59	1490 (7)	0.905	1.18	4.945	1665	7770	12500	-	0.67	0.75	1.92	1500

My take, from the little indirect information we got until now

(1) Due to the weight of the izd. 117 and the references to thrust and specific weight
(2) 1 to 1 replacement of izd. 117
(3) Higher specific thrust than F119, most likely higher mass flow
(4) References by Marchukov to specific weight and others from LTS program
(5) Same SFC of AL-31F
(6) Statements by Pogosyan (2.5 tf more and 150 kg less than AL-31F)
(7) 1490 kg for the version w/o TVC (F), 1520 w/ TVC (FP)

 

[Bhurki]

^^^
18t for 1400kg is bit too much.

 

[GTX]

A lot of the detailed information on modern engines is classified so will be difficult to get. That said sources such as "Turbofan and Turbojet Engines: Database Handbook" by Élodie Roux are useful.

Not to be super pedantic, but to provide traceability of sources: he sourced a significant amount of the data in his book from my website, errors and all: http://jet-engine.net

I did not know this.

 

[LMFS]

^^^
18t for 1400kg is bit too much.

Marchukov said that its specific weight was 30% lower than that of the izd. 117S, so the relation weight - thrust is one of the few things we know about the izd. 30

 

[F119Doctor]

If you believe a 12:1 thrust to weight ratio on a high specific thrust supercruise engine, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, cheap! High specific thrust implies a large core module for low bypass, and large core components are heavy. If they can keep it above 8:1, I’ll be impressed…

 

[Trident]

OTOH high specific thrust means small diameter (mass flow being proportional to area). In high-bypass engines at least, this results in low specific thrust increasing mass due to the weight of the fan and bypass duct, not vice versa. Perhaps for BPRs <1.0 other factors dominate (lower centrifugal loads due to the smaller diameter, meaning lighter discs?), but comparing the M88, EJ200 and F404/414 to the likes of the RB.199, PW1120 and F110, the same basic trend seems to hold in reality. The highest T/W ratio engines ever built were pure turbojets (RD-41, RB.162 & XJ99 lift jets).

12:1 is very ambitious and would likely preclude a VCE architecture, but 10:1 seems perfectly plausible.

 

[LMFS]

I am just compiling data from authoritative sources and joining the dots, don't blame me for it

If you believe a 12:1 thrust to weight ratio on a high specific thrust supercruise engine, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, cheap! High specific thrust implies a large core module for low bypass, and large core components are heavy. If they can keep it above 8:1, I’ll be impressed…

According to you, the chief designer is lying?

НПО «Сатурн» создает двигатель поколения 5+ | Еженедельник «Военно-промышленный курьер»

Стендовые испытания принципиально нового двигателя (двигателя второго этапа) для российского самолета пятого поколения ПАК ФА начнутся в 2014 году, сообщил генеральный конструктор-директор Научно-технического центра имени Люльки НПО «Сатурн» Евгений Марчуков.

vpk-news.ru

TWR also confirmed as higher than 10 here:

Плазменный мотор

N + 1 поговорил с разработчиком «Изделия 30» для истребителя Су-57

nplus1.ru

12:1 is very ambitious and would likely preclude a VCE architecture, but 10:1 seems perfectly plausible.

In the YF120, the variable bypass was adjusted not with an additional, hydraulically controlled circuit, but with some automatic system using the pressure ratio inside of the engine. So VCE can be apparently done also in relatively light way

 

[Apophenia]

It's a female name usually, but who knows.

C'est vrais: http://elodieroux.com/ReportFiles/CV_ElodieROUX_English_web.pdf

There's no contact info on the Les Éditions Élodie Roux website. But, if Nate wanted to lodge a direct complaint, he - sorry, they - might try: Elodie.Roux@supaero.org (not sure if that address is current)

Alternatively, contact Élodie Roux's other publisher - SupAéro-ONÉRA - who is unlikely to view plagiarism lightly.
-- https://www.isae-supaero.fr/en/contact-isae-supaero/

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

I’m highly skeptical that there is an over 200 kg mass difference between the AL-41F1S and the AL-41F1. They share largely the same core turbo machinery, and the chief difference between them is the control system. Both engines should be in the neighborhood of 1,600 kg. I haven’t read anything to indicate that the two engines are vastly different to the point of having that much disparity in mass.

Given the dimensional similarities, I wouldn’t expect the mass flow of the izdeliye 30 to be much different from the F119 either, there has thus far been little to support appreciably higher mass flow.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I’m highly skeptical that there is an over 200 kg mass difference between the AL-41F1S and the AL-41F1. They share largely the same core turbo machinery, and the chief difference between them is the control system. Both engines should be in the neighborhood of 1,600 kg. I haven’t read anything to indicate that the two engines are vastly different to the point of having that much disparity in mass.

Unless the 200kg is the weight of the control system.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

Unless the 200kg is the weight of the control system.

I'm not very convinced. The weight difference between the F100-PW-100 and the -220 with the digital electronic engine control (DEEC) is roughly 200 lbs (90 kg); of course, there are also other mechanical differences between the two in order to greatly improve the reliability of the latter, but I doubt that a more modern engine control unit would weigh over twice as much.

 

[nmeier23]

C'est vrais: http://elodieroux.com/ReportFiles/CV_ElodieROUX_English_web.pdf

There's no contact info on the Les Éditions Élodie Roux website. But, if Nate wanted to lodge a direct complaint, he - sorry, they - might try: Elodie.Roux@supaero.org (not sure if that address is current)

Alternatively, contact Élodie Roux's other publisher - SupAéro-ONÉRA - who is unlikely to view plagiarism lightly.
-- https://www.isae-supaero.fr/en/contact-isae-supaero/

Thanks for your help, but that's ok, I'm not interested in lodging a complaint. She has referenced my website in the bibliography of her book and she has added her own research as well.

In any case, the point of my website was to provide an easy reference for gas turbine data, not keep it secret.

Actually it's a bit ironic anyway: printed source material -> my website -> book -> referenced in other web pages...


Thanks,
Nathan

 

[F119Doctor]

Unless the 200kg is the weight of the control system.

I'm not very convinced. The weight difference between the F100-PW-100 and the -220 with the digital electronic engine control (DEEC) is roughly 200 lbs (90 kg); of course, there are also other mechanical differences between the two in order to greatly improve the reliability of the latter, but I doubt that a more modern engine control unit would weigh over twice as much.

The weight difference between the F100-100 and -220 was primarily due to the durability improvements in the rotating components and a bearing support to increase the depot inspection interval from 1800 TAC cycles to 4000 TAC cycles while maintaining full performance over that interval. The weight change from the original UFC/EEC/ vane type Main Fuel Pump to the DEEC / MFC/AFC/ gear type MFP was minimal.

 

[DWG]

Unless the 200kg is the weight of the control system.

I'm not very convinced. The weight difference between the F100-PW-100 and the -220 with the digital electronic engine control (DEEC) is roughly 200 lbs (90 kg); of course, there are also other mechanical differences between the two in order to greatly improve the reliability of the latter, but I doubt that a more modern engine control unit would weigh over twice as much.

The electronics elements should be pretty much identical in weight between versions, I'd think, (unless you're going from no FADEC to FADEC). And I don't see there being too much difference in the weight of the mechanical control effectors, you still need them to do the same things however they're actuated.

If we assume the electronics of a FADEC and an FBW system are comparable, they're definitely not coming in at anywhere near 200lbs. I've picked up the electronics of the Eurofighter FCS comfortably in one hand - while on crutches (this was unfortunate as the engineer to use it before me had forgotten to lock the cards in, and as I pulled it out of the test rig the black box swung down to vertical, and I had to go and inform my boss I'd just dropped a six figure prototype card onto the lab floor - fortunately it still worked).