Search results for query: afterburning J52

IIRC some of the jet powered Russian anti-ship missiles have plug nozzles as do the cores of several high-bypass engines I can think of on commercial airliners.

I have always been amazed an afterburning J-52 never saw the light of day. I guess by that time, turbofans were a thing. Still, it had a very good pr, SFC, and was compact for the power it produced. It ended up with a better SFC and PR than the J-79, and arguably could have produced as much...

The TF30 was virtually equal to the non-afterburning Spey in power, fuel consumption, & weight - but was slightly larger in diameter (42" vs 38") and length (125" vs 115"-118"). As it was originally designed as a subsonic engine* (like the Spey was), it would have been suitable for similar...

Wow, these (and the rest of the early '60s photos) are wonderful! Particularly the the B-58/YJ93 pod! What we are looking at is (as mentioned above) is a plug nozzle. I do not know if it was first developed first on the rocket side or the jet engine side in the mid-fifties, but this technology...

Well it was further developed into turbofan and Swedes jammed it in a fighter jet.

Indeed. Nearly every place where someone calls for "afterburning J52s" before the late 1970s the cheapest, easiest, and most realistic answer is "install a J79". The weakest (and earliest) J79 was the J79-GE-3 of the F-104A and F11F-1F Super Tiger (1955): thrust 9,600 (14,800 a/b) lb.s.t...

Spey RB. 168-25 (Mk 201 Phantom FG.1; Mk 202/203 Phantom FGR.2) 12,250 lb.s.t. dry, 20,515 lb.s.t. reheat RM JT8D-22 (RM8A AJ-37 14,000 lb.s.t., 26,000 lb.s.t. reheat [RM8B JA-37 16,400 lb.s.t. dry, 28,100 lb.s.t. reheat]) Just a slight difference in thrust there. An afterburning TF41...

it would have been a perfect thing for P&W to offer as an alternative/swappable for GE's J-79. How many AH's have we all seen where something like "but you would have to fight for/divert production from X,Y or Z? IN this case it would be J-79 production in the early 60's.

The Belgium Air-Force needed 63 Jet-Fighters and 27 reconnaissance version and 16 Two-seat trainer version of same Aircraft here is something odd the A-4 Skyhawk is a carrier-capable ground-attack aircraft My guess they consider A-4 as low cost alternative, but i get sneaking suspicion this...

The real killer engine here is the RB.106, and I think the biggest powerplant mistake (with the Orenda Iroquois second) since it was being designed as a drop in replacement for the Avon. That should put it at about a length of 126 in (3,200 mm), a diameter of 35.7 in (907 mm) and a weight of...

What about something like a J52-P-6A? 8,500 pounds dry, with an afterburner, that should get it up to about 12-13,000 pounds. Figure roughly Mach 1.5 performance. That should make Congress (and the military) feel a little better about selling to them. Particularly since that's well below what...

And that's a truly excellent question, since the SMB-2 and Mirage III-01 were contemporary of the Etendard IV (1956, 1956 and 1956, all three of them - hell of a year, Tonton Marcel !). With all three aircraft having the exact same engine, minus a big difference. SMB-2 & Mirage III-01 had the...

I first did this back in 1978-80, when I was in High School. It originated as a modified carrier-capable G91, but it ended up as a M1.5 A-4. I spent some time working the drawings over in the mid-2000s, but never finished it. It was to be designed & built in Australia for Melbourne (Sydney was...

...available. ---------- Earlier F-20 with no Hornet is also a rather interesting scenario. My bet for the single engine would be - afterburning J52 if done in the early 1960's - J101 later - it was the direct ancestor of the F404 --------- Uncle Sam truly had an enormous glut of supersonic...

I am trying to remember the info on the Etendard with the spey and blown flaps...

If you don't mind me saying zen, to have the A-4 Skyhawk supersonic would undoubtedly require an afterburning engine to replace the reasonable fuel-efficient J52/J65 engine. A thinner wing (which might cause issue with main landing gear storage), an air-to-air centric radar (and it's associated...

I mean, you could dial the engine back to a longer term survivable power level and only cruise at Mach 1.5 or whatever. Wonder if a non-afterburning F404 would do the job? Yes, but it's harder to show those lifetime savings to the people paying for the aircraft.

The difference between odd and even engine designations was done in order to somewhat delink the coordination required of the Air Force and Navy. However, this was in no way (or at least only in a limited way if the production supply did not meet the demand, which may be why the F3H-2 was...

I think You are right, as the important sentence is here: Even if it seems to be the same text, there are some additions which seem to be omitted in my version ! http://airkiller.diy.myrice.com/pla/fc1.htm ... and maybe a slightly different version...

Well I certainly think the CCAs won't have augmented engines at any rate. One thing about the Hound Dog is that it was a pure turbojet, which is generally going to be less efficient. Second thing is that it was a version of the engine designed to operate at emergency power full time since its...