Boom!

nauga said:
The restriction doesn't make a distinction between the two, and in practice there isn't a difference. A chunk of ice off the wing and down an inlet is going to ruin your day just as bad as ice that remains on the wing.

Nauga,
with a bang *and* a whimper
Click to expand...

Thanks Nauga, I was just curious from what my jet engine mechanic friend said about a straight pin eating the engine.
 
Last edited:
nauga said:
The restriction doesn't make a distinction between the two, and in practice there isn't a difference. A chunk of ice off the wing and down an inlet is going to ruin your day just as bad as ice that remains on the wing.

Nauga,
with a bang *and* a whimper
Click to expand...
The T-38 engines aren't going to ingest ice off the wing. It could form ice on the engine inlet, though. I worked T-38's too. Engine 8th stage bleed air is used for cabin pressurization/air conditioning, canopy defog, canopy seal inflation, G- suit, hydraulic reservoir pressurization and engine anti-ice.
 
GlennAB1 said:
The T-38 engines aren't going to ingest ice off the wing. It could form ice on the engine inlet, though. I worked T-38's too. Engine 8th stage bleed air is used for cabin pressurization/air conditioning, canopy defog, canopy seal inflation, G- suit, hydraulic reservoir pressurization and engine anti-ice.
Click to expand...

Is it fact what my neighbor told me the jet Glenn? I know some engines can "eat" more than others. He worked on 38 engines at Columbus so unless he was messing with me I believed him.
 
mscard88 said:
Is it fact what my neighbor told me the jet Glenn? I know some engines can "eat" more than others. He worked on 38 engines at Columbus so unless he was messing with me I believed him.
Click to expand...
My understanding is the inlet guide vanes and nose dome "bullet" are anti-iced, but that doesn't provide any protection from ice ingestion that may form on the engine inlet or fuselage forward of the inlet. There are no jet engines that like chunks of ice that have liberated from the airframe. Some fair better than others, like centrifugal compressors, they are much more robust than axial flow.
 
Last edited:
Most tactical jets don't have all the ice protection that transport aircraft have, like wing and stabilizer anti ice. They are considered "all weather" aircraft because they can quickly get out of, or through, bad weather if they enter it.
 
mscard88 said:
I was just curious from what my jet engine mechanic friend said about a straight pin eating the engine.
Click to expand...
I doubt it would take much metal to FOD a J85 but I wouldn't think a single straight pin would do much. I'm not aware of any standout FOD issues on anything with J85's or CJ610s (T-2C, Lear 24, etc...) so I kind of doubt it. I *have* seen a T-38 swallow enough rain that I thought the fire was gonna go out; with no harm done, but the rain/wx issues IME were more due to the airframe, not the engines.

Nauga,
fortunate
 
nauga said:
I *have* seen a T-38 swallow enough rain that I thought the fire was gonna go out...
Nauga,
Click to expand...
One of the amazing things about axial flow, there's still a centrifugal effect, and, the fire is contained in the burner, somewhat protected.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Anyone else think that landing gear looks REALLY tipsy in a crosswind?
Click to expand...
Funny thing about the gear is that it's "crosswind" gear, IOW you touch down in a crab and let the gear absorb the side loads.

Nauga,
who says, "Whee!"
 
Last edited:
nauga said:
Funny thing about the gear is that it's "crossind" gear, IOW you touch down in a crab and let the gear absorb the side loads.

Nauga,
who says, "Whee!"
Click to expand...
Oh, it’s for student pilots...
 
I never thought “boom” would leave the ground.

Boom Aviation’s XB-1 took a giant step forward in its mission to become the third civilian-built supersonic jet today when it completed a roughly 12-minute sub-sonic test flight in the skies around California’s Mohave Desert

Source: Boom’s Supersonic Jet Just Hit the Skies

“Supersonic aviation is back, and it’s back to stay,” Scholl told Robb Report. The first part of that statement is now a little closer to the truth, but the second remains theoretical. Boom estimates the XB-1 will execute another 10 to 20 sub-sonic test flights before attempting to break the sound barrier, hopefully some time in 2024.
 
NorthEast Ohio said:
I never thought “boom” would leave the ground.

Boom Aviation’s XB-1 took a giant step forward in its mission to become the third civilian-built supersonic jet today when it completed a roughly 12-minute sub-sonic test flight in the skies around California’s Mohave Desert

Source: Boom’s Supersonic Jet Just Hit the Skies

“Supersonic aviation is back, and it’s back to stay,” Scholl told Robb Report. The first part of that statement is now a little closer to the truth, but the second remains theoretical. Boom estimates the XB-1 will execute another 10 to 20 sub-sonic test flights before attempting to break the sound barrier, hopefully some time in 2024.
Click to expand...
I am a big fan of innovation in aviation, but this is far from it. They flew a plane that has nothing to do with the commercial airliner they are promising to build. And, it reached 238 kts. This step has been done by amateur plane builders in far shorter amount of time.
 
10-20 subsonic test flights? F-8 went supersonic first time out. Don’t make them like they used to. Seriously though, not a bad accomplishment for today.
 
Hmmm... reading the report at the link:

The fuselage includes a set of intakes that convert the incoming air flow to sub-atomic speeds, allowing the craft to run on the 12,300 pounds of thrust provided by three GE J85 engines.
Click to expand...

"Sub-atomic speeds?" Really?
:lol:
You would think being about 6 years late on this first flight, they would have time to get their press releases proofread.....
 
I'm an engineer at StandardAero, we overhaul J85 (T38) eng9nes and T56/AE2100 (C130) engines.
J85: a single rivet will damage several blades on moat compressor stages. Might ding the turbine blades too. Usually keeps running, but can cause compressor stall and they'll remove the engine and send to us for UER. We see a lot of small FOD damage at scheduled HPO and PE inspections.

The T56/AE2100 on the C130 have a s-shaped intake duct. These get beat up pretty bad from ice and hail, but helps shatter the pieces before they are ingested in the compressor. The blades are bigger and stronger so don't FOD as much as the J85.
We do F110 (F16) engines and RB211 (commercial) also.
 
The hot air from the toads in the BOOM Headshed make up for afterburners.

Anybody who believes this thing is a viable program should buy lottery tickets. Better chance of success. “Develop their own engines”. A complete pipe dream. GE, Rolls and PWA take 7 years or more to develop one and they usually screw it up the first time and often the second. Each of them have already looked at this fiasco and said NO THANKS.
 
david.h said:
I'm an engineer at StandardAero, we overhaul J85 (T38) eng9nes
Click to expand...

Are you guys the sole contractor or are there others? Our J85 fleet hours are in the toilet, as are our flying hours as a direct result of the last 18 months of J85 availability woes. It's no exaggeration they've (the MAJCOM) concocted some pretty hair-brained "innovation" initiatives in the last two years in order to reduce the amount of hours we give the undergrads before putting them in the B-course, all because of the J85 issues. Curious of any context/details on your end, you can PM me if you don't want to talk inside baseball in the public forum.

My interaction on this issue has always been on the SPO and mx directorate side of the blue/green line; never had the opportunity to speak with an actual contractor for my engines on the .civ side. The perception is not exactly positive on our side, but I think that discontent might be misplaced given we only hear from the SPO/MX spin doctors at materiel command; for all we know DoD side is setting people up for failure.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Are you guys the sole contractor or are there others? Our J85 fleet hours are in the toilet, as are our flying hours as a direct result of the last 18 months of J85 availability woes. It's no exaggeration they've (the MAJCOM) concocted some pretty hair-brained "innovation" initiatives in the last two years in order to reduce the amount of hours we give the undergrads before putting them in the B-course, all because of the J85 issues. Curious of any context/details on your end, you can PM me if you don't want to talk inside baseball in the public forum.

My interaction on this issue has always been on the SPO and mx directorate side of the blue/green line; never had the opportunity to speak with an actual contractor for my engines on the .civ side. The perception is not exactly positive on our side, but I think that discontent might be misplaced given we only hear from the SPO/MX spin doctors at materiel command; for all we know DoD side is setting people up for failure.
Click to expand...
Pm you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top