SNECMA works nowadays on an improved version of the M88 Turbofan. This M88-3 version should manage with minimal modifications and bring approx. 20% more performance with little increase of fuel consumption. In addition to, the engine gets a new low pressure compressor. The air throughput is raised to 72 kg / s and the pressure ratio on 27:1. The dry thrust should be increased therefore on 60 kN (6120 kg) and the Aft-thrust on 90 kN (9180 kg). But a modification of the air entries would be required.
In the second step the M88-4 version should appear from more extensive hardware modifications. The M88-4 gets a new low pressure turbine and a new afterburner. With it, the Aft-thrust will be increased up to approx. 11000 kg. Then, however, the fuel consumption of this version will increase. Higher loads can only be made possible in the future by this higher thrust, as the thrust-/weight ratio will also be improved. This would also lead to an increased output. So would improve acceleration and steep path performance and the Supercruise-speed could be increased up to 1,5 mach. Besides, the engine would lose less speed while manoeuvring what could result in a higher turning rate. Range advantages would also arise.
The company is already in talks with South Korea to offer the M88-2K, based on a proposed non-afterburning variant of the M88, the 50kN M88-2S.
Alongside projecting a family of "dry" M88s, Snecma is also looking at developing the 110kN M884. This project is at the preliminary design stage, but is aimed at eventually replacing the M53K in the Mirage 2000.
Dufour says that Snecma has begun studies into the eventual re-engineing of the Mirage 2000-5, whose single M53 engine would be replaced by an M88. The company is already looking at uprated versions of the M88 for projected higher-weight versions of the Rafale - the M88-3 with a thrust of 90kN, and the M88-4 with 110kN - and he sees these as being suitable for the Mirage 2000.
The French company has already proposed the engine to Saab as a potential replacement for the Volvo Aero Engines RM-12 (General Electric F-404) in the JAS39 Gripen, but Dufour says that the marketing tie-up between Saab and British Aerospace for the Gripen has "diminished" the chances of such a substitution being made. He holds out more hope of his company selling the M88 - possibly in a non-afterburning "S" or "dry" form to South Korea
- CDG: Thunder SAY AGAIN? Your intentions are unreadable... (Thunder) AGAIN?... AGAIN?...AGAIN?...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 21 2005, 1:25 PM
snecma engines have never been known as great engines like RR or p&w
Don't try this at home lads
quoted from:
panda
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
quoted from:
panda
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Whatever they say; YOU say it's a fact who are these guys? Specialists? Facts are Mirage 2000 are winning 90% of their engagements vs F-16. And it's from A Mirage 2000 test pilot not another wanna be harmchair specialist (Name is Eric Gerard and HE know what he is talking about as opposed to you or the French forum posters).
You get to do a little better than that to call this a fact.
Another thing. From the Forum (WAAF) specialist; OPIT (DEFFA) as an AdA Specialist in active service: M-53 allow the Mirage 2000 to reach M 2.5 dash speed and is qualified and tested up to M 2.7. Another subject you'd like to tackle without looking ridiculous?
- CDG: Thunder SAY AGAIN? Your intentions are unreadable... (Thunder) AGAIN?... AGAIN?...AGAIN?...
This message has been edited by sampaix on Aug 21, 2005 6:17 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
But i prefer to let them think whatever they say and see our aircrafts shoot theirs eventually when pitted vs each other.
SNECMA have a reputation hard to get rid of in France as a second fiddle, but they are producing engines which are giving the French aircrafts performances to beat. I still have to hear from a F-16 flying passed M 1.9, even F-22 won't be as fast than the Mirage 2000.
The US engines have the thrust but reliability is in the French side, as for R-R they aren't producing any front line aircraft engine these days as far as i know, only part of them or trainers, so when it come to make claims we all know they are there, but when the reality strikes it's always another story...
- CDG: Thunder SAY AGAIN? Your intentions are unreadable... (Thunder) AGAIN?... AGAIN?...AGAIN?...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 22 2005, 12:32 AM
Quote:actually I read it on a french forum (you gave me the link) and I think that they are saying the truth, facts can't be denied:
Facts? these are speculations and of a varied nature.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
1 - Mirage 2000 max-mach - M53 thrust
some numbers do bring questions : if mirage can 2,5 - 2,8 mach, what about the thrust of its M53? flight altitude? angle of flight? No doubt that is only impossible for very short period between repair. but main question lies on supersonic aerodynamics / drag-lift curves which are not similiar with those by 1,5 mach by 30 000 ft
2 - Official SNECMA site writes that upgraded M53 are in definition phases with various customers; i.e. already in bench tests...at least
3 - M88-3 is written as "available"...for sale...same remark
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The M 88-3 is very high tech, in fact newer than what the US are aligning now.
The fact that SNECMA have prefered to field more economical and reliable engines for years doesn't mean their products are not good nor technologically advanced, it means they prefered not to have 200 F-15 waiting for an engine after one or two compressors shreded themself in flight. (PW F-100).
Now they're talkning, Rafale will have both engine and radar upgrade even with AdA/MN at least this is what they are pushing for. Reason: The want Rafale to be competitive vs F-35.
As for the "dry" M 88s they would make very good replacement/fits for trainers engines like the T-50 etc...
I'd love to see a Mirage 2000 fited with a 110kN M884.
- CDG: Thunder SAY AGAIN? Your intentions are unreadable... (Thunder) AGAIN?... AGAIN?...AGAIN?...
This message has been edited by sampaix on Aug 22, 2005 10:55 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 22 2005, 4:53 PM
Wake up, the M88-3 will be ready after several jewels from GE.
We can assume that the M88 would be as reliable, user and maintenance friendly than the good ol' M53 but putting it ahead of the americans equivalent ....
If only the -3 can be seen as clearly ahead of the EJ200, it would be a real achievement.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 22 2005, 5:43 PM
@jesse04 If only the -3 can be seen as clearly ahead of the EJ200, it would be a real achievement.
Static thrust is not the only metric here, and M88 performance is already an achievement given its size and weight. And in case you don't know, an engine is not made to burn some fuel on a test bench.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I think you're the one in need of a good wake up call; read about it a lot more and stop bashing up France's equipement, expecially because you seems a little backward at the infos level in both perfs and technologies. M 88-2 is already level with EJ-200 and it's only the begining...
- CDG: Thunder SAY AGAIN? Your intentions are unreadable... (Thunder) AGAIN?... AGAIN?...AGAIN?...
This message has been edited by sampaix on Aug 22, 2005 6:47 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 23 2005, 9:31 AM
Static thrust is not the only metric here, and M88 performance is already an achievement given its size and weight. And in case you don't know, an engine is not made to burn some fuel on a test bench
I perfectly know all that.
But saying that the M88-2 is ahead of the EJ200 right now is stupid.
The most honnest analyse would say that they are pretty close.
I think you're the one in need of a good wake up call; read about it a lot more and stop bashing up France's equipement, expecially because you seems a little backward at the infos level in both perfs and technologies. M 88-2 is already level with EJ-200 and it's only the begining...
Same thing.
BTW it's only the beginning for the EJ200 too.
This message has been edited by jesse04 on Aug 23, 2005 10:13 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Yeah sure Jess,the same old controversytoprove how little you know
No score for this post
August 23 2005, 11:25 AM
And how much you can tackle the subject.
If anyone can talk about Dassault and SNECMA in a constructive and iformative way here it ain't you. Proven time and time again.
So unless you have any infos to make your points, i strongly suggest you keep this sort of bulls away from the topic and do the "chien ecrases" elsewhere. Merci d'avance.
Here foryour education.
DEFA550
Nouveau Membre
Inscrit le: 21 Aoû 2005
Messages: 7
Posté le: 21 Aoû 2005 21:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pour mon premier message sur ce forum, je vais essayer d'etre le plus clair possible.
En matiere de moteurs, comme dans d'autres domaines, il convient de ne pas se fier aux apparences. Les données constructeur sont plus ou moins arrondies a des valeurs proches, et ont un seul point en commun : elles concernent les performances statiques, sur un banc d'essai, pour une vitesse de 0 km/h et une altitude 0.
Or, un avion ne vole generalement pas si bas, et encore moins a vitesse nulle. En theorie, l'accroissement de la vitesse et/ou de l'altitude fait diminuer la poussee disponible, soit par diminution de la vitesse relative des gaz ejectes, soit par manque d'air, soit les deux. Donc si on veut comparer les performances de deux moteurs, il faut le faire dans des conditions comparables de vitesse et d'altitude, et donc prendre en compte les caracteristiques de l'avion.
La regulation du volume d'air ingurgite par le moteur est generalement obtenue grace a des entrees d'air a section variable ou a des vannes de decharge, de facon a ne pas depasser une certaine pression devant le compresseur. Cette pression, qui correspond a un certain volume d'air, influe directement sur la poussee disponible. Plus il y a d'air, plus on peut melanger de kerosene, et plus ca pousse fort.
D'un autre cote, plus on brule d'air et de kerosene, plus la temperature augmente. Les gaz chauds entrainant la turbine, il faut que celle-ci supporte les temperatures elevees (de 1000 a 1300 degres environ) faute de quoi elle ... fond. Autrement dit, le niveau de temperature supportable par la turbine limite la quantite d'air qu'il est possible de bruler, et donc la poussee maximale.
Pour en revenir a nos moutons, on a d'un cote le couple Eurofighter/EJ200 avec des entrees d'air a section variable, et de l'autre le couple Rafale/M88 avec des entrees d'air fixes et une turbine supportant une temperature record (> 1500 degres). Aux vues de ces donnees, on peut imaginer que le M88 perd moins de poussee en prenant de la vitesse (voire en gagne par bourrage du compresseur) que l'EJ 200, compte tenu du fait que l'utilisation d'entrees d'air fixe suggere une optimisation du flux d'air pour un regime particulier (vitesse/altitude) different des conditions statiques. Cette idee se trouve confortee par le fait que le Rafale a aussi ete developpe pour les misions de penetration a haute vitesse et basse altitude, domaine de vol ou l'air ne manque pas...
Autrement dit, les donnees statiques du M88 ne refletent pas forcement la realite operationnelle.
Si on s'interresse au taux de dillution, on decouvre un autre aspect du probleme. Ce taux de dillution correspond au rapport entre la quantite d'air simplement acceleree (turbofan) et la quantite d'air brule (turbojet). En pratique, l'EJ200 brule 54,7 kg/s (bypass 0,4 = 29%/71%), le M88 50 kg/s (bypass 0,3 = 23%/77%). Le reste est ejecte a grande vitesse sans etre brule.
La poussee correspondant a la masse de gaz ejectes multipliee par leur vitesse (relative) d'ejection, il apparait que plus l'avion avance vite, plus la vitesse relative des gaz diminue, et plus on perd de poussee. Or, l'acceleration d'une masse d'air (turbofan) joue essentiellement sur la vitesse d'ejection. A ce titre, l'EJ200 a plus a perdre que le M88, et les deux moteurs ne sont pas loin d'avoir des performances similaires (a 10% pres) en supersonique, toutes choses etant egales par ailleurs.
Au bout du compte, il y a largement de quoi expliquer pourquoi le Rafale peut faire de la supercroisiere avec un bidon et 4 missiles, malgre des moteurs moins performants sur le papier.
Quant au fameux "war setting", tous les moteurs en beneficient. Les performances maximales sont reduites pour assurer la fiabilite et la longevite. Deja en 1986, le M53-5 pouvait donner plus de 11T en PC une fois "debride". Le M53-P2 pousse la plaisanterie jusqu'a 12T. Seulement le risque de casse devient non negligeable, et le moteur rend l'ame au bout d'une dizaine d'heure d'utilisation
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 23 2005, 12:47 PM
@jesse04
Maximum TIT (Turbine Inlet Temperature) should give you a clue on the technological advances offered by the M88, let alone the know-how at SNECMA and Onera.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 23 2005, 8:13 PM
I can't find anymore a website from a french technician who worked on the
AdA on the ATAR to M53. Until the M88, SNECMA has been behind Anglo saxons
competitors.
The EJ200 is quite more powerful than the M88 with an equivalent SFC.
I know that an engine is so much more than figures. Mirage pilot love the
fact that you can literally torture a M53 without problem.
But before saying that the M88-3 is ahead of waht GE can produce, it would
be a good news to be sure that SNECMA is ahead of RR alone.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 23 2005, 9:51 PM
@jesse04
Untill the M88, SNECMA has been behind Anglo saxons competitors
Behind in which domain ?
Thrust ?
Bypass ratio ?
Pressure ratio ?
Size ?
Weight ?
Reliability ?
Cost of ownership ?
Pilotability ?
Maintainability ?
Once and for all, the M53 engine is an old (and simple) design that date back to the late 1960. Its first flight occured in mach 1978 (M53-2) and july 1983 (M53-P2). So you'd better compare it with contemporary engines of the same class.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
So you're basically objecting that a 9 years older engine (in fact, much more than this by design) is less powerful. Good catch.
That just shows how you're biased and focused on static thrust only (which seems to be your only valuable metric).
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 24 2005, 1:32 AM
I think Defa got a point here. You can't access an engine simply by the thrust and said it is lagging behind another engine producing more thrust during the testing phase. But however like Jesse, it is good sometime to be sceptical. It is reasonable to criticise the engine. criticism is the reason why Snecma is producing a more powerful engine, therefore the evolution.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 24 2005, 10:34 AM
Well,I know that the american engines used for the comparison are newer, I know that the "fiche de programme" of the M53 has been written when Mach 3 at very high altitude was a wet dream but still.
But you loosing the point.
The beginning of my first post was that the M88-3 would be ahead of anything used NOW by the USAF.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 24 2005, 11:04 AM
@jesse04 But you loosing the point
No mate.
The beginning of my first post was that the M88-3 would be ahead of anything used NOW by the USAF.
"ahead" ? Oh, I see... Maximum static thrust again.
If for you a jet fighter is only a racer, so be it. I've lost enough time with you, as you're clearly not willing to have a civilized debate.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The usual anti-French bashing from ab BIASED Frenchman.
No score for this post
August 24 2005, 12:23 PM
"Well,I know that the american engines used for the comparison are newer, I know that the "fiche de programme" of the M53 has been written when Mach 3 at very high altitude was a wet dream but still."
What do YOU know about the technologies involved with the M 88-3/4s? Wha tdo you know about the M 53 testes and real performances? Zilth.
"The beginning of my first post was that the M88-3 would be ahead of anything used NOW by the USAF."
Not only now,but also released for service over the next few years.
The point is some of M88-3/4 new technologies are still is in the preliminary design and conception stage and the programme is an evolution, hence you'll be hard pressed to asses now how much of the new generations of technologies will be used in the finish article. Your view is totally biased.
- CDG: Thunder SAY AGAIN? Your intentions are unreadable... (Thunder) AGAIN?... AGAIN?...AGAIN?...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 24 2005, 12:26 PM
No mate.
I certainly know better than you why I post a reply
It was only about the
"ahead" ? Oh, I see... Maximum static thrust again.
ASk that to Thunder, it's his own word
I know, as I already said, that the SNECMA line up over the time as always been very reliable but do you believe a single second that the M88 match the F119 ?
If for you a jet fighter is only a racer, so be it. I've lost enough time with you, as you're clearly not willing to have a civilized debate.
Oulah, Defa tu me fait quoi là
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Et sur quoi tu te base pour faire des remarques de ce style?
No score for this post
August 24 2005, 12:47 PM
"ASk that to Thunder, it's his own word"
I'm talking about technologies and the application of new ones. In fact you were coming up with !puting M88 level to EJ-200" in what exactly is M 88 inferior?
"I know, as I already said, that the SNECMA line up over the time as always been very reliable but do you believe a single second that the M88 match the F119 ?"
What can allow you to say that exactly? Do you have any concrete evidence of the contrary? As for F-119, it is already in service, M 88-3 is a totally new engine, not even at the end of its prototype developement, M 88-4 isn't fully designed and newer technologies are introduced for both.
When these come into service, they will not only be on par with the F-22/F35 engines but probabilly including even newer technologies. All you're saying restes on no ground at all.
"Oulah, Defa tu me fait quoi là" il te fait remarquer que tu t'y connais trop peu pour elaborer et essayer de lui tenir tete. Jesse; tu t'est montre plus qu'un amateur dans le passe, les choses n'ont pas l'air d'avoir change. Opit sert dans l'Armee de L'Air comme specialiste, tu devrais vraiement la fermer et ecouter...
- CDG: Thunder SAY AGAIN? Your intentions are unreadable... (Thunder) AGAIN?... AGAIN?...AGAIN?...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 24 2005, 12:48 PM
Messieur calmez-vous, pas besoin de se bagarrer. Je suggère que vous continuez cette discussion en francais.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 24 2005, 2:41 PM
Opit sert dans l'Armee de L'Air comme specialiste, tu devrais vraiement la fermer et ecouter...
<rant>
mouai, raison de plus pour y mettre la pression: les grosses tronches enfermés dans leur certitudes, on a vu qu'est ce que ça donnait en 40.
ya pas de mal a douter tant que ça ne paralise pas. Et puis c'est pas parce qu'on est bon en technique qu'on est bon dans la discussion, parce que là je vois pas qu'est ce que Jess a dit de mal. A moins que questionner les grands mandarins soit leur manquer de respect ? dans ce cas, faudrais mettre des bandages sur vos chevilles Opit et Thunder: elles gonflent.
ça me ferait ch** d'avoir seulement affair a des point de vu anglos, mais ça me fait ch** que les français qui s'y connaissent le mieux ont la grosse tete, sont toujours sur les nerfs et t'as toujours l'impression qu'ils sont en train de gueuler.
</rant>
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 24 2005, 2:53 PM
What can allow you to say that exactly? Do you have any concrete evidence of the contrary?
the M88 is a better engine than the F119 ?
the whole world is wauting for your arguments.
As for F-119, it is already in service, M 88-3 is a totally new engine,
Is a only a huge mistake or a blatant lie ?
M 88-4 isn't fully designed and newer technologies are introduced for both.
Of course, but what about newer version of EJ200, F119; F135 ....... ?
When these come into service, they will not only be on par with the F-22/F35 engines but probabilly including even newer technologies. All you're saying restes on no ground at all.
It's more the american industry who can regulary ugrade his products, the figure about their budgets and customers is a remote wet dream for french industrial.
Look only at the AESA. "Look at our wonderful RBE2, just plug a new array, et voila !!! A brand new AESA radar ....... available in 2012 if Singapore give us some funds"
Sorry, but you are seldom able to
il te fait remarquer que tu t'y connais trop peu pour elaborer et essayer de lui tenir tete.
Je lui tiendrais moins tête s'il me prouvait par A+B que le M88-3 est une pure merveille qui met minable tout le reste de la production mondiale comme tu le prétends et qui a déja été viré à coup de pied au cul du super gripen et certainement du LCA Indien ou que le M53 montrait une réelle maitrise technique de A à Z de la chaine de conception des moteurs quand j'ai fournis la preuve qu'un sous système ne l'était pas.
Jesse; tu t'est montre plus qu'un amateur dans le passe, les choses n'ont pas l'air d'avoir change.
Venant d'un crétin qui se fait virer de tout les sites où il passe, ca me fait très plaisir.
Ca serait Ogami ou Kovy qui me dirait ca, ca me ferait de la peine, de toi ca me donne juste envie de me prendre une petite bière
Opit sert dans l'Armee de L'Air comme specialiste, tu devrais vraiement la fermer et ecouter...
Et en quoi son avis a t il plus de poids que ceux des autres spécialistes qui ne sont pas d'accord avec lui ?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 24 2005, 5:20 PM
@jesse04 I know, as I already said, that the SNECMA line up over the time as always been very reliable but do you believe a single second that the M88 match the F119 ?
Ca depend de ce qu'on recherche.
La puissance : non
Le prix (acquisition + utilisation + maintenance) : oui
L'encombrement : oui
La simplicite : oui
Le niveau technologique : probable
Juger les capacites de la SNECMA sur sa production ne mene a rien de concret. Elle fabrique des moteurs repondant a un cahier des charges, lequel insiste plus sur le rapport cout/efficacite que sur la performance pure. Ce n'est pas pour rien que la SNECMA precise que le M88-3 peut etre "bride" a 75 kN afin de gagner en longevite et de reduire les couts d'exploitation. C'est precisement ce qui va se passer si cette version est adoptee. C'est une constante en France : on ne remotorise pas et l'augmentation de poussee n'est absolument pas un critere decisif (les plus anciens 2000 B et C volent encore avec des M53-5). Dans ces conditions, comparer un M88 a un F119 est un debat sterile tout simplement parce que leurs objectifs ne sont pas les memes.
La SNECMA est jugulee par des motifs politico-financiers, ce qui ne signifie pas qu'elle est technologiquement en retard. De ce point de vue, le M88 utilise des technologies de pointe (materiaux composites et technologie des poudres, par exemple) que tout le monde ne maitrise pas.
http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/OSTP/CTIformatted/chap8/8trans.html "For the turbojet engine, a key objective of the last 40 years has been to increase combustion temperatures for better efficiency and reduced fuel consumption, without burning up the turbine blades. This is done by better materials such as the ceramics mentioned elsewhere, better cooling approaches, and by better computational analysis methods."
Une temperature d'entree de turbine superieure a 1577 degres, ce n'est pas insignifiant.
"Performance improvements in propulsion systems are driven by core technology advances in engine component technologies, manufacturing capabilities, and systems integration. Europe continues to lag in turbine-blade technologies, but is keeping pace with U.S. developments. The United Kingdom and France are slightly behind the U.S., but have introduced some technologies first. For example, the United Kingdom was the first to introduce hollow fan blades, instrumental for reducing engine weight. France is a leader in advanced composite materials and has introduced silicon carbide nozzle flaps for their M88 engine."
En clair, les capacites sont la, et la SNECMA est loin d'etre a la ramasse comme tu le laisse supposer. En tout etat de cause, le M88 est concu pour le Rafale, et le Rafale concu autour du M88. Les deux vont de pair et sont indissociables. C'est parce que le M88 est plus petit et plus leger que l'EJ200 ou le F404 que le Rafale B/C/M est plus petit et leger que le Rafale A, et c'est parce que l'avion est plus petit qu'un moteur plus petit convient tout aussi bien, avec quelques benefices a la cle mais aussi des inconvenients.
La veritable question n'est pas de savoir si le M88 est mieux qu'un autre. Elle est de savoir si le compromis est bon.
@roland
Je ne pense pas avoir la grosse tete, mais je n'aime pas avoir l'impression de discuter avec quelqu'un qui ne veut pas comprendre. A partir du moment ou la discution revient immanquablement sur une comparaison des puissances, le debat est clos parce qu'il n'y a rien a discuter.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Les gens comparent le M 88-2 et l'EJ 200 sans se demander ce qu'il en est de leurs encombrement respectif. C'est trop facile a faire. Meme les F-100/110 sont des moteur plus gros que le M 53 alors comparer leur poussee respectiuve n'est qu'un jeux plutot infantile qui ne mene a rien mais on a beaucoup de ca dams ce forum...
- CDG: Thunder SAY AGAIN? Your intentions are unreadable... (Thunder) AGAIN?... AGAIN?...AGAIN?...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The M88-3 specs look very much like that of the newer model F404s. I think it is a competitive engine, but not really an outstanding one.
The F414 still outperforms it in terms of thrust and interms of efficiency. This is mainly due to the VERY high pressure ratio in GE and P&W military engines. Increasing the pressure ratio allows you to get more performance out of the same amount of airflow and fuel usage. The F414 is currently operating at a pressure ratio of 30:1 and the F135 tops 36:1. This is done without sacrificing component life due to the advanced metallurgy of the turbine components. Time between overalls for the F414 is currently at 3000-4000 hours, actually better than the 2000 hours promised by GE. The F135 is being designed as a 6000 hours engine.
Der Wille zur Macht!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 25 2005, 1:18 AM
I am not able to get any official data on the weight, diameter and length of the M88-3. The M88-2 however is 1975 kg. It is a little lighter than the 2150kg F404. However, the engines have an immaterial difference in inlet diameters (27.5" on the M88-2, 27.7" on the F404) and air flow ratings (65 kg/s on the M88-2 and 63.5 kg/s on the F404). The F404 is a little longer (by 14" or 10%) in the configuration used by F-18s mainly because of the burner can and tail cone design. Fuel economy in dry thrust is slightly better on the F404 mainly because its pressure ratio of 27:1 is slightly higher than the M88-2's 24.5:1, this allows for higher thermal efficiency. Regardless of the differences, I think the two engines definitely fall in the same class. In fact, if I remember correctly developmental Rafales were initially fitted with F404s, and later with one F404 and one M88.
The F414 is actually very slightly SHORTER than the F404 -- 154" vs 155". Inlet diameter is increased from 27.7" to 30.6" It is heavier than the F404 at 2,445 lbs partly because of the increased diameter, but also because of the larger heavier electrical generator accessory that the F-18E/F application demanded. Airflow is up to 77 kg/s, pressure ratio is 30:1 and thrust is up to 22,000 lbs or 98 kN. Given that Rafales being fitted with M88-3 powerplants needed enlarged inlets, my guess is that there is at least a slight increase in inlet diameter. This almost always mean a slightly heavier engine and slightly larger engine. I expect, some weight increase in the M88-3. This should put it in the ballpark as the F414-GE-400.
The F414-GE-600 is a 27,500 lbs (122kN) version of the F414 currently under development. It will use high temperature parts incorporating technology from the F120/136 engines. Again, I expect the engine to be slightly heavier and slightly larger than the current F414-GE-400. But any increase in size will have to be very marginal since the engine has to fit in the F-18E/F.
Der Wille zur Macht!
This message has been edited by dwightlooi on Aug 25, 2005 1:24 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 25 2005, 2:07 AM
@dwight looi
Diameter and length of the M88-3 remain the same. IIRC, it uses a new compressor and a new afterburner. SNECMA claims a 2 to 4% lower SFC that fits well with a possibly higher pressure ratio (thus a higher airflow).
Indeed, Rafale A was fitted with two F404, but production aircrafts are 3% smaller and the F404 (or derivative) no longer fit in the new design.
27.7" to 30.6" looks like a small improvement, but that's actually a 22% increase in cross section. That makes the F414 a significantly larger engine. So as I said in french above, the question is not to tell whether the M88 can compete with any other engine, but rather whether it represents a better tradeoff (larger engine = larger aircraft = more drag and weight = you need more fuel for the same range = higher cost of ownership). From a technological standpoint, I think it's not far off, if not in par.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 25 2005, 2:43 AM
OT, by the way didn't Snecma and sagem fused to become SAFRAN.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 25 2005, 3:15 AM
27.7" to 30.6" looks like a small improvement, but that's actually a 22% increase in cross section. That makes the F414 a significantly larger engine. So as I said in french above, the question is not to tell whether the M88 can compete with any other engine, but rather whether it represents a better tradeoff (larger engine = larger aircraft = more drag and weight = you need more fuel for the same range = higher cost of ownership). From a technological standpoint, I think it's not far off, if not in par.
I think the the F414 retains a very similar external diameter (35" vs 34.5") and basically the same length compared to the F404. The increase in inlet diameter is mostly accomodated by a thinner fan case. In fact, the F414 is designed to fit in current F404 installations with minimal modifications -- limited mostly to accessory packaging. It is being offered as an upgrade for the Gripen for example. It is heavier than the F404 by about 200 to 300 lbs depending on the accessory package, but it is not larger by for most practical purposes.
Der Wille zur Macht!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re: Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines"
No score for this post
August 25 2005, 10:06 AM
Le prix (acquisition + utilisation + maintenance) : oui
Kovy (or another french forumer) told me that in fact, the last "step" of american engines is followed by a lost of MTBF and maintenance needs.
Le niveau technologique : probable
Proofs, please.
C'est une constante en France : on ne remotorise pas
and that's why the mirage N or D, flying at very low altitude has an engine which hasn't been made for that, with a high comsuption and made their range ridiculous.
Dans ces conditions, comparer un M88 a un F119 est un debat sterile tout simplement parce que leurs objectifs ne sont pas les memes.
So, the same can be said with the EJ200 so it's stupid to say that the M88-3 will be ahead of everybody;
De ce point de vue, le M88 utilise des technologies de pointe (materiaux composites et technologie des poudres, par exemple) que tout le monde ne maitrise pas.
I perfectly know that.
En clair, les capacites sont la, et la SNECMA est loin d'etre a la ramasse comme tu le laisse supposer.
I use the word "lag", in the sense that SNECMA is behind Pw or GE, I haven't said that the M88 is a sh*t
La veritable question n'est pas de savoir si le M88 est mieux qu'un autre. Elle est de savoir si le compromis est bon.
Et c'est ce qui me gène en partie. Tout comme le rafale, il y a beaucoup de compromis.
Je ne pense pas avoir la grosse tete, mais je n'aime pas avoir l'impression de discuter avec quelqu'un qui ne veut pas comprendre. A partir du moment ou la discution revient immanquablement sur une comparaison des puissances, le debat est clos parce qu'il n'y a rien a discuter.
J'ai parlé de technologies à un endroit précis du moteur, de consommation ....
Il n'y a pas plus aveugle que celui qui ne veut voir.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It fits to the engine bay WITHOUT modification and as for the modif needed it's already taken care of. A new plug-in air intake is ready. If your infos are dated from three years, not surprisingly you're not up to date...
Dwig: Thanks for the insight it's apreciated. It looks like the M88 and F404/414 aree following a similar growth path. - CDG: Thunder SAY AGAIN? Your intentions are unreadable... (Thunder) AGAIN?... AGAIN?...AGAIN?...
This message has been edited by sampaix on Aug 25, 2005 3:35 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Current Topic - Snecma chairman Bernard Dufour says that it is "just the start of a family of engines".
-
CDG: Thunder SAY AGAIN? Your intentions are unreadable... (Thunder) AGAIN?... AGAIN?...AGAIN?...
