HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
AstonZagato said:
I think I once saw a presentation online that nuclear reactors could be used to synthesise jet fuel from seawater. It was a ferociously expensive process but, when compared to resupplying an aircraft carrier in a hostile environment, it started to make sense.
US Navy have been trying to develop it. A couple of years ago they flew a model aircraft on fuel they'd made in the lab using the process. I don't know if it got much further than that.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iavz7AnKI8I
Mave said:
Yeah, I'm just pointing out that the ship gas turbines could run happily on the same fuel as the aircraft gas turbines, even if it's JP4/5AVCAT. I assume it's cost that means they don't!
Apparently the Russians used to design their aircraft to be able to run on diesel if needed. Modern aero engines are a lot more sensitive to the fuel though. The RB199 in Tornado used a vaporiser fuel injector, that basically just blasts fuel up stream where it's vaporised by the oncoming airflow. This gives a very fuel rich region which makes for a very stable engine but quite dirty and not that fuel efficient. Civil engines, which are much more focussed on cleanliness and fuel consumption, use airspray injectors, with a complicated injector that has an annular fuel gallery with swirl vanes inside and outside so the fuel is injected in to very high shear from the opposing airflows, reducing the local air fuel ratio and resulting in a cleaner burn. No idea about F35 but the EJ200 in Typhoon uses this system.The gas turbines in the carriers are aero derivative engines based on the Trent 800 engine that powers the 777, but I'd assume they'll have different injectors to the aero engine, optimised for a different viscosity of fuel, meaning it can probably run on aero grade fuel, but not as efficiently.
RizzoTheRat said:
The gas turbines in the carriers are aero derivative engines based on the Trent 800 engine that powers the 777, but I'd assume they'll have different injectors to the aero engine, optimised for a different viscosity of fuel, meaning it can probably run on aero grade fuel, but not as efficiently.
They're pretty much the same injectors but with different coatings / seals to cope with the sulphur in marine fuel, and the coolers etc passageways designed to cope with high viscosity at low temperatures.Interesting. I thought viscosity was more of an issue, but it was a long time ago I worked on that kind of stuff.
Spend bloody ages mapping the spray patterns from various iterations of the EJ200 injectors, don't miss locking myself in the lab all day without being able to leave due to the interlocks for the laser :-D
Spend bloody ages mapping the spray patterns from various iterations of the EJ200 injectors, don't miss locking myself in the lab all day without being able to leave due to the interlocks for the laser :-D
Inkyfingers said:
Sylvaforever said:
Speaking of fuel, just what is the unrefueled range of the F35b these days ?
Just asking as my "commute" theses days is 408 miles, does it cone close?
>900 miles apparently.Just asking as my "commute" theses days is 408 miles, does it cone close?
"One of the fundamental changes in SDSR 2010 was to select the F35C over the F35B. The rational for this was that the F35C could also replace the Tornado and cover the RAF’s Future Offensive Air System requirement as well as the Joint Combat Aircraft requirement designed to replace the Harrier. However once it became clear that the cost of converting the aircraft carriers would be in the £ 5 billion pound range the decision was taken to revert back to the B model. However despite the decision to revert back to the B model no decision was taken to replace the Tornado with something else. The F35B will now have to serve as both a Harrier replacement and a Tornado replacement."
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 70/0000%22
“...Mr Burbage: We have 16 key performance parameters on this airplane. Half are logistics and sustainment-related, half are aeroperformance-related and one or two are in classified areas. We have an oversight body called the Joint Require-ments Oversight Council, the JROC, that looks at those requirements every year and makes decisions on them—'Are we going to meet them, are we not going to meet them? If we are not going to meet them, what is the impact of that?' We have one this year which was the range of the Air Force airplane which had a specific set of ground rules associated with how that range is calculated which is not similar to either of the other two airplanes. The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude in the original calculation. The JROC agreed to change the ground rules to fly that airplane as the other two were flown and, when that happened, the airplane had excess margin to the range requirement...."
As is the case these days accurate information is often mired with deceit...
Dog Star said:
Does anyone know if there are any carrier landing qualified pilots from the old UK Harrier days currently training on the F35 in the US? I'd have imagined they'd have all retired or moved on by now.
Classified categoryPersonnel in Confidence
Edited by SantaBarbara on Wednesday 23 August 11:03
Dog Star said:
Does anyone know if there are any carrier landing qualified pilots from the old UK Harrier days currently training on the F35 in the US? I'd have imagined they'd have all retired or moved on by now.
I know one from the RN and know of two others from the RAF who are now involved in flying the F35. There's a handful of former RN Harrier pilots flying F18s with the USN who may transition back too. Edited by donutsina911 on Wednesday 23 August 11:18
donutsina911 said:
Dog Star said:
Does anyone know if there are any carrier landing qualified pilots from the old UK Harrier days currently training on the F35 in the US? I'd have imagined they'd have all retired or moved on by now.
I know one from the RN and know of two others from the RAF who are now involved in flying the F35. There's a handful of former RN Harrier pilots flying F18s with the USN who may transition back too. Edited by donutsina911 on Wednesday 23 August 11:18
He'll tell you.
Timeless.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
What's the difference between a Harrier Pilot and a Pegasus Engine...?
Versions of that Joke have been around since before the Pegasus engine was even designed...........old ones about BOAC aircraft @Sydney etc....
The Pegasus stops whining when the aircraft is shut down.
Versions of that Joke have been around since before the Pegasus engine was even designed...........old ones about BOAC aircraft @Sydney etc....
The Pegasus stops whining when the aircraft is shut down.
Sorry to interrupt the bad jokes, and not wanting to bash the process behind this as I realise everyone has an opinion and they are often like arse holes....
But was reading earlier about the powerplant in the new Ford class USN carriers, and their nuclear reactors being more powerful than ever before. Interestingly they were designed with twice as much power in mind as the carrier currently consumes, to allow for future developments and additions. Then I looked at our engines, to find we were using 2 Trent engines and some diesel generators, in total producing less power than 1 of the 2 nuclear reactors on the Ford class. Why didnt the MOD buy something with a nuclear reactor in it, which is surely an advantage in terms of not needing to refuel, as well as producing a lot more power. Surely we could have bought the USN's reactor if it was considered too expensive to finance the development of our own?
But was reading earlier about the powerplant in the new Ford class USN carriers, and their nuclear reactors being more powerful than ever before. Interestingly they were designed with twice as much power in mind as the carrier currently consumes, to allow for future developments and additions. Then I looked at our engines, to find we were using 2 Trent engines and some diesel generators, in total producing less power than 1 of the 2 nuclear reactors on the Ford class. Why didnt the MOD buy something with a nuclear reactor in it, which is surely an advantage in terms of not needing to refuel, as well as producing a lot more power. Surely we could have bought the USN's reactor if it was considered too expensive to finance the development of our own?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff