F-104 maxed out

http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_79.html

I've read that the F-104's speed is really limited by the
compressor inlet temperature on the J79, and that the
airframe itself supports much higher speeds. Since the
J79 fits (modified) in a F-16, what then if we were to
fit a GE-F110 type engine with closer to twice the thrust?



Regards...

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in
:


http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_79.html

I've read that the F-104's speed is really limited by the
compressor inlet temperature on the J79, and that the
airframe itself supports much higher speeds. Since the
J79 fits (modified) in a F-16, what then if we were to
fit a GE-F110 type engine with closer to twice the thrust?



Regards...




What's the point? It's still not going to handle all that well,perhaps
worse with the extra speed. And probably not worth the money spent on the
project.

BTW,would the F-104's inlets then become the major restriction for airflow
into the engine? I believe the jets that use the newer engines have much
larger inlets.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in
:


http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_79.html

I've read that the F-104's speed is really limited by the
compressor inlet temperature on the J79, and that the
airframe itself supports much higher speeds. Since the
J79 fits (modified) in a F-16, what then if we were to
fit a GE-F110 type engine with closer to twice the thrust?



Regards...




What's the point? It's still not going to handle all that well,perhaps
worse with the extra speed. And probably not worth the money spent on the
project.

BTW,would the F-104's inlets then become the major restriction for airflow
into the engine? I believe the jets that use the newer engines have much
larger inlets.

The speed limitation due to the (fixed geometry) inlets arises from the
fact that, going too fast, the inlet will swallow the shockwave,
resulting in compressor stall and other engine misbehavior.

Orval Fairbairn wrote in message .. .
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in
:


http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_79.html

I've read that the F-104's speed is really limited by the
compressor inlet temperature on the J79, and that the
airframe itself supports much higher speeds. Since the
J79 fits (modified) in a F-16, what then if we were to
fit a GE-F110 type engine with closer to twice the thrust?



Regards...




What's the point? It's still not going to handle all that well,perhaps
worse with the extra speed. And probably not worth the money spent on the
project.

BTW,would the F-104's inlets then become the major restriction for airflow
into the engine? I believe the jets that use the newer engines have much
larger inlets.

The speed limitation due to the (fixed geometry) inlets arises from the
fact that, going too fast, the inlet will swallow the shockwave,
resulting in compressor stall and other engine misbehavior.

While it is fesible, and it is a possibility to modify the
inlets...you would get to the point where you have to ask yourself "it
is worth it, or is it cheaper to design a new aircraft".

Jim Yanik wrote in
:

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in
:


http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_79.html

I've read that the F-104's speed is really limited by the
compressor inlet temperature on the J79, and that the
airframe itself supports much higher speeds. Since the
J79 fits (modified) in a F-16, what then if we were to
fit a GE-F110 type engine with closer to twice the thrust?



Regards...




What's the point?

Apart from the shear fun? :^) Acceleration, climbrate, fuel
economy.


It's still not going to handle all that
well,perhaps worse with the extra speed. And probably not worth
the money spent on the project.

BTW,would the F-104's inlets then become the major restriction
for airflow into the engine? I believe the jets that use the
newer engines have much larger inlets.

http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm

"Early Starfighters could not exceed Mach 2.2 without
damaging the engine; on later models with the -19 engine
this was increased to Mach 2.3. The canopy limit is
around Mach 2.6. The airframe on late models is stable
out to Mach 2.8."


Don't know if this can be verified, but I guess a F110 would
be a tight squeeze anyway, having a larger diameter than the j79.



Regards...

What's the point? It's still not going to handle all that well,perhaps
worse with the extra speed.

How much do you know about how the F-104 "handled"? Got any personal
experience?

I do...and I think your statement is typical of the ill-educated BS
associated with this aircraft.
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in
:


http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_79.html

I've read that the F-104's speed is really limited by the
compressor inlet temperature on the J79, and that the
airframe itself supports much higher speeds. Since the
J79 fits (modified) in a F-16, what then if we were to
fit a GE-F110 type engine with closer to twice the thrust?



Regards...




What's the point? It's still not going to handle all that well,perhaps
worse with the extra speed. And probably not worth the money spent on the
project.

BTW,would the F-104's inlets then become the major restriction for airflow
into the engine? I believe the jets that use the newer engines have much
larger inlets.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Relatively easy to fit a smaller diameter engine into the space in which a
larger one fit. The retrofit of the 110 engine into the F-14's engine bays
(TF-30's somewhat physically larger than a J-79 BTW) was a real squeeze.

Compressor inlet temp can be handled by water injection (Skyburner F-4 had
it, Greenameyer's F-104 was getting it). Canopy overheating is another
problem.

R / John

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...

http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_79.html

I've read that the F-104's speed is really limited by the
compressor inlet temperature on the J79, and that the
airframe itself supports much higher speeds. Since the
J79 fits (modified) in a F-16, what then if we were to
fit a GE-F110 type engine with closer to twice the thrust?



Regards...

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:36:25 -0600, "John Carrier"
wrote:

Relatively easy to fit a smaller diameter engine into the space in which a
larger one fit. The retrofit of the 110 engine into the F-14's engine bays
(TF-30's somewhat physically larger than a J-79 BTW) was a real squeeze.

Compressor inlet temp can be handled by water injection (Skyburner F-4 had
it, Greenameyer's F-104 was getting it). Canopy overheating is another
problem.

R / John

If you have access to AW&ST you might want to read about Rascal that
DARPA is kicking around. It's pretty interesting and it's along
similar lines.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:36:25 -0600, "John Carrier"
wrote:

Relatively easy to fit a smaller diameter engine into the space in which
a
larger one fit. The retrofit of the 110 engine into the F-14's engine
bays
(TF-30's somewhat physically larger than a J-79 BTW) was a real squeeze.

Compressor inlet temp can be handled by water injection (Skyburner F-4
had
it, Greenameyer's F-104 was getting it). Canopy overheating is another
problem.

R / John

If you have access to AW&ST you might want to read about Rascal that
DARPA is kicking around. It's pretty interesting and it's along
similar lines.

Can you be more specific? I searched AvWeek's site for DARPA and Rascal and
came up empty.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in
:
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:36:25 -0600, "John Carrier"
wrote:

Compressor inlet temp can be handled by water injection
(Skyburner F-4
had
it, Greenameyer's F-104 was getting it). Canopy overheating
is another problem.

R / John

If you have access to AW&ST you might want to read about Rascal
that DARPA is kicking around. It's pretty interesting and it's
along similar lines.

Can you be more specific? I searched AvWeek's site for DARPA and
Rascal and came up empty.

You're Googled! :^)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&q=DARPA+Rascal


Regards...