The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week
MEMBER CENTER
LOG IN | REGISTER | SUBSCRIBE
Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
F135 Damaged in Ground Tests
Pratt & Whitney alerted the media mid-day Sunday that an F135 engine had been damaged during qualification ground-testing, and quickly held a press call with a "program expert". Here's essentially what he said.

The CTOL engine was 2,455 cycles into a 2,600-cycle durability test leading to initial service release when "sparks were noticed coming out of the jet pipe". The engine was still running and capable of producing thrust when it was shut down.

Inspection revealed tip damage to a "handful" of blades on the first and section fan stages, which are integrally bladed rotors (IBR). Downstream damage was confined to the compressor. There was no visible damage to the combustor and turbine.
 
Pratt is working to identify the root cause, which could be foreign object damage - something coming from outside the engine - or "domestic object damage" - something failing inside the engine, perhaps due to a manufacturing defect or durability issue.

The F135 was 5 hours into an 11-hour supersonic high-cycle fatigue test and was "being pushed very hard" through a sequence of throttle transients. For this test, the inlet-plenum hardware on the test stand had been changed to run at supersonic conditions. 

Pratt says inspection of the inlet hardware is underway, but no missing pieces such bolts or seals have yet been found. The engine is being torn down. "There is something at the bottom of the engine [between the fan and compressor] that we want to retrieve," says the program expert.

On the impact to the F-35 program, the expert says the Joint Program Office is estimating it will take Pratt five days identify the root cause and the corrective action. If it is a durability issue, the expert says there is plenty of time to design and retrofit a fix as the test engine had accumulated the equivalent of 8 years in service when the damage occured.

Pratt also says there should be no impact on F-35 flight testing, as the engine that failed has the "second-generation" IBR fan, which is lighter. The flight-test engines have the first-generation fan, which has already undergone durability testing, the company says. There is no halt to flight testing or engine ground testing, Pratt says.

Two other second-generation engines are on ground test and are being examined. The damaged engine should be repairable to retstart and complete qualification testing, the expert says. The fan will have to be replaced, but damage to the compressor blades is blendable and the rest of the turbomachinery looks undamaged.
Tags: ar99afa09F-35F135
Email this post
User Image
sferrin wrote:
Cue for the "OH NOS, CANCEL THE F-35" and "BILLIONS OF PORK MUST BE DUMPED INTO THE F136 IMMEDIATELY" crowds.

9/13/2009 2:17 PM CDT
User Image
irtusk wrote:
surprisingly fast media release by PW

> "BILLIONS OF PORK MUST BE DUMPED INTO THE F136 IMMEDIATELY"

how about the 'we should stick to the original plan of funding 2 engines and having a thru-life competition and not jeopardize long-term savings on the altar of current expediency' crowd?
9/13/2009 2:20 PM CDT
User Image
Sferrin - you, like me, need to take Sunday off!

Questions were asked about how this - and last week's Joint Assessment Team visit to review F135 costs - could impact the second-engine debate and Pratt is clearly on the defensive.

But I'm impressed they alerted the media and answered most of our questions about the incident itself - probably the best way to manage the impact.

But it did interrupt my wine-buying spree at Trader Joe's...
9/13/2009 2:24 PM CDT
User Image
Truth in blogging note - after a note from P&W, I have changed "parts coming out of the jetpipe" to "sparks coming out of the jetpipe" - I did the call from a cellphone, so likely my fault there.
9/13/2009 2:29 PM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
You like to truncate people's statements in order to make a point huh 'tsuk.

What sferrin said was..."Cue for the "OH NOS, CANCEL THE F-35" and "BILLIONS OF PORK MUST BE DUMPED INTO THE F136 IMMEDIATELY" crowds.

What you're doing is as dishonest as most of the other debate tactics I see here. Maybe you should try a different type of "spin".

As far as this engine debate. There is no way to know the truth....The JSF Office is saying one thing and the two manufacturers are saying other things. The one thing that we should be able to depend on is compromised because even the media has staked out positions. The public has no way of knowing what is and isn't.
9/13/2009 2:29 PM CDT
User Image
tangoviking wrote:
Any of these blades from the same stage that had same blades blew up in earlier testing and also modified to make them more stronger and durable?

Either way fans or critics look a this it again shows that finding safety margins is what testing is all about and no computer estimates can replace this type of real-life testing no matter how much the seller is trying to tell the press and decision makers how awesome their models are.

With REAL tests the JSF can actually become quite good.
9/13/2009 4:06 PM CDT
User Image
Horde wrote:
The public has everyway of knowing what is and what isn't.

The media have done their job and reported the data and the facts along with the history and the current situation, accurately.

The second engine is part of what was promised as the JSF Program.

The joint presentations by LM/P&W/GE-RR confirm this as do the posts by people who attended these briefings.

Put simply, the second engine represents yet another promise and undertaking on the part of the JSF Program which they now don't wish to honour.

The second engine now joins a long list of promises and undertakings relating to such things as cost, schedule, lethality, survivability and supportability that the JSF Program officials now either don't wish or are unable to honour.
9/13/2009 4:26 PM CDT
User Image
ELP wrote:


Thankfully none of this happened in-flight.
9/13/2009 4:34 PM CDT
User Image
Horde wrote:
Being cognisant of the likely responses from the 'total indifference to reality' artisans and, as others have named them, "the F-35 acolytes", let's remember that the JSF contract is based on the JORD.

In brief, this SOR (requirements specification) is for a Second Tier battlefield interdiction, CAS aircraft system with some self defence capability.

The requirements in the JORD versus what is being marketed and, moreover, liberally expanded upon and expounded by the aforesaid 'F-35 acolytes' are proving to be quite different.
9/13/2009 4:43 PM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
From the JSF Team Website;

The JSF will fulfill stated Service needs as follows:

* U. S. Navy First day of war, survivable strike fighter aircraft to complement F/A-18E/F
* U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22
* U.S. Marine Corps STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18 as their only strike fighter
* United Kingdom Royal Navy & Royal Air Force STOVL aircraft to replace Sea Harriers & GR.7s as a supersonic strike fighter
* Other Countries Potential JSF customers include current operators of F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8B


I don't know of anyone stating that the JSF will do anymore than stated in the above passage. The "anti" acolytes should notch it down a bit.

ELP...an Israeli F-16 crashed --killing the pilot of the first Israeli astronaut...he was the son of a Challenger mission specialist. One has nothing to do with the other.

Back to the engine debate. After the Clash of the Generals...can anyone say with certainty, not by the addition of viewpoint but with certainty that one side is right and the other isn't? I can't and I'm in the F135 camp. The historian for the program stated that their was a comp but other observers of the program state there wasn't. How do you deconflict those statements? Even writers on this site seem to have differing viewpoints.
9/13/2009 5:52 PM CDT
1 2 3 4 >> Last
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos