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
Pratt: F135 Fan Fix Simple, Cheap
Pratt & Whitney says it's standard industry practice - clip the tip of a blade to remove the piece that's susceptible to damage. And that's what the manufacturer plans to do with the fan blades on its F135 engine for the F-35, after a piece of the tip of a first-stage fan blade broke off during durability testing.

Pratt says the "potential cause" of the piece breaking off was an aerodynamic disturbance caused by a worn bushing ahead of the fan. The bushing is a cylindrical metal part used to seat, or locate, a component in the fan inlet case. Tear-down of the engine revealed all the bushings were severely degraded and some were missing.

That's not as bad as it might sound, because the blade damage occurred 2,455 cycles into a 2,600-cycle durability test of the initial service release (ISR) engine for production F-35As. That's the equivalent of eight years of in-service operation, Pratt says. When the tip broke off, the engine was 5 hours into a supersonic high-cycle fatigue test designed to deliberately excite blade vibration.

Pratt says the "minor modification" to be made immediately to all ISR engines will be to clip the corner off the tip of the fan blade at its trailing edge, removing the piece that broke off and "alleviating the potential" for it to fail. This will not degrade the engine's performance, the company stresses.

Engines for flight-test F135s are not affected, although the bushings are the same, because they have a "first-generation" fan that has already passed the required durability testing. The ISR engine has a "second generation" fan with lighter integrally bladed rotors. The bushings will be inspected periodically for wear until a new design is developed under the F135 component improvement program.
Tags: ar99F135F-35
Email this post
User Image
energo wrote:
So P&W know what breaks, when, in durability testing. Sounds better than worse to me.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo
9/18/2009 5:20 PM CDT
User Image
They stress "potential cause" - and they will have to test the fix to make sure it doesn't introduce any issues. But this is why we test things.
9/18/2009 5:38 PM CDT
User Image
Dangerous wrote:
BS. I call BS. "This will not degrade the engine's performance, the company stresses." This is incorrect, it certainly will degrade performance. This is pure spin control in the face of the GE-PW engine PR war which is in its final throes (for this year) with House-Senate conference upcoming. Sure this is "standard practice" to solve fan Aeromechanics issues but then why wasn't aren't fans designed this way in the first place? Because clipping the tips kills fan efficiency, which increases fuel burn and thus impacts aircraft range. F-35 will see a range impact to this change, until or unless another root cause is identified, like those bushings, or the fan is redesigned again.
9/18/2009 6:00 PM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
to a layman's eyes it seems a valid point. but i have to ask...are you an employee of GE or connected to the engine controversy in any way (this is your only post)...also i can't believe that its escaped ARES notice that the F-35C IOC has been moved up.
9/18/2009 6:27 PM CDT
User Image
You would suspect that such a move would cause more air to spill. I think actually quite a lot of research is done on seals between the blades and the housing. So, I would say it would definitely make the blades less effective. Question ofcourse is... how much? You would have to do some serious CFD or actual testing to figure that out.. So perhaps the performance penalty is quite small.
9/18/2009 7:41 PM CDT
User Image
riff_raff wrote:
As I see it, the big problem for the F135 engine will be on the F-35B. The engagement of the CRC clutch for the lift fan drive will cause all kinds of shaft dynamics havoc back at the power turbine. CRC clutches have very aggressive friction characteristics, and are extremely difficult to smoothly engage. Even with a modern, fully automated, digitally controlled actuation system, smoothly modulating the slip of that CRC clutch stack to get the lift fan up to speed (from a standstill) would seem very dicey at best. The clutch chatter will create dynamic shaft loads that will likely cause premature power turbine blade failures.

Having said that, the guys at Rolls/Allison and Pratt know their stuff. So if they can't get it right, who can?
9/18/2009 8:57 PM CDT
User Image
Dangerous wrote:
Solomon, I am not, nor have I ever been an employee of GE or RR (or P&W), nor do I have any financial ties to any of them. However, I am familiar with current engine technology and am confident in my statement. If you want my opinion, I am in favor of competition and am not a particular fan of handing all of the F-35 engines to Pratt. But my bigger bias is in favor of engineering reality over blatant corporate PR. I have followed all of the P&W/GE blogs on Ares up until now without commenting, until I felt I had to speak up in response to a press release that ignores basic engineering. In response to Lebowski: yes the actual performance delta would need to be determined by testing, but it will not be in the noise. It was unfortunate timing by P&W to have this happen right before the fate of the F136 will be decided (for next year at least), but that's just the way it is. P&W shouldn't let bad timing get in way of basic corporate responsibility / honesty. In fairness, GE seems to have had their share of teething issues with the F136 as well, judging by what I've read of the first few tests this year.
9/18/2009 9:48 PM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
Dangerous...fair enough..thanks for the answer. I'm not sure what to believe with this engine issue. I've heard waffling from the JSF Office, two retired Generals with conflicting memories, the SecDef saying one thing and Senators (who are military friendly) saying something else. And that doesn't include the many writers and other people in the know having conflicting opinions. An independent (verifiable) watch dog agency sure could help.
9/18/2009 10:42 PM CDT
User Image
andip wrote:
So everything that the engine spits out during testing is erased from the blueprint as well?

Sounds like a crude approach to jet engine design to me, but I guess the engine knows best what parts should be in there or not...

What will they do when a blade comes flying out?
9/19/2009 3:10 AM CDT
User Image
Janon wrote:
Dangerous - the problem with the tip is on the training edge of the blade, which has very slight performance implications, if any at all. The aerodynamics may not be affected in any way. Is the fuel mileage of your car affected by putting a new bumper on the back?

Further, please be aware that even if performance is degraded, any such degradation may still be well within the performance specs. Note that this was a stress test - designed to find conditions above and beyond normal use that could break the engine. Suppose I propose a change that would lower the max speed of your car to 125 MPH instead of 130 MPH, but would improve survivability if you had to drive in a hurricane? Would you care?

Pratt said the cost increase is insignificant, and and I'm sure will eat it anyway given the high profile of this engine.

Remember this was a high-endurance stress test. The engine had already flow the equivalent of 6000 hours I believe. Problems like this arise all the time during engine development. This just happens to be so high-profile every blip gets mentioned.
9/19/2009 8:36 AM CDT
1 2 >> Last
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos