wolit@mhuxd.att.com (Jan I Wolitzky) (09/19/89)
In article <27295@amdcad.AMD.COM>, mmm@cup.portal.com writes: > BTW, I saw on TV some video of the assembly of a cruise missile. One of the > technicians was carrying around the engine for the missile. The turbine > looked to be about 2 1/2 feet in diameter. What was surprising was the > weight. From the way the guy was holding it, I would guess this engine > weighs about 25 pounds. The engine used in the General Dynamics/Convair/McDonnell Douglas/USN BGM-109 Tomahawk SLCM is the Williams International F107-WR-400 turbofan. It's 12" in diameter, 36.9" long, and weighs 144 lbs. The Boeing/USAF ALCM uses the F107-WR-100, which is 12" in diameter, 48.5" long, and weighs 146 lbs. These engines are considerably smaller and lighter than the piston engines used in light general aviation planes, and would give a plane the size of, say, a Cessna 172 Skyhawk, the thrust-to-weight ratio of a Learjet. Can't wait till the next generation of cruise missiles, or the next disarmament agreement, drives all these engines onto the surplus market :-) Come to think of it, whatever happened to the engines in all those GLCMs dismantled under the INF Treaty? -- Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; mhuxd!wolit (Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
bill@beaver.cs.washington.edu (William Swan) (09/22/89)
From: sigma!bill@beaver.cs.washington.edu (William Swan) In article <27344@amdcad.AMD.COM>: >These engines are considerably smaller and lighter than the piston >engines used in light general aviation planes, and would give a plane >the size of, say, a Cessna 172 Skyhawk, the thrust-to-weight ratio >of a Learjet. Can't wait till the next generation of cruise missiles, >or the next disarmament agreement, drives all these engines onto the >surplus market :-) >-- >Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; mhuxd!wolit But aren't these engines designed for one-time use? Isn't there some difference between an engine optimised for power/weight ratio for a one-time "short" duration flight, and one which is designed for long- term use with regular maintenance? -- Bill Swan entropy.ms.washington.edu!sigma!bill
gwh%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (09/24/89)
From: gwh%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <27409@amdcad.AMD.COM> sigma!bill@beaver.cs.washington.edu (William Swan) writes: >>These engines are considerably smaller and lighter than the piston >>engines used in light general aviation planes, and would give a plane >>the size of, say, a Cessna 172 Skyhawk, the thrust-to-weight ratio >>of a Learjet. Can't wait till the next generation of cruise missiles, >>or the next disarmament agreement, drives all these engines onto the >>surplus market :-) >But aren't these engines designed for one-time use? Isn't there some >difference between an engine optimised for power/weight ratio for a >one-time "short" duration flight, and one which is designed for long- >term use with regular maintenance? The version being sold to the public has some engineering changes and is derated by about fifteen percent in power. It's lifetime is supposedly as good as other jets with these mods. **************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!) maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ----------------------------------------