What's new

IR-150 passenger jet in first steps

@yavar @SOHEIL why is Iran copying the JT8D? That first run 55 years ago, why the hell are they trying to reverse engineer it in 2015?
It's JT8D-219
The JT8D-217 and -219 engine(s) were tested in 2001 and were deemed suitable replacements for the old TF33 engines on military and commercial aircraft as part of the Super 27 re-engining program. The updated engines offer reduced (Stage-3) noise compliance standards without the need for hush kits, enhanced short field performance, steeper and faster climb rates with roughly a 10% reduction in fuel burn for extended range.

Pratt & Whitney, in a joint venture with Seven Q Seven (SQS) and Omega Air, has developed the JT8D-219 as a re-engine powerplant for Boeing 707-based aircraft.[3] Northrop Grumman uses the -219 to re-engine the United States Air Force’s fleet of 19 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (E-8 Joint STARS) aircraft, which will allow the JSTARS more time on station due to the engine's 17% [4] greater fuel efficiency. NATO also plans to re-engine their fleet of E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft. The -219 is publicized as being half the cost of the competing 707 re-engine powerplant, the CFM-56, for reasons of geometrical and balance similarity to the engine it is replacing and the associated relative up-front wing modification costs of the two choices.[3][4]

The proposed Aerion SBJ supersonic business jet, previously under development, was to use a pair of JT8D-219 engines for sustained supersonic flight.
 
It still only had a thrust to weight ratio of 4.8!

I hope this isn't going to be used by the military...
so you want something better than the American's latest upgrdaes?! :-)
thrust to weight isn't always the key requirement. this engine is one of the world's most fuel efficient engines.
 
Last edited:
so you want something better than the American's latest upgrdaes?! :-)
thrust to weight isn't always the key requirement. this engine is one of the world's most fuel efficient engines.
Thing is, for military aircraft you need compactness, lightness and power more than you need efficiency. This might be OK (not good) for civil airliners, but it does not suit the needs of a fighter jet.

The reason 'America's latest upgrades' only yield a thrust/weight of 4.8 is because the core is an old design. The real money makers are the newer designed engines with higher thrust/weight. The ones that weren't designed in 1960.
 
Thing is, for military aircraft you need compactness, lightness and power more than you need efficiency. This might be OK (not good) for civil airliners, but it does not suit the needs of a fighter jet.

The reason 'America's latest upgrades' only yield a thrust/weight of 4.8 is because the core is an old design. The real money makers are the newer designed engines with higher thrust/weight. The ones that weren't designed in 1960.

If it's for civilian use, then there is nothing wrong with a domestically produced plane that meets the needs of our internal flights, but it's the newest technology. Most internal flights are between 1-2 hours, and we don't exactly need the latest, cutting edge technology. All that would make me happy is,
1) Cheap to produce
2) Fuel efficiency
3) And doesn't fall out of the sky too often

It's not like we are about to cut into Boeing's global market share.
 
Back
Top Bottom