Home » Air » GE Takes F-136 Test Engine Offline

GE Takes F-136 Test Engine Offline

By Colin Clark Tuesday, September 1st, 2009 4:38 pm
Posted in Air, International

General Electric has had to take its second F-136 engine off line and inspect it after a piece of testing equipment broke free and was gobbled up by the giant engine less than a week ago. GE, of course, is partnering with Rolls Royce on the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

“It’s still up on the test stand but it’s not running,” said Rick Kennedy, spokesman for GE Aviation. The test equipment rattled loose and the company is bore scoping the engine to inspect the turbines and other equipment to see how much damage was done and assess the way ahead.

In addition, the first engine GE put on the test stand revealed just the kind of design problem that testing is meant to uncover — a problem with a bearing. “When we got to the first engine, we ran a few hours and we found there were shavings in the lube system. We made a modification on the clearance bearing of the engine and it ran fine after that,” Kennedy said.

All this occurs at a very delicate time for the F136 program as Congress readies to craft the defense appropriations and authorization bills. Kennedy said the company has done more than 800 hours of pre-SDD testing on close cousins of the two test engines, though he also said the company was only able to do 32 hours of testing on the first engine.

Watch for the engine wars to get much hotter as Congress returns from recess and the stakes grow for both companies.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Hooah September 1st, 2009 at 5:00 pm That’s a good test, see how much test equipment it can eat before failure.
	Drake1 September 1st, 2009 at 5:28 pm Just issue a veto threat already Mr. President, so we can get this jet out already. By the way Colin, General Hough ( former Director/ Deputy Director of the Joint Strike Fighter Program (1997–2001) and Deputy Commandant of Aviation (2002–2006))claims there was never a competition for the Joint Strike Fighter engine, but Aviation Week claims otherwise. Anyway you can settle this? http://bit.ly/3XmKA5
	DensityDuck September 1st, 2009 at 6:14 pm We’ve conclusively proven that the F136 sucks. (bah-DOOMP!)
	Matt23 September 1st, 2009 at 7:40 pm Drake1, The story you linked to, the same story you claimed to be written by Aviation Week, is a blog post written by a Pratt & Whitney consultant. You do the math. Read what the Aviation Week journalists (the ones who aren’t on Pratt’s payroll and are paid to be objective and recite actual facts) have to say: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a1f776740-e97b-405e-aee9-099cd52c952a And if you don’t feel like clicking on the article, just know that the journalist writes: “The government never conducted an engine competition for the JSF… So why did members of the Senate get this important fact wrong? It seems that they believed what P&W told them, via the F135 engine website and other means.” Problem solved. No Colin investigation necessary.
	ReconTeam September 1st, 2009 at 8:42 pm GE seems to be offering a fixed price contract for the F136 however, and considering the issues the F135 is facing, they may have a chance. If the engine had kept running for awhile, they could have argued it was a demonstration of it’s durability. I don’t think this proves the F136 sucks, it was a piece of testing equipment, and not part of the engine that got sucked up, remember?
	xraywhf September 1st, 2009 at 9:55 pm FOD is still not your friend.
	Drake1 September 1st, 2009 at 9:59 pm Matt23 September Drake1, The story you linked to, the same story you claimed to be written by Aviation Week, is a blog post written by a Pratt & Whitney consultant. You do the math. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you are suggesting the General is a Pratt consultant OK, but reread my original post, becuase I didn’t claim that link I posted was written by Aviation Week. I said, that Aviation Week (or Bill Sweetman who works for Aviation Week)begged to differ with the General’s recollection of events. Don’t take it personally, or I suspect you are a GE consultant-I kidd.
	jwenum September 2nd, 2009 at 12:15 am I was told by a reliable source(close to the new planes)that GE engine reliability is second to none.Just my $ .02
	irtusk September 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 am > I said, that Aviation Week (or Bill Sweetman who works for Aviation Week)begged to differ with the General’s recollection of events. which General? Sweetman (AvWeek) AGREES with General Hough (who is independent) that there was NO competition Sweetman DISAGREES with General Loh (who is paid by PW) that there was a competition
	Jiminy Cricket September 2nd, 2009 at 8:22 am Forgive me if this is just a naive question– but why can’t GE continue to create a competitive engine on their own R&D costs and then if the technology comes into maturity and is truly more cost efficient to the government as part of the F-35, the government can issue a change notice? It doesn’t make sense to me that if GE wants to offer an alternative product that they should pay for this competition.
	Drake1 September 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 am I wrote miswrote Hough instead of Loh in the orginal post-my bad, I didn’t mean to kill anyone.
	john o richards September 2nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm Surely it’s possible to fit a mesh over the front of the engine for testing purposes?
	Rick September 2nd, 2009 at 9:37 pm Atleast they did not suck up a body.
	pfcem September 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 am Jiminy Cricket, Because the F136 is the MORE risky/LESS mature engine. What ever you hear about the developement cost/delays/problems (much/most of which is exaggerated/overblown when compared to previous engine developement programs) with the F135 they are most likely to be even worse for the F136. Plus the F-35 is the only aircraft which the F136 could fit into & it is highly unlikely anybody is going to develope a new aircraft which would use such a monster engine (remember the F135/F136 prodoce F100-229/F110-129 FULL AFTERBURNER level thrust at military/dry/non-afterburner). It is not looking good for the F136. It appears highly unlikely the US Government is going to pay for its continued developement &/or procure any so its best/only chance is if a significant number of partner nation request/demand the F136. Thus far that has not happened.
	ReconTeam September 3rd, 2009 at 5:13 am Seems GE is a site up trying to gain public support for the F136. http://www.f136.com/ I rather doubt that some of their efforts like twitter and youtube announcements will help at all. It will probably end up attracting more hippies demanding both programs be scrapped than people who have some knowledge and real opinions on the matter.
	Blackhawkguy September 3rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm it seems like GE is finding problems in F136 engines i hope this dose not occur in GE-T700 blackhawk engines. even thou they are shaft driven. Roller bearing should be replace often likly which should be regulated.
	LonMan September 8th, 2009 at 9:13 am I work in the JSF Program going on seven years now and being an ex Air Force Maintainer with experinece on GE motors I would like to see another engine option for the F-35. The Pratt will be a good motor, but it is having issues too. But wishing and reality are opposites…the SEC DEF was in the plant last week and he is against a second engine choice…period! Finally there never was a “competion” for engines if there was we would have the test jets outfitted with GE’s and Pratt’s during SDD, but we don’t. It was strictly economics and keeping the industrial complex active.
	9994780 September 29th, 2009 at 5:30 pm Yeah, On should try and see that people such as Keith Lesch who works for within the F-136 team at Evandale, Ohio has placed sensitive information on his linkedln account !!! Including what type of software tools are utilized to program the controller on the F-136
	Douglas L. PANNEBAKER October 1st, 2009 at 11:25 am The first and largest issue with the F136 engine is GE. GE usually sucks at what ever it tries to build. Their commercial jet engines are pretty good because they know Obama has no say in the matter, however when it comes to the military items, nObama has a say. GE is destroying this project.
	N/A October 12th, 2009 at 10:41 pm To All, I was wondering if it was possible to develop a open source equivalent of an engine system for the F-35? Such as where all of the components both mechanical and electrical (hardware and software) of this potential engine system would be completely open-source similar to the Linux Operating System? Is this possible? It would definately develop a far more reliable and cheap propulsion engine system.
	Michael Jetson October 20th, 2009 at 7:47 pm I build GE commercial engines and I know first hand the quality and pride we put into every engine. I see several posts here from people who say things that only show their ignorance. Ask the pilots who have flown GE engines and the mechanics who work on them which ones they prefer. One problem with selecting an engine or engines is that most of the people invovled in the decision making process never include the opinions of the pilots and mechanics who fly and work on them everyday. I have always heard pilots and mechanics say they prefer GE engines because of their reliability and ease of maintenance. I beleive some people get all stirred up from reading and listening to CAGW and become a puppet for them. If you want to complain about something, do a little research first and try not to make yourself look so ignorant. And have your own opinion based on your knowledge, not your hot headed response to an organization,s agenda and propaganda.
	Scott Isaacs October 21st, 2009 at 5:19 am Douglas: Firstly, you seem to have mixed up your politics and your facts since you have inserted President Obama into a discussion about jet engine quality in which he doesn’t belong. Second, G.E. sucked so badly in the 1980’s that the government forced it to hand over the blueprints for the 404 program to Pratt-Whitney to create “competition” even though G.E. had already done all the difficult work for P.W. G.E. must be totally incompetent if its proprietary technology was integral to P.W.‘s engines, right? laughs Thirdly, General Electric (and, by virtue of my grandfather’s work for them in the past and my father’s work for them now, both of them) produces hands-down the best aircraft engines in the business be they commercial or military in nature. Their designs are in demand for a reason whether they have G.E.‘s name and trademark nosecone fan blade swirl on them or the designs have been pilfered by a foreign govt or domestic competitor and copied, then passed off as proof of their own superiority. Lastly, given the chance to compete General Electric will design and its workers will produce a first-rate engine that will outperform all comers while offering better reliability and the greatest integrity of construction because that is what G.E. is about: innovation, quality and performance. By the way, if you want to be taken more seriously, write a more incisive criticism than “GE is destroying this project because it sucks and Obama is involved, somehow.”
	Scott Isaacs October 21st, 2009 at 5:41 am It’s probably possible but it’s unlikely because the respective companies are very cutthroat about keeping their proprietary technology to themselves, particularly for later use in their commercial engines. Plus, it is appropriation for the govt… wouldn’t working off the same basic core and same parts be a little too easy?
	More jobs, not less October 30th, 2009 at 1:49 am Looks like all the negative commentors can eat their words. Funding has been approved. Good thing, it will probably save about 1,000 jobs across the program.
	Michael Allen November 4th, 2009 at 1:40 am Now that funding has been approved, I hope you all see what a waste of time and recources the CAGW is. They waste money just like the government. How much did they waste trying to fight funding for a second engine. How many hungry kids in the USA could have been fed by the wasteful spending of your dollars to stop the F-136 funding? Why dont you people who support CAGW take your money and adopt a family who needs help or give some food or supplies or clothes to some homeless people. There are milions of people out of work and kids will have no Christmas. Go to hospitals for cancer or burn victims or the military people who are disabled or the families who lost their loved ones who were fighting terrorism to keep us safe over here. Thanks. Mike Jetson.
	lemory November 20th, 2009 at 11:50 am I have extensive experience in maintainance and operation of jet and turbine engines. The answer to your question is no. Any screen substantial enough to prevent foreign object injestion will distrupt airflow provide inaccurate test results. This accident demonstrates sloppy engineering & develpoment procedures. Someone should be fired. Internal examination with a borescope is unreliable and incredibaly stupid. Only dissassembly and individual componant inspection is acceptable. Failure of rotating componants will result in catistropic failure. Believe me, you don’t want to be anywhere near this event. With proper maintainance, modern jet engines are incredibly reliable & long lived. This engine is a huge waste of taxpayer’s money. It should be canceled & as much money recovered as possible. As for the fellow from GE’ what could his motives be?
	From the Lab December 28th, 2009 at 6:56 pm As a “Blackhawk guy”, you should know that thousands of T-700 engines have been built and shipped at this point, and are the helicopter engine of choice for pilots and mechanics alike. As for the JSF engine, Pratt had big problems with their version as well. These are incredibly complex machines, and unlikely to produce snag-free operation out of the box. And since GE’s problem was not engine related, I’d say that puts them ahead of P&W in the development phase.
	Ralph January 26th, 2010 at 1:13 am WELL ! What did the sucking ? the test equipment or the engine ?