Engine comparation: MTBF, maintenance, ...

Hi everybody,
Hope is the right forum for the following questions:

Which is the better engine in term reliability, less maintenance, MTBF, life expectancy for F100-PW-200/220/229 versus F110-GE-100/129 series?

What about resilient to impact with birds for the above engines?


Many thanks in advance,
CFG

Actually this would be more the "Design & Construction" type of question, but I'll let the janitors decide...

First there is a HUGE difference between the different models of F100. The PW-200s have all been retired from US use, there are only 1 or 2 FMS users still flying it today. It was OK for reliability/life expectancy back in the 70's and early 80's, but has been eclipsed by the PW-220. Remember the PW-220 was a program to increase the reliability of the PW-200, and the GE F110 was also a result of that reliability issue.

Then the PW-229 has grown even further past the PW-220 in terms of reliability, ease of maintenance, etc. It also grew in thrust to match the GE F110 but still weighs less and can use the Viper's "origional" small-mouth inlet. To date NO US Viper has been lost due to the failure of a PW-229 engine! (Knocking on wood... )

The GE F110 has experienced some improvements between the GE-100 and GE-129 as well. Granted, it hasn't been as pronounced as the PW, but the F100 has been around quite a while longer. I've not worked this engine so someone will need to help me with some of it's finer points or data.

From the Air Force Safety Center; Here is the current cumulative Mishap Rate for each engine type. (The lower the number the safer/more reliable the engine is.)

PW-200 - 1.84
PW-220 - 1.18
PW-229 - 0.00
GE-100 - 1.24
GE-129 - 1.12

Notes:
1. "Engine-related" excludes mishaps caused by FOD, birdstrike, or failure of support systems external to the engine (ex. fuel starvation)
2. Aircraft flight-rate producing mishaps only.
3. Rates are Class A mishaps/100,000 Engine Flight Hours (EFH) by calendar year
4. F-16/F100-PW-200 is no longer in use in the USAF

http://www.afsc.af.mil/organizations/av ... /index.asp

Have to run for now, but I'll give a little maintenance data later... Mostly public press documents.

Keep 'em flyin'
TEG

I always wondered why the -229 Vipers (original Block 52) were built in relatively small numbers in comparison to the Block 50 Vipers where the 229 seems to be more reliable. I know three squadrons which used them other than testing/training (389th, 428th, 157th) now only one is active (157th) whereas there were quite numerable Block 50 squadrons, (22nd, 23rd, 13th, 14th, 55th, 77th, 78th, 79th) of which all are active with the exception of 78th. You would have thought that they would prefer the Block 52 Vipers which would also offer commonality with the F-15.

Butcher wrote:I always wondered why the -229 Vipers (original Block 52) were built in relatively small numbers in comparison to the Block 50 Vipers where the 229 seems to be more reliable.

The F-15E is why; When the USAF split F100/F110 purchases 50/50, there are 3 Vipers with GE for ever 1 Viper and 1 Eagle (2 motors) with PW.

So for every 3 Vipers that are GE, there is only 1 Viper with PW.

So if there are 300 GE Block 50 Vipers, there are only 100 PW Block 52s. (Just examples)

Now there are PW-229 Block 42s in the ANG; they've been upgrading engines from the PW-220 over the last few years.

Keep 'em flyin'
TEG

That makes sense, thanks for clearing that out.

Butcher,

After some counting I think these are the real totals.

F110-GE-129 - Block 50s - 217 aircraft = 217 motors

F100-PW-229 - Block 52s - 53 aircraft = 53 motors
F100-PW-229 - F-15Es - 102 aircraft = 204 motors

Total PW-229 engine purchase = 257
(Not counting Block 42 upgrade engines which we don't have totals for)

So to say it another way; yes the USAF did buy more PW-229 powered "fighter" aircraft, they just happen to be more F-15 than F-16.

I believe if you look at foreign orders, more have been Block 52/52+ than Block 50/60... (I'll let you count those...)

Keep 'em flyin'
TEG