F100-PW-232

Obi_Offiah · by **Obi_Offiah** » 12 Oct 2004, 07:43

Hi All!

Does anyone one know if Pratt & Whitney has incorporated a continueous augmentor in the -232?, or is it still staged a la 229?.

Thanks
Obi

diamond1 · by **diamond1** » 13 Oct 2004, 02:19

By continuous, do you mean non-segmented? Then no.

I believe the -232 has a "tweaked" -229 augmentor. There aren't alot of details concerning the -232 that have been released, but from the non-classified drawings/photos, it appears to be the same configuration as a -229.

Let's not forget the F100-PW-232 was known as the F100-PW-229A (Advanced) during initial testing, and is comprised mainly from -229 modules/components.

The -229 does have more stages of augmentation (11) than the -200 or -220 (5) so it is much smoother during transitions between segments. The fuel flow is also more even segment, by segment over the augmentor's total range.

Obi_Offiah · by **Obi_Offiah** » 13 Oct 2004, 08:20

Thanks Bix, nice cutaway

The diagram mentions V-max schedules: In the -220 equiped Eagles this function is enabled, but disabled in the -229 equiped Strike Eagles. I wonder do -229 engined F-16's have wired V-max switches?.

"I believe the -232 has a "tweaked" -229 augmentor. There aren't alot of details concerning the -232 that have been released, but from the non-classified drawings/photos, it appears to be the same configuration as a -229. "

I see what you mean. Non-augmented thrust is rated at +20k verses something like +17k for the -229. So it seems almost all the extra performance is forward of the augmentor.

Obi

TC · by TC » 14 Oct 2004, 05:47

Which Block #'s will receive the -232, and which ones already incorporate the -229?

Obi_Offiah · by **Obi_Offiah** » 14 Oct 2004, 07:29

TC wrote:Which Block #'s will receive the -232, and which ones already incorporate the -229?

Hi TC

Don't quote me on this but I don't think there are any orders for PW-232 engines yet. Apparently Greece wanted to order them in conjunction with their blk52+ F-16's, but the U.S government refused because the engines were not fully developed, so the Hellenic Air Force settled for -229's instead.
As for the -229 I believe that some blk42's and all blk52's are -229 equiped.

Cheers
Obi

diamond1 · by **diamond1** » 16 Oct 2004, 00:44

There are no orders for the -232 as of yet.

I don't think they were refused due to lack of developement, the -229A was tested in the mid to late 90s.

Obi_Offiah · by **Obi_Offiah** » 18 Oct 2004, 08:08

bix wrote:There are no orders for the -232 as of yet.

I don't think they were refused due to lack of developement, the -229A was tested in the mid to late 90s.

Thanks Bix

Obi

229guy · by **229guy** » 24 Aug 2005, 23:28

I dont know what happened. One day on the P&W website the 232 was there and now its off the site. The 232 there had 360 thrust vectoring nozzle. Its basicly a super 229 with 32000 LBS thrust for the newer block. This info is what I recall from the site, I wish I saved the cutaway. I think they were staged, mult spray rings in the cutout

I think its just too much power and is not needed so none were ordered. I saw a show on the discovery wings channel with F-16 360 thust vectoring...Awesome

F16VIPER · by **F16VIPER** » 25 Aug 2005, 00:27

This thread is very confusing. Seems to have been heavily edited.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 25 Aug 2005, 01:38

Actually what they said was that the -232 hit something over 37,000 in testing. GE used to have info on a -132 they tested that hit over 36k. Both were tested with 3D nozzles and both have had their information removed from their respective sites. :evil:

shiz302 · by **shiz302** » 25 Aug 2005, 02:52

How much thrust can any F-16 handle?

229guy · by **229guy** » 18 Nov 2005, 21:05

Ii think 37000 is pusing it to hard. Jet only weights about 60000lbs BUT i am no engineer, I cant even spell it!

Sniper69 · by **Sniper69** » 18 Nov 2005, 22:59

They wouldn't put a blower in a Viper that has 37000lbs of thrust....unfortunalty :bang:

. They would de-tune it to the 32,000lbs-range. I believe thats because the current airframe can't take anything over that without having to modify it to make it stronger.

shiz302 · by **shiz302** » 18 Nov 2005, 23:18

Here we are with a great thrust to weight ratio, and asking for more. Never happy I guess!

Velvet · by **Velvet** » 19 Nov 2005, 01:50

37K is quite a bit more than the 25K for the block 25, but the increased thrust really doesn't increase the force on the engine mounts that much (assuming same engine weight). Maybe another .2g's eyeballs back in full AB at sea level? After all, the block 60 GE (110-132?) testbed was a block 50. To my knowledge it didn't have huge, redesigned engine mounts. The real question is will the installation keep the engine bay cool enough, and will the accessory drive section work reliably installed in the aircraft. The big problem is being able to pull 9g's forever. That's painful!