Working 4 months in a backshop does not make an engine troop. I was part of rivit as well and remember how it was. I could crew a jet until an engine problem came up, fix the engine then go back to my jet. Split cases are a good idea, so is a blisk for ease of maintenance, not soo sure on costs. So a F119 has split cases that makes it "feel like a GE"? Like I said both engines have there high points.

The GE isn't really a modular concept, PW used that term years ago so GE has strayed away form that like many other terms such as augmentor/augmenter ignitor/igniter.

Jetech

The GE-132 was installed in my old Jet 359 (Block 30) here at Edwards. It had some balls! Sort of like when we had the upgrade GE-129 out here, and we could not trim it below 33,000Lbs. After a few team meetings with compiled data from both upgraded motors, GE came out on top, not by a landslide but in front. Not sure who is going to get the motor now, and other interest discussed are still classified.

Also, I never said I was an Engine troop, but have worked it enough of both engines to know what's better, all round. Out of all the Engine troops I've known and Rivitised Mechs, most (By a huge majority) prefer GE, and Air Crews even more. Rivet work force helped take the load off the lone Engine troop assigned to the spec flight. Most of my time on the line was spent on replacing LRU's and trouble shooting. My time in backshop was short, but enough to see the break down of the GE motor in detail. GE had its problems when it came out, as did Pratt. Going to a DEC as opposed to the analog AFT Control (eliminating the EMSP) was a little late and ended up more advanced than Pratt's DEEC. Oh yeah, Pratt gave us wonderful AGeTS,

As far as terminology every manufacture gives their own acronyms and terms for their designs, even Pratt contradicts itself with it's 119, as most are similar to the GE; FADEC, Aug Igniter, VSV, Fan core Dist...... and even some of the power modes. And no, just because it is "Top-Halfed" like the GE, is not the only way it feels like a GE. No more AIR for nozzle operation either. Even running it has it's similarities.

GE is a modular design. It may not be a new concept, but it is. Pratt does to, but not the same level at GE. Like you said, each Engine has it's high points, but GE just has more. And don't think I am a GE spokesboy since you implied I feel maintenance on it was "Blisk for Ease", cause I sure the hell have spent my fair share of 15 hour nights working both motors.

Everyone has there preference, I guess I am with the majority on this one. When I was in QA/ ACFT Invt. team (Osan 02-03), I was able to research back some 8 years back, and found that Pratt(all versions combined) had more engine related (Failures) F-16 crashes than GE, by 4-1. Hell, Luke planted 7 within a 3 year frame.

Mike V.

And as for Luke losing 7 aircraft, if this was solely the blame of PW don't you think other bases would have similar problems? There is more to it than just 7 PW equipped jets crashed.

The -132 is capable of being trimmed bwlow its 32,000 rating, its one of their selling points for increased durability. So tell me how is a DEC more advanced than a DEEC? GE's still have to use a EMSC where a PW is all engine contained and in time the EDU will not be needed the DEEC will do it all. Oh and how far back are you quoting AGETS? I have my time with AGETS, and that was probably prior to GE even being in a F-16, a little far back to be throwing stones at PW don't you think? Were you even in the AF when AGETS was around?

I dont have experience with the F119 so I can't give a take on that.

You will not find "modular concept" in any books by GE. To access mid sump on a F110 you drop gearbox, fan cases, remove fan rotor. That is not a modular concept. Argue as you will it just isnt modular. I never implied you felt the blisk was for ease of maintenance, that is why the blisk is there, its easier to swap a blisk, until you have to balance things.

I too worked Osan QA and so how long ago were PW in the F-16's there? I dont know but guessing 10-15 years ago at least. Again quoting pretty old history of PW. Were they even -220's or the ancient -200's?

And as for Luke losing 7 aircraft, if this was solely the blame of PW don't you think other bases would have similar problems? There is more to it than just 7 PW equipped jets crashed.

Lets not forget minor nicks on F110 fan blades causing blade liberation. Blending on a PW can be crude as hell and never cause a blade to fail.

To each their own opinion, I just dont feel either is absolutley the "best" as you do. Each has their good ideas.

Jetech

Engine types for the "C's" hold to the following rule

Ends in 0 - GE
Ends in 2 - PW

32, 42, 52, 62 - PW
30, 40, 50, 50 - GE

I'm not sure about the GE's but the PW's are as follows,

32/42 - F100-220
52 - F100-229

Our ANG unit has 42's and is one of three ANG units converting their 42's to -229 engines.

From information I've seen during the conversion a -229 equiped Block 42 has the HIGHEST thrust to weight ratio of ANY F-16C. Based on the dry weight of the aircraft/engine and the thrust produced.

The PW-229 engines are now almost completely maintainable at the base level not unlike the GE's

In my opinion the PW is a better engine, it may cost more, and require a little more work, but pound for pound it makes more power and is more reliable. It can absorb more damage, and tolerate more malfunction to still get the aircraft/pilot back to base. (That just cost me another 2 cents!)

Don't get the crew chiefs rattled here you will get another GE vs PW battle.

Jetech

No kidding, I've started into that battle under the -129/-229 forum. Proves to be fun!

Would be interesting for a fly-off between identical block 50/52's but I don't think the USAF would allow it.

Would bring up the old F-14/F-15 fly-off data that wasn't released in the early 70's.........or was it? Seems someone in Congress didn't want to buy both? But I'm sure that would be at a different web site........

Would bring up the old F-14/F-15 fly-off data that wasn't released in the early 70's.........or was it?

GE Engineers designed it!

Being heavily involved in this part of the program, you get more insight to the big picture than usual.

It is not clear exactly what F-16A's with Pratt -200's were rebuilt as 220E's. Even here at Edwards, onl;y about 3 of our F-16B's wee moded. Also note that F-16C block 25's still came off the production line with -200's. Now, just about all of that block F-16 in service has been retrofitted with the 220E.