F-16.net

The GE F110-100 tech manual (GE Tech Rep) classed it at 27000 lbs and the GE-129 29000 lbs.

I can tell you this. When I was on the GE enhanced DEC program , we could not trim down that GE-129 below 34,000lbs on the thrust pad, until the DEC was pulled and tweaked. Even them it was pushing 32,000 and you can tell the difference!

We also had the a F-110-100 testing out the DEC mod (before the -100's had all AFT Control & EMSP's replaced) and the GE Rep Dick Cordry had a run rip from the thrust pad showing it pushing 30,000. Impressive to say the least!

Mike V

F-16.net Sponsor

Why would want to tone down the thrust? Was it to damaging to the engine?

No, not the the engine, but to the aiframe limits!

Mike V

Hi ViperEnforcer:
This is very confusing for me because of what is described in the following article
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 9&start=45

F-16 and other aircraft reach the Guard in "blocks" that differ from one another in terms of airframe, engine and weapons delivery capability. The Block 42 F-16s belong to Guard units in Iowa, Ohio and Oklahoma, while units in other states fly F-16s with other designations. The engine constitutes a principal difference among blocks; some fly versions of the General Electric F110 rather than a Pratt & Whitney engine, for example.

The engine upgrade provides about 4,500 pounds more thrust, which can make the difference between life and death. Just ask someone like Lt. Col. Steve Kopp, who flies with the Tulsa Vipers and has more than 3,400 hours in F-16s of various blocks and models. Many of those hours have been spent over the hostile skies of Iraq, so Kopp can speak with authority on the value of added power.

"The GE motor has a couple of thousand pounds more thrust than the Pratt & Whitney -220, but the -229 more than makes it up," Kopp said. "It's also a new motor, and its reliability has been phenomenal. It provides a significant increase in combat capability, allowing us to deliver standoff weapons from higher altitudes.

I think I have the actual thrust of the F100-pw-229 somewhere to make some calculations. But it appears it is well less than 27,000 lb. But I am sure you guys in the know will now better than I do.

Regards.

Thanks ViperEnforcer! That clears a lot up.

Newbie Joined: Feb 14, 2005 Posts: 9 Status: Offline

I have some experience with GE F110 engine.Besides the famous stage 1 fins there are quite a few vulnerabilities that keep the engines crew work around the clock, as well as the ndt techs.
The thrust increase does not come for free, the engine is quite reliable but it's a pain to deal with .

I just read at ARC that the new F110-GE-132 in reality produces 34.000 lbs. of thrust!! That's a lot!! 32.500 lbs. officially...

It seems that Pratt&Whitney has some work to do!!

JanHas wrote:

It seems that Pratt&Whitney has some work to do!!

PW always has alot of work to do. Everything I have heard about PW vs GE in every version is that GE will out perform the PW overall, however durability can be sacrificed, or other items that PW does very well that GE doesn't All in all you have trade off's for each one. Which is why I believe the F-16 was developed to accept both manufactures. Not to mention healthy compitition is a VERY good thing for the end user.

Actually GE has a high durability tolerance. It pushes more thrust, and does not get as hot as the -229.

Mean time between GE and Pratt was pretty close when I ran the tracking stats as a QA inspector. They were within 5-8% of each other, with GE edging out Pratt.

Since the Block 30 production line, GE has comprised 75% of all F-16 airframe production.

Most of the GE 1st stage fan problems (fatigue) went away when they were retrofitted from P-3 to P-4 blades.

Mike V

I'm I the only one to ask, what the hell do you need this for???

So:

Janes aeroengines 1999 shows the following:

F100-PW-229 129.45 kN (29,100 lb st)
F100-PW-229A (F-16) 129.45 kN (29,100 lb st)

Based on the information mentioned in the article:
29,100 lb (f00-pw-229) -4,000 lb = 25,100 lb for the F110-6E-400.

That is why I am confused.

Don't confuse press released stats with true Thrust ratings. The Raptor's motors are "listed" at 34,000, but I can say they are consiberably more!

Same goes for the Viper motors. When I was in the Thrust stand control room, and that gauge reads "34,000" + some change, I tend to go with what I see and know, than what's press releaseable.

Mike V

ViperEnforcer:
I understand, thanks. No intention to dispute any of that.
I tend to know only what I read.
I think the thrust for the F110-ge-100 you are talking about is awsome.
I will need to have a look at the thrust to weight ratio of the engine then.

Kind regards.

I dunno if this has been asked before, but what about re-engining the older blocks(lets say 25, 30/32) with these new engines? With the Falcon Up and STAR programs the airframe should be able to take the stress, plus it would improve the performance of the fleet. What would stop it?Would it be to much of a pain in the @$$ to fund and implement? (You could probably save billions by referbishing the current birds than buying 1000's of newer aircraft, but thats been discussed. Just throwin in my opinion.)

The main problems with that are logistics, spare motors, and more importantly Mod-cost.

Another thing to consider is the cost it major cost involved to mod all the jets with MCID (if you're going to do it right) and the major airframe mods. GE powered Viper have allot of structural beef ups and changes to deal with the added thrust of the GE motor. One of our jets at Eddies; 83-1120 was a block 25 converted to a Block 30 conversion. It was the most expensive mod to any of our test beds. The only other mod that came close in price, was the DSI intake.

In the end, The Air Force won't do as it doesn't make economical/Logistical sense as the older blocks already perform well with their Pratt Motors and it would take away significantly from other program or mods, like JFS, CCIP, etc...

Mike V

F-16.net

Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

F110-GE-129 Design