Forum: General F-16 forum

The two fastest Viper are at Edwards. One being 83-1120 that had or has the GE 110 or the 129 motor in it. 1120 also had the 129 on crack back in early 2001 and almost lost it. Or it would be 86-0359 that also had the GE 129 and was the test bed for the 132 block 60 motor. If I recall right both of them had no gun and just the SI packages.

F-16.net Sponsor

Raptor_One wrote:

I've done extensive research and calculations on F-16 variants which include everything from the YF-16 to the Block 50/52. All this effort went towards the development of high fidelity F-16 flight models for the Falcon 4.0 PC combat simulator. I know what I speak of, and specifically know that the Block 50 has better acceleration than the Block 52 throughout the entire flight envelope.

So, if this is case Raptor1, why is it the Original Falcon 4 states "Falcon 4.0 models the F-16C Block 52." on page A-8?

They used the Block 52 performance for the game, right? You say all the research was done and Block 50 has better performance (on paper) then the company turned around and use the PW specs? I'm confused...

It's a known fact that different engines will develop different performance at altitude/speed. The F-4E would outrun an F-15E low and fast because it's lower power turbojets work better at that altitude/speed than a higher powered turbofan.

The -229 is almost a "leaking turbojet" and that will gain it performance in specific areas of the flight envelope. The -229 had its BPR lowered from that of the -100/200/220 to gain performance. It furthers the engine's temperature and velocity to almost turbojet standards but still allows enough "fresh air" to get the maximum gain of thrust from the augmentor.

The bypass ratio of the GE-129 (0.76,) is much higher than the PW-229 (0.36). Additionally the -229 OPR is 32.4 whereas the -129 OPR is only 30.7. Now the GE-129 does have a higher mass flow than the PW-229, evident from requiring the "big-mouth" (which DOES add drag especially at high speed)

The PW-229 may have a slightly lower mass-flow, but more of that mass is compressed to a higher ratio through the compressor......

I'd like to see your research and math; how can an engine with a higher pressure-ratio and a lower bypass-ratio still end up on the bottom of ALL your performance calculations? Bang Head

I'd still bet a round of drinks on the -229 BEATING the -129 somewhere in the flight envelope... Cheers

(I love a good debate with Raptor1)

Active Member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 - 09:20 PM Posts: 134

Raptor_One wrote:

I'm not a pilot nor do I have any special place for GE or P&W in my heart. I think they both make fine engines.

My post was meant in jest--a little tease in the apparent spirit of the subject line. I hope it did not offend anyone. Obviously, I have a rather dorky sense of humor, but my coworkers thought it was pretty funny the other day when they were having a "pissing contest" over who had the best computer, and I tossed a ruler between them. Smile

So never mind, carry on. Whistle

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

TJStoney wrote:

80-0557 BLK 15 just before I was leaving Edwards they were talking about putting a 229 in it. It is the only jet I know of that is hard wired to take a 200, 220/220e and a 229 with no wiring changes. Razz

I know they put -220s into the Thunderbird's A models and didn't do any wiring changes. The -229 would behave in a similar fashion.

If the PW -220 or -229 computer does not get certain signals from the airframe such as MACH, ALTITUDE, AOA, etc; it will use preprogrammed values to perform its calculations. Communication between the engine/airframe can be lost with very minimal results. No stalls, No 'burner restrictions, No fuss... Cool

That's what makes the -220 and -229 such a great upgrade to ANY viper, and no need for a big-mouth intake and you DON'T have to rewire the entire aircraft. The engine is smart enough it just don't care... Wink

On the Thunderbirds back then, the airframe interface plugs on the engine were simply capped off, and the engine allowed to figure things out on its own.

A -229 in a Block 15 would do the same, but WOW! Is it a D Model? I want a ride! Devil

How 'bout a -232? (Have those even been put into service anywhere?)

Quote:

I hope it did not offend anyone.

I don’t think you offended anyone,

I just thought this would be a fun post. I think all Vipers are pretty even in the performance category. I’m no aerodynamicist, but I believe Blk 15’s and below are smoother through the air because they don’t have the beefed up vertical tail or antennas in the leading edge flaps. Also Eddy’s 359 has the spin chute brackets which has to disrupt the airflow around the boat tail, and airflow around that area is critical to optimum performance.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

I've done extensive research and calculations on F-16 variants which include everything from the YF-16 to the Block 50/52. All this effort went towards the development of high fidelity F-16 flight models for the Falcon 4.0 PC combat simulator. I know what I speak of, and specifically know that the Block 50 has better acceleration than the Block 52 throughout the entire flight envelope.

So, if this is case Raptor1, why is it the Original Falcon 4 states "Falcon 4.0 models the F-16C Block 52." on page A-8?

They used the Block 52 performance for the game, right? You say all the research was done and Block 50 has better performance (on paper) then the company turned around and use the PW specs? I'm confused...

It's a known fact that different engines will develop different performance at altitude/speed. The F-4E would outrun an F-15E low and fast because it's lower power turbojets work better at that altitude/speed than a higher powered turbofan.

The -229 is almost a "leaking turbojet" and that will gain it performance in specific areas of the flight envelope. The -229 had its BPR lowered from that of the -100/200/220 to gain performance. It furthers the engine's temperature and velocity to almost turbojet standards but still allows enough "fresh air" to get the maximum gain of thrust from the augmentor.

The bypass ratio of the GE-129 (0.76,) is much higher than the PW-229 (0.36). Additionally the -229 OPR is 32.4 whereas the -129 OPR is only 30.7. Now the GE-129 does have a higher mass flow than the PW-229, evident from requiring the "big-mouth" (which DOES add drag especially at high speed)

The PW-229 may have a slightly lower mass-flow, but more of that mass is compressed to a higher ratio through the compressor......

I'd like to see your research and math; how can an engine with a higher pressure-ratio and a lower bypass-ratio still end up on the bottom of ALL your performance calculations? Bang Head

I'd still bet a round of drinks on the -229 BEATING the -129 somewhere in the flight envelope... Cheers

(I love a good debate with Raptor1)

One thing you don't want to do is argue with me on the subject of the Falcon 4.0 simulation. I can tell you don't know much about that sim, its history, and so on. The sim has changed a great deal (due to third party edits) since the original Falcon 4.0 was released in December of 1998. As for my research, calculations, and so on, you can take a look at the following:

http://www.checksix-fr.com/downloads/fa ... manual.pdf

And again, I challenge you to find an F-16C Block 52 pilot to tell you in a matter-of-fact way that his aircraft accelerates faster than a Block 50. If you manage to find one that actually says his 52 out-accelerates the 50, ask him to show you some evidence to back up his claims. All your arguments may seem logical and totally reasonable to you, but if you really knew the facts you'd be a little embarrassed. Why do you think I'm not trying to counter your arguments directly? Because there's no point. I don't know exactly why the Block 50's F110-GE-129 and big mouth engine makes for better acceleration than the Block 52 throughout the entire flight envelope (seriously... no clue), but I know that it does. I'm trying to get you to find someone knowledgeable that you trust to tell you the same thing I am. What do you say?

Forum Veteran Joined: Jul 01, 2007 - 07:22 PM Posts: 620

From a pilot's perspective, I would take a GE over a pratt and whimpy any day. As far as the Block 50/52 debate, both can accelerate under 9Gs during BFM. Three or four engagements in either jet will exhaust you to the equivalency of 2-3 hours in the gym. There's nothing like fighting a rate fight at 9 and watching your airspeed increase.

If you really want to get some bang for your buck, shoehorn a F135 into a block anything and watch it go. Devil

Quote:

If you really want to get some bang for your buck, shoehorn a F135 into a block anything and watch it go

No thanks,

I have a hard enough time keeping the paint and rain errosion tape on my jet the way it is now Smile

sferrin wrote:

How 'bout a -232? (Have those even been put into service anywhere?)

No and they were removed from PW's website when the Raptor and JSF ran into congressional questions. Rolling Eyes

You wouldn't want either to compete with a "Legacy" F-16 or F-15 with engines capable of the "MACH 1.5 super-cruise", 3D thrust vectoring and up to 37K lbs of thrust... Twisted Evil

F119 engines run over $10M each, I'm sure F135s are similar. You can get a brand new F100-229 for about $5M, and the -232 would have fallen somewhere in between.

The -232 had as much F119 technologies as possible squeezed into the form of an F100. The fan was the biggest change to further increase mass (air) flow.

The small-mouth F-16s would not gain much from the -232 as it would not allow a higher flow. The big-mouth F-16s would have gained 2K or 3K of thrust, while the F-15s would have gained even more. (Their intakes have a much larger capture area)

The biggest gain from the -232 would have been engine life. Tuned "down" to 29K thrust, the cores of the -232 would have lasted TWICE as long as the current -229s.

Guess the USAF doesn't care about spending the money as long as they get new jets. (We all know they don't like spending on old ones...) Two Cents

SnakeHandler wrote:

If you really want to get some bang for your buck, shoehorn a F135 into a block anything and watch it go. Devil

Better bring lots of lube....
It would look a little goofy sticking out past the horizontal stabs another couple feet!?

F135-PW-100 Dimensions:
Length overall 5,588 mm (229.0 in)
Overall diameter 1,295 mm (51.0 in)

F100 (All) Dimensions:
Length Overall 4,855 mm (191.2 in)
Overall diameter (all) 1,181 mm (46.5 in)

If you've ever installed an engine into a Viper you'll know the 4.5" larger engine would not fit. I don't know where there is 4.5" of extra space (all around) anywhere in the engine bay?

But it is nice to dream.... In Love

Quote:

If you've ever installed an engine into a Viper you'll know the 4.5" larger engine would not fit. I don't know where there is 4.5" of extra space (all around) anywhere in the engine bay?

Ain't that the truth ... Sticking a motor in a Viper should be one of the wonders of the world, Kudos to the engineers who made it happen. Not Worthy

Quote:

http://www.checksix-fr.com/downloads/fa ... manual.pdf

Very nice product ... everything you wanted to know about the F-16 but were affraid to ask.

Quote (However, it is not intended that individual units operate with F-16s powered by two
different engine types, since that would create a spare parts and logistics nightmare.)

No Logistical nightmare? We have big mouths and little ones, GE’s and Pratts, analog and digital flight controls, some jets with stand-by generators others without. We have guns and no guns, heavy weight and light weight gears. Single seaters and two seaters. No it’s not a nightmare it’s fun

I've heard of Wing Commanders giving up their -229 powered F-15E, so that the entire wing would be -220 because the logistics were too involved. Seems some mechanics were using -229 parts on -220s and vise versa; or using the wrong "Dash whatever." I don't think there were any major incidents, but it was enough to put an end to the different engines at that wing. They were even the same OEM!? Shocked

Shall we mention all the qualifications the USAF requires to be certified on each engine type?.... (Borescope, operation low/high, blade-blend, intake inspection, IPI, etc) Would be a training nightmare... Bang Head

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

VarkVet wrote:

Quote:

http://www.checksix-fr.com/downloads/fa ... manual.pdf

Very nice product ... everything you wanted to know about the F-16 but were affraid to ask.

Quote (However, it is not intended that individual units operate with F-16s powered by two
different engine types, since that would create a spare parts and logistics nightmare.)

No Logistical nightmare? We have big mouths and little ones, GE’s and Pratts, analog and digital flight controls, some jets with stand-by generators others without. We have guns and no guns, heavy weight and light weight gears. Single seaters and two seaters. No it’s not a nightmare it’s fun

I don't know where that quote comes from. Some of the purely informational material in the manual is taken from online sources. It's referenced as such too. I was basically responsible for half of the technical material in the manual. The EM diagrams come from a MATLAB problem I wrote, for example.

Quote:

Shall we mention all the qualifications the USAF requires to be certified on each engine type?....

We were wondering what Directive states how many different engines you can operate and remain current on (can’t find anything) … I’m current on 220, and GE F-110-100/129

The key is not to take your annual certification at the same time or you’ll get confused (at least for us old guys) between the Pratts and GE’s. Also review your emergency procedures before every run and have the book open to the parameters page when you run.

Forum: General F-16 forum

My Viper is faster than yours