Lots of factors here. From a pilots perspective it really doesn't make much difference as long as its not a -220E. I've flown with each engine and the performance of all after the -220 are outstanding. One really can't say the -129 is superior in all phases of flight. From experience I can tell you that the difference is extremely small. I'm flying the -229 right now and am thoroughly impressed with its performance. I haven't had a single engine related MFL in over six months- that's reliable. I loved the -129 just as much. I always thought the big mouth looked like it was smiling. I think its got a good reason to smile.

Viper 1234,

Thanks for the apparent unbiased opinion from an actual user. Numbers from graphs and charts in books and manuals do not mean nearly as much as acutual experience. Sounds like from the pilot seat the diifernce really is rather insignificant. They are both great engines, just a little different approachs to some things, but either one still makes the F16 the most successful fighter in history.

Raptor One, just what kind of experience do you have flying or maintaining F-16s? You seem pretty knowledgeable? Although you sound as if you work for GE?

MCID also led to changes in the control laws when it was found to cause problems with certain stores at high AoAs.

This is a new one on me! Unless this change happened after August of 2005 when I retired, the FLCCs and ECAs were identical and interchangeable between the block 25, 32, and 30 with either inlet. In fact they had the same NSN and part numbers. That would indicate to me that there were no differences in control laws between engines. Did these changes apply to all engine/intake combinations?

I confess that I have no knowledge of the DFLCC and any differences (if any) between the PW and GEs in the 40-50 fleet.

Flight Test Support Success Stories
F-16 Modular Common Inlet Duct Flight Test Support

F-16 MCIDAs the F-16 propulsion systems have evolved, the requirement to increase the inlet throat and capture area for increased engine mass flow led to the development of the Modular Common Inlet Duct (MCID) for the Block 30D aircraft. Initial flight testing with this inlet configuration revealed deep stall behavior that was more oscillatory and more difficult to recover from. Bihrle Applied Research had collected a substantial set of static and dynamic wind tunnel test data for General Dynamics and the US Air Force, with evidence of degradation in the dynamic characteristics for this configuration. Following a flight test deep stall encounter with a center line tank configuration that required over 30 pitch rock cycles before recovery, Bihrle was tasked to review the flight results and support configuration modifications to alleviate the deep stall conditions.

During the review of the data, the MCID configuration effects were added to the Bihrle in-house F-16 engineering simulation, and our engineers were able to replicate the extended recovery deep stall observed in flight. Review of the flight data revealed a number of issues that delayed recovery. The oscillatory nature of the deep stall with this configuration aggravated the ability of the pi synchronize his pitch rocking inputs, as the roll oscillation phasing gave the illusion of a nose down pitch break. Since the yaw rate limiting function of the flight control system at high angles of attack had priority over the longitudinal control, the yaw on the airplane during this oscillatory condition was severely limiting the available nose down control. Following these insights, the yaw rate limiting component of the flight control system was modified in the engineering simulation to respond less immediately to the yaw rate buildup, thus enabling greater pitch control. With this modification in place, previously difficult recoveries were now immediate. This change to the yaw rate limiting circuit was recommended to the Air Force, approved, and successfully flight tested. The success of this modification on the deep stall recoveries was sufficient to lead to the retrofitting of all F-16 configurations.

Raptor One, seems like you have to disagree with most people, but charts and tables in manuals are no substitute for real-world experience. With all of your expertise seems ironic that both Pratt and GE disagreed with your applications, huh?

Daggum Raptor One, you ever sleep? I noticed you never answered my question? I've work both 50's and 52's the past twelve years. I'm not going to put out actual specs, OPSEC, but I KNOW from the -80 GS's from both motors that the PW has a little more thrust, weighs less, AND, although you say its not a big deal, the GE intake is alot bigger and produces a good bit of drag. I'm at drill, and will go talk to a pilot who has flown both and will tell you what they say. Oh, how come you never got a job with GE and PW? I can take a good guess.