F-16.net

Printed from: F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference [http://www.f-16.net]
Document title: Big Mouth vs. Small Mouth - F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference
Original URL: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9678-start-45-sid-408fc3d4d4cf60dcddf75a029e9b036b.html
Printed on: 11 October 2008

Forum: General

Big Mouth vs. Small Mouth



Search Search  Register Register  Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
JetTest
PostPosted: Jan 14, 2008 - 05:29 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Jul 04, 2007
Posts: 90

Status: Offline
Swampfox,

I've not talked to USAF pilots about it, but have talked to foriegn pilots that have flown both -129 and -229 powered jets. They say the -129 is more powerful based on the big bump they feel when going from mil to max. I know PW spent a lot of time and trouble developing the 11 stage A/B to elminate that. I've not ever had opportunity to experience it in the air, but I know on the test stand with the -229, unless you are watching the instruments, can see the blue flame out back, or hear the sound increase, you really cannot tell the engine is in burner or not, it is that smooth of a transition.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Oct 11, 2008 - 10:25 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor






This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
   
 
SixerViper
PostPosted: Jan 14, 2008 - 05:01 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Posts: 349

Status: Offline
Bihrle Applied Research Inc wrote:
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.


This probably happened before I got into the F-16 "bidness" in 1991, and the FLCCs were probably all reprogrammed by that time. That would explain why I'd never heard of it; it was a non-issue by the time I got in the game. Thanks for enlightening me, TEG!

_________________
F-106A/B '69-'73
F-105D/F '73-'81
A-7D/K '81-'91
F-16C/D '91-'05
SCUBA bum '05-Present
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
SixerViper
PostPosted: Jan 14, 2008 - 05:01 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Jun 05, 2007
Posts: 349

Status: Offline
Duplicate post

_________________
F-106A/B '69-'73
F-105D/F '73-'81
A-7D/K '81-'91
F-16C/D '91-'05
SCUBA bum '05-Present
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
EGLZRULE
PostPosted: Jan 15, 2008 - 08:54 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Dec 27, 2007
Posts: 16

I don't know anything about how a P/W performs in an F-16 at all. But, what I do know is, that, being at a base that had both F-15's-PW and F-16's with GE's, it was much nicer to hear the F-15's flying overhead with the Pratt engines. It is like a deep rumbling instead of a high pitched whining or screaming of the Vipers flying over (almost sounds annoying like a mosquito or a nagging wife) Very Happy But, like I said, I have never heard the sound of an F-16 with a P/W engine in it. Off the subject, listening to the JFS of both aircraft is also a huge difference. The F-15 JFS sounds absolutely horrible- you can hear it on the other side of the base, and to quote a friend of mine it sounds like "somebody in a tortore chamber"! Shocked
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
SwampFox80
PostPosted: Jan 15, 2008 - 07:49 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jan 13, 2007
Posts: 9

Status: Offline
Rapture One, sorry that I hurt your feelings. We like to pick on each other here at SCANG alot, gotta have thick skin. REckon I need to be more sensitive to folks here. Anyways... pilot that I wanted to talk to that has flown at Shaw with their 50's and our 52's, but was at a conference. And waiting on word from a buddy who works engines at Shaw that can look up their -70 GS and get GE's specs. Let y'all know later.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
VarkVet
PostPosted: Jan 15, 2008 - 08:06 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Oct 30, 2006
Posts: 644

Status: Offline
SixerViper wrote:
Did you notice the slightly swept environmental intakes on the big-mouths and the non-swept ones on the small mouths? Well, the splitter between the top of the intake and the bottom of the fuselage is swept on big-mouths and not swept on small-mouths.


I never knew that ... I would have to say that is the tip of the month ... good observation Thumb Thanks

_________________
My eyes have seen the glory of the Lord and the esthetics of the Flightline
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
ACMIguy
PostPosted: Jan 15, 2008 - 11:09 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 667

Status: Offline
VarkVet wrote:
SixerViper wrote:
Did you notice the slightly swept environmental intakes on the big-mouths and the non-swept ones on the small mouths? Well, the splitter between the top of the intake and the bottom of the fuselage is swept on big-mouths and not swept on small-mouths.


I never knew that ... I would have to say that is the tip of the month ... good observation Thumb Thanks


VarkVet
It was pictured in my first posting on page one.

"The Modern Viper Guide" is a great book, you might want to pick up a copy.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
VarkVet
PostPosted: Jan 15, 2008 - 11:46 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Oct 30, 2006
Posts: 644

Status: Offline
It was pictured in my first posting on page one.

"The Modern Viper Guide" is a great book, you might want to pick up a copy.[/quote]

My apologies brother, I missed it Doh … those were great photos

_________________
My eyes have seen the glory of the Lord and the esthetics of the Flightline
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
VarkVet
PostPosted: Jan 16, 2008 - 01:24 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Oct 30, 2006
Posts: 644

Status: Offline
EGLZRULE wrote:
But, like I said, I have never heard the sound of an F-16 with a P/W engine in it.


Yes you did, you may have not realized it though Wink

Ever see the T-Birds? Doh

_________________
My eyes have seen the glory of the Lord and the esthetics of the Flightline
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
That_Engine_Guy
PostPosted: Jan 16, 2008 - 02:28 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Dec 14, 2005
Posts: 743

Status: Offline
VarkVet wrote:
EGLZRULE wrote:
But, like I said, I have never heard the sound of an F-16 with a P/W engine in it.


Yes you did, you may have not realized it though Wink

Ever see the T-Birds? Doh


Thunderbird Viper Motors

1983-19?? F-16A/B Blk 15 w/F100-PW-200
19??-1991 F-16A/B Blk 15 w/F100-PW-220E (Upgrade)
1992-2008 F-16C/D Blk 32 w/F100-PW-220
2009-20?? F-16C/D Blk 52 w/F100-PW-229

PW F100s can run 30 seconds at MIL-Power in "negative G" without oil pressure. GE F110s can't Neutral

Does anyone know what year the Block 15 Thunderbirds were upgraded from the PW-200 to PW-220E? Shrug

Can't wait to see if they shine the PW-229's carbon-fiber turkey feathers, or try to modify the standard PW-229 nozzle with polished metal turkey feathers?
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
KXY
PostPosted: Jan 17, 2008 - 04:53 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Posts: 44

Status: Offline
There is so much information in here. I'm glad I started this thread. Smile
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
skwabie
PostPosted: Feb 27, 2008 - 06:36 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jun 08, 2007
Posts: 12

Status: Offline
New guy here. Nice thread. While you were arguing which engine is more powerful, maybe you could just take a look at the datas here at f-16.net:

Engine: One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 turbofan, rated at 17,000 lb.s.t. dry and 28,500 lb.s.t. with afterburning or one General Electric F110-GE-129 turbofan, rated at 17,155 lb.s.t. dry and 28,984 lb.s.t. with afterburning.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
That_Engine_Guy
PostPosted: Feb 28, 2008 - 12:03 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Dec 14, 2005
Posts: 743

Status: Offline
But you also have to take into account the engine's dry weight, and resulting thrust-to-weight ratio of the engine.

The GE engine is heavier than the PW. I'll also add those are not the factory or USAF acceptance thrust values...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
F16guy
PostPosted: Feb 28, 2008 - 08:22 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 143

TEG,
You have more experience with engines and I my knowledge comes from flying the thing. But the limits for the PW and GE in the Dash one are the same regarding zero G flight. Could you elaborate on the 30 second thing? I've never heard of that in my 15 year flying career.
EGLZRULE,
Your kidding, I know. The only jet that moans is the F-15 (starting up). I'm sure you ment to say a GE Viper puts out more deep, bone shaking, sound of Freedom than the F-15, just ask anyone on this forum. Cool
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
F16guy
PostPosted: Feb 28, 2008 - 08:26 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 143

TEG,
I forgot to add. The PW rep that I worked with at Luke told me all Viper 220's had been upgraded to the E standard back in 2002. You could call Luke Flight Safety office or engine shop and ask for the PW rep's number.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2008 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel