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.

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?

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.

FINALLY got the T.O. specs on the GE 129. I wont show exactly what they say, but the PW 229 has 700lbs more thrust and weighs 160lbs less. Now according to pilots that have flown both the 50 and the 52, one said he liked the 50 better than the 52, and the other liked the 52 over the 50? So not what to come to on that one. But according to the USAF -70GS for both blocks, the PW 229 has more, and weighs less.

I have always been told the reason almost all foreign sales of F-16's comes with PW engines is because today they may be our allies but who knows what tommorrow brings, so rather than having foriegn vipers out perform our own F-16's we won't allow F-16's to be sold to foriegn country's with GE engines in them. Like I said this is somthing that I have been told since I joined the Air Force back in 99.

Also note that I think all if not all most of USAF vipers deploying oversea's or already stationed overseas, have GE engines in them.

And the F-35 although is slated to have PW on the first released, it is already been stated that GE will produce an engine for the second wave of F-35's, I believe it is somthing like the first 400 will be PW and the second 400 will be GE's I know I read somthing along those lines somwhere.

Now get the T.O. for the F-16C Block 50 and Block 52 and see which one accelerates faster under every conceivable condition, has better specific excess power under every conceivable condition, climbs faster, etc. I promise you it will be the Block 50 with the better numbers across the board. If you got the T.O. for the F110-GE-129, you should be able to get the T.O. for the F-16C Block 50 and Block 52. This debate is over until someone clearly states that according to flight test performance data, the Block 50 has better raw flight performance than Block 52 or vice versa. Talking about uninstalled thrust performance is pointless for a jet that will do Mach 1.2+ down on the deck and Mach 2.05 at altitude. The variation in engine and inlet performance throughout such a large envelope is not trivial. One engine might produce 700 lbs more thrust at sea level static and 2000 less lbs at sea level and Mach 1.

Now according to pilots that have flown both the 50 and the 52, one said he liked the 50 better than the 52, and the other liked the 52 over the 50?

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.

I recently visited an f16 block 52+ (i fly block 50) squadron and when i watched the video tape of a recorded take off in a routine flight i noticed that the acceleration during take off is smaller than the f16 block 50.There is a difference you can tell.Besides that , pilots who have flown with both aircraft state that the performance of the Block 50 in acceleration , turn performance especially at low altitudes is better.

Used both, didn't find them much different.

Now get the T.O. for the F-16C Block 50 and Block 52 and see which one accelerates faster under every conceivable condition, has better specific excess power under every conceivable condition, climbs faster, etc. I promise you it will be the Block 50 with the better numbers across the board. If you got the T.O. for the F110-GE-129, you should be able to get the T.O. for the F-16C Block 50 and Block 52. This debate is over until someone clearly states that according to flight test performance data, the Block 50 has better raw flight performance than Block 52 or vice versa. Talking about uninstalled thrust performance is pointless for a jet that will do Mach 1.2+ down on the deck and Mach 2.05 at altitude. The variation in engine and inlet performance throughout such a large envelope is not trivial. One engine might produce 700 lbs more thrust at sea level static and 2000 less lbs at sea level and Mach 1.

tmofarrvl,

Just to let you know, TO's are not all maintenance docs. Ever hear of a -1? Or the classified supplement to the -1? That's where you'll find performance data. Comparison data will not be shown, but if you have a -1 for Blk 50 and for Blk 52, you can make your own comparisons.