Big Mouth vs. Small Mouth

Feel free to discuss anything here - as long as it is F-16 related.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1068
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 21:09

Noticed that in F-16 Viper (Drendal J) there is a November 1989 entry that GE proposed installing the GE-100 in new build F-16A/Bs - guess they didn't get that contract.



This is the Block 30 you are looking for zeroone:

USAF F-16C block 30 #86359 is used to test the new F110-GE-132 engine. 8)

http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article691.html
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1107
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 21:50

I was actually looking for a big mouth F-16 with a PW-229 engine. I was wondering if it was ever done, will the added air give allow the PW-229 to produce more thrust or is the computer aware that it is producing way more thrust at that particular altitude and speed and will limit the production to around 29,000 lbs (or whatever the installed thrust is) at sea level. Unlikely but I dont know
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1068
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 22:50

I thought I had seen a quote saying it didn't use the extra air anyway - but cant find it.

Interestingly TEG posted figures for the PW-232 that never came to be:

F100-PW-232 - Originally known as the PW-229IPE+ (Increased Performance Engine), and then as the PW-229A, this ultimate version has been intensively developed to be "an increased-thrust, affordable and exportable engine for the F-15 and F-16". The main new feature is a redesigned fan based on F119 technology. This has a new first stage, with larger FOD-resistant blades (but solid, avoiding sensitive F119 technology) and wide-chord blisk second and third stages. This handles an increased air flow, further enhanced by eliminating the variable inlet guide vanes of previous F100 engines. The engine was intended to be a bolt-on retrofit for any F-15 or F-16, but the PW-232 requires a larger maximum air flow, as indicated by the figures below for Maximum T-O ratings. To keep overall engine length constant, the augmentor has been shortened, and according to sources the improved engine is designed for either an all-axis vectoring nozzle or an ejector nozzle with reduced IR signature. At one point in testing the PW-232 was tested to the 37,000 lb st thrust, but was "detuned" to allow higher times between overhaul. This engine seemed to fall from the spotlight after the F119 engine began to enter service.

F100-PW-232 (F-16 'standard inlet') 129.45 kN (29,100 lb st)
F100-PW-232 (F-16 'big mouth inlet') 142.0 kN (31,860 lb st)
F100-PW-232 (ideal inlet) 144.85 kN (32,500 lb st)


just interesting it still has the same thrust rating as the PW-229 apparently with small inlet despite the changes - and needed a bigger inlet anyway like the GE to get higher thrust - so yeah who knows.
Offline

jbgator

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 01:31
  • Location: VA

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 00:15

Once again you guys are over focusing on maneuvering performance. In my 21 years flying the Viper the biggest combat capability enhancements were avionics. But to finish this circle J for me:

The PW229 clearly does not perform any better with a big inlet, if it did they would have had a common production inlet on Blk 50/52. Therefore the horse would be a Blk 32 with a PW229 as you have 29K thrust with the lower weight and drag of the small inlet. It would drastically improve the performance of the Blk 32 (and presumably the MLU A-models) while a Blk 30 could just install a GE129. Why bother with PW plumbing in a Blk 30? But this is all clean MOA wars BFM stuff. What combat capability do you get from your investment?

Clearly over the years USAF has decided to focus their upgrade dollars on F-16 Avionics. Data links, HMCS/HMD, counter measures, improved radars, faster processors driving color MFDs to provide better SA, etc. Do you get the picture? Like the anti-JSF crowd that can't get sensor fusion and dramatically improved SA? But it can't turn better than an F-16...Blah, blah, blah. The ANG invested in PW229s to make their Blk 42s combat capable because they are severely underpowered for heavy weight combat, not BFM MOA wars. The FTUs are fine with Blk 25/32/42 because they can teach the mission and don't go to war with their jets or fly real heavy very often. So the only reason to spend big bucks to up engine USAF jets is to replace PW220 motors in combat coded jets. Blk 30, Big and small, get the job done. If that is done it will not be because USAF leaders want the F-16 to be king of MOA war BFM fights. A new APG-68 version or AESA, SLEP, etc. are more pressing needs for limited dollars. So, carry on the flights of fancy, JB...out.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1107
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 15:53

jbgator wrote:Once again you guys are over focusing on maneuvering performance. In my 21 years flying the Viper the biggest combat capability enhancements were avionics.


Well yes sir it is, simply because the F-16 didn't keep its pilots wanting on the Kinematic department. As far as I know, even the worst performing F-16s (block 32 & 42 I think) were still pretty darn good BFM machines. So any enhancements made on the 52 were marginal. They were good to have, but not something you can't live without.

On the other hand, Viper pilots were routinely left heavily wanting in the Avionics department in its early life. So basically there was a lot of room for improvement in that area, not so much in performance.

Anyway, the thread isn't about combat effectiveness but just about the Big mouth vs Small mouth Viper comparison.
Offline

jbgator

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 01:31
  • Location: VA

Unread post21 Mar 2017, 17:32

As I said, I'm done with the flight of fancy stuff, only to reiterate that there is no other reason to modify a fighter than "combat effectiveness".

But I returned to this thread one last time to apologize to TEG as I miss-read his post. Re-reading it, and his earlier posts in this thread from 9 years ago, I realize he meant the PW229 was built for NSI airflow, not the Blk 52 had an NSI to make it compatible with older PW engines. Sort of a chicken/egg relation. I read chicken, he meant egg. His earlier posts clearly articulate the reduced airflow requirement of the PW229. Wish we had them in our Blk 32s at Homestead. The T-birds got most of our 32s when we went to Blk 30 and probably would have liked them that way too.
Previous

Return to General F-16 forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests