Question about Block 42 Engine

Always wondered why the F-16 has a tailhook, or how big a bigmouth F-16's mouth really is ? Find it out here !
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Butcher

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2008, 05:37
  • Location: Larnaca, Cyprus

Unread post02 Oct 2008, 18:29

Hello guys, i would like some clarification, i have noticed on some pictures that Block 42s tend to have different nozzles which probably indicate a different engine. Take for example these two Tulsa Vipers,


F-16D of the 138th FW Oklahoma ANG [Photo by Burks Chad]




USAF F-16C block 42, #89-2138 and #89-2145 over Oklahoma [USAF photo]


They have the older style nozzle.

This picture of a Viper from the same squadron shows a different nozzle which looks like the -229 engine used by Block 52s.

Block 42s from Tulsa:


USAF F-16C block 42 #89-2031 from the 125th FS is spotted at Balad AB on August 27th, 2005. It crashed on June 15th, 2007. [Photo by ViperKeeper]




USAF F-16C block 42 #89-2040 from the 125th FS is parked on a wet tarmac on April 28th, 2007. [Photo by Joseph Handelman]


Another Block 42 from the 112th:


USAF F-16C block 42 #89-2085 from the 112th FS is flying over Alaska when returning from an exercise. [Photo by Bird_dog1]




USAF F-16C block 42 #89-2098 from the 112th FS (marked as 180 FW) releases a GBU-12 during Northern Edge 06 on June 14th, 2006. Northern Edge is a joint training exercise hosted by the Alaskan Command. [USAF photo by MSgt. Rob Wieland]


Block 52 from the 157th FS:



Lt.Gen. Gary North, the 9th AF and Central Air Forces commander, performs a preflight check on F-16C block 52 #93-0531 from 157th FS along with his crew chief TSgt. Randall Silvia, from the 169th FW at McEntire JNGB on February 27th, 2007. Lt. Gen. Gary North visited the 169th FW to receive qualification in the use of the SNIPER advanced targeting pod and weapons delivery system. [USAF photo by SMSgt. Edward Snyder]






I was wondering whether some Block 42s have received the 229 Engines as part of CCIP. I was also wondering if that is true, does it mean that Block 40s will be receiving the -129 Engine of the Block 50s? Thank you for any information you might provide.
Offline
User avatar

rpgrynn

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 03 May 2005, 15:30

Unread post02 Oct 2008, 19:06

Yes, some did to get 'em ready for deployment back in 2002

The Air National Guard begins updating
its Block 42 F-16 fleet with high-thrust
F100-PW-229 engines on July 31. LM
Aero provides kits early in support of
upcoming Mideast deployment.

Check out

http://www.lmaeronautics.com/lmaerostar ... 012803.pdf

For full 2002 Aerostar
Offline

Butcher

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2008, 05:37
  • Location: Larnaca, Cyprus

Unread post02 Oct 2008, 19:27

Thanks, greatly appreciated.
Offline
User avatar

LinkF16SimDude

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2486
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 19:18
  • Location: SW Tenn.

Unread post02 Oct 2008, 21:18

The 229's turkey feathers are a composite material I believe, hence the dark color. The older feathers were metallic. Makes for a easy quick ID.
Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2303
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post02 Oct 2008, 23:18

Yes; a number of years ago three ANG units received funding for engine upgrades to their Block 42s. Tulsa, Toledo, DesMoines.

DesMoines has since been BRAC'd into Block 30s, so the upgraded jets went to Tulsa and Toledo.

Not sure how many they haven't upgraded by now, but you still see some with the PW-220 engines. All the photos I've seen of their aircraft during AEF deployments show only the PW-229s. I doubt they even take the older engines into combat... :shrug:

Yes also to the composite External Nozzle Segments AKA - "Turkey Feathers". They are a carbon-fiber design on the PW-229 while the PW-220 had a titanium alloy feather

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

Butcher

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2008, 05:37
  • Location: Larnaca, Cyprus

Unread post03 Oct 2008, 04:43

Will Block 40s also be receiving the GE-129 Engine, does anyone know about that?
Offline

ViperEnforcer

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 583
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2003, 19:53
  • Location: High Desert California

Unread post03 Oct 2008, 18:22

No, as opposed to the Pratt-220s, the GE -100s have sufficient thrust to push fully loaded Block 40s. The GE-100's raw thrust is about that of the -229. A GE-129 would give a Block 40 quite a bit more balls though. After having one in my old block 30 I crewed at Edwards, it proved to be the ultimate power plant in the right Block F-16. Pilots really prefered flying my rocket!

Mike V
If it yanks, banks, turns, and burns, Crew Chiefs made it happen!
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2303
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post03 Oct 2008, 20:57

Agreed no... (and I'll illustrate a little further)

1. The PW-229 gives about 20% more thrust at MIL/MAX power than the PW-220 that was originoaly fitted in the Block 42s. On the other hand the GE-129 only adds 2 or 3% more thrust at MIL/MAX.

2. The other thing that benefited the ANG during this program was a "trickle-down-effect" where the removed PW-220s from the Viper units were given to ANG Eagle units to replace their PW-100s. The rest of the PW-100s are to be replaced by engines from Vipers BRACed to the bone-yard. The Viper's PW-220 and PW-220Es being "retired" are newer and more reliable than the PW-100s of the Eagle fleet. You can't plug-and-play a GE-100 into an Eagle like you can a PW-220. Remember ALL the F100s are identical in connection/interface minus some aircraft inputs that aren't necessarily needed by the engine.

3. By upgrading the Block 42s with the PW-229 those ANG units have a higher thrust/weight ratio now than even a Block 50/52 as they are heavier aircraft. This puts them back as "equals" with all other Blocks used by the USAF. This allows greater flexibility during combat deployments.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG
Offline

ViperEnforcer

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 583
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2003, 19:53
  • Location: High Desert California

Unread post04 Oct 2008, 16:42

In the mid 90s, the GE-100 was fitted with update (new program) DEC. On the thrust pad (In the aircraft, not a stand), the GE-100 had a raw thrust just over 32K Lbs. Around 98, the GE-129 DEC went though a program update as well. Again, on the thrust pad with the engine in the aircraft, this time the raw thrust was over 34K lbs. The engineers could not tune down the thrust, without sacrificing the total efficiency spectrum of the engine during Mil & AB operation.

We also had the 229 run on the thrust pad to iron out all the integration problems when retro-fitting Block 42 to Prat-229. I remember that one quite well, as that was the first time I ever heard a Pratt-229 stall. During its max thrust, it topped out at 31K lbs and some change.

That's all ground performance thrust rating, but in the air, it's a different equation. The fact is, when I was at Nellis, the main complaint from air crew was that the Pratt-220s did not have enough balls to push iron, compared to the GE powered blocks 40s. I have yet to hear a pilot say other wise.

Mike V
If it yanks, banks, turns, and burns, Crew Chiefs made it happen!
Offline

JetTest

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 565
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 00:22

Unread post07 Oct 2008, 02:33

Viper, how were you guys measuring installed thrust? I know the typical USAF hush house and trim pad do not. Just curious.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1413
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post06 Jun 2018, 22:03

So to summarize then looking at the recent photos in the database, just Toledo ANG and Tulsa ANG got the engine upgrade for their Block 42s in the end.

Assume they were the only Block 42 units that would ever deploy because the rest seem to be mostly training or adversary.

Return to F-16 Design & Construction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests