F 100 P&W 229 vs. F 110 GE 129 - for and against

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

Which engine is better ?

F 100 P&W 229
33
34%
F 110 GE 129
63
66%
 
Total votes : 96

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1475
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post11 Sep 2013, 05:59

Question

If the PW engine uses heat and the GE engine uses air pressure to produce roughly the same ammount of thrust, then wouldn't that put PW equiped fighters at a disadvantage since they would have a higher IR signature than GE equiped planes?
Offline

Patriot

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 17:48
  • Location: Poland / UK

Unread post13 Feb 2016, 16:37

In terms of maintenance and FOD endurance it's 1 - 0 for Pratt & Whistle... ;)


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I8tP6TuzdHE
Offline

jetjams

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2016, 19:50

Unread post17 Apr 2016, 21:25

That_Engine_Guy wrote:Thought: I don't believe GE supports their products as much as PW. I believe they are more of the "here it is, it's all yours now" type company. PW has more technical involvement with their products after the sale. :2c:


I am not sure where this sentiment comes from. Whether it is F100 or F110, F-15 or F-16, all foreign operators invest in field support and Component Improvement Programs.

On the ROKAF issue, the USAF may have been unable to provide support based on personal experience, but they were still responsible, with GE/Boeing, to fix the problem. Then of course both engines come with warranties, so the OEMs are obligated to keep the fleets supportable if the maintenance and inspections are performed per tech data.

I don't have the numbers, but perhaps there is a perception of better PW dedication simply because have received more funding from USAF year over year and can thus provide more support.

I think alot of people have their blinders on when it comes to the ongoing GE vs. PW competition and the recent USAF outcomes. Has anybody looked at who is powering the Navy's fleet of boats and jets and the track record of performance to proposal recently?
Offline

jj8558

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2008, 11:24

Unread post05 Aug 2017, 16:35

We always compared them from a start position of 10,000 ft and 250 kts slick. Full max doing a loop the GE would always complete, PW would not
Offline

Patriot

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 17:48
  • Location: Poland / UK

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 16:49

Hey fellas.
Got a small question about a Bypass Ratio.
If specs says that PW-229er has 0.36:1 and it's rival the GE-129er has 0.76:1 BPR that simply means... that in case of Pratt's and Whistle's motor 36% of the total air mass that gets to the engine goes arround the core straight into AB pipe and in case of GE's one that would be 76% ?? Hmmmm

I think I got something wrong here. Could somebody clarify please? :)
Offline

ygbsm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:15

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 18:55

It's not even close. P&W left too many hard feelings with the 220 series. Even if you go pure 229 vs 129, from an operator viewpoint, it is not even close. Fck,look how P&W mechs their anti-ice. I ain't got nothing for them (P&W).
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3455
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 19:33

Patriot wrote:Hey fellas.
Got a small question about a Bypass Ratio.
If specs says that PW-229er has 0.36:1 and it's rival the GE-129er has 0.76:1 BPR that simply means... that in case of Pratt's and Whistle's motor 36% of the total air mass that gets to the engine goes arround the core straight into AB pipe and in case of GE's one that would be 76% ?? Hmmmm

I think I got something wrong here. Could somebody clarify please? :)

Bypass ratio is the ratio of bypass air vs core air, not bypass air vs total air.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

Patriot

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 17:48
  • Location: Poland / UK

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 19:46

Ok. Roger that. So how should I be interpreting these figures: 0.36:1 vs. 0.76:1 ??
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3455
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 20:09

Core airflow % would be 1/(1+BPR)

BPR 0.36 is a core airflow of 73.5%

BPR 0.76 is a core airflow of 56.8%

In general, all other things being equal, a higher core airflow percentage results in higher exit velocity speeds which CAN translate to more thrust at higher speeds. A lower core airflow percentage generally results in improved fuel efficiency. There are a LOT of other factors at play here that can effect both thrust and fuel efficiency, overall pressure ratio, total airflow, turbine inlet temperature, pressure recovery of intake and exhaust to name a few.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1475
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post18 Jun 2018, 16:09

jj8558 wrote:We always compared them from a start position of 10,000 ft and 250 kts slick. Full max doing a loop the GE would always complete, PW would not


What exact engines were you using?
I believe the block 30, 40 and 50 were all using GE F110-129s while their PW counterparts the block 32 and 42 used the PW-F100-220. It wasn't really a fair comparison until the block 52 which had the PW-F100-229 which is a direct counterpart of the GE-129 motor on the block 30s.

I would really be surprised if there was a noticeable performance difference between the 129 and 229 motors, most comments I've heard is that both are monsters.
Offline

MVSGas

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 129
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2005, 09:12

Unread post19 Jun 2018, 08:48

zero-one wrote:What exact engines were you using?
I believe the block 30, 40 and 50 were all using GE F110-129s while their PW counterparts the block 32 and 42 used the PW-F100-220. It wasn't really a fair comparison until the block 52 which had the PW-F100-229 which is a direct counterpart of the GE-129 motor on the block 30s.

I would really be surprised if there was a noticeable performance difference between the 129 and 229 motors, most comments I've heard is that both are monsters.

The block 30 and 40 use F110-GE-100. Block 32 use F100-PW-220, some block 42 use the F100-PW-220 and two units use the F100-PW-229.
I am no pilot so I have no clue how they perform on the air, but from my experience, GE are more reliable and easier to work on. Also, there has to be a reason why all USAF F-16 station overseas (outside of CONUS) are GE powered.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1475
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post19 Jun 2018, 09:22

MVSGas wrote:The block 30 and 40 use F110-GE-100. Block 32 use F100-PW-220, some block 42 use the F100-PW-220 and two units use the F100-PW-229.


Ow thats right, I cheeked again
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article6.html
Block 30/32
Engine: One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 turbofan, rated at 14,590 lb.s.t. dry and 23,770 lb.s.t. with afterburning or one General Electric F110-GE-100 turbofan, rated at 17,155 lb.s.t. dry and 28,984 lb.s.t. with afterburning.

Block 40/42
Engine: One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 turbofan, rated at 14,590 lb.s.t. dry and 23,770 lb.s.t. with afterburning or one General Electric F110-GE-100 turbofan, rated at 17,155 lb.s.t. dry and 28,984 lb.s.t. with afterburning.

It wasn't until the block 50/52 that things started to even out
Block 50/52
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.


Strange, why did the GE -100 and 129 not have any improvement in thrust levels?
Offline

Patriot

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 17:48
  • Location: Poland / UK

Unread post19 Jun 2018, 09:48

MVSGas wrote:I am no pilot so I have no clue how they perform on the air, but from my experience, GE are more reliable


This is why there were no an A-class incident involving -229er since 2001 and we fairly regularly hear of GE powered Vipers being down...?

MVSGas wrote: and easier to work on.

Ive heard quite the opposite.

The reason why all outside CONUS F-16 bases are GE equipped is I believe the fact that in mid 80s when F110 GE-100 first came out it offered a signifficant leap in performance over the F100 PW-200/220/E so the units were given with new F-16C/D B30s and 40s while older F-16A/B with PW-200s were send back home topping up the make up of mostly either ANG or AMARG.
Later on maintenance wise some overseas units recieved B50s and the status quo remains like that. Part of this equation is IMHO lobbying and politics too. Turkey for example uses only GE driven Vipers but at the time when they have been making decissions on that matter there was no Block 52 avilable and PW-229 as well. Eversince Pratt 229 was avilable it beated GE 129 on many occasions on international markets.
Offline

MVSGas

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 129
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2005, 09:12

Unread post19 Jun 2018, 09:49

zero-one wrote:
Strange, why did the GE -100 and 129 not have any improvement in thrust levels?

Depends where you get your numbers from.
From 1F-16CG-1, 15 August 2009, page 1-10, Figure 1-2 (Sheet 2)
ENGINE
F100-PW-220/220E
Thrust ..............................25,000 Lb class
Compressor Diameter..............34.8 In
Engine Length ......................191.1 in
F100-PW-229
Thrust ...............................29,000Lb Class
Compressor Diameter..............34.8 In
Engine Length ......................208 in
F110-GE-100
Thrust ..............................28,000 Lb class
Compressor Diameter..............35.8 In
Engine Length ......................183.76 in
F110-GE-129
Thrust ..............................29,500 Lb class
Compressor Diameter..............35.8 In
Engine Length ......................183.76 in
Offline

MVSGas

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 129
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2005, 09:12

Unread post19 Jun 2018, 09:59

deleted
Last edited by MVSGas on 19 Jun 2018, 10:15, edited 2 times in total.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 Design & Construction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests