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

Raptor_DCTR

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 659
  • Joined: 23 May 2005, 02:13

Unread post25 Mar 2007, 22:36

Guess you have no scence of humor. My bad, I didn't know you couldn't laugh a little. I apoligize and obviously insulting my intelligence is more fun to you than chuckling a little. Life doesn't always have to be serious, lighten up. I didn't dissagree with any of your posts or engine guy's because I work avionics and not engines so you guys are the experts. I thought the conversation was going to erupt any minute so I threw a little joke out there. If you didn't like the post then you could've ignored it and gone on with your debate with engine guy. No one else had any objections at all. Quit being so ignorant.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2307
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post25 Mar 2007, 23:37

Velvet wrote:After 18 years in the biz and exposure to multiple PW and GE products... I was nervous every sortie I flew that was PW powered. Two words for you. "Nozzle liberation" for the 220E. Also, there is a reason a Weapons School pilot was walking home instead of flying an ILS this month.


Yes the -220/-220E did have Nozzle Liberation problems. Seems someone decided the 'augmentor combustion chamber duct' didn't need to be cycle tracked for time changes. They were used over and over AND OVER again. Many had been in service since they were installed into brand new aircraft. After that many AB lights, and high-g flights, something is going to give, and in the duct it was the small spot-welds that held the stiffeners to the duct. The spot welds would begin to crack, link together over time, then zipper forward or aft until reaching a flange, then POP! :shock: The nozzle would fall off.

Even this wouldn't cause a PW-220 aircraft to crash, just loose some thrust. (At least one Thunderbird show demonstrated this failure too) The class-A was a result of SEC mode and MIL throttle combination. SEC mode causes the nozzle to close, and the fan to over-speed just a bit, to provide a bit more thrust. Without the closed nozzle, the little extra speed on the fan was unchecked and without back-pressure the RPM went too high. (Not good) There is a change in the manual that now explains "suspected nozzle-loss", and how to address it. I believe there has also been logic updates in the DEEC to help detect a nozzle-loss situation.

After a few TCTOs (I personally scrubbed about a squadron of augmentor ducts with a green scotch-brite pad and alcohol. Yes, the instructions said it had to be green. The ducts had to be cleaned to the point a white-cloth would not show any soot when wiped on the surface. Let me tell you, that takes a while on the inside of an augmentor duct!... :roll: After which a penetrant inspection could be accomplished to find the hair-line cracks between the spot-welds. This removed the "old" ducts, and gained a safety margin until a fix was found.

The fix came from the PW-229's "Chemically Milled" design duct, adapted for use on the PW-220. Below is a picture of an old and "new" -220. The ducts are replaced during time-change cycles to the new configuration. Even the new ducts are now a tracked part.

I'll also point out again, the PW-229 is WAY safer than the PW-200 and the PW-220. The latest crash has yet to be investigated, but the last few stuck throttle incidents were either FOD (Briefcase!?) or throttle cables, not the engine. (Knocking on wood again...)

:!: In the top photo note the long stringers on the augmentor duct's exterior. They aren't in the bottom photo which incorporates the newer design on the augmentor, and forward fan ducts.
Attachments
Origional-220.jpg
Current-220(E).jpg
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2307
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post26 Mar 2007, 03:13

Sorry I had to get to dinner.... continuing on... :wink:

Velvet wrote:There is a reason the USAF stopped buying 52's and kept buying 50's.


Yeah; because of that '50/50 engine purchase split' law. All the PW-229s have been going into attrition F-15Es, leaving all the F-16s to be Block 50s with GE-129.

After all; for every replacement F-15E they purchase, it equals two replacement F-16 Blk50s. :?

Lets not forget the FMS countries recently getting Block52/52+. They seem happy :D (So does my UTC stock!)

Raptor_One wrote:One thing I'd be interested to know is whether F-15Es do better with F110-GE-129s as opposed to F100-PW-229s. I believe they have some GE powered Strike Eagles in service, but I could be wrong. You wouldn't happen to know, would you? The variable geometry inlet of the F-15 should do wonders when coupled to a F100-PW-229. I wonder if they can provide adequate mass flow to the F110-GE-129s under all conditions, however.


You'd have to ask Boeing on that one. Korea is the only user of the F-15K with GE-129. I'd bet they're not real happy either. I imagine they get llittle support from USAF as their F-15s are a sort of "ba$t@rd child."

Unless there is a USAF or RoKAF pilot who's flown the other country's F-15E/K. I did hear the PW-229s were having a hard time with compressor stalls in the F-15 due to some inlet ramp scheduling. They figured it was the airframe as the same engines were working fine in the Blk52s. After McD/Boeing came clean with some inlet distortion figures, and did some ramp schedule software "tweaking" I hear things got better. This was mostly through hear-say, anyone to confirm?

I suppose the GE-129s would do fine in an F-15. When you see the marketing data on the PW-232 it often says "ideal inlet" which wasn't on any F-16. Even the big mouth wouldn't handle the airflow of that F119 type fan fitted onto the "newest" F100.

Velvet wrote:I can say that a GE powered 30 (either inlet) is superior to a 25 or 32 in ALL regimes of flight.


Yes the PW-220s were always anemic. I've heard during A-A refueling operations with a combat load, they had to use Min-AB to keep up with the tankers!? :shock: A big reason why "combat coded" Block42 ANG units are getting PW-229s for their jets. Active duty units only use 42s for pilot training....

But even with this the Thunderbirds are just now giving up their Block32s. I guess the reliability/maintenance factor was more important to them than brute force; or perhaps the fact an F100 will run inverted without oil-pressure at MIL thrust for 30 seconds without bearing degradation? (Time any inverted flight of a Thunderbird, it (they) never exceed 30 seconds...)

Oh yes, the Thunderburds choose the PW-229 powered Block52 replacement, didn't they? ;)
Shame they won't be able to polish those carbon-fiber turkey feathers...
Maybe they'll come up with some type of chrome plating for them? :D

I do appreciate the backup/validation there Velvet...
With the limited number of Block52s out there, there isn't a lot of experience/knowledge of them. Glad someone could confirm some of my PW-229 points :cheers:

Raptor_One wrote:To conclude, I think the Block 52 is a bit "faster" than the Block 50 at high altitude... but likely only by a few hundredths of a Mach.


Thank you, just that statement makes me feel better about this whole debate. :salute:

In the 1950s maximum speed was the "Holy Grail" of aviation... "Speed is life!" — Anon. :twisted:

Oh, and by the way, I'd much rather fly an ANG Block42s w/PW-229! :inlove: Or maybe test Viper #81-0816 at Edwards AFB when it had a PW-229! :twisted:

...and whatever aircraft you fly; don't break anything! :thumb:
Attachments
bkc.jpg
Offline

cru

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 217
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 08:25

Unread post26 Mar 2007, 05:35

fezt wrote:Used both, didn't find them much different.
Does any body know exactly how much thrust they have, I was told the 229 has a little more. but believe it or not I couldn't find anywhere in the books the thrust they had, both are about 29k but I don't know exactly how much
Cheers.
fez
You said you used both of them; however, AFAIK, Israel has block 30 and 40 with (with F 110-GE-100, not F 110-GE-129) and block 52 with P&W 229. My question is: where did you use the 129 since Israel doesn't have the blk.50?
Offline

Davis83

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2005, 00:01

Unread post26 Mar 2007, 14:01

Here's my experience from the flight line with a wrench in my hand.

Borescoping? No comparison - gimme a PW anytime!
Nozzle repairs? Gimme PW
DEEC/DEC change? Gimme PW - no comaprison when you consider a ventral removal, 20 minute R2 versus the headache and time the GE requires. Follow on maintenance = I'd much rather do a 20 minute run in chocks than go to the trim pad for 4 hours.

In an F-16, the PW is better arranged for ease of maintenance. The DEEC being located on the side is a breeze to change in comparison to the DEC. Over 10 years working them (PW200 and 220), they were much easier to fix anytime! I've seen them eat bolts and continue to perform. The -200 had alot of issues, but the 220 made vast improvements. Never worked the 229, but deployed with SCANG and they have -229's. All I ever heard from those guys was praise.

After 3 years with BLK 42 (PW220), we converted to blk 50 with GE-129. OMG what a maintenance nightmare. We were grounded many times for fan blade issues, the blades are very tempermental... minor nicks will cause big issues and no runway on earth is 100% pebble free. The T4B pyrometer caused me many long 12 hour shifts that in the end led to full borescopes. Oil leakage, oil servicing, oil consumption oil, oil, oil, oil.....maintenance night mare. I logged thousands of miles driving and flying across the US to repair aborted jets for throttle problems, oil problems, FO problems etc...

Spent my last couple years at SJ with F15 and PW220's. Noticeably less engine problems than we had at Shaw - - this with 2x the numbers of engines. We did a 1 month TDY to Nellis and never touched an engine - - I never - - NEVER, EVER got that lucky in Vegas with the GE's.

So for me - based soleley on maintenance experience - the PW is better.

Now, every Pilot I asked - told me they prefer the GE... ok, they fly them - not repair them. As for performance? I don't know - I do know the GE engine weighs more.

Also - I was under the impression that the ratio of GE to PW is 52% PW and 48% GE. This was done to avoid the AF becoming totally dependent upon 1 engine supplier. I read this somewhere in the late 80"s...

Considering the F-15's require 2 engines, they comprise the majority of the 52% PW fleet. That would explain why the majority of the F-16 fleet uses GE.
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post26 Mar 2007, 16:51

Well... it sounds like the GE engines can be a pain to service. That seems obvious from several people's comments in this thread alone.
Offline

Occamsrasr

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 04:04

Unread post26 Mar 2007, 20:11

Hmm, imagine if this thread included Rolls Royce as well.

Was never in the military so I never worked on or flew a fighter with either engine. However, as a civie I can say I am happy to come from a place that has two excellent choices for fighter engines. Not many other countries can say that...
Offline

Tim

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 597
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2007, 22:15

Unread post26 Mar 2007, 21:57

I gotta go against the masses here, I feel the P&W is the better choice. I say that for one simple reason. And that is who has been buiding jet engines longer. I may be wrong but is stand by that, and that alone.
If you're in a fair fight, Your tactics suck !!
Offline

Thomas_Poland

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2006, 20:05
  • Location: Rzeszów - Poland

Unread post30 Mar 2007, 09:35

djiber wrote:I always asked myself why did Greece and Poland bought PW powered -52s?


because PW offered assembly of F100 engines in their factory in Poland :wink: PW also produce disks and seals for F100, F119 and F135 in the same factory.
WE BUILD F-16 ENGINES IN POLAND : WWW.WSKRZ.COM
Offline

Obi_Offiah

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 00:09

Unread post02 Apr 2007, 01:55

Raptor_One wrote:One thing I'd be interested to know is whether F-15Es do better with F110-GE-129s as opposed to F100-PW-229s. I believe they have some GE powered Strike Eagles in service, but I could be wrong. You wouldn't happen to know, would you? The variable geometry inlet of the F-15 should do wonders when coupled to a F100-PW-229. I wonder if they can provide adequate mass flow to the F110-GE-129s under all conditions, however.


Raptor I've heard from an Eagle driver that during tests in the Strike Eagle the -129 offered better performance than the -229. Someone posted some data on this site a while back which showed that a GE equipped Strike Eagle will supercruise at a higher mach than its -229 counterpart, mach 1.08 vs mach 1.14.

HTH
Obi
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post02 Apr 2007, 02:18

What about supersonic performance? Any difference? If you don't know the specifics, that's okay. Just curious.
Offline

fireball

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:03

Unread post02 Apr 2007, 03:19

I'm pretty sure that P&W have never built a modular engine for the F-16 only one to do that is GE..I'm pretty sure about this. I could be wrong, maybe
nellis 80-84 kun 84-85 bergstom85-87 kun 88-90 topgun90-95 depot96-present
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19

Unread post02 Apr 2007, 03:26

fireball wrote:I'm pretty sure that P&W have never built a modular engine for the F-16 only one to do that is GE..I'm pretty sure about this. I could be wrong, maybe


Huh? What do you mean by modular?
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2307
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post02 Apr 2007, 04:14

fireball wrote:I'm pretty sure that P&W have never built a modular engine for the F-16 only one to do that is GE..I'm pretty sure about this. I could be wrong, maybe


:doh: Sorry Fireball, you're bass akwards here...

P&W's F100 is designed with the "modular concept"

GE's F110 is not.

Any F100 module may be removed and replaced at the intermediate (base) level without having to send the entire engine to an overhaul (depot or OEM) facility. This is to improve engine availability at the base level.

Did your F100-PW-229 eat a bird? Change the fan, test, and return to service within a few days.

Fan Drive Turbine due for "Time Change"? Change that module, test, and return to service.

No long shipment, maintenance, and testing waits for another base to address your engine issues...

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
Attachments
F100 Modules.jpg
Major Modules within any F100 Engine
(Not shown - High Pressure Turbine)
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2307
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post03 Apr 2007, 00:05

The "official" definition for modular from P&W:

The F100 engine has functionally and physically associated parts that are
removable as units. These units are called modules.

There are five modules in the F100-PW-Series engines:

• inlet fan
• core engine
• fan drive turbine
• augmentor duct and nozzle
• gearbox

Modules make it possible to return an engine to service immediately by installing a serviceable module instead of withholding an entire engine
from service to repair or replace a relatively minor subassembly.

The modular concept, however, does not prohibit repair or replacement of a subassembly or detail part if this is determined more satisfactory.

(Side Note: Rear Compressor Drive Turbine or HPT is a sub-module that can be removed and replaced as an assembly seperate from the Core Engine Module)
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 Design & Construction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests