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
34
34%
F 110 GE 129
66
66%
 
Total votes : 100

  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2312
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post17 Mar 2007, 06:34

The Pratt is a lighter engine that delivers more thrust than the GE. It provides the thrust at a higher exhaust gas velocity too. It does all of this in a standard inlet aircraft. No additional drag induced by that big mouth hanging out into the air stream. If the Viper had needed that gaping hole to begin with, it would have been there!? GD allowed GE to cheat by changing the specs on the intake.

Let's not forget the term "graceful degradation" that PW has been using since the J57 days. I've seen F100 series engines eat ice, tools, hats, forms, birds, BIG BIRDS, and just about anything else that gets in the way. Lets not forget the F100 conforms to the original engine specification given by the USAF for the Viper; the engine must be able to operate for 30 seconds at MIL without oil pressure, without any bearing damage. Hence the "30-second timing module" and it's operational check during phase. This 30 second requirement was waived by the USAF for the F110 so they could actually use the engine. :shock: (I've seen it in a mishap report for a crashed Block30)

Let's talk upgrades or exports. You can slap a -229 into any F-16, even A or B models and you're going to get the full 29,100lbs of thrust. It is a straight bolt in! The DEEC on the -229 won't even care it's not getting all the airframe inputs. (In such case it would use a predetermined values) Try that with a GE, and they'll tell you "due to the constraints of the capture area......bla bla bla.... REDUCED thrust levels.. bla bla... :roll:

I won't go into the all the JEIM aspects of the engines. On a PW we can change a FOD damaged fan, run the engine in the hush house and have the engine ready to reinstall in just a couple days. (Provided parts are available; but that's another topic...)

I vote PW! "Thrust you can Trust" :thumb:
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post21 Mar 2007, 02:33

That_Engine_Guy wrote:The Pratt is a lighter engine that delivers more thrust than the GE. It provides the thrust at a higher exhaust gas velocity too. It does all of this in a standard inlet aircraft. No additional drag induced by that big mouth hanging out into the air stream. If the Viper had needed that gaping hole to begin with, it would have been there!? GD allowed GE to cheat by changing the specs on the intake.

Let's not forget the term "graceful degradation" that PW has been using since the J57 days. I've seen F100 series engines eat ice, tools, hats, forms, birds, BIG BIRDS, and just about anything else that gets in the way. Lets not forget the F100 conforms to the original engine specification given by the USAF for the Viper; the engine must be able to operate for 30 seconds at MIL without oil pressure, without any bearing damage. Hence the "30-second timing module" and it's operational check during phase. This 30 second requirement was waived by the USAF for the F110 so they could actually use the engine. :shock: (I've seen it in a mishap report for a crashed Block30)

Let's talk upgrades or exports. You can slap a -229 into any F-16, even A or B models and you're going to get the full 29,100lbs of thrust. It is a straight bolt in! The DEEC on the -229 won't even care it's not getting all the airframe inputs. (In such case it would use a predetermined values) Try that with a GE, and they'll tell you "due to the constraints of the capture area......bla bla bla.... REDUCED thrust levels.. bla bla... :roll:

I won't go into the all the JEIM aspects of the engines. On a PW we can change a FOD damaged fan, run the engine in the hush house and have the engine ready to reinstall in just a couple days. (Provided parts are available; but that's another topic...)

I vote PW! "Thrust you can Trust" :thumb:


While you obviously know more than most people (including me) about the technicalities of the F110 vs. F100, you seem to be implying that an F-16C Block 52 with F100-PW-229 will outperform an F-16C Block 50 with F110-GE-129. I am 100% certain it will not in almost all key performance categories such as level acceleration and energy maneuverability (i.e. specific excess power at various altitudes, airspeeds, and G loads). So like I said before, the F100 needs to be better than the F110 in other areas besides raw performance such as reliablity, maintainability, compatibility, etc. like you suggest it is. I'd still go with a Block 50 as opposed to a Block 52 if I had the choice.
Offline

fezt

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 17:18

Unread post21 Mar 2007, 04:11

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
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2312
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post22 Mar 2007, 02:57

Based off of company data listed at both PW & GE, the PW makes a little more thrust, quoted by PW at 29,160lbs. GE says 29,000lbs. This isn't much until you look at the weight of the engines. GE weights in at 3980 while the PW weighs 3740. Jane’s Online confirms (or supports) these facts.

GE's engine is based more on "mass flow" and operates best where the air is thick, and at slower speeds. (Also requiring a larger capture area for the intake) This advantage shows at take-off with heavy loads. At high speed though, the big-mouth does induce more drag.

The PW is better at altitude and speed as its design is closer to a turbojet, having a greater exhaust gas velocity and giving better “top end” performance. "Clean" Block 52s were known to super-cruise, until the term was changed to represent MACH 1.5. (Raptor sales pitch :evil: ) I also know an ANG C Model/Block 42 with a -229 has the highest thrust/weight ratio of any USAF Viper. (Based on technical data furnished by LM and PW. Dry weight at production vs thrust of the engine during test prior to delivery) 8)

Due to its outstanding tolerance of FOD, and oil starvation, I still believe the PW is a better for a single engine fighter. The early models of the F100, namely the -100 (F-15) and -200 (F-16) did tend to experience AB blowouts, and compressor stalls but would still bring pilots (and jets) home after suffering significant damage.

PW woke up quickly after GE was brought into the game, and was quick to respond with the -220 and now the -229. The -229 continues to be the safest engine of the USAF fleet according to official records.

Lets also not forget that PW still powers more F-16s world-wide, and MOST the F-15s (Korea using GE to power their Eagles)

By the way, is UTC stock up today??
(It's gone from $16 to $65 over the last 10 years!)
GO F100, F119 and F135! :thumb:
Offline

Raptor_DCTR

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post22 Mar 2007, 04:54

Lantirn wrote "Also, P&W has no accidents in USAF, a very good factor."............ummmmm maybe I'm reading this wrong or misunderstood it but pratt has a lot of USAF accidents. There's been three here in the last year (two crashes and one burnt on the runway after shelling out) all blamed on the 229 and I know there have been a lot more.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2312
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post23 Mar 2007, 02:34

Raptor_DCTR wrote:Lantirn wrote "Also, P&W has no accidents in USAF, a very good factor."............ummmmm maybe I'm reading this wrong or misunderstood it but pratt has a lot of USAF accidents. There's been three here in the last year (two crashes and one burnt on the runway after shelling out) all blamed on the 229 and I know there have been a lot more.


They weren't -229s from what I've seen here, all -220s. Of the -229 F-16s that have gone down, none have been traced back to the engine as the root cause. USAF mishap data on the -229 shows no Class A mishaps due to engine malfunction.

:!: KNOCKING ON WOOD :!:

Stuck throttle, perhaps; maybe a fuel leak in the airframe; but none blamed on the engine. I hope this stays true after the recent Nellis Class A, but that investigation is yet to come...

From the chart below the PW-220 had a bad year in 2003, and GE didn't do well in 2005. You can look back through the previous years, and there are no -229s.

The "rate" is what the USAF looks at. It is the number of aircraft lost (due to engine malfunction) per 100,000 flying hours. compair GE to PW. Even if PW looses the same amount of engines, the number of engines in the inventory is higher, as are thier flying hours, so thier rate is still low. GE-129s may only cause one crash, but since there aren't as many the rate is higher. In FY03 the -220 accounted for 2 lost F-16s and only had a rate of 1.69. This is due to the high amount of A/B/C models with -220s. One GE-129 loss in FY05 caused a rate of 2.19, as that engine is only in Block 50 C Models. This shows that the PW-220 is SAFER for the USAF over those 3 years than the GE-129 because it had a lower loss rate per 100,000 flight hours.

:!: KNOCKING ON WOOD, again for everyone's sake :!:

I hope this helps explain "Engine Mishap Rates"

Keep them motors runnin'... :thumb:
Attachments
F-16_Engine-Mishaps.JPG
Engine mishap charts look like this one; taken from Flying Safety Magazine (USAF). Archives are available at .gov sites, such as: http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps11992/2006/fsmjanfeb06.pdf
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post23 Mar 2007, 14:34

Guys... the F100-PW-229 does NOT put out more thrust than the F110-GE-129. That's just a fact. Also, the Block 50 F-16 with F110-GE-129 engine is faster throughout the entire envelope than the Block 52 with F100-PW-229. This includes high altitudes. Engine Guy... you're a bit confused when it comes to performance. I also think you're mixing up the F110-GE-100 with the F110-GE-129. Not fair.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2312
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post23 Mar 2007, 14:58

Raptor_One wrote:Guys... the F100-PW-229 does NOT put out more thrust than the F110-GE-129. That's just a fact. Also, the Block 50 F-16 with F110-GE-129 engine is faster throughout the entire envelope than the Block 52 with F100-PW-229. This includes high altitudes. Engine Guy... you're a bit confused when it comes to performance. I also think you're mixing up the F110-GE-100 with the F110-GE-129. Not fair.


:roll: I'm not making this stuff up Raptor1.... They are straight facts from PW, GE and LM. Raw data from official USAF reports and publically released safety reports. People will believe what they want; I just present facts as I find them.

I'm an engine guy (for almost 18 years) I don't confuse my motors... 8)

Go look at GE and PW's web sites. Do the math yourself. PW provides a higher thurst-to-weight ratio, simply based on dry weight of the engine. (not including the small thrust advantage) The engine IS lighter, and the airframe is lighter with the smaller inlet.

I've personally reviewed the AFTO 95's of NEW -229s and the thrust recorded on the government approved acceptance records shows thrust in excess of 29,100. (Which is minimum for the engine to be acceptaded by the government under contract) If the engine doesn't reach 29,100lbs, the USAF won't accept the engine....

( :?: anyone out there seen the 95s for a new GE-129 to verify factory thrust level, speak up we need the info. :?: )

Now onto safety. Here is a link to a press release from P&W-UTC concerning the F100 and a small quote from it.
http://www.pw.utc.com/StaticFiles/Pratt ... 6_f100.pdf

"The F100 is the safest single-engine fighter jet engine on record. US Air Force‘s F100-PW-220 and 229 powered F-16s have the low est cumulative engine-related loss of aircraft (ERLOA) rate for any engine in its class. The most advanced model F100, the F100-PW-229, has recorded zero ERLOA in 14 years of servicew ith the U.S. Air Force."

I don't make this stuff up, it's out there!? :doh:

Knowing what I know, If i had $12B to spend on a personal air force, they would be Block 52+ with shiney new PW-229s in them!

Keep them engines turnin'.... :thumb:
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2312
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post23 Mar 2007, 15:44

Here is some raw data from a reliable source (None of these figures were altered)

Weight, Dry
F110-GE-100...1,778 kg (3,920 lb)..........F100-PW-220...1,481 kg (3,265 lb)
F110-GE-129...1,805 kg (3,980 lb)..........F100-PW-229...1,721 kg (3,795 lb)

Performance Ratings
(S/L, static, ISA)
Maximum dry (MIL):..................................Maximum dry (MIL):
F110-GE-100...78.06 kN (17,530 lb st).....F100-PW-220...63.9 kN (14,370 lb st)
F110-GF-129...75.7 kN (17,000 lb st).......F100-PW-229...79.18 kN (17,800 lb st)

Maximum (Augmented)..............................Maximum (Augmented)
F110-GE-100...124.6 kN (28,000 lb st)......F100-PW-220...105.72 kN (23,770 lb st)
F110-GE-129...129.0 kN (29,000 lb st)......F100-PW-229...129.45 kN (29,100 lb st)

Specific Fuel Consumption
Maximum:..........................................................Maximum:
F110-GE-100...56.85 mg/Ns (2.06 lb/h/lb st).....F100-PW-220...59.49 mg/Ns (2.10 lb/h/lb st)
F110-GE-129...52.59 mg/Ns (1.90 lb/h/lb st).....F100-PW-229...54.96 mg/Ns (1.94 lb/h/lb st)
Offline

Purplehaze

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1223
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 20:20

Unread post23 Mar 2007, 17:57

After working both it has to be GE....remember they bring good things to life.
Offline

elguapo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 87
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 02:32

Unread post23 Mar 2007, 19:42

I agree with engine joe. From a crew chiefs standpoint the PW-200 with BUC was a royal pain in the A$$
C-141A, Learjets 25, 35, & 51, A-7D, F16 Blocks 10, 15, 25, 32, 42 and Block 60 Flight Chief.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2312
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post23 Mar 2007, 22:29

elguapo wrote:I agree with engine joe. From a crew chiefs standpoint the PW-200 with BUC was a royal pain in the A$$


The USAF would agree. That's why all the -200s were removed from service over the last few years. They're all gone.

Most FMS countrys have also upgraded to -220E as well.

Lets not forget the shortcommings of the -200 is the reason the GE F110 was born, and I would agree it was a royal pain, but that's history now...
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post23 Mar 2007, 23:19

That_Engine_Guy wrote:Here is some raw data from a reliable source (None of these figures were altered)

Weight, Dry
F110-GE-100...1,778 kg (3,920 lb)..........F100-PW-220...1,481 kg (3,265 lb)
F110-GE-129...1,805 kg (3,980 lb)..........F100-PW-229...1,721 kg (3,795 lb)

Performance Ratings
(S/L, static, ISA)
Maximum dry (MIL):..................................Maximum dry (MIL):
F110-GE-100...78.06 kN (17,530 lb st).....F100-PW-220...63.9 kN (14,370 lb st)
F110-GF-129...75.7 kN (17,000 lb st).......F100-PW-229...79.18 kN (17,800 lb st)

Maximum (Augmented)..............................Maximum (Augmented)
F110-GE-100...124.6 kN (28,000 lb st)......F100-PW-220...105.72 kN (23,770 lb st)
F110-GE-129...129.0 kN (29,000 lb st)......F100-PW-229...129.45 kN (29,100 lb st)

Specific Fuel Consumption
Maximum:..........................................................Maximum:
F110-GE-100...56.85 mg/Ns (2.06 lb/h/lb st).....F100-PW-220...59.49 mg/Ns (2.10 lb/h/lb st)
F110-GE-129...52.59 mg/Ns (1.90 lb/h/lb st).....F100-PW-229...54.96 mg/Ns (1.94 lb/h/lb st)


I don't know where you're getting your data from for the F110-GE-129, but it's wrong in terms of uninstalled sea level static thrust. Regardless, the installed performance of the F110-GE-129 in the Block 50 F-16C is better throughout the entire envelope than the installed performance of the F100-PW-229 in the Block 52. Go ask someone with access to performance charts for both the Block 50 and Block 52 variants and I'm sure they'll confirm what I'm saying here. I don't know what the thrust to weight ratio of the F100-PW-229 is compared to the F110-GE-129, but I do know that the (T-D)/W ratio of the F-16C Block 50 with GE-129 is greater than the (T-D)/W ratio of the F-16C Block 52 with PW-229. Again... go find someone with access to the two aircraft's performance manuals and ask them the simple question: Which one has better raw performance throughout the entire operating envelope for both MIL and AB thrust. Oh... by the way... Block 30s, 40s and 50s can supercruise in a clean configuration too. All F-16s can under certain favorable conditions.

I have nothing against PW or GE engines, but facts are facts. You're not going by the facts here. You've got a bias towards PW engines and it's leading you to distort figures to make it seem like the PW engines are inferior in terms of raw performance. You're also comparing the F100-PW-229 to the F110-GE-100 which simply isn't fair. You say you're not mixing up the GE-100 with the GE-129, but I disagree 100%. If you compared the GE-100 with the PW-220, you'd find that the PW-220 only performed better at very low altitude above Mach 1.0. The PW-220 might also push an F-16 a bit faster at altitude (by a like 0.05 Mach), but the GE-100 provides better acceleration at high altitudes. The GE-129 provides better acceleration for the F-16 at all altitudes compared to the PW-229. All the uninstalled sea level static data in the world won't change these facts. As for reliablity, you seem to be the expert there. However, you have an obvious bias towards the PW brand so I'll have to take what you say with a grain of salt.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2312
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post24 Mar 2007, 01:06

You're not going by the facts here. You've got a bias towards PW engines and it's leading you to distort figures to make it seem like the PW engines are inferior in terms of raw performance. You're also comparing the F100-PW-229 to the F110-GE-100 which simply isn't fair. You say you're not mixing up the GE-100 with the GE-129, but I disagree 100%. ...... As for reliability, you seem to be the expert there. However, you have an obvious bias towards the PW brand so I'll have to take what you say with a grain of salt.


Yes, I guess I am a bit bias toward PW, I've worked them since before the first Gulf War (J75, now F100) but isn't that what this forum is about? For/against? :shrug:

:bang: But how can you say I'm comparing the incorrect engine models when I've listed the data for each engine type? I am not.

Some in this forum wouldn't know the difference in the PW-220/-229 or the GE-100/-129. Some can't tell the difference between GE or PW? I'll spill the beans and say the figures above came from JANE's. If you can't trust JANE's to be non-biased, then who? The chart above comes from a USAF publication too. Have you visited pw.utc.com or geae.com? Look at what they have listed for weight and thrust. I'm not "distorting figures" here...

Many here compare the PW-200 to the GE-129. That isn't fair either. The engines have 2 decades of technologies between them, and the PW-200 has been removed from service. We might as well compare the PW-200 to the J79!? I mean who talks about BUCs when discussing PW-229 vs. GE-129? I haven't seen a BUC in 15 years!? :roll:

Side note: Even the PW-100 is still in use with ANG F-15s. This proves the PW-200 was junk! it was removed first, even though it was a tad younger. (By the way, all F-15s will soon have -220/-220E when the BRAC is complete)

I will go and say PW and GE have both done an outstanding job; helping the F-16 be the safest single engine fighter in history!

Fly 'em safe... :thumb:
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post24 Mar 2007, 01:43

That Engine Guy,

This is directly from Jane's All the World's Aircraft (Feb. 2004) for the F-16C:

Power Plant

One 131.6 kN (29,588 lb st) General Electric F110-GE-129, or one 129.4 kN (29,100 lb st) Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 afterburning turbofan as alternative standard. These Increased Performance Engines (IPE) installed from late 1991 in Block 50 and Block 52 aircraft and are being retrofitted to about 50 Block 42 aircraft of the Air National Guard. Pratt & Whitney has proposed F100-PW-229A version, with new fan module among other radical improvements that will raise airflow by more than 10 per cent, lower turbine temperatures by almost 50ºC (122ºF) and permit inspection intervals to rise from 4,300 cycles to 6,000. New version offers potential to increase maximum augmented thrust rating to about 142 kN (31,860 lb st), although this would require larger inlet on F-16. General Electric also engaged in improvement efforts, using company funding to begin development of F110-GE-129 EFE (Enhanced Fighter Engine) in October 1997; EFE initially to be rated at up to 151.0 kN (33,945 lb st), with further growth potential to 160.0 kN (35,970 lb st); alternatively, improved thrust levels can be sacrificed for up to a 50 per cent increase in TBO and servicing intervals. Production derivative known as F110-GE-132 rated at 144.6 kN (32,500 lb st) installed in F-16 Block 60 aircraft for UAE. Immediately prior standard was 128.9 kN (28,984 lb st) F110-GE-100 or 105.7 kN (23,770 lb st) F100-PW-220 in Blocks 40/42.
Of 1,446 F-16Cs and F-16Ds ordered by USAF, 556 with F100 and 890 with F110. Fixed geometry intake, with boundary layer splitter plate, beneath fuselage. Apart from first few, F110-powered aircraft have intake widened by 30 cm (1 ft 0 in) from 368th F-16C (86-0262); Israeli second-batch F-16D-30s have power plants locally modified by Bet-Shemesh Engines to F110-GE-110A with provision for up to 50 per cent emergency thrust at low level.
Standard fuel contained in wing and five seal-bonded fuselage cells which function as two tanks; 3,986 litres (1,053 US gallons; 876 Imp gallons) in single-seat aircraft; 3,297 litres (871 US gallons; 726 Imp gallons) in two-seat aircraft. Halon inerting system. In-flight refuelling receptacle in top of centre-fuselage, aft of cockpit. Auxiliary fuel can be carried in drop tanks: one 1,136 litre (300 US gallon; 250 Imp gallon) under fuselage; 1,402 litre (370 US gallon; 308 Imp gallon) under each wing. Optional Israel Military Industries 2,271 litre (600 US gallon; 500 Imp gallon) underwing tanks initially adopted only by Israel, but have since been selected by one or two other operators; also adopted for F-16 Block 60 version. Latter will have conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) with a combined capacity of 1,703 litres (450 US gallons; 375 Imp gallons). CFTs to be fitted as option on Advanced Block 50/52.



In case you missed it, they quoted the F110-GE-129 as having 29,588 lbs of sea level static thrust (uninstalled of course). Once again, however, this is uninstalled performance at sea level. Installed performance is much different and I think you're failing to realize this. You keep quoting uninstalled sea level static (SLS) thrust as though that's a clear indication of performance throughout the entire envelope. Well... let me just tell you that it's not. Installed performance changes drastically with both altitude and Mach number (assume standard day conditions). The F110-GE-129 and F100-PW-220, when mated with the F-16C Block 50 or 52 respectively, have similar thrust profiles with regard to both Mach number and altitude, but the GE-129 puts out more installed thrust. This is true for just about all altitudes and airspeeds an F-16C is cleared for. Acceleration is simply better for the Block 50 under all conditions, loadings, etc. The Block 52 is by no means underpowered, but the Block 50 wins any race you could come up with in terms of raw performance figures.

Maybe the Block 52 is more reliable with its F100-PW-229.... maybe not. I just don't have the information on that. But it's a well known fact that the Block 50 performs better than the Block 52 due to its more powerful F110-GE-129 engine. More powerful when installed in the jet... more powerful when not. You trust Jane's, and I copied and pasted straight from it (the online version). What say you? :)
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 Design & Construction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests