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

[That_Engine_Guy]

You must be somewhere in the F-16 section, and I know there are differences installed/uninstalled.

I was using the data from the tables for the specific engines F110/F100.

Date Posted: 19-Feb-2007
Jane's Aero-Engines
General Electric F110

and

Date Posted: 28-Dec-2006
Jane's Aero-Engines
Pratt & Whitney F100

How about the info from the OEMs web sites?

http://www.geae.com/engines/military/f110/f110-129.html

Physical Information
Fan/Compressor Stages: 3/9

Low-Pressure Turbine/High-Pressure Turbine Stages: 2/1
Max Diameter (Inches): 46.5
Length (Inches): 182.3
Dry Weight (Lb.): 3,980

Power Specifications
Max. Power at Sea Level (Lb.): 29,000
Overall Pressure ratio at Maximum Power: 30.7

http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext-templatin ... 81000aRCRD

Engine Characteristics

Thrust: 23,770 - 29,160 lb
Weight: 3,740 lb
Length: 191 in
Inlet Diameter: 34.8 in
Maximum Diameter: 46.5 in
Bypass Ratio: 0.36
Overall Pressure Ratio: 32 to 1

GE still makes a heaver engine.... You can't disregard that.

[EngineJoe]

In addition to all that technical stuff, the Pratt logo is so much cooler!

[Raptor_One]

First off, Jane's is not always the greatest source for performance information on aircraft. Neither are the manufacturers websites. The 29,000 lb figure is probably just a rough estimate. It's just like the P&W F119 -100 engine on the F-22. It's rated at 35,000 lbs of SLS thrust. Do you really think it puts out exactly 35,000 lbs of thrust in max AB? No... it probably puts out more. The 35,000 lb SLS thrust figure doesn't say much about the engine's installed performance. Same goes for the F110-GE-129 and F100-PW-229.

I've said several times now... go talk to someone (a pilot or whomever) that knows the actual performance of both the Block 50 and Block 52 F-16C. They will tell you that the Block 50 outperforms the Block 52 in almost every combat performance category. Level speed performance is pretty much the same for both aircraft, but level acceleration is better for the Block 50 under all conditions and loadings. Energy maneuverability performance goes to the Block 50 as well. A Block 50 doesn't weigh much more than a Block 52 (less than 1000 lbs difference), but its performance is still superior. Obviously you've been misinformed about the impact of the big mouth inlet and the slightly heavier weight of the F110 engine vs. its F100 counterparts. The F110-GE-100 had some performance issues at low altitude, supersonic speeds. These deficiencies were remedied in the F110-GE-129, and as a result the Block 50 has no area of the envelope where it doesn't offer higher performance relative to the Block 52, including low altitude/high Mach. For the last time... just ask someone in the know.

[Raptor_DCTR]

why do toilets flush bass ackwards in australia??

[That_Engine_Guy]

why do toilets flush bass ackwards in australia??

'Cause thier summer starts in December...

Why do Russian engine spin bass ackwards?

[Raptor_One]

Why do some people try to derail serious, intellectual debates? If you have nothing left to offer on the F100 vs. F110 debate, leave the thread be. I know what I speak of and challenge anyone to prove me wrong with cold, hard facts. Not incorrect extrapolation of uninstalled sea-level static AB thrust of the the F100-PW-229 vs. F110-GE-129 to installed AB thrust performance in the Block 52 and Block 50 respectively. Ohhh... I just checked and the Block 50 isn't even 500 lbs heavier than the Block 52. Weight difference due to big inlet and heavier engine is neglegible. Also, making assumptions about the additional ram drag from the bigger inlet is just wrong-headed. That's only one component of the basic thrust equation for a turbojet or low-bypass, mixed flow AB turbofan engine like the F100 or F110. Oversimplification of not-so-simple aeronautical engineering concepts is never the way to go. You cannot BS your way through full envelope aircraft performance analysis by quoting a few convenient figures you found on a manufacturer's website or Jane's or whatever. For example, comments about higher exit velocities of F100 engines vs. F110s. Again... exit velocity is one component of the basic thrust equation. Mass flow rate is another critical variable which seems to have been neglected. Gee... I wonder why? Because the Block 50 w/F110 has a higher mass flow? Noooo..... couldn't be that. I'll end by saying that P&W have been pioneers in jet engine technology with the F100, F119, and countless others. GE makes excellent engines too.

[That_Engine_Guy]

Ok so you’re not going to budge on any numbers, but yes 500lbs is a big deal with a fighter jet. Simple fact the Block 50 IS heavier than the 52. What about some ANG units and their Block42 w/PW-229? I guess they aren’t even lighter? You want to micro analyze installed/uninstalled thrust, but you’ll negate a 500lb difference in weight!? Come on, you’re numbers are just as “misleading” as mine if you negate them. You can’t tell me that hanging more frontal area into the air-stream WON’T add drag!? Now that’s an assumption if I’ve ever heard one!

How can you claim to take an “aeronautical engineering concept” on these issues if you don’t conclude in some circumstances these figures are cumulative? Who’s heard of an aeronautical engineer who will negate a 500 pound increase in airframe weight or added frontal area? A heavier airframe with a larger frontal area will require more power to attain a particular speed or rate of acceleration. Am I right here engineers? Racers die to shed a few pounds of weight off of a race car just to gain a few hundredths of a second in a race. What happens when you have a fighter jet that weighs a QUARTER TON LESS than another making the same amount of thrust? Lower that race car or chop the top, less drag = more speed; all without changing the horsepower… Who’s pushing the BS now?

I may over simplify these facts, but you’re over engineering them. Most F-16 fans no nothing of installed/uninstalled, standard day, sea level, static thrust, mass-flow rate, exhaust velocity, pressure ratio, specific fuel consumption, or stall margin. Most don’t care about initial cost, projected costs, life cost, fuel burn, logistics, tooling, training, overhaul, spares, time-on-wing, shop flow-rates, time-change rates, domestic part/labor/overhaul agreements, licensed production, not to mention damage-tolerance, fault-accommodation, or mishap rates.

This forum was GE-129 vs PW-229 for/against “which engine is better?” I’ve made my points that you tear apart, and I counter on your points. I guess they’re about even, so it comes down to dollar$ and government negotiations with the manufacturer of choice.

I believe PW makes a safer engine in the PW-229, that is easier to maintain due to its modular concept, and does so in a more economical manner over a long term investment. They have more experience with the F-16 and conform to all the original specifications set by GD. The PW-229 is a viable upgrade to ANY F-16 regardless of inlet design.

I still say PW has a better program with the PW-229, that’s my “for” and I believe the PW-229 is a “better engine.” I’ll stick with PW’s “Dependable Engines”

Once again I’ll 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...

But yes Engine Joe, they do have a much cooler logo!

[Raptor_DCTR]

Go suck a tail pipe raptor......I'm just trying to lighten up the conversation, you guys get way to serious......Engine guy, do russian engines seriously turn backwards from ours?

[Sundowner]

Well, Lyuka and Klimov engines rotate to the left, when GE and P&W engines rotate to the right.

[Raptor_DCTR]

learn something new every day...thanks sundowner

[Velvet]

After 18 years in the biz and exposure to mutiple 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.

Engine Guy, you are right about one thing. A small inlet makes less drag, but it really only manfests the difference when supersonic. You'll find that the small inlet 30's find a happy place high and fast, and while they can (barely) accelerate faster that a big inlet at that high mach they do take a lot less throttle to maintain that speed. Most of the time, though, we operate subsonic and the performance increase in that part of the envelope more than makes up for the optimized inlet for the "upper right" portion of the envelope (area under the curve). As I understand it a Block 52 is a bit faster than a Block 50 at high alt and supersonic, however that Block 50 got to altitude and mach faster so the 52 will have to play catch up. There is a reason the USAF stopped buying 52's and kept buying 50's.

Cheers,

[Raptor_One]

Velvet... good to hear a pilot with direct exposure to both PW and GE engines. It sounds like you never got the opportunity to fly Block 50s or 52s, but see if you can get someone still in "the biz" to confirm that the Block 50 actually has better high altitude, high Mach performance than the Block 52. I'm pretty sure the top speed for both is nearly identical at high altitude (i.e. Mach 2.05 ± 0.02), but the clean Block 50 gets to Mach 2.0x way faster than the Block 52. As for Block 30s (big Inlet... not small), Block 40s, and their F110-GE-100s, it's my understanding that they only had inferior performance to F100-PW-200/220/220E-powered F-16s in the "lower right" portion of the envelope. It's also my understanding that the F110-GE-129 addressed this specific area of the -100s envelope while increasing installed thrust by a modest amount throughout the rest of the F-16's flight envelope as well.

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. If faster refers to acceleration however, the Block 52 should always be slower than the Block 50... regardless of altitude or Mach number. 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_One]

Engine Guy,

You seem to believe that the F100-PW-229 produces more installed thrust (or uninstalled for that matter) than the F110-GE-129. It doesn't. Both engines are in the 29,000 lb range. The paragraph I quoted from Jane's AWA gave very specific uninstalled thrust numbers. The data on the GE website is obviously just a rough figure. Regardless, the installed thrust of the Block 50 will obviously be greater at sea level static conditions because of the increased mass flow rate. For aircraft with empty weights of nearly 20,000 lbs, a difference of less than 500 lbs in empty weight is neglible. I guarantee you that the increased installed thrust due to the greater mass flow rate of the F110-GE-129 more than makes up for this. As for the more drag thing... it's not the kind of drag you think. You're talking about ram drag which generally isn't incorporated into the aerodynamic drag calculations for the rest of the aircraft. It's generally taken into account in the net (installed) thrust calculations. So yes... a big mouth F-16C will generate more ram drag, but that doesn't mean the increased mass flow to an engine capable of handling it won't produce more than enough gross thrust (i.e. neglecting ram drag and other installation losses like bleed air) to more than make up for it. In fact, this is exactly what the F110-GE-129 succeeds in... even in the lower right portion of the flight envelope where its -100 predecessor suffered a bit in terms of top end supersonic speeds. I will write out the basic thrust equation for you if you'd like. I will point out the what portion is ram drag too so you can get a better picture of how mass flow can both help you and hurt you.

Also... there's another type of drag known as spillage drag whereby an aircraft's engine/inlet combo cannot take on the amount of airflow available to it. This might happen at low altitude and high airspeed (high dynamic pressure). In this situation the excess airflow that cannot be handled by the inlet/engine will be "spilled" over the edges of the mouth of the intake (or expelled through special doors in the intake itself), often disturbing the boundary layer somewhere downstream. This increases the overall drag coefficient of the aircraft. I'm not sure if the F-16 ever has to deal with spillage drag issues, but the small mouth versions would obviously be more prone to this than the large mouthed ones. The reason should be obvious. At high altitudes you generally don't find yourself peaking out the engine/inlet mass flow rate so spillage drag shouldn't be a problem. Ram drag and pressure recovery (especially at supersonic speeds where shock losses come into play) become your major issues. The F-16's fixed won't let out the full potential of either the F100-PW-229 or the F110-GE-129 which is why both big and small mouthed F-16 variants have approximately equal top speeds at altitude. Beyond Mach 2 the stagnation pressure recovery is just so terrible for a single normal shock inlet that no F-16 variant can get much past 2.0.

[Raptor_One]

Go suck a tail pipe raptor......I'm just trying to lighten up the conversation, you guys get way to serious......Engine guy, do russian engines seriously turn backwards from ours?

If it's getting too intellectual for you, feel free to disengage. Taking things OT with lame jokes in an attempt to "lighten up the conversation" because the debate is getting too heavy for you is pure nonsense. Not every topic on here has to be light-hearted and easy to grasp conceptually. The F-16 is a fairly complex piece of machinery, is it not? Besides, this is the Design and Construction section of the forum. Perhaps this isn't your area of interest or expertise? I'm sure there's another section of the forum that suits you just fine though.

[Velvet]

Raptor,

In most configurations, any block 30 and above F-16 is configuration (stores) limited. It's not that the plane won't go any faster. I have been in min AB with a small inlet 30 at altitude to keep from exceeding my configuration mach limits. This is exactly the area that the small inlet is finally getting the mass flow it wants and it starts making the equivalent of big inlet thrust without the parasitic drag. However, you don't spend much time there operationally. I can say that a GE powered 30 (either inlet) is superior to a 25 or 32 in ALL regimes of flight.

The quick and dirty I've heard from my bro's who have flown both 50 and 52 is;
The 50 makes thrust with air. It accelerates better at low and medium altitude and when slower.
The 52 makes thrust with heat. Being more of a turbojet is has a slight advantage high and fast. However, buy the time it gets there a 50 has already been there and at it's configuration limit (it's hard to pass someone on the highway when no one can exceed 65mph!).
Both are nice jets but the GE is better at hauling heavy weight at low alt for takeoff's and for quicker acceleration with combat loads. I have heard much better things about the PW 229's reliability compared to its PW predecessors (which is a relief). I will trust Engine Guy when he tells us that the GE is more FOD prone and harder to work on (which may be a factor for foreign sales). What I can say from the other perspective is that GE motors are mostly bulletproof and are binary (0 or 1). They either run flawlessly (even when AFU and badly FODed) or they stop altogether and they aren't coming back! An older Pratt can cough, stall, and be restarted. A GE in simular circumstances won't cough at all...until the damage stops it dead.