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

ACMIguy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 667
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2007, 17:13

Unread post16 Nov 2007, 19:06

One thing that impressed me when I worked at the Referb shop on GE engines is commonality of parts over a wide rang of engines. The PW stuff we had were very specific to one engine type.
The CFM-56 combustor is used in a number of civlian and military engines. The GE combustors are about 20% larger than the PW and they are incredibly durable. I said this once before about these, that I had one come in split completely in half and was still working.
The afterburner cans never had the failure rates of the PW, based on what I saw come into the shop, and the convergent flaps were simpler in design.
But this is from a manufacturing point of view. I knew how to build one, but couldn't tell you how it works.
I leave that up to "That Engine Guy" and others who, in my book, are the experts on that.
:cheers:
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5344
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post16 Nov 2007, 19:52

SixerViper wrote:Has any one jet engine powered more different airplanes than the J-57? I can think of six different production airplanes that flew with this engine in one form or another.


J-79

B-58
F-4
A-5
F-104
Kfir
F-5 Skylancer
F11-F1F Super Tiger
Regulus II missile

J-75

F-105
F-106
YF-107
SeaMaster
Arrow Interceptor
First A-12
XF8U-3 Crusader III
Convair 880 (I think)

Granted some of those didn't go into production. Shows just how laughable "the F-35 needs two types of engines" is.


edit: Whoops, add the F-5 Sky Lancer to the J-57 list.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post16 Nov 2007, 20:22

The Convair 880 used a civil version of GE's J79, designated the CJ-805. A turbofan model was made from it for the Convair 990. It was designated CJ-805-23

The PW J75/JT4 was also used in/on

U-2R/RT (until mid-90s when spare parts were an issue)
707
DC-8

The PW TF33/JT3D was used in many aircraft as well.

707
DC-8
B-52H Stratofortress Boeing
RB-57F Angel
C-135B Stratolifter
KC-135B Stratotanker
C-141A Starlifter
VC-137B,C "Air Force One"

There were also more aircraft powered by the PW J75/JT3 :shock:

F-100 Super Sabre
F-101 Voodoo
F-102 Delta Dagger
B-52 Stratofortress
RB-57D Canberra
U-2 (Early Models)
KC-135A, Q Stratotanker
F8 Crusader
A3D Skywarrior
F4D,F5D Skyray
707
720
DC-8
SM-62 Snark "Missile"
VC-137A "Air Force One"
Offline

ACMIguy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 667
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2007, 17:13

Unread post16 Nov 2007, 20:26

ah yes the ole J-75 :notworthy:

The cast iron engine, meaning you could through most anything down the intake and it would keep running. I even saw one spit hard parts out the tail pipe and keep on running. :applause:
Offline

JetTest

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post16 Nov 2007, 23:16

Actually, the issue with the Saudi's is improper maintenance and inspections leading to spare parts shortages, and I would bet that in a few years they will encounter the same issue with the -129. No engine made will operate under those conditions if they are not inspected and maintained properly.
Offline

asiatrails

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 02:11

Unread post18 Nov 2007, 01:59

JetTest, All your comments posted in this forum appear to extremely pro P&W, even using strong language like propaganda about GE. do you work for P&W or do advertising for them?

Just a little aside before the first gulf war the RSAF F-15's were having problems with glassification (glass formation) of the HP turbine cooling holes due to the fine dust in the operating environment, so much so that the RSAF were having to blast clean their blades on a regular maintenance schedule of about 50 hours.

This cleaning played havoc with the aircraft availability. When we put the Tornado into service out there they expected to do the same maintenance on the RB-199's. The RSAF were amazed when they realized that due to the detailed design of the HP turbine blades the cooling slots and blades were self cleaning. We had P&W trying to crawl all over the place to get/extract any intelligence they could.

If you want more PM me.
Offline

asiatrails

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 02:11

Unread post18 Nov 2007, 21:21

sferrin wrote:
SixerViper wrote:Has any one jet engine powered more different airplanes than the J-57? I can think of six different production airplanes that flew with this engine in one form or another.


J-79

B-58
F-4
A-5
F-104
Kfir
F-5 Skylancer
F11-F1F Super Tiger
Regulus II missile

J-75

F-105
F-106
YF-107
SeaMaster
Arrow Interceptor
First A-12
XF8U-3 Crusader III
Convair 880 (I think)

Granted some of those didn't go into production. Shows just how laughable "the F-35 needs two types of engines" is.


edit: Whoops, add the F-5 Sky Lancer to the J-57 list.


You forgot the F-16 they stuffed one into . . . what did 75-0752 ever do to suffer this indignity.
Offline

JetTest

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post18 Nov 2007, 23:17

If I am pro-PW I am in the apparent minority, based on most of the other threads I have seen, and no more so than the pro-GE factions that participate in the threads. There seems to be a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience in the some of the thread participants, but sometimes I wonder, though, how many thread participants actually work engines and aircraft, and how many just read a lot. PW and GE both make great engines, better than any others, they just each have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post19 Nov 2007, 02:02

JetTest wrote:If I am pro-PW I am in the apparent minority, based on most of the other threads I have seen, and no more so than the pro-GE factions that participate in the threads.


I'm with JetTest...

Pratt & Whitney = "Thrust you can Trust" :thumb:

Agreed; EVERY engine has strengths and weaknesses.
Offline

TimmayMan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 20:32

Unread post19 Nov 2007, 04:58

Strictly from a crew chief standpoint, I'm swayed toward the GE. It's not perfect, but the F110 is IMO easier to deal with day to day. 1 MCD, large 1st stage fan blades that are easy to inspect, no PS2 probe sticking you in the face(forgot if whether or not if 229s have these), no 3/8th bolt on the fuel manifold to remove, and I've only seen the 300/301 connectors go bad once. And that actually was on the A/C side. When I worked phase at Nellis the flightline was always coming down to can or slave the spider harness for whatever reason. On the toughness issue, one of the jets hear at Osan sucked down a decent size bird and although 3-4 1st stage fan blades were trashed there was no damage to the rest of the motor. And I can't say I've ever heard a GE stall or experience a AB blow out. But they are a tighter install, and any real maint seems to be more of a PITA than with the F100. The modular design of the P&W is nice especially for backshop and even GE/Rolls Royce has incorporated into the design of the F136. They both have there ups and downs. I'll be back on Pratts soon when I get to Luke next year so I'll get to see more of the other side. Oh and I'll be hearing that familiar CENC whine for the first time in a long time. Once again this is just my low-brow crew chief view on the two motors.
Last edited by TimmayMan on 20 Nov 2007, 05:36, edited 1 time in total.
Nellis 01-03
Aviano03-05
Cannon05-07
Osan 07-08
Luke 08-11
Charleston 11-present(C-17A)
Offline

tmofarrvl

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 236
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2006, 23:35

Unread post20 Nov 2007, 00:57

That_Engine_Guy wrote:I'm not sure why the Saudis are going with some GE powered Eagles. That may be a political move, or a preference of the Saudi Royalty. I haven't heard of any issues the Saudis have had with the PW-229.


No major business deal takes place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, without someone in the extended royal family profiting directly from it.

I happen to work with a former site-rep to Saudi Arabia. In his experience - working at a major Saudi air base - there is nothing that goes on in the Kingdom that does not involve some form of cash payment, made to some member of the vast royal family. As he described it: it's easier to obtain funding to build a new aircraft hanger in Saudi Arabia, than it is to repair a broken door at an existing facility. The new hanger would involve major public funding - and opportunities for members of the ruling elite to profit from the deal. Repairing an existing facility offers no such incentive.

I believe I've also mentioned the recent British experience, whereby an ongoing corruption investigation by the UK's Attorney General had to be personally squelched at the direction of then Prime Minister Tony Blair: to protect negotiations for the sale of the Eurofighter Typhoon.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06 ... index.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... fraud.html

The sale of F110 engines to re-engine half of the Saudi F-15S fleet will be no exception to this pattern. It will be years - perhaps decades - before the untried F-15/F110 combination reaches the same level of flight safety and fleet readiness that the existing F-15/F100-229 already enjoys. This deal was all about how money changes hands - not about aircraft performance, and certainly not about fleet readiness.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post20 Nov 2007, 01:35

Yes, PW-229s use the PS2 probe. (Pressure Station 2 or Engine Inlet Pressure)

I think most of the painful PW stuff you talk of is hold over from the older PW engines. Many of the inspections seem redundant for the PW-229, but when they wrote the books I think they just kept old stuff in there and added more.

Many of the PW-220 inspections and maintenance was driven from the PW-200, driven from the even older PW-100. By the time GE entered the picture the F100 engine had over a decade of use. Now, with the PW-229, many of the old PW-220, PW-200, and PW-100 stuff is carried over in tech-data and operating procedures. :bang:

GE started with a blank slate in 1984. None of the "engine incidents" from the first years of Viper or Eagle use could be held against them. (After all F100s had been flying since 1972.) Armed with this information GE could tailor their engine and inspections to streamline many of the issues we're talking about. I think things would be different if BOTH engines had been entered service at the same time. Lets not forget, GE had plenty of issues in the 1980 with their "new" engine too. Both engines have matured nicely over the last 35 (PW) to 23 (GE) years and have become very reliable motors.
:thumb:

Ask a PW engineer why the augmentor bolts are installed backwards on the bottom bolts of the augmentor/aft duct flange... :shrug:

8) Story time:

Seems the Prototype YF100-PW engines had external nozzle segments (Turkey Feathers) that were "driven" at the forward hinge by another actuator. This actuator sat at the 6 o'clock and the bolts above it could only be put from the aft side of the flange. (FYI - Normally flange hardware is installed forward to aft.) We all know that feature didn't make the F100-PW-100 engines, and shortly after the Turkey Feathers were completely removed. There isn't an actuator down there, no need to install those bolts backwards, but the USAF never spent the time nor money to change the tech-data. To this day those bolts are installed just as they were in the 1972!?

:2c: Shame we mechanics can't get more suggestions/improvements through the system. Many are discounted because of funding issues to implement the changes, or lack of confidence based on 20-30 year old data. In the mean time we do redundant inspections and maintenance that often wastes time...
Offline

JetTest

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post20 Nov 2007, 02:34

tmofarryl hit it correctly above. The decision to buy -129's was made by a member of the royal family, and was actually opposed by at least part of the RSAF, but guess who has the decision authority.....Give the -129 a few years in that environment and they will likely have similar issues, given the same level of attention to maintenance and inspections, but it is unlikely that GE will give the concessions that PW has in the past to keep the fleet operational.
Offline

Patriot

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 17:48
  • Location: Poland / UK

Unread post27 May 2013, 14:20

Hi everyones! I have a question that is bothering me for a while.. even more fore last couple of days since I've been a witness of Wisconsin ANG Block 30 GE-100 powered Vipers runing over polish skies along with Polish Vipers PW-229 powered. And there's an engine urgent matter woke up in my mind that I couldn't solve up today. I have been read all TEG's and others very informative posts here, read at least few .pdf manuals including Pratt and GE numerous key technical and performance data, I've made in my mind an extensive comparison - that I thought let me to understed more and bring the answer for question. But, it turned out that the more I know the less I understand.

What's the point? Well... I noticed (I belive not only me) at Air Show ears ago.. If you have an US F-16 that taxis at idle rpm down the run/taxiway or somewhere near you'll easily notice it sounds lower, deeper at lowre tones. If you have a PW powered Viper it's pretty much whizzles :whistle: like a kettle when water boils. Until recently I was thought that PW's high tone, deafening whizzle is a matter of the engine iit's own "nature". But then after reading some posts I started to think that maybe it has something to do with intake geometry rather than the engine itself. NSI standard small mouth vs. MCAID big mouth. It could make sense I though and can explain this... Think if you have a vacuum cleaner and you'll change the nozzles from small to the big ones it appears the sound became thiner and higher toned while the nozzle is small, on the other hand it becomes more deep-mouthed and lower in general as you switched to the big nozzzle. The air flow is the same for all nozzles but the audio effects changes.

Last week I've been at Lask AFB in central Poland, one of two Viper bases in my country. From the flightline perspective that was pretty obvious that polish and US Vipers differs and the engine is the most significant difference between them. I knew well before what Pratt's do at idle rpm's right on the JFS kicks off but GE was a little mysterious (since I havent hear it for years). GE sounds more heavily and a lot more ear-friendly at this point. What was the BIG surprise to me and others observers: just after a few moments the batch of ours Vipers took off the Wisconsin started to do the same.... AB takeoffs offcourse! and pretty much everyone was surprised that they were significantly louder and seemed to be more powerful. The sensation was really significant...

I started to think why's that? GE-100 is older from our PW-229, their engine has less thrust within the very same intake airflow (254lb/s ~115kg/s) and ours does it with the smaller intake! The bypass ratio (BPR) of GE's is significantly higher than Pratt's (0.87:1 vs. 0.36:1). As far as I know the higher BPR makes the engine quiter.. same as in commercial jetliners big turbofans! And more core-air means more bang! Moreover.. Our Pratt-229 runs hotter and faster, has better overal preasure ratio........
Why then the GE seems to be more powerful and LOUDER in blast (ear audio reffrence) and it's not just mine feeling. Is it all intake case? Or if not, what else I do not understand (know)... :wtf:

:bang:

Plizzzz.
Norbert's regards! :thanks: anyway...
Offline

squeakersc063

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2005, 00:47

Unread post27 May 2013, 16:02

P&W offered to Greece better prices and better support against GE.

All this period used by HAF shows that is a powerfull engine.

The engine monitoring system is better and seems that maintenance is easier and better.

The only "bad" thing is the noise(damn nozzle), and the response from idle to max AB.
It is slower than GE, and thats a disadvantage especially in dogfight.

But this slower response is more friendly to the life of the engine.

Also, P&W has no accidents in USAF, a very good factor.


P&W had several engines experience material failure at Luke between 06 and 08. I know at least 1 jet had it while flying and one engine exploded on take off. You used to be able to see it sitting at the EOR on Google maps.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 Design & Construction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests