Page 7 of 7

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2013, 05:59
by zero-one

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?

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2016, 16:37
by Patriot
In terms of maintenance and FOD endurance it's 1 - 0 for Pratt & Whistle... ;)


Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2016, 21:25
by jetjams
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?

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2017, 16:35
by jj8558
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