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

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2006, 15:24
by Patriot
As you probably know first polish F-16's will soon come into the service in POLAF (exactly 9th of November, btw I can't wait on that day) :D :D :D
That will be Block 52 powered by P&W.

My question is which of these two engines is better. I especially would like to hear some pilots/technicians voices on that or anybody who know more than I

Thanks

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2006, 15:54
by Pumpkin
Patriot, see if this thread helps.

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2006, 17:24
by Raptor_One
I don't have any idea about the maintenance/reliability aspect of either engines, but I did a lot of work on simulating the thrust of the F100-PW-200/220/229 and F110-GE-100/129 for high fidelity F-16 flight models I helped develop for Falcon 4.0. If you can find the "HFFM manual" (HFFM = high fidelity flight models) for Falcon 4.0, you'll see our isntalled thrust predictions for all the engines I mentioned. The F110-GE-129 gives more installed thrust throughout the entire flight envelope than the F100-PW-229. As a result, the F-16C Block 50 has better acceleration throughout the entire envelope compared to the Block 52. So from a purely performance standpoint, the F-16C Block 50 with F110-GE-129 is definitely better than its Block 52 counterpart with F100-PW-229.

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2006, 20:08
by Patriot
Thank you guys !

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2006, 00:19
by ViperEnforcer
I'll take a GE powered F-16 over a Pratt, any day of the week!

Mike V

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2006, 20:10
by djiber
I always asked myself why did Greece and Poland bought PW powered -52s? Are they cheaper to buy?Are PW engines purposely derated to have longer time between overhauls?

I mean...we all know GE is more powerful engine and T/W is everything in maneuvering air combat...

respect

Djiber

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2006, 21:28
by Raptor_One
djiber wrote:I always asked myself why did Greece and Poland bought PW powered -52s? Are they cheaper to buy?Are PW engines purposely derated to have longer time between overhauls?

I mean...we all know GE is more powerful engine and T/W is everything in maneuvering air combat...

respect

Djiber


The block 50 with GE powerplant has better raw performance than the block 52 with PW powerplant. By raw performance, I mean installed thrust throughout the envelope. The GE powerplant puts out more. This results in better acceleration throughout the envelope. It's pretty clear cut in this respect. Going with the PW engine is a decision that is obviously not governed by basic flight performance comparisons to the GE engine. There was obviously some upside for the countries that went with the PW engine instead of the GE. If there wasn't, they would have taken the GE based on performance numbers (everything else being equal).

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2006, 15:38
by Sundowner
The problem is not only performance and economics, but also a history (the PWs were in Vipers since day one) and the company itself – did they want to do something in that particular country (like opening a production line).

I don’t know any details behind the engine choice for my country F-16s, but it looks like PW simply had better offer.

pw vs GE

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2006, 23:08
by fireball
holy cow there is no comparison in my thoughts, i've worked at hill depot for a few yrs. everytime there is a problem with a pw...well motor the engine for a minute before you start, don't forget to scavenge fuel...and an endless line of BS for any fault in the pw motor 229 220 or whatever. the ge just keeps on sucking and blowing, what a motor just wait to see the132 yeeha!

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2006, 18:58
by Lantirn
djiber wrote:I always asked myself why did Greece and Poland bought PW powered -52s? Are they cheaper to buy?Are PW engines purposely derated to have longer time between overhauls?

I mean...we all know GE is more powerful engine and T/W is everything in maneuvering air combat...

respect

Djiber


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.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2006, 20:24
by Sundowner
You don't know what "noise" means until you hear a MiG29 doing a demo flight... it's just pure pain :D The PW powered Viper is a canary bird compared to that double RD-33 roar machine :lol:

When a year ago at Radom Air Show, Fulcrum turned to a climb pointing those two flames blazing pipes in my direction, the earth trembles, my ears start bleeding, internal organs turned upside down and I think I heard a faint music in my head, it goes something like

Come on feel the noise !
Girls rock your boys !
We get wild, wild, wild !


I think it's by Quiet Riot :wink:

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2006, 21:54
by Lantirn
Sundowner wrote:You don't know what "noise" means until you hear a MiG29 doing a demo flight... it's just pure pain :D The PW powered Viper is a canary bird compared to that double RD-33 roar machine :lol:

When a year ago at Radom Air Show, Fulcrum turned to a climb pointing those two flames blazing pipes in my direction, the earth trembles, my ears start bleeding, internal organs turned upside down and I think I heard a faint music in my head, it goes something like

Come on feel the noise !
Girls rock your boys !
We get wild, wild, wild !


I think it's by Quiet Riot :wink:


Yes I agree with you my friend!!!

All I said about noise was in relation with GE!!

But you cant reject this noise so easy!!!

I was one time before at the hold short, and I "felt" 2 blk52 taking off!!!
From Idle it was annoying to hear!!Then the check 85 came, and i said "oh sh*t thats 85% only???"
Then the Military was too bad for me!!!I said "thats too much sh*t"
When the AB came....i learned about this "inside organs"...!!!
hahahahahaha
I think that I saw the ground moving!!!Hahahaha!!!

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2006, 23:01
by velos35
The PW has the ability to help the aircraft sustain high airspeeds at high altitudes,it has low acceleration (you dont feel the kick in the a$$ during take off) and better reliability.With PW the f16 52+ has slightly better nose aythority at low airspeeds.
The GE has better acceleration and tremendous performance at low altitudes.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2006, 01:36
by EngineJoe
Being a F16/F15 engine mechanic for most of my adult life, and having worked both, I honestly feel from the maintenance standpoint the Pratt engine is better. It was a lot more maintenance friendly in all aspects. I never liked the F110 from a maintenance standpoint. Even the F100-PW-220 and -220E were fine....but that F100-PW-200, with the BUC...ugh!

I continually quizzed pilots and found that most pilots said that to get up off the ground with a big load, then GE was better, but once airborne and maneuvering, Pratt ruled.

The great engine wars woke Pratt up, and I think they will never rest on thier laurels again. The F119 and F135 have proven that.

:beer: ...make mine a Pratt

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2006, 02:48
by Slydog
I don't think there is a lot of difference between either engine when it comes to operability. The GE engine is not superior to the Pratt engine in any respect except a very small part of the operating envelope due to the GE having a higher airflow processing capability (but not thrust) but that small area of performance margin advantage is greatly offset by overall maintainability, sortie generation rates, safety rates, logistics support systems, customer responsiveness, and overall hardware toughness.

The fact that Pratt has sold more engines than GE (remember the F-15 too) and has won most of the head to head competetions should tell you that the GE engine is not better. Engine Joe was right about the engine wars. The only reason GE is in the game today is Pratt screwed up and was not responsive to the customers needs. They paid a high price for that in the initial couple of years of the engine wars but has since fixed their problems with customer responsiveness. Since those first few years, they have sold more engines than GE and have won most international competetions.

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2007, 06:34
by That_Engine_Guy
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:

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2007, 02:33
by Raptor_One
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.

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2007, 04:11
by fezt
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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2007, 02:57
by That_Engine_Guy
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:

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2007, 04:54
by Raptor_DCTR
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.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2007, 02:34
by That_Engine_Guy
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:

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2007, 14:34
by Raptor_One
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.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2007, 14:58
by That_Engine_Guy
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:

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2007, 15:44
by That_Engine_Guy
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)

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2007, 17:57
by Purplehaze
After working both it has to be GE....remember they bring good things to life.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2007, 19:42
by elguapo
I agree with engine joe. From a crew chiefs standpoint the PW-200 with BUC was a royal pain in the A$$

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2007, 22:29
by That_Engine_Guy
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...

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2007, 23:19
by Raptor_One
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.

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2007, 01:06
by That_Engine_Guy
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:

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2007, 01:43
by Raptor_One
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? :)

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2007, 02:48
by 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.

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2007, 02:56
by EngineJoe
:cheers: In addition to all that technical stuff, the Pratt logo is so much cooler!

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2007, 03:21
by 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.

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2007, 05:51
by Raptor_DCTR
why do toilets flush bass ackwards in australia??

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 00:24
by That_Engine_Guy
Raptor_DCTR wrote:why do toilets flush bass ackwards in australia??


'Cause thier summer starts in December...

Why do Russian engine spin bass ackwards?

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 01:00
by 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.

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 03:36
by 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! :roll:

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? :doh:

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. :shrug:

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. :2c:

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... :thumb:

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 03:45
by 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?

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 12:35
by Sundowner
Well, Lyuka and Klimov engines rotate to the left, when GE and P&W engines rotate to the right.

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 18:04
by Raptor_DCTR
learn something new every day...thanks sundowner

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 18:06
by 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,

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 20:42
by 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.

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 21:19
by 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.

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 21:26
by Raptor_One
Raptor_DCTR wrote: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.

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 21:57
by 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.

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 22:36
by Raptor_DCTR
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.

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2007, 23:37
by That_Engine_Guy
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.

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2007, 03:13
by That_Engine_Guy
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:

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2007, 05:35
by cru
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?

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2007, 14:01
by Davis83
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.

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2007, 16:51
by Raptor_One
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.

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2007, 20:11
by Occamsrasr
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...

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2007, 21:57
by Tim
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.

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2007, 09:35
by Thomas_Poland
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.

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2007, 01:55
by Obi_Offiah
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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2007, 02:18
by Raptor_One
What about supersonic performance? Any difference? If you don't know the specifics, that's okay. Just curious.

F100

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2007, 03:19
by fireball
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

Re: F100

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2007, 03:26
by Raptor_One
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?

Re: F100

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2007, 04:14
by That_Engine_Guy
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:

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2007, 00:05
by That_Engine_Guy
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)

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2007, 23:26
by ViperEnforcer
Obi_Offiah wrote:
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



This is correct. Back in 97, here at Edwards one of pre production Strike Eagles was fitted witha pair of GE-129. The Brit test Pilot who flew many of the test flights was highly impressed. The aircraft broke previous time to climb records. In fact, the jet went a little to fast, as the front canopy melted away from the upper front fame on one particualr speed run.

All test points were met and more often well exceeded that of the -229. The one problem it had was during taxing. With both GE-129s at idle, the jet would pick up too much speed while taxing, thus creating a hot brake situation. The simple fix at the time was just to taxi and run with one motor till EOR. Then the number two could be spun up and take off commense.

Mike V

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2007, 05:19
by Obi_Offiah
ViperEnforcer wrote:This is correct. Back in 97, here at Edwards one of pre production Strike Eagles was fitted witha pair of GE-129. The Brit test Pilot who flew many of the test flights was highly impressed. The aircraft broke previous time to climb records. In fact, the jet went a little to fast, as the front canopy melted away from the upper front fame on one particualr speed run.

All test points were met and more often well exceeded that of the -229. The one problem it had was during taxing. With both GE-129s at idle, the jet would pick up too much speed while taxing, thus creating a hot brake situation. The simple fix at the time was just to taxi and run with one motor till EOR. Then the number two could be spun up and take off commense.

Mike V


:thumb: Thanks for the insight Mike.
South Korea are flying GE equipped Strike Eagles now, do you know if they use the taxi procedure you mentioned?

Obi

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2007, 16:43
by ViperEnforcer
From what the GE Tech Rep told me, the DEC(s) were programmed to run the idle at a lower intervals, so it did not crank out as must thrust.

There were also 2 Strikes Eagles fitted GE-129 pacer motors at Nellis till about 1999. I only saw one of them when TDY, during our NVIS testing.

Mike V

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2007, 05:13
by EFTC
Tim wrote: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.


Actually, General Electric has been making jets longer than Pratt. The government chose GE to make the first U.S. jet engine because of its work with turbosuperchargers before and during WW2. GE's first engine was flown in 1942, while the first Pratt flew in 1948. Both were copies of British designs. Pratt's first original design was the J57 in 1952. GE's first original design was the J35, first flown in 1946.

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2007, 03:05
by That_Engine_Guy
EFTC wrote:Actually, General Electric has been making jets longer than Pratt. The government chose GE to make the first U.S. jet engine because of its work with turbosuperchargers before and during WW2. GE's first engine was flown in 1942, while the first Pratt flew in 1948. Both were copies of British designs. Pratt's first original design was the J57 in 1952. GE's first original design was the J35, first flown in 1946.


To clarify... (from the Centennial of Flight web site)

Pratt & Whitney had spent the war years focusing exclusively on its piston engines, and in 1945, was far behind its competitors in jet engine development. General Electric and also Westinghouse were already building turbojets. Pratt & Whitney began by first building jets of British design. But it realized that it would have to begin building its own jet engines. The company's first jet engine, the J42 Turbo-Wasp, was delivered to the Navy in November 1948 for installation in the Grumman F9F-2 Panther. A second jet engine, the J48, began production in 1950. Both these engines powered aircraft that served in the Korean War.

But...

Just six months after forming, (Pratt & Whitney) produced the successful Wasp engine, which included a number of important technical advances. Soon after it passed the Navy's qualification test in March 1926, the Navy ordered 200 engines. The Wasp exhibited speed, performance, climb, and reliability that contributed to America's leadership in world aviation.


So... P&W has been making aircraft engines much longer than GE, even if GE had a few years head start on the turbine market. The Army didn't want to bother P&W with turbine design and construction at the time as they were producing and designing piston engines used for WWII. In effect P&W got the shaft for doing such a great job on aircraft engines during WWII. GE also used "copies" of British engines at first. P&W was first at getting a "dual-spool axial-flow" design to produce more that 10,000lbs of thrust which allowed the J57 to be the first super sonic engine in level flight.

I'd say they caught up rather quickly... 8)

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2007, 07:19
by EFTC
The Army didn't want to bother Pratt with building turbines simply because Pratt did not have experience with the technology (besides being overloaded during the war). Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard of Pratt being considered for the job. Westinghouse and GE were the natural choices because of their histories.

Pratt HAD to catch up or would be out of the game altogether. Their corporate leadership chose to invest millions of the company's own dollars into what became the J57 (you'll get no arguments from me on the virtues of that engine--well most of them anyway). But while Pratt was catching up with the J57, GE had already considered the two rotor approach and abandoned it in favor of the lighter and more stall resistant variable stator concept, which became the first mach 2 engine (J79). These two engines were about the most important advances in turbojet technology I can think of, but they are really like comparing apples to oranges.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2007, 19:14
by velos35
I recently visited an f16 block 52+ (i fly block 50) squadron and when i watched the video tape of a recorded take off in a routine flight i noticed that the acceleration during take off is smaller than the f16 block 50.There is a difference you can tell.Besides that , pilots who have flown with both aircraft state that the performance of the Block 50 in acceleration , turn performance especially at low altitudes is better.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2007, 21:17
by SixerViper
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.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2007, 22:18
by JetTest
I have heard that the F15K's in SK are having augmentor no-lights at pretty much all points in the operational envelope, but troubleshooting has not yet identified the cause, but since the USAF never bought that configuration ROKAF is basically "on their own" with trying to correct it. ROKAF is currently shopping for more jets, and they are competeing the engine, maybe because of the problems they are having with the -129.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2007, 00:12
by That_Engine_Guy
JetTest wrote:ROKAF is currently shopping for more jets, and they are competeing the engine, maybe because of the problems they are having with the -129.


I've also heard that they have talked about putting PW-229s into the Ks since they're having so many difficulties with the GE-129.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2007, 00:36
by JetTest
Certainly an option under consideration.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2007, 05:01
by Robust
Strange...Koreans are using PW-229 engines in their F-16s...and I have seen reports that they were not happy about PW-229 engines...I believe that it was one of the resons that they picked GE-129 when they purchased F-15Ks ...Now this news that Koreans are not happy with GE-129...Does not make any sense...Consider that Saudi Arabia is even switching from PW-229 to GE-129 by spending a lot money for their F-15Ss...What was wrong with Saudi PW engines that required switching to GE in F-15S?

Question...If there is some sort of technical problems with GE-129 engines, why do you think that ROKAF should be "one their own"? What does GE do to solve it? I am guessing they are still responable to support of their own product( probably part of their contract with GE). how did Korean purchase F-15Ks? FMS or Commercial?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2007, 13:45
by JetTest
From what I have heard, GE has looked at the hardware and found no apparent cause, so it is still between GE, Boeing and ROKAF to try to solve it, as there is no USAF history or support for the configuration. Yes, in the past the ROKAF has complained about the -229, and I believe has the highest incident rate with it, worse than any other -229 operator, but it is interesting that PW delivered kits consisting of proprietary process and material parts to Samsung (maybe 30-40% of the engine) and the rest of the engine and all assembly was in Korea under a license, not by PW. Regardi Saudi, it will be interesting to wait a few years to see if they have similar complaints or issues with the -129, as they have a pretty demanding operational environment.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2007, 14:05
by That_Engine_Guy
If I remember correctly, Korea was upset with PW after the crash of a PW-229 Viper. I believe the defect was traced back to turbine blades that were manufactured by a local Korean company who was not making the blades to "spec" The fault was limited to Korean PW-229s only, and did not affect the USAF or other FMS fleets. Since that incident the Koreans have had other mishaps caused by engine maintenance issues. Again this is not PW's fault but rather the operator's. :(

Korea tried to sue PW over the incident in International Court. Still blaming PW, they wanted the $20M+ to replace the aircraft. The FMS contracts and fine print kept Korea from recovering the cost of the aircraft from PW and they were quite upset. The F-15K was purchased with GE engines shortly after. (Lets not forget, ALL of Korea's Vipers are PW powered)

Now they have F-15Ks with the GE-129 and have some issues with the engines as installed in an Eagle. Even the PW-229 runs differently in an Eagle than a Viper. As mentioned before Korea is "on its own" as the USAF does not own GE powered Vipers, and has no technical or operational experience or involvement.

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.

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:

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2007, 15:43
by asiatrails
And the reason that the Saudi's are dumping the Pratt's out of the F-15's and replacing them with GE -129's is

Real World Performance and Reliability

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2007, 19:06
by ACMIguy
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:

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2007, 19:52
by sferrin
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.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2007, 20:22
by That_Engine_Guy
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"

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2007, 20:26
by ACMIguy
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:

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2007, 23:16
by JetTest
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.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2007, 01:59
by asiatrails
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.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2007, 21:21
by asiatrails
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.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2007, 23:17
by JetTest
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.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2007, 02:02
by That_Engine_Guy
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.

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2007, 04:58
by TimmayMan
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.

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2007, 00:57
by tmofarrvl
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.

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2007, 01:35
by That_Engine_Guy
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...

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2007, 02:34
by JetTest
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.

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2013, 14:20
by Patriot
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...

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2013, 16:02
by squeakersc063
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.

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

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... ;)


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I8tP6TuzdHE

Re:

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

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 16:49
by Patriot
Hey fellas.
Got a small question about a Bypass Ratio.
If specs says that PW-229er has 0.36:1 and it's rival the GE-129er has 0.76:1 BPR that simply means... that in case of Pratt's and Whistle's motor 36% of the total air mass that gets to the engine goes arround the core straight into AB pipe and in case of GE's one that would be 76% ?? Hmmmm

I think I got something wrong here. Could somebody clarify please? :)

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 18:55
by ygbsm
It's not even close. P&W left too many hard feelings with the 220 series. Even if you go pure 229 vs 129, from an operator viewpoint, it is not even close. Fck,look how P&W mechs their anti-ice. I ain't got nothing for them (P&W).

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 19:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Patriot wrote:Hey fellas.
Got a small question about a Bypass Ratio.
If specs says that PW-229er has 0.36:1 and it's rival the GE-129er has 0.76:1 BPR that simply means... that in case of Pratt's and Whistle's motor 36% of the total air mass that gets to the engine goes arround the core straight into AB pipe and in case of GE's one that would be 76% ?? Hmmmm

I think I got something wrong here. Could somebody clarify please? :)

Bypass ratio is the ratio of bypass air vs core air, not bypass air vs total air.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 19:46
by Patriot
Ok. Roger that. So how should I be interpreting these figures: 0.36:1 vs. 0.76:1 ??

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 20:09
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Core airflow % would be 1/(1+BPR)

BPR 0.36 is a core airflow of 73.5%

BPR 0.76 is a core airflow of 56.8%

In general, all other things being equal, a higher core airflow percentage results in higher exit velocity speeds which CAN translate to more thrust at higher speeds. A lower core airflow percentage generally results in improved fuel efficiency. There are a LOT of other factors at play here that can effect both thrust and fuel efficiency, overall pressure ratio, total airflow, turbine inlet temperature, pressure recovery of intake and exhaust to name a few.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2018, 16:09
by zero-one
jj8558 wrote: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


What exact engines were you using?
I believe the block 30, 40 and 50 were all using GE F110-129s while their PW counterparts the block 32 and 42 used the PW-F100-220. It wasn't really a fair comparison until the block 52 which had the PW-F100-229 which is a direct counterpart of the GE-129 motor on the block 30s.

I would really be surprised if there was a noticeable performance difference between the 129 and 229 motors, most comments I've heard is that both are monsters.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 08:48
by MVSGas
zero-one wrote:What exact engines were you using?
I believe the block 30, 40 and 50 were all using GE F110-129s while their PW counterparts the block 32 and 42 used the PW-F100-220. It wasn't really a fair comparison until the block 52 which had the PW-F100-229 which is a direct counterpart of the GE-129 motor on the block 30s.

I would really be surprised if there was a noticeable performance difference between the 129 and 229 motors, most comments I've heard is that both are monsters.

The block 30 and 40 use F110-GE-100. Block 32 use F100-PW-220, some block 42 use the F100-PW-220 and two units use the F100-PW-229.
I am no pilot so I have no clue how they perform on the air, but from my experience, GE are more reliable and easier to work on. Also, there has to be a reason why all USAF F-16 station overseas (outside of CONUS) are GE powered.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 09:22
by zero-one
MVSGas wrote:The block 30 and 40 use F110-GE-100. Block 32 use F100-PW-220, some block 42 use the F100-PW-220 and two units use the F100-PW-229.


Ow thats right, I cheeked again
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article6.html
Block 30/32
Engine: One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 turbofan, rated at 14,590 lb.s.t. dry and 23,770 lb.s.t. with afterburning or one General Electric F110-GE-100 turbofan, rated at 17,155 lb.s.t. dry and 28,984 lb.s.t. with afterburning.

Block 40/42
Engine: One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 turbofan, rated at 14,590 lb.s.t. dry and 23,770 lb.s.t. with afterburning or one General Electric F110-GE-100 turbofan, rated at 17,155 lb.s.t. dry and 28,984 lb.s.t. with afterburning.

It wasn't until the block 50/52 that things started to even out
Block 50/52
One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 turbofan, rated at 17,000 lb.s.t. dry and 28,500 lb.s.t. with afterburning or one General Electric F110-GE-129 turbofan, rated at 17,155 lb.s.t. dry and 28,984 lb.s.t. with afterburning.


Strange, why did the GE -100 and 129 not have any improvement in thrust levels?

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 09:48
by Patriot
MVSGas wrote:I am no pilot so I have no clue how they perform on the air, but from my experience, GE are more reliable


This is why there were no an A-class incident involving -229er since 2001 and we fairly regularly hear of GE powered Vipers being down...?

MVSGas wrote: and easier to work on.

Ive heard quite the opposite.

The reason why all outside CONUS F-16 bases are GE equipped is I believe the fact that in mid 80s when F110 GE-100 first came out it offered a signifficant leap in performance over the F100 PW-200/220/E so the units were given with new F-16C/D B30s and 40s while older F-16A/B with PW-200s were send back home topping up the make up of mostly either ANG or AMARG.
Later on maintenance wise some overseas units recieved B50s and the status quo remains like that. Part of this equation is IMHO lobbying and politics too. Turkey for example uses only GE driven Vipers but at the time when they have been making decissions on that matter there was no Block 52 avilable and PW-229 as well. Eversince Pratt 229 was avilable it beated GE 129 on many occasions on international markets.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 09:49
by MVSGas
zero-one wrote:
Strange, why did the GE -100 and 129 not have any improvement in thrust levels?

Depends where you get your numbers from.
From 1F-16CG-1, 15 August 2009, page 1-10, Figure 1-2 (Sheet 2)
ENGINE
F100-PW-220/220E
Thrust ..............................25,000 Lb class
Compressor Diameter..............34.8 In
Engine Length ......................191.1 in
F100-PW-229
Thrust ...............................29,000Lb Class
Compressor Diameter..............34.8 In
Engine Length ......................208 in
F110-GE-100
Thrust ..............................28,000 Lb class
Compressor Diameter..............35.8 In
Engine Length ......................183.76 in
F110-GE-129
Thrust ..............................29,500 Lb class
Compressor Diameter..............35.8 In
Engine Length ......................183.76 in

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 09:59
by MVSGas
deleted

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 10:05
by Patriot
zero-one wrote:Strange, why did the GE -100 and 129 not have any improvement in thrust levels?


What is interesting though is the difference in dry thrust between -129 and 229 in favorof the Pratt.


GE129 Dry thrust: 16,610 pounds, Wet thrust: 29,400
PW229 Dry thrust: 17,800 pounds, Wet thrust: 29,160

Such a schame model -229A never seen production. 34K power! Imagine that on a fairly light B52 airframe or B15 one... ^^^ ^_^

:arrow: :pint: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... mpr-11954/

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 17:25
by basher54321
Different MIL figures again from Lock heed Martin in the early 1990s (note others are posted in this thread already!)


GE-129 = 17752 lbs
PW-229 = 17800 lbs


Didn't stop there and this was the 1990s:

The PW-229A ( later PW-232 )
The -229A is designed to power the Boeing F-15E and Lockheed Martin F-16C/D from 2000 onwards - either as a retrofit kit or as a complete engine - and has demonstrated a thrust capability of 165kN (37,150lb).

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ing-32888/


GE-129 EFE ( GE-132 )
Designated the F110-GE-129 EFE (Enhanced Fighter Engine), the engine will be qualified at 34,000 pounds of thrust and offered initially at a thrust rating of 32,000 pounds, with demonstrated growth capability to 36,000 pounds.

http://www.integratedaerospace.com/pres ... 80224.html

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

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2019, 04:01
by zero-one
I've heared that these engines have a service life of 8000 hours. But do we have any sources on that. I'm struggling to find some kindly share if you have any. Please and thankyou

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

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2019, 22:31
by h-bomb
zero-one wrote:I've heared that these engines have a service life of 8000 hours. But do we have any sources on that. I'm struggling to find some kindly share if you have any. Please and thankyou


While I read it years ago the basic gist for both was...

29K = ~6000 cycles TBO
32K = ~4300 cycles TBO

High thrust options were available with eve shorter Time Between Overhauls...

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

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2019, 02:29
by jaws
-229 all the way!

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

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2019, 02:29
by Patriot
1 cycle = 1 flight? 1 hour of flight?

Really, why -232 never made it to the F-16? Who's decision that was.. GD/LM or P&W?
Viper with 37K lbs engine would be a space ship! Who wouldnt wan to have such a capability!? :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2019, 03:43
by f119doctor
I can’t talk to the GE-129, it was supposed to have the same life as the original PW-229.

A PW-229 Total Accumulated Cycle (TAC cycle) is a calculated number that equals:

TAC = 1(shutdown to MIL to Shutdown cycle) + 0.25(Mil to Idle to Mil cycle)+ 0.025 (Mil to part power to Mil cycle)

Each sortie has at least one TAC cycle, plus more as the pilot moves the throttle around between the Idle and Mil settings. Most of the time 1 hour of flight time is 2-3 TAC cycles. AB time and cycle are tracked, but do not count in the TAC cycle.

The -229 original specification life was 8600 TAC, with a 4300 depot inspection / overhaul. Of course, replacement of key life limited parts at 8600 can extend the engine life for additional 4300 intervals.

More recent -229EEP engines have improved hardware that extends the depot inspection / life to 6000 / 12000 TAC cycles, for a significant reduction in to cost of ownership.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2019, 03:56
by f119doctor
Ref the PW-232

The decision was made by the USAF not to spend the development $$$ on this engine. The engine was based on the PW-229 core with a larger fan module of 275 pps airflow to fully utilize the F-16 big mouth inlet. This larger fan was also longer, requiring a shorter AB module and a modified gearbox to maintain the same aircraft interfaces.

I believe that the USAF made the same decision to not fund the development of the GE-132, which was primarily funded by UAE for the F-16 Block 60. AFIK, no USAF aircraft have the GE-132 engine.