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

Always wondered why the F-16 has a tailhook, or how big a bigmouth F-16's mouth really is ? Find it out here !

Which engine is better ?

F 100 P&W 229
27
34%
F 110 GE 129
53
66%
 
Total votes : 80

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Patriot

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 17:48
  • Location: Poland

Unread post26 Sep 2006, 15:24

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
Offline

Pumpkin

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2003, 21:12

Unread post26 Sep 2006, 15:54

Patriot, see if this thread helps.

cheers,
Desmond
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post26 Sep 2006, 17:24

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.
Offline

Patriot

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 17:48
  • Location: Poland

Unread post26 Sep 2006, 20:08

Thank you guys !
Great Balls Of Fire
Offline

ViperEnforcer

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 583
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2003, 19:53
  • Location: High Desert California

Unread post27 Sep 2006, 00:19

I'll take a GE powered F-16 over a Pratt, any day of the week!

Mike V
If it yanks, banks, turns, and burns, Crew Chiefs made it happen!
Offline

djiber

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2006, 19:22

Unread post27 Sep 2006, 20:10

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
Offline

Raptor_One

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post27 Sep 2006, 21:28

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).
Offline

Sundowner

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2005, 01:29

Unread post11 Nov 2006, 15:38

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.
Offline

fireball

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:03

Unread post11 Nov 2006, 23:08

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!
Offline

Lantirn

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2006, 17:16
  • Location: Greece

Unread post14 Nov 2006, 18:58

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.
391vFS "Aeolus"
Offline

Sundowner

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2005, 01:29

Unread post14 Nov 2006, 20:24

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:
Offline

Lantirn

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2006, 17:16
  • Location: Greece

Unread post14 Nov 2006, 21:54

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!!!
391vFS "Aeolus"
Offline

velos35

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 18:19

Unread post14 Nov 2006, 23:01

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.
Offline

EngineJoe

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2006, 01:37

Unread post15 Nov 2006, 01:36

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
Offline

Slydog

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2006, 14:00

Unread post21 Nov 2006, 02:48

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.
Next

Return to F-16 Design & Construction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests