Forum: General F-16 forum

Hi Men,

I wonder the main differences between the engines those are being used on the Navy fighters and Air Force fighter.

For example, is there any clear difference between GE 414 and F110-GE-129 (other than thrust, physical size and weight, of course) which meets any special need of Navy or AF ?

I also noticed that almost all Generation 3 and 4 Navy fighters (F-4, F-14, F-18, F-18 E/F) used GE engines. Is there a reason for not having an example PW engines on Navy fighters?

Thanks.

F-16.net Sponsor

Any answer ?

Personally, I don't know. You might want to PM That Engine Guy: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_profile- ... 6848.html, he may not have seen the thread yet. Sometimes turnover on this site is pretty low.

There are a number of differences between a typical air force version of a jet engine, and a navalized version. Although the engine core is usually not affected, many of the external components on an air force engine (including the electronics and gearbox housing) will include components manufactured from aluminum, copper, or steel alloys that can be readily attacked by the salty sea air. These components will have to be redesigned to produce a navalized engine, usually resulting in added weight. The navalized F110-400 for example, shares 82% of its components with the earlier F110-100 engine, but adds 480-lb to the dry weight of the engine (per Janes' Aero Engines).

With regard to the US Navy's historical preference for GE engines, you have to bear in mind that there have been a number of Pratt & Whitney engines that served on our Navy's carriers in decades past, including the J57 which powered the F4D Skyray and F-8 Crusader, and the J52 which powered the A-4 Skyhawk, A-6 Intruder, and EA-6 Prowler.

For many, however, the defining moment in the US Navy's relationship with Pratt & Whitney surrounded the TF30 engine which powered the original F-14A Tomcat. Everyone knew when the F-14A first entered service that the TF30 was not the right engine for this application, and the original plan was to have Pratt & Whitney develop a navalized version of the F100 (labeled as the F401) to replace the TF30. An F-14B prototype actually flew on September 9, 1973 with a prototype F401 engine. The Navy, however, elected to cancel further development of the engine as a cost saving measure. The US Navy's Tomcat fleet thereafter continued to hobble along using the TF30 engine (which had already had a troubled development history of its own), building up ever more ill will between the Navy and P&W. A decade later, the Navy finally decided to trade-in its TF30 engines - providing the development dollars to launch the F101DFE (derivative fighter engine) program, which resulted in the F110 engine.

The prototype F-35C's that recently flew are therefore the first new warplanes to be delivered to the US Navy with Pratt & Whitney engines since the 1980s.

tmofarrvl wrote:

There are a number of differences between a typical air force version of a jet engine, and a navalized version. Although the engine core is usually not affected, many of the external components on an air force engine (including the electronics and gearbox housing) will include components manufactured from aluminum, copper, or steel alloys that can be readily attacked by the salty sea air. These components will have to be redesigned to produce a navalized engine, usually resulting in added weight. The navalized F110-400 for example, shares 82% of its components with the earlier F110-100 engine, but adds 480-lb to the dry weight of the engine (per Janes' Aero Engines).

Tmofarrvl pretty much summed it up; Naval engines require more resistance to salt corrosion. Either different materials, or special coatings/treatments. They're typically heavier.

Many engines have seen use with one service after being adopted by the the other, such as the...

F404 used in the USAF F-117 after starting with USN F/A-18
TF34 with the USN in the S-3, but was then also used on the USAF A-10.
TF30 with the USAF F-111, then utilized in the F-14 (When the F401 version of the F100 was terminated)
F110 in the USN F-14 after use in the USAF F-16
F100 in the X-47 UCAS-D program after use in the USAF F-15/F-16
J79 entered service in USAF F-104, but was also used in USN F-4 then USAF F-4 and B-58
J57 started in USAF F-100s, but was also used in USN A-3, F4D, F-8, and USAF B-52 KC-135, F-101, F-102, and U-2.
T56 launched on the USAF C-130 was also installed on the USN P-3, and E-2/C-2

I'm sure you get the picture now.
(and yes there may be omissions/additions to the list, but just citing some well known examples)

Point being, an aircraft manufacturer has given needs to meet USAF or USN requirements for a contract. If an engine is 'close' to performance specification it can be navalized or de-navalized as needed. Using 'off the shelf' engine designs keeps costs lower then developing a special engine for an airframe. (Such as the J58 for the Blackbirds, or F402/Pegasus for the Harriers)

Using the same engine types in multiple airframes also helps drive down unit costs. Purchasing F100 for the F-16 helped drive down the overall cost of the F-15's engines. Likewise, using all F135 engines in the F-35A/B/C will increase production totals and help reduce life-cycle costs. (not to mention development costs) It also allows 'joint' use of support equipment (to some extent) and logistics systems.

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

The Navy switched from using aluminum to magnesium gear boxes (fire hazard!!!) on it's version of the UH-60. Source: Material Applications (a NDI magazine)

Thanks guys and the guy.

It is interesting that the Navy fleet has shifted almost exclusively to GE power. Strangely the GE people who say that it is so critical to continue funding an alternate engine for the F-35 are silent about their monopoly on the F-18.

I'm impressed by GE's marketing, but tend to think it is more a case of dominance of the airframes (a large percentage of Navy air is now either an F-18 variant or an H-60 variant). A-6's and their P&W engines are gone, C-9's are going, and EA-6B's are going. GE powered the last generation of the Navy helo fleet (H-2/H-3/H-46). Their joint venture CFMI powers the E-6.

P&W is excited to get back to work with their first customer...

/Work for P&W.
//Retired USNR with time flying trainers powered by P&W Canada.
//My UTC stock goes up when Sikorsky sells a GE-powered H-60, but as much as I'd like.

Wasn't the J57's used in F-100's actually the ones they pulled out of retired F-101's?

Salute!

Sorry, Mad, but it was the other way around, almost.

The Hun preceded the VooDoo. The J-57 was also in the F-102A. So I got to fly with that motor in both The Deuce and the VooDoo.

The F-101B ( interceptor version) had the biggest J-57, and we cranked out 17,500 lb in AB, per engine. So when below 3,000 lb of gas we had thrust-to-weight over 1 to 1.

I returned to my roots in 1979 with that huge Pratt motor in a small jet - the Viper. Unlike the GE motors, the Pratts seem to be made for "industrial strength" and have larger, thicker blades. So losing/bending/chipping almost 70 of them on my first two or three compressor stages in the Viper one day, I was able to get the thing back on the ground.

Also remember that the premier attack jet of the Navy for over ten years was the A-7. It used a General Motors/Allison version of the Rolls Spey.

Gums sends....

P.S. Mad? Tap tap..... You do know to use Wiki or Google or any airpower website before asking questions here, right?

The Guard did pull the retired F-102 J57-23 afterburner sections out of the boneyard and replaced their J-57-21 afterburners on the Hun with them.

A Master Sergeant with the Tucson Guard made some big bucks with that suggestion.

The -21 AB nozzle was a nightmare of a multitude rollers, actuators and iris petals and was prone to hanging up under repeated short interval use (heat expansion) or under “G”, and the Hun's -21 AB system did not require the eyelids to open (though they were scheduled first) before the hot streak ignition functioned.

If the nozzle hung up, there was a distinctive “whine” you could hear just before the AB lit and blew the iris nozzle open with a bang and visible flame out the intake. Smart money pulled the throttle inboard when you heard the “whine”. Then you’d wait a few seconds, make sure you were “unloaded” and try again.

The F-102 -23 burner had something like only 8 petals and actuators and was a pleasure to operate in the Hun, anytime, anywhere, no problem.

OL

(This may be what Mad is referring to.)

Thanks for the clarification. I read about something being saved from the scrap heap and making it's way into the F-100. Guess my memory was set on it being the F-101 when it was really the F-102. You'll have to forgive me, by the time I had an affection for airplanes as a youth the F-100 was on it's way out. I grew up around Offutt watching the White Whales, Looking Glass, T-38's, and FB-111's as a common site. The F-4's and B-52's made a lot of regular visits, too. (Now we pretty much only really see fighters at Offutt during the annual Open House.) The only time I got to see F-100's were on display at museums. You're insights into these aircraft are great to read! I envy your experiences.

Forum: General F-16 forum

Main differences between Navy and Air Forces engines