Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Hey TEG, would a PW229 or PW232 work in a Blk5? Super lightweight, maximum agility and massive thrust? I know it would be useless but I am just fantasizing?

Yes they would fit and bolt directly into the Block 5-25.

Firstly, when PW designed the PW-229 it was matched to the inlet flow of the small mouth inlet. This gave an 'upgrade' market to existing Viper users to install 'new' Increased Performance Engines (IPE) without changing the inlet. (To get 29K from the GE IPE, one must have the big-mouth inlet)

Now while PW-232 would physically fit into the Block 5-25, (or any other F100 powered Viper) the PW-232 would suffer a flow penalty. It was designed for a higher air-flow. To achieve the 32K advertised, you'd need a big-mouth inlet. So while a PW-232 would give you a bit better performance, it's true capabilities would have only been known in 'big-mouth' inlet Viper, or in an Eagle (who's inlets are HUGE!) So while a PW-232 in a Block 5 is possible, and you may gain some MIL thrust over a PW-229, the PW-232 in a small-mouth Viper would 'under-utilized'

In tests (without considering service life or durability) the PW-232 was tested up to 37K in MAX! Twisted Evil

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

F-16.net Sponsor

Thanks for the info TEG, I didnt know the Blk 60s were big mouthed. And the idea of F-15s with -232s is eye watering.

So, who would be the better hotrod, F-16 blk5 w/F100-PW229, F-15A w/F100-232 max output, F-14A w/F135-PW400 max output (tested to just over 50k)? Ahhh the drool fest.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

The idea of F-15s with -232s is eye watering.

So, who would be the better hotrod, F-16 blk5 w/F100-PW229, F-15A w/F100-232 max output, F-14A w/F135-PW400 max output (tested to just over 50k)? Ahhh the drool fest.

I just don't like to get into the non-feasible 'what-ifs' but I'll humor this for a moment.

The F135-PW-400 would NEVER fit into the belly of a Tomcat. F119 just maybe. Then again you could 'squeeze' F119s into an Eagle if you tried real hard and made some engine bay adjustments. Then they'd both be hot-rods, but that will never happen since; 1 - we're not selling TF30 parts to Iran, let alone F119 engines, and the US Tomcats are dead now. 2 - Putting F119s into new-production modified Eagles would be WAY more expensive than anyone would be willing to pay; might as well reopen the Raptor line.

Sticking within the realm of reality, the best option would be Block 15 OCU/MLU (what have you) with a PW-229. The PW-232 is a mute point, it never made it past ground testing when the GE-132 was selected for UAE, and a higher-thrust F100 engine wasn't needed. But 64K (with the PW-232 tuned to it's 'designed' thrust) would be nothing to scoff at.

The best feasible 'hot-rod' would be a operational Block 15 that is light with a PW-229 installed.

An F-15 with a 50K takeoff weight and 64K of thrust would yield a T/W ratio of 1.28
An F-16A with a 24K takeoff weight and 29K of thrust would yeild a T/W ratio of 1.33

So even an Eagle with PW-232s and a 'light' Viper with PW-229 would be about equal. You'd be much more likely to see the PW-229 in a Block 15 though since they both exist.

Keep 'em flying Thumb

TEG

[quote="That_Engine_Guy"]

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

The best feasible 'hot-rod' would be a operational Block 15 that is light with a PW-229 installed.

An F-15 with a 50K takeoff weight and 64K of thrust would yield a T/W ratio of 1.28
An F-16A with a 24K takeoff weight and 29K of thrust would yeild a T/W ratio of 1.33

So even an Eagle with PW-232s and a 'light' Viper with PW-229 would be about equal. You'd be much more likely to see the PW-229 in a Block 15 though since they both exist.

Keep 'em flying Thumb

TEG

Or just a lightweight Raptor... 70k / 50k = 1.4 T/W

She's a monster Smile

flyboy22 wrote:

Or just a lightweight Raptor... 70k / 50k = 1.4 T/W

She's a monster Smile

Well there is always that; not only is it plausible it's a reality. Cool

Too bad congress didn't see it that way. Doh

TEG

TEG, thanks for humoring one of my sillier moments. I was rather tired when I posted that so reality wasnt foremost on my mind. Actually a project I have been working on for some time is to be able to predict/calculate acceleration and sustained turn performance and the basic equations dont cut it. They all say F-14 can sustain 17 deg/s turn @ a weight of 30tons. I am trying to calculate effects such as angle of attack during turns and its effect on profile drag and body lift. So far its not passing my idiot test as they tell me the Viper is only sustaining 14 deg/s at 13 tons. I dont have it right yet.

@TEG and others, after reading through this thread ( and some others ) I thought how really awesome it is of you to share your experience and knowledge with ordinary ( "civilian" ) people like myself. Reading this forum is often more educative than tons of articles on the net. Glad I could become a part of it.

Thanks guys,
DooGz

BTW sorry for the OFT

5C-465 holds record for super cruise w/o AB during the GE-132 certifications.

flyboy22 wrote:

Realize though that while techinically holding M1.1 is supercrusing, to be tactically beneficial you need to get out of transonic drag, ie. above around 1.3. The F-22 is the only true supercruiser for now.

Yes yes... F-22 only... Just thinking about the good old early-Fifties-technology English Electric Lightning.

F16JOAT wrote:

5C-465 holds record for super cruise w/o AB during the GE-132 certifications.

Any hints? Shocked

Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

How far beyond Mach 1 can F-16 go without AB?