GE F110

Hello
I need to write a report about GE F110 engine in university. Maybe someone have any training manuals or some good information about this engine?

Many thanks

A ~link to pdf

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... BjGTWFxybH

SUMMARY:

* GE F-110 was the engine that made the F-14 the fighter what it should have been all along. Unlike the TF-30, the pilot could slam the throttle around and not worry about compressor stalls. $

* GE F-110 was also the engine of choice on most USAF F-16's. To be fair though, the USAF Thunderbirds fly the Pratt F-100-PW-229? Some version of the F-100 with around the same amount of thrust as the F-110

* GE F-110 was also the engine of choice on several export versions of the F-15, although in one case (RoK?) they switched back to Pratt engines after taking delivery of GE 110's initially

I also think that the F-110 really caused Pratt and Whitney to up its game, which it certainly did on the F-119 and F-135. They appear to have won the most recent engine war with those two..

To be clear I love both engines.
But in Pratt's defense

1. in the race to produce a 29,000 pound class engines, Pratt was able to achieve it without requiring modifications to the intake of the F-16.

2. According to TEG, Pratt usually achieves comparable or better results with half the budget.

3. Won the Colier trophy more times than GE (Granted those wins were not for the 229 specifically but for the Lift fan and the PW-F119)

To be clear I love both engines.
But in Pratt's defense

1. in the race to produce a 29,000 pound class engines, Pratt was able to achieve it without requiring modifications to the intake of the F-16.

2. According to TEG, Pratt usually achieves comparable or better results with half the budget.

3. Won the Colier trophy more times than GE (Granted those wins were not for the 229 specifically but for the Lift fan and the PW-F119)

1. Not really true. Sure they have about same static thrust rating but F110 dynamic thrust is better. Compare Hellenic AF charts for Block 50 and 52 and you can see Block 50 with F110 performing better, Spurts did a comparison of the two.

2. As much as I respect TEG and he brings a lot of good engine info, he works for P&W, not exactly unbiased.

3. Not relevant to F100 or F110. Besides F120 did not go to full development, the F119 won the Collier more than decade after selection.

Spurts did a comparison of the two.

Would you provide a ~link please

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=53363&hilit=f110+f100

1. Not really true. Sure they have about same static thrust rating but F110 dynamic thrust is better. Compare Hellenic AF charts for Block 50 and 52 and you can see Block 50 with F110 performing better, Spurts did a comparison of the two.

2. As much as I respect TEG and he brings a lot of good engine info, he works for P&W, not exactly unbiased.

3. Not relevant to F100 or F110. Besides F120 did not go to full development, the F119 won the Collier more than decade after selection.

1. I spoke to one of our respected F-16 drivers here. He flew both the block 50 and 52. All he said was that they were comparable, you would hardly notice the difference. but there was 1 instance where he flew wing tip to wing tip with a block 50 while he was in a 52. same configuration and same thrust settings. They noticed that the block 50 was slowly crawling its way ahead of the 52.

However TEG did acknowledge that the F-110 was better in some parts of the envelope but the F-100 was also better in others.

2. TEG did work for Pratt, he may have a bias but I treat his words just like I treat Gums and 35_AoA's words. Just because they flew Vipers and Hornets I don't question their pro Viper and Hornet posts.

3. Yes I know, but gotta admit the F-119 was and still is the most advanced fighter engine in a lot of areas. that thing is a technological marvel. I don't think the YF-120 used the float wall system or single crystal supper alloys. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll look at Sprts post more. Thanks

1. Not really true. Sure they have about same static thrust rating but F110 dynamic thrust is better. Compare Hellenic AF charts for Block 50 and 52 and you can see Block 50 with F110 performing better, Spurts did a comparison of the two.

2. As much as I respect TEG and he brings a lot of good engine info, he works for P&W, not exactly unbiased.

3. Not relevant to F100 or F110. Besides F120 did not go to full development, the F119 won the Collier more than decade after selection.

1. I spoke to one of our respected F-16 drivers here. He flew both the block 50 and 52. All he said was that they were comparable, you would hardly notice the difference. but there was 1 instance where he flew wing tip to wing tip with a block 50 while he was in a 52. same configuration and same thrust settings. They noticed that the block 50 was slowly crawling its way ahead of the 52.

However TEG did acknowledge that the F-110 was better in some parts of the envelope but the F-100 was also better in others.

2. TEG did work for Pratt, he may have a bias but I treat his words just like I treat Gums and 35_AoA's words. Just because they flew Vipers and Hornets I don't question their pro Viper and Hornet posts.

3. Yes I know, but gotta admit the F-119 was and still is the most advanced fighter engine in a lot of areas. that thing is a technological marvel. I don't think the YF-120 used the float wall system or single crystal supper alloys. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll look at Sprts post more. Thanks

Single crystal superalloy is not unique to F119, plenty of engines use it, like EJ200 and Snecma M88. Floatwall is just P&W’s method of creating a combustor without welds, it’s not unique idea to P&W. F119 being less ambitious and lower risk is the big reason why it was selected in the first place.

If you just read this book then you’ll have a lot of your questions answered already instead of asking about things already known.
https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Tactica ... 1563472821

We should all probably take stock of one very important fact: We're a very fortunate country, to have both of these companies and their technology powering our fighters.

Pratt engines have always had a great reputation, save for the TF-30 in F-14A's. Even then, it really wasn't fair due to the fact it was a bomber engine the Navy put in a fighter. Probably the worst engine/airframe mis-match in the history of modern US fighters.

The GE F-110's that powered the F-14B/D really let the F-14 be the fighter it was meant to be. At this point Pratt wasn't exactly out of the race (producing the F-100 for the F-15 and 16) but it did give one the impression GE was a more than worthy opponent. Old F-14 pilot/RIO saying, "if the engine says Pratt and Whitney, the ejection seat better damn well say Martin-Baker"!

But as you pointed out, Pratt eventually got their F-100 to 29,000lbs of thrust. It's just a shame it never made its way into F-15C's. Ever since the ATF competition though, Pratt and Whitney has really cleaned up. Their F-119 powers the F-22 and F-135 the F-35. I'm not sure how far along GE is in its comeback, but you can bet they're pushing the Pratt team for the motors for PCA and F/A-XX. Possibly powering advanced versions of the F-35 as well.

Any other country would drool to have these two engine manufacturers. I just thank God every day I live in a country with such talented engineers. The roar of my local F-15C's makes me so proud, the sound of freedom...