Venezuelan Russian-made Flankers

[NewmanF16]

You read it wrong. They want to have an "alternative" engine. The F-16 is built with both GE and Pratt and Wimpies. By having two engine manufacturers, you don't have issues with grounding the whole fleet if there is a defect (say afterburner cans falling off).

 

[mzaharis]

You read it wrong. They want to have an "alternative" engine. The F-16 is built with both GE and Pratt and Wimpies. By having two engine manufacturers, you don't have issues with grounding the whole fleet if there is a defect (say afterburner cans falling off).

As an ex-Pratt employee, I'm curious. Does the "wimpy" performance vis-a-vis the GE engines carry over to the 229s, or is it just a symptom of the 220s?

 

[NewmanF16]

I've heard the 229 is on par with the GE, but haven't flown it. I actually have more time in 220 Vipers than anything else. They are good engines, but just peeter out at altitude. The GEs climb like a homesick angel and never seem to run out of thrust.

 

[stonewall]

The F119-PW-100s on the F-22 are unbelievable in all respects. One of the huge success stories with the program, in my opinion.

Most of my time is in GE 129s, and I loved 'em. A little more fuel efficient than the PW in the Block 52, and it seemed to have more initial thrust.

 

[mzaharis]

The F119-PW-100s on the F-22 are unbelievable in all respects. One of the huge success stories with the program, in my opinion.

Most of my time is in GE 129s, and I loved 'em. A little more fuel efficient than the PW in the Block 52, and it seemed to have more initial thrust.

Glad to hear you like them. I was a manufacturing engineer on them when I was just a cub out of engineering school. A lot of interesting technology in them (most of which was above my security access - I just did the plumbing on it!). Amazing how they could increase performance between the F100/110 and the F119.

I always thought the early 100's got a bad rap. They're smaller, with smaller flow rates, than the 110, and to get the same thrust out of them, you need to stress them more (my understanding is that the F-110 is a larger engine, with higher flow rates, and which uses a larger intake). But I can understand how you guys on the pointy end of the spear want the most reliable, highest performing engine, and for the F-16, the F110, in any flavor, outperforms the F100-220. Glad to hear P&W sort of caught up on the 229.

 

[SIG600]

The F119-PW-100s on the F-22 are unbelievable in all respects. One of the huge success stories with the program, in my opinion.

Most of my time is in GE 129s, and I loved 'em. A little more fuel efficient than the PW in the Block 52, and it seemed to have more initial thrust.

Just how much poop do the -22 engines put out? (If you can say)

 

[BiffF15]

Glad to hear you like them. I was a manufacturing engineer on them when I was just a cub out of engineering school. A lot of interesting technology in them (most of which was above my security access - I just did the plumbing on it!). Amazing how they could increase performance between the F100/110 and the F119.

I always thought the early 100's got a bad rap. They're smaller, with smaller flow rates, than the 110, and to get the same thrust out of them, you need to stress them more (my understanding is that the F-110 is a larger engine, with higher flow rates, and which uses a larger intake). But I can understand how you guys on the pointy end of the spear want the most reliable, highest performing engine, and for the F-16, the F110, in any flavor, outperforms the F100-220. Glad to hear P&W sort of caught up on the 229.

Comparing the PW F100 series to the GE 110 series is a bit of apples and oranges. The PW engine came out well before the GE and most of it's growing pains were due to Eagle Drivers flying the plane differently than what the AF told PW they would (MUCH MUCH more throttle modulation and at a much higher altitude).
There are two sides to an engine: the pilot side and the maint / logistics side.
The PW hands down wins the maint / logistics side due to several core differences. First, it's a three piece motor (fan, compressor and afterburner / AB). When one part gets damaged the engine is pulled, and a new section swapped out, and back in it goes. During heavy Desert Storm type flying this engine is much more usable.
The GE engine weights less and makes more thrust (unless comparing a 229 to a 110 series). The GE is a nightmare in the field. Unable to blend blades much (FOD nicks repairs) or do any internal work in the field. Engine damaged / hurt and out it comes to be shipped back stateside or out of theater to depot. End result is you need more engines (therefor a more costly engine) per aircraft and not as sustainable in the field.
As a fighter pilot I would rather have the GE (especially in the Eagle). It performs better and even if it's fail rate is higher I would have two. Also, I'm the driver not the pit crew.
As a theater commander I would rather have the PW. More reliable, requires less in theater, and more maintainable with less supplies.

 

[mzaharis]

Just how much poop do the -22 engines put out? (If you can say)

The usual statement that is given to the public, and which P&W lists on their website, is "35,000 pound thrust class", in an engine the size of an F100. Take that for what it is worth. And consider that it's optimized for dry thrust to enable supercruise, so that's where the big benefits were seen (note, none of this info was based on my short employment at P&W, and is all based on public sources).

This Rand paper lists the dry thrust as 20,500 lb.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1596.pdf

I'm sure the F-22 drivers here know a more accurate number, but I'm also pretty sure they can't say.

 

[mzaharis]

As a fighter pilot I would rather have the GE (especially in the Eagle).

Very interesting comments, particularly regarding maintenance. Thank you.

AFAIK, the only Eagles with GEs are the South Korean Air Force and Singaporean ones, and the Saudis are swapping some of their F100-229s for F110-129s. Have you done exchange with one of these air forces?

 

[BiffF15]

Very interesting comments, particularly regarding maintenance. Thank you.

AFAIK, the only Eagles with GEs are the South Korean Air Force and Singaporean ones, and the Saudis are swapping some of their F100-229s for F110-129s. Have you done exchange with one of these air forces?

No exchange tours and have never flown and Eagle with the GE. The numbers being what they are (more thrust from a lighter engine) I would rather have it over the PW even though it's not as reliable. I have fought enough BLK 30 / 50 Vipers to know it's a good engine (even though the BLK 30 guys were clean and never in a combat drag index / configuration).

 

[mzaharis]

No exchange tours and have never flown and Eagle with the GE. The numbers being what they are (more thrust from a lighter engine) I would rather have it over the PW even though it's not as reliable. I have fought enough BLK 30 / 50 Vipers to know it's a good engine (even though the BLK 30 guys were clean and never in a combat drag index / configuration).

A while back, Flight International reported the possibility that the F-15C's might be upgraded with -229s. Given the USAF's procurement priorities, I wonder if it would ever happen, but it might even up thing a bit.

 

[BiffF15]

A while back, Flight International reported the possibility that the F-15C's might be upgraded with -229s. Given the USAF's procurement priorities, I wonder if it would ever happen, but it might even up thing a bit.

I doubt that would happen. First, the USAF just finished upgrading from the F100-100 to the -220 standard (or is almost done). To go to a complete new engine would be cost prohibitive (would take money from the F22 / F35.
It would be nice though!

 

[NewmanF16]

There was talk a few years back to reengine all the 220E F-16s with 229s (at least the Blk 32s and 42s--block 25s don't have a common congifuration engine bay). That would've freed up engines for the F-15 fleet. Like all good ideas an operator would like to see come to fruition, this one died as well, much like the thrust vectoring nozzle for the Viper.

 

[BiffF15]

There was talk a few years back to reengine all the 220E F-16s with 229s (at least the Blk 32s and 42s--block 25s don't have a common congifuration engine bay). That would've freed up engines for the F-15 fleet. Like all good ideas an operator would like to see come to fruition, this one died as well, much like the thrust vectoring nozzle for the Viper.

Actually a couple of Guard / Reserve Viper units did do this. A portion of each sister squadron was changed over. I have an Eagle bud flying in one of them and he said the 229 is NICE.

 

[SIG600]

Mmmmmm. Knots.

 

[BiffF15]

A while back, Flight International reported the possibility that the F-15C's might be upgraded with -229s. Given the USAF's procurement priorities, I wonder if it would ever happen, but it might even up thing a bit.

I think at one time PW made a pitch to use a -229 core with the -220 fan / burner section to get more thrust at a lessor cost. Not sure what ever happened with that.
After the structural failure that STL had I doubt the USAF will be giving the light grays anymore thrust.

 

[mzaharis]

I think at one time PW made a pitch to use a -229 core with the -220 fan / burner section to get more thrust at a lessor cost. Not sure what ever happened with that.
After the structural failure that STL had I doubt the USAF will be giving the light grays anymore thrust.

I found the article (from September 11, 2001), and it listed an "unfunded" proposal to add -229s to the remaining 220-engined F-15E's. Nothing about C's. Bad memory on my part. And, it's so old, I'm sure any upgrade plans have gone through 30 iterations (are APG-63(v)3s still on?).

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/2001/2001%20-%203141.html

BTW, Flight International has an astounding archive - practically every page they ever printed is available in PDF format. Found this article in a few minutes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/2001/2001 - 3141.html

 

[BiffF15]

I found the article (from September 11, 2001), and it listed an "unfunded" proposal to add -229s to the remaining 220-engined F-15E's. Nothing about C's. Bad memory on my part. And, it's so old, I'm sure any upgrade plans have gone through 30 iterations (are APG-63(v)3s still on?).

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/2001/2001%20-%203141.html

BTW, Flight International has an astounding archive - practically every page they ever printed is available in PDF format. Found this article in a few minutes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/2001/2001 - 3141.html

The C/D requires a mod to install the 229. They did a 229 on a B model, saw it at the bone yard. It was supposed to be a G machine.

 

[DaveGriffin]

After Gen. Carlson's "politically incorrect", if possibly strategically correct, public statement (when he said that the air force would find a way to get around the Pentagon to get 380 Raptors, and joked that 380 Raptors were "a compromise" from their desired 381), the Air Force is looking for a compromise, and are asking by saying, "Pretty please with sugar on top."

<H3>USAF Leaders Prefer More F-22 Raptors


Mar 6, 2008
By Michael Bruno
Prodded specifically by the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman for their personal opinions, U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and chief Gen. T. Michael Moseley allowed that their own preferences would be for additional F-22 Raptor fighters and an alternative Joint Strike Fighter engine.
The top two Air Force leaders repeatedly stressed their support for President Bush's fiscal 2009 budget request and outyear defense budget planning. Moreover, during the Wednesday hearing in front of the SASC they noted profound efforts to "salute smartly" in response to all budget-making guidance from White House and Pentagon superiors.
But explicitly asked by Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) to offer their personal assessments, Wynne and Moseley made clear their own desires for more Raptors and an alternative JSF engine. The Air Force leaders suggested the SASC chairman ask them for their personal opinions after Levin grew momentarily frustrated with their hesitation to respond to his direct questions on the issues.
The secretary said he believes the minimum number of Raptors needed to meet future requirements is probably the previous estimate of 277. Moseley stated that he personally does not believe that the official Defense Department plan for just 183 of the Lockheed Martin-made fighters is enough.
"No, sir," the chief of staff told Levin when the senator asked him.
Both men also allowed that a second JSF engine could be a smart move by Washington, citing engine experiences with F-16s. Wynne acknowledged that the "business case" for a second JSF engine undermines such an effort on that specific cost analysis, but the question for defense leaders and lawmakers might be more one of confidence in meeting capabilities rather than strict budget concerns.
"Affordability can't always be the rule," the secretary said.
Indeed, highlighting redundancy and reliability above cost concerns played a major role in Wynne's explanations for more Raptors, in light of planned JSFs, as well as another JSF engine. He recalled being able to rely on F-16s when F-15s had to be grounded after longeron failures were identified last fall following an F-15 crash.
Moseley said the Air Force tries to craft its official budget request following affordability guidance provided from above, but it also stands ready to answer where further dollars would be best spent. "We owe you what we believe it takes," the chief also said.
Regarding an alternative JSF power plant, Moseley suggested that the Air Force's concerns revolve around protecting the JSF program to roll it out to the other armed services and allies in time, rather than necessarily scuttling efforts toward a second engine.
Both men maintained that the service should get an additional $20 billion annually over proposed budgets in order to truly meet all the demands placed on it, including matching growing needs from burgeoning land services, which the air service leaders said they support.

</H3>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ders Prefer More F-22 Raptors&channel=defense

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123089011

Gen. Bruce Carlson shortly after speaking with Air War College and Squadron Officer School students Feb. 27 about the importance of recapitalizing the Air Force's aging fleet to maintain air dominance.

"Soon we could be flying against aircraft and air defense systems that our older aircraft were not intended to fly against," General Carlson said. "And if we don't have the freedom to operate in hostile territories, we risk fighting the next conflict on our home territory."

If the AF doesn't think they can keep the bad guys away from door, then we'll just have to leave it up to the Navy, Marines and Army.

 

[stonewall]

And here I thought we were all one team.