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).