F-16.net

Hi all anyone tell me the exact thrust ratings for the F110-GE-100/129 and F100-PW-229?

AFAIK
F110-GE-100:
Dry = ?
Max AB = 27500 lb (12500 kg)

F110-GE-129:
Dry = 17160 lb (7800 kg)
Max AB = 29524 lb (13420 kg)

F100-PW-229:
Dry = 17776 lb (8080 kg)
Max AB ) = 29040 lb (13200 kg)

I'm sure the max AB thrust of the GE-100 and the PW-229 is correct, but what about the rest?

thx in advance

F-16.net Sponsor

Figures vary from source to source... Rolling Eyes

(But don't reference the USAF F-16 Factsheet, it's all wrong!?! Doh

)

The pilot's "Dash 1" keeps things simple... "Approximately" 25,000 for the F100-PW-220 or the F110-GE-100 with a small inlet; large inlet about 28,000.

The F110-GE-129 or the F100-PW-229 are both "Approximately" 29,000.

According to www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html

Quote:

F100-PW-200/-220/-220E
MIL - 14,670
MAX - 23,830

F100-PW-229
MIL - 17,800
MAX - 29,100

F110-GE-100
MIL - 16,600
MAX - 28,000

F110-GE-129
MIL - 17,000
MAX - 29,000

According to Jane's

Quote:

Maximum afterburner:
F100-PW-220; 105.72 kN (23,770 lb st)
F100-PW-229; 129.45 kN (29,100 lb st)
F110-GE-100; 124.6 kN (28,000 lb st)
F110-GE-129; 129.0 kN (29,000 lb st)

Maximum dry:
F100-PW-220; 63.9 kN (14,370 lb st)
F100-PW-229; 79.18 kN (17,800 lb st)
F110-GE-100 78.06 kN (17,530 lb st)
F110-GF-129 75.7 kN (17,000 lb st)

Weight, Dry
F100-PW-220; 1,481 kg (3,265 lb)
F100-PW-229; 1,721 kg (3,795 lb)
F110-GE-100; 1,778 kg (3,920 lb)
F110-GE-129; 1,805 kg (3,980 lb)

According to GE Aircraft Engines: http://www.geae.com/engines/military/f110/f110-129.html
The F110-GE-129 makes 29,000lbs MAX

According to Pratt & Whitney: http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext-templatin ... 01000aRCRD
The F100-PW-229 makes 29,160lbs MAX

Now another thing to point out is that the GE-129 engine is actually heavier than the PW-229, which gives the PW-229 a higher thrust/weight ratio.

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Thank you THG Very Happy

TEG,

The GE aviation site didn't provide Max dry thrust for the -132, would be curious if you have an estimate? Also, I'm surprised the -132 is apparently only about 70 lbs heavier in Dry weight, over the -129? Pretty impressive added t/w?

I'd be interested though, if in your opinion it would be effective/possible to mate -132 to F-15E (seems like a no brainer for a suped up F-15SG/K, especially with potential vectoring)? To your knowledge then, has it been considered for testing or just not feasible? Also, it looked like GE a couple yrs back was trying to market it for USAF (and international AF) block 50 upgrades -- so far no additional sales.. do you have a guess as to why no extra sales since? Just too costly? Fuel efficiency, maintenance or durability issues? Curious. Thanks advanced..

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 03, 2007 Posts: 97 Status: Offline

USAF flight tested but declined to purchase F15/GE configuration, difficult and expensive for a foreign customer to support a unique configuration, F15K/GE still having augmentor problems, PW-229 just took back ROKAF F15K business from GE...........

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 03, 2008 Posts: 44 Status: Offline

from what I read and have provided oil analysis support as the block 60's rolled off the assembly line GE only built a small quantity of engines for UAE, from talking to one of the engine guys who is at Lockheed and the GE rep the oil wetted system is the same as the -129, one of the biggest difference in there is no mid span shroud tips on the first stage fan. I don't think the USAF will be reengineering with the -132, but what do I know I'm just a NDI tech. Lockheed has flown a -132 engine in their block 50 demonstrator for about two years they have switched back to the -129 in it for demonstration.

geogen wrote:

TEG, The GE aviation site didn't provide Max dry thrust for the -132, would be curious if you have an estimate?

Jane's says... the GE-132's MIL thrust was 85.05 kN (19,100 lb st)

geogen wrote:

Also, I'm surprised the -132 is apparently only about 70 lbs heavier in Dry weight, over the -129? Pretty impressive added t/w?

Not bad, but the figures I've seen show the GE-132 gained almost 200lbs and made about 10% more thrust.

PW did the same thing with the PW-232 which gained almost 300lbs in the process and also produced about 10% more thrust. (If in a Big-Mouth Viper, Eagles would gain more thrust due to increased inlet flow.) On the test-stand in 1992, the PW-232 made 37,000 lbs uninstalled! The PW-232 has slipped away in light of the F119 and F135, but PW-229 sales have outpaced the GE-129 and limited GE-132 sales. The PW-229 may not be producing more power than it did when introduced, but durability has been increased dramatically.

geogen wrote:

I'd be interested though, if in your opinion it would be effective/possible to mate -132 to F-15E (seems like a no brainer for a suped up F-15SG/K, especially with potential vectoring)?

It is possible, (see next answer) but the costs of the "limited run" GE-132s are steep in comparison to the existing GE-129 logistics. (Supply/Demand)

Effective? Maybe but at what cost?

The more logical answer would have been PW-232s or modified PW-229s that would have been "plug-and-play" with the older F100 series engines.

Don't forget PW has DECADES of experience with McDonald-Douglas/Boeing when it comes to engine/aircraft integration. Ask GE how they're doing with inlet flow and the F110 in the Korean Eagles. (Mentioned here too) I would add that the Koreans get no support from the USAF when it comes to funding, research, testing, improving or troubleshooting as the F-15K/F110 was never purchased by the US, hence the return to the F-15K/F100.

geogen wrote:

To your knowledge then, has it been considered for testing or just not feasible?

As said before in this thread; the GE-129 was tested in the Eagle by the USAF but never adopted, again cost in modifying the aircraft may not have been much, but changing the USAF's logistics system for the Eagle would have cost Billions.

geogen wrote:

Also, it looked like GE a couple yrs back was trying to market it for USAF (and international AF) block 50 upgrades -- so far no additional sales.. do you have a guess as to why no extra sales since? Just too costly? Fuel efficiency, maintenance or durability issues?

Too costly. Logistics of new parts, tooling, training, etc. Ask the UAE how expensive their engines cost. I bet it was much more than the existing GE-129 or PW-229. On the other hand, why buy new higher-power engines if the existing engines can already exceed airframe/stores limits? You're adding lots expense and gaining very little.

Well that's my Two Cents

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

I almost forgot...

geogen wrote:

I'd be interested though, if in your opinion it would be effective/possible to mate -132 to F-15E (seems like a no brainer for a suped up F-15SG/K, especially with potential vectoring)?

Both GE and PW developed thrust vectoring nozzles for the F110 and F100.

GE - AVEN "Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle" - 17 degrees of vector
PW - PYBBN "Pitch/Yaw Balanced Beam Nozzle" - 20 degrees of vector

Here is the PYBBN data; sorry I can't find an info-sheet for the AVEN... Shrug

http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item46797.html

Thumb

TEG

Thanks for great insights all around. Maybe I can catch you on your next pass for a few more PW vs GE engine related questions..

1) In your opinion, what would be the costs involved with restarting, or completing development and production of the PW-232? Would it be more expensive, less, the same vs GE-132, if say a future F-16 customer wanted the maximal mod?

2) Any assessments/guesses as to durability potential of -232 compared to the G-132.. and would they be equal in fuel consumption?? Or not sufficient data for that?

3) Additional Logistics costs associated with hypothetical USAF switching to -232 from 229? Same billions if Eagles switched to 129/132?

4) In your opinion what is more damage resistant and/or maintenance friendly: the AVEN or the PYBBN style? And which could be made more LO for the same investment?

5) What would be the rate of climb difference of say a -232 powered F-16AT/XL variant compared to a -229? Acceleration difference?

Bonus Q... (and I'll quit here).

6) Could an F119 fit in a Viper without significant modification?

Thanks for any you can get to -

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 03, 2007 Posts: 97 Status: Offline

With the advent of the F119 and F135, the days of the PW-232 have past. PW would not compete a -232 for Vipers, and probably not Eagles, either. In regards to 6), not sure about the Viper, but a study has shown they would fit quite well in the F15.

Scorpion82 wrote:

Hi all anyone tell me the exact thrust ratings for the F110-GE-100/129 and F100-PW-229?

AFAIK
F110-GE-100:
Dry = ?
Max AB = 27500 lb (12500 kg)

F110-GE-129:
Dry = 17160 lb (7800 kg)
Max AB = 29524 lb (13420 kg)

F100-PW-229:
Dry = 17776 lb (8080 kg)
Max AB ) = 29040 lb (13200 kg)

I'm sure the max AB thrust of the GE-100 and the PW-229 is correct, but what about the rest?

thx in advance

Those are actaully thust classes. The actual raw thrust in usually more than the "thrust classification" each engine is in. Having seen the data first hand from the thrust pad, further supports the case.

The Prat F119s are class rated 35K, but it's clearly obvious that's a sandbag classification.

Mike V

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 03, 2007 Posts: 97 Status: Offline

Is there some way to actually measure thrust while installed, running on the trim pad? I know the I-level cell cannot.

You could put a load cell in the tie down cable, then correct the reading for the angle of the cable. To make it more accurate, remove wheel chocks and make sure no brakes are applied.

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 03, 2007 Posts: 97 Status: Offline

Yes, I know you could do it for a special test of some sort, but I was inquiring in response to Viperenforcer's comment above about seeing data from "the thrust pad". A typical base trim pad for aircraft runs does not, to my knowledge, measure thrust, and I know for a fact that the test cells at the bases for the F119 do not, either. About the only places I know of that run the F119 and can measure thrust are the development and production test cells during uninstalled engine runs. If there are others that can measure installed thrust, I would be very interested in where they are and how they do it.

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 03, 2007 Posts: 97 Status: Offline

USAF T-10 hush houses don't measure installed thrust, and cannot, on the A/M37T-20 for uninstalled engines over 25k/lbs thrust, either PW or GE, if they are configured correctly. I know of one hush house that does measure installed thrust, but it is the wrong service for F22/F119, and the cells I am familiar with at LM do not, either. Are there others?

F-16.net

Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

F-100/F-110 thrust ratings