Read the forum code of contact
By: - 7th April 2006 at 16:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The difference in performance would be insignificant compared to the impact on logistics. Otherwise, USAF would have upgraded its F110 inventory to the -132 configuration.
By: - 7th April 2006 at 16:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F110-GE-129 powers the F-15K. What major difference is there between the -129 and -132.
By: - 7th April 2006 at 16:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
GE engines more efficient than P&W...technically speaking......
By: - 7th April 2006 at 16:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F110-GE-129 powers the F-15K. What major difference is there between the -129 and -132.
uprated i guess? :D
By: - 7th April 2006 at 17:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The difference is about 3000lbs of thrust. Obviously there would be a logistical impact but I was wondering what the effect would be on the aircraft itself?
By: - 7th April 2006 at 18:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No Eagles except the F-15K and SG have GE engines.
Part of the USAF F-15E fleet (about 90?) is even still flying with older F100 engines rated at about 23000lbs.
Now the GE-132 would make quite a difference on those. :cool:
By: - 8th April 2006 at 05:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F110-GE-129 powers the F-15K. What major difference is there between the -129 and -132.
As another poster said, about 3000lbs of thrust. However a variant of it has been tested at 36,500lbs of thrust with a 3D nozzle. Now THOSE might make a difference if the airframe could handle it. :eek:
By: - 8th April 2006 at 06:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
highter the engine thurst shorter the life cycles GE-110-129 liked russkie engine mainly al-31f very high output lousy service life cycle better buy alot of spare's
By: - 8th April 2006 at 15:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As another poster said, about 3000lbs of thrust. However a variant of it has been tested at 36,500lbs of thrust with a 3D nozzle. Now THOSE might make a difference if the airframe could handle it. :eek:
Why? When do you go into burner at all. Even than the modern burners are no longer in stages. All PW and GE engines are with digital FADEC, which allow "chip-tuning" in war-time, when lifetime becomes secondary compared to thrust. So the surplus thrust for the GE in peacetime brings no noticeable gains for a F-15E, except to those with aged F100s.
By: - 8th April 2006 at 22:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
can anybody provide info on the bypass ratios? any significant difference?
By: - 9th April 2006 at 02:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: - 9th April 2006 at 03:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't get too excited over the uninstalled thrust numbers that are developed by running the engine in a test stand with low-loss bellmouth inlet. Once the real-world aircraft inlet installation is used, some of that thrust is lost.
the -132 has a different pressure ratio and stage efficiencies which can only be accomplished by changing aerodynamics over many stages. In other words, there were many internal changes, control laws included.
By: - 9th April 2006 at 04:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
129
http://www.geae.com/engines/military/f110/f110-129.html
Thanks Hyper.
Why are you sad and depressed?
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 7th April 2006 at 16:32
The F-16E/F came with lots and lots of goodies, most of which have now found their (or equivilant technology level) way into the new F-15 variants, such as the AESA radar. The one obvious item that hasnt made this transition is the F110-GE-132 engine, is there a reason for this? What difference would the addition of this engine make? I assume it could only be an improvement.