WT Forums

Do the Eagles based at Elmendorf have -229 engines or -220Es?

I had thought they were the -229s, but a USAF guy i know said he thinks they're -220Es.

Anyone know for sure?

Thanx.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

-220E's

Units do swap jets, It is not uncommon to have a mix of blocks on the flightline, Not all of them rotate and get the full changes at Robbins.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Thanx Mudd.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

Just to clarify,

The Eagles only fly with PW100 (A,B) the PW220X (C,D) 229's for the E

Their is absolutly no reason to have a 229 in a Eagle Fighter The 229 is a Mule. Designed for Hauling allot of Iron Efficiently but not at Mach 2. the fan designs are not efficient enough for the Broad C models Service envelope.


"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

How bout the GE F-110s of the big mouth Vipers?

They're rated at 31k thrust and i would imagine are probably a lot more optimized for high speed ops.

???

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

PW= Pratt and Whitney

The GE's never were used becasue they were never part of the Flyoff for the Jet, Nver contracted and I believe were not tested. The big mouth Viper Engines were the Block 30-40's Much later design and by that time the 220'swere being fielded. (1985)

F100-PW100 the First engines in the 15A's and they were very tempermental. Transient slams and HIgh AOA manuevering cause Stalls and stagnations and so did High altitudes/High Mach. Shutting down the engine in flight wsa the best option and not a very good idea in a Fight. You would have to wait until the engine cooled to operation temps before restarting. I think we averaged 10 Stall/Stags for every 1000 Eagle hours. The Engines were constantly getting pulled becasue of damage to the differnt sections. We were asking this engine to cover a very broad range and the Ramps sometimes were not enough to control the velocities intakeing tothe engine. and mostly they were getting blocked casueing loss of airflow at critical times.

The F100-PW220 has slightly less thrust of the 100. But you could slam the throttles From Mil to AB as much as you wanted and not have any penalty. there is even a switch that allows Full AB +4% at mach 2.5+ but that requires a short duration and Engine inspection.

The 220 has a signifigant advantage over the PW100 for what were asking the F15C to do.

For the GE F110. That is a No Go. Wrong engine design for Mach 2 performance. Works great for a viper for hauling bombs and instant acceleration. But vipers dont fly routinely above mach 1.4 I am sure they could make it work for the 15 but the Ramps would have to be severely modified, the Engine can only take in an X amount of usable velocities. That is the purpose of the ramps. The F15C was designed around the PW100 and Slightly moded for the 220's unique Fan sections.

There is allot more regimes of flight and engine design that need to be looked at. You cant judge an engine by thrust class alone.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

What would be a good upgrade then?

The new F-119s? Or would they need a newer version of the F100?

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

Honestly, their fine the way they are.

Put the raptors in service operationaly and get the assembly line going.

Its taken us 30 years to make any use out of the Vipers and the Eagles.

Dont see why they need to wait forever on the raptor.

F15E Flew in 89, Pushed into an operational role in 90-91..didnt get their full compliment until after 9/11.

The raptors need to start taunting the Pacific. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
There are a lot more regimes of flight and engine design that need to be looked at. <b>You cant judge an engine by thrust class alone.</b>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes that is what I have observed too. It's a complicated function of inlet, engine cycle, AB, and nozzle. If any of them are "off design" it limits the whole propulsion package. I don't know if you noticed, but the F-22 does not have variable geometry inlets. A price is paid for that compromise somewhere in the flight envelope. As far as the F-119 is concerned, I don't think it will fit in an F-15 (or anything else) without major redesign. It is too big, moves too much air, burns too much fuel and has remote accessory drives. It would be like trying to put a 427 c.i. Ford V-8 into an AC Bristol sports car and expecting a racing contender. (Wait, that's a bad example. How about a Mopar V-10) It is better to design a whole new aircraft around it and get other things you want too. The F-22 is the result.



THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

LOL, that was a bad example stress.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

Are you disagreeing with the former figher pilot and test pilot Vette?

Tsk Tsk.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

F15E is not a Mach 2 Jet. Its a bomb Truck. Get a clue

You dont take Hung ordnace over Mach 1.2 (realisticly the drag is too high Wastes Fuel, and it damadges the pylons, structures and ordinance)

The discussion is focused on the F15C Envelope.

F16 does not have a variable ramps. It's usable velocity is 700 Knots Dynamic pressure through the intake, which is standard intake pressure for a rotational assembly Turbine. F16 will always be a Lower mach jet due to its intake design, until they put an internal Velocity control ramp or change the inlet. Neither of which is going to happen.

The only advantage to these engines is going to be the low Mach Thrust to get up to speed quicker, climb faster, and push through transonic Drag at 35K.

Apparently BigVette is to ignorant on the uptake.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Edited by - mrmudd on Jul 09 2004 08:00 AM

Mudd,

<i>You dont take Hung ordnace over Mach 1.2 (realisticly the drag is too high Wastes Fuel, and it damadges the pylons, structures and ordinance)</i>

I don't do if I misunderstood this but I remember you stating that the JSF was going to be able to be able to take stores to 1.6 . I don't know if you meant outboard or inboard stores.

I'm interested to know the main design focus of the engines on the SH. Was it for efficiency and durability in a naval setting? Or was it to aid in carrier landing?
How does that engine help in the Flight & Fight operations of the SH, in terms of acceleration and speed?

An interesting little fact: It has a low bypass engine, unlike that of the Hbp of the Tomcat and Eagle, but like that of the F-22. I don't know of any pro/con performance differences if the SH had an Hbp engine.

He meant inboard stores.

low bypass assists supersonic performance, high bypass assists subsonic performance.

Interesting, since the F-18E/F is not really supersonic(with any kind of external load except at high altitude).

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mudd,

An interesting little fact: It has a low bypass engine, unlike that of the Hbp of the Tomcat and Eagle, but like that of the F-22. I don't know of any pro/con performance differences if the SH had an Hbp engine.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I wouldn't call the F100 or the F110 high bypass. Depending on the version, the BPR could be as high as .7 (old published numbers for the F100-100) or as low as .36 (-229, off the P&W web site). The published number for the F110 at the GE site is .68. The F404 versions go from .29 to .37 and the F414 is quoted at .29 too. Compared to the 6.2 of the TF34, all the supersonic engines are low BPR.
I can give you insight on how the engine cycle is selected when the "paper is blank". The engine company gives the airframer some digital simulators we call rubber engines. The rubber engine cycle parameters can be tweaked, including power take-off and bleed air as well as By-pass, compressor ratio, turbine inlet temp, etc. The airframers systematicaly run each engine through the prescibed mission profiles and performance points and plot up the trends. They match up the engine cycle that gets them the required stuff and take the fall-out that results elsewhere. Sometimes an obscure performance point sizes the engine, like transonic accel from .9-1.2 @35k ft. Sometimes cruise fuel flow is the driver. For STOL it might be takeoff distance. More likely, many requirements are close to critical simultaneously and are problem children forever. It is true that if some engine operational quirk, like compressor stall, starts happening, all that goes out the window and they can tweak the engine cycle (as well as things like the fuel control, inlet and nozzle schedule) to fix it. For instance, I think I heard that the engine control in the T-45 (RR Adour) needed some fixes to respond better "in the groove" for carrier approaches. I don't know. There are lots of rumors out there. People who know the straight poop on your questions are hard to come by. I'd like to talk to the guys that tried to fix the F111 inlet/TF30 combination. That must have been a pressure cooker.

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

Thanx Mr Stress.
In addition, F-414 Bp ratio is .29

So mudd it would be fair to say the f-15E is really a different airframe than the f-15c. Then why do you always is it as being promoted as a jet that retains all the air superiority functionality of the f-15c. Would we also take from this discussion that the f-15c is only jet that would realistically operate for short periods at mach 2 + in inventory, I notice even in the f-22 press releases they dont talk about Mach 2, but sustained Mach 1.5 + super cruise.

One other question that I found intriguing the f-16 and f-22 have side mounted control sticks verses one centrally mounted. How does this vary in the actual forces needed to get the jet to respond. I would imaging that a side mounted control system would be more sensitive to control imputs. The second question is what about fatigue or injury to the pilot since only one hand can be used to fly practically, or is this not an issue?

The side stick is becuase the control system is completely electronic. There's no wires to pull on like in the F-15 and other aircraft. The force feedback simulates the responses you would get from a regular control system. Power was never applied to the flight controls at tech school, so I really have no idea how it feels. You'd have to ask a Viper pilot.

"Some pup"
Nickname by Fenderstrat72

_________________
Evil is evil, no matter how small.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So mudd it would be fair to say the f-15E is really a different airframe than the f-15c. Then why do you always is it as being promoted as a jet that retains all the air superiority functionality of the f-15c. Would we also take from this discussion that the f-15c is only jet that would realistically operate for short periods at mach 2 + in inventory, I notice even in the f-22 press releases they dont talk about Mach 2, but sustained Mach 1.5 + super cruise.

One other question that I found intriguing the f-16 and f-22 have side mounted control sticks verses one centrally mounted. How does this vary in the actual forces needed to get the jet to respond. I would imaging that a side mounted control system would be more sensitive to control imputs. The second question is what about fatigue or injury to the pilot since only one hand can be used to fly practically, or is this not an issue?


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Matt it has the same type of Multi target Track while scan and launch capability that the C has. It can fly to the Higher Mach 2 speeds. But it will have to do it clean. Or only in a A2A loadout. The reason I state abount hung bomb gear (iv'e said this many times before) is becasue of the transonic drag. It is an overwelming wall of Pressure that creates extreme Drag and requires a very high Fuel Rate to penertrate. Secondly it requires that Very High Fuel rate to maintain that speed.

The Mudhens mission is one thing and one thing only. Penertrate Deep, with a fully offensive BVR engagement Capability. Hit its target's, and Fight its way out if neccesary in a Expeditionary Mission profile, Meaning It has to do what the F15C does, and the F111 Did with more Bombs. Secondly not all munitions and or configurations are cleared for Supersonic transit and or also Supersonic deployment.

The truth Behind Mach 2 performance is in Pursuit or Intercept at a very short duration. You will suck a jet dry in a very short period of time. The idea is to kill the threat or Coordinate Via other Systems Package supported kill of the threat.

F15C's dont Fly Mach 2 during their whole mission. If they did, they would have some Trashed engines and would spend more time sucken from the Tit off a tanker and not conducting their mission.

The advantage to the F22 is it does not require an AB thrust state to do it. To explain simply the requirements of a AB burn is that. Raw fuel is dumped into the Combusted Exhuast section causing a second expansion and thrust zone. Basically it is almost double of what Mil Power Fuel Flow rates are. So say an engine at Mil power is Sucking at 18000 lbs an Hour, You hit that Full stage AB cycle and your Pushing almost 35,000 Lbs of fuel out. It doest take a scientist to figure out that the speed gain has no benefit on a 5000 NM Plus Mission sortie. The F22 can get through the supersonic barriers and cruise at and below a typical F15C's Mil Power Flow rate and have gas to spare to go deep, mauever and ambush the shit out of fighters, and then retrograde from the engagement area as efficiently as it got in there.

What ever formations of SUey's or migs that are left are going to be Sucken fumes falling out of the sky on a tail chase...or retireing their fighters... It is a signifigant advantage for a engine performance consideration.

You typically only cruise around at sub Mach speeds Surveiling the target area and working with other aircraft and terminal Controllers giving you a picture of the battle field.

FBW Control Systems:

The first F-16 models had the Fly by Wire SSC (side stick controller) with no free movement at all, which made you the pilot feel like trying to move a telegraph pole. Later some free movement was given to the SSC to avoid this feeling. It really takes some force to move the stick. The whole movement of the stick is just about 2 to 3 mm in each direction. The FBW system takes Command of Rate readings from the control stick and translates that into a rate in command movement. Totally opposite of a Hydraulicly assisted aircraft. It will give you instantaneous rate command, while the Aircraft like the F15C and Phantoms have to play catchup to the movement and intended position.
The FBW is more like a elctricly powered Missile. They are instantaneous. It takes a great deal of Stick time to unlearn an older legacy Flight Control system. But it also becasue of the computer Logic that is interpeting your commands limit the pilots inputs at specified regimes, for safety and protection of the aircraft and stress limits. In the Early 80'swe sent allot of F16 pilots to the bottom of a smoking hole until some major changes in the perceived feel and manuever logic. The jet was Spacial Disorienting and TKO'ing the pilot from the G Forces. The F16is a graceful and manueverable fighter. But their is things you can do in an F15 that the F16 Computer will not allow you to do. It can be a very decisive manuevering advantage in out of plane manuevers in a fight

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

<i>The F22 can get through the supersonic barriers and cruise at and below a typical F15C's Mil Power Flow rate and have gas to spare to go deep, mauever and ambush the shit out of fighters, and then retrograde from the engagement area as efficiently as it got in there.
</i>

I will debate that this was the biggest selling point of the ATF project, cause it sounds like a fighter commander's wet dream.

But, how much of this is contributed to the engine design in relation to the Raptor's airframe design? I can see that the body of the F-22 is very smooth and streamlined, with no antennae's or sensors poking out in order to increase "Laminar Flow".

"The first F-16 models had the Fly by Wire SSC (side stick controller) with no free movement at all, which made you the pilot feel like trying to move a telegraph pole. Later some free movement was given to the SSC to avoid this feeling. It really takes some force to move the stick. The whole movement of the stick is just about 2 to 3 mm in each direction."

I can vouch for that. The stick of the 16 takes a lot of force to operate, but it barely moves at all. It's funny cause there is about 1mm of difference in stick movement between barely rolling, and rolling at max rate(which is unbelievable, even in a mere simulator).

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

Yeah, watching Snipe fly the sim felt like being a hamster with a foot caught in a spinning wheel...

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.
Art is knowing which ones to keep.

ok mudd lodgical question what was your favorite to fly f-15c,f-15e, or f-16.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
-220E's

Units do swap jets, It is not uncommon to have a mix of blocks on the flightline, Not all of them rotate and get the full changes at Robbins.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Actually...engines aren't changed at robins, the same engines that arrive are put back on the same jet. We only have basic engine work capability here. That is one of our main issues here...the bases sending the engines they know have problems here...expect us to fix them...out fix is to change the engine & wait on the owning unit to send a replacement engine or to use an engine for another bird assigned to that squadron...

<img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/70th.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/Mav_shot.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/25.jpg" border=0>

_________________