| The PW -229 is the best fighter engine they ever made Flew one It was unbelievable Clyde Romero
If you have no enemies You have no character !
Scars are tattoos with better stories! ![]() When you're out of F-4's you're out of fighters!
On Feb 23, 2021, at 3:33 PM, Lashdeep Singh via Ferrari <ferrari [at] ferrarilist.com> wrote:
Anthony, great insight and history.
Thanks for sharing! On Feb 23, 2021, at 14:29, Anthony Bauco <tbauco [at] gmail.com> wrote:
My impression is that GE had little to offer in the 1970s. There was little motivation from PW to compete. The Navy was responsible for shoe horning the TF30 into the F14. They wanted to use as much as possible from the Navy variant of the F111 to save face for that failed project. They could have pressured PW for a better engine but chose time over risk. The early F15s and F16s also suffered from PW's dominance and lack of motivation at the time.
In the 80s, the Air Force and Navy had enough and GE started to give a damn. The competition drove improvements. Yes, the GE F110-100 was better than the TF30 and PW F100-100 and F100-200 but it was also released much later. The PW F100-220 was released at the same time as the GE F110-100. That is a fair comparison and it took GE until 1985 to catch up. The PW F100-220 solved all of the issues observed with the TF30 and the F100-100 but the GE engine was a little more powerful. That is why they won more of the F15 and F16 contracts at that time. GE was now in the lead.. However, the PW F100-229 surpassed the GE F110-129 and has been winning most of the late model F15 and F16 contracts.
Bottom line, things evolve and competition is good. And you can't compare 1980s technology to 1970s or 1960s technology. Nor can you compare 1970s technology to a ghost that doesn't even exist.
Final note, GE went on to offer the F110-132 and some customers are opting for the higher performance. PW did develop a F100-232 but dropped it to focus on the engines for the F22 and F35. Some of the durability and cost enhancements from those designs made it into the F100-229 EEP. Many customers are choosing this over the GE F110-132 due to the durability. So who is in the lead now? Hard to say. Depends on the need and the platform. The joke at Pratt & Whitney about GE engines in the late 70’s was “Hi Fi in the cabin and Ti Fi on the wing” because GE engines at the time were experiencing titanium fires.
John Sent from my iPhone The TF30 was designed in 1958. Of course it had limitations! I mean, they added afterburners to the original design for supersonic applications. It was the first such engine. New technology, especially when cobbled together to meet a timeline, will always have issues. The F100 has less excuses but, still, the issues were all addressed with the F100-220. The GE replacement still had more power so "operators" still preferred it but late model F15s and F16s with the F100-220 and F100-229 are perfectly fine. Pratt fell behind but caught back up again with the work that went into the F117, F22 and F35 engines. It could be argued that they took the technology lead again. But the 1992 recession sent shock waves through the entire military industrial complex and the changes were not good. UT, in particular, really struggled. So, yeah, in a 777 I would prefer to see a GE90. But a GE90X? Not so much. Not yet. I was there when the engine was released. Massive power. But some technology is in its infancy and that is almost always dicey until the kinks are worked out.
The future will be one of collaborations and joint ventures. Maybe there will even be mergers and acquisitions. Many new engines are developed jointly by two of the big three. It isn't 1970 anymore.
A question for you "operators". Is it true that you all have "I love me" walls at home? ;-)
The P&W TF-30 was good but wasn't great in the Tomcat. Once you learned it's foibles, it was easy to keep it good. It limited the airframe.
I was on the way out when the B model with the GE F-110s was coming online, so I have limited hours. But OH, what a difference. We no longer had to use Zone 5 reheat on the Cat, you could jerk the throttles around and it never balked and... the big one... compressor stalls in hard maneuvers was almost gone. It was a truly great improvement. It allowed the airframe to live up to it's promise.
Surprisingly, the V-max didn't change. You just got there quicker.
Well I speak as an operator. PW in the fighter world caused a lot of issues especially with the F-100 When your life depends on it It’s GE ! PW stands for Poor Works ! Ask any F-16 driver about the PW motor. Google F-16 PW engine issues, it’s all there We use to say One a day in Tampa Bay, that was the RTU for F-16
![]() RF4-4EVR
Scars are Tattoos with better stories !
If you have no enemies, you have no character !
Clyde Romero
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail ( including attachments ) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U. S. C., Sections 2510-2521, and is intended only for the persons or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, copying, forwarding or distribution is prohibited. This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is priviledged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information containes in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at Clyderomerof4 [at] gmail.com or by telephone at (678 6419932)and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Every plane is different and every engine is different. And things evolve and change over time. Both GE and Pratt have made good engines and bad engines. I worked on a project at GE that was created specifically in response to the Sioux City, IA crash. The CF6 had issues. Lots of issues. The J58, F117 and F119 engines from Pratt did a great job in some of our most advanced planes of their time. Pratt has a history of pushing the envelope with technological advancements. But, again, a lot of that was in the past and the past is not always a great indicator of the future. I flew GE engines in the military J-79 None better In fact when the Israeli Air Force buys jets they specifically ask for GE engines They could take a beating The Airbus family which I am intimately familiar with uses GE engines CFM-56 Never had an issues with them PW is resting on their laurels The use to make great engines Not anymore
![]() RF4-4EVR
Scars are Tattoos with better stories !
If you have no enemies, you have no character !
Clyde Romero
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail ( including attachments ) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U. S. C., Sections 2510-2521, and is intended only for the persons or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, copying, forwarding or distribution is prohibited. This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is priviledged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information containes in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at Clyderomerof4 [at] gmail.com or by telephone at (678 6419932)and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. I don't know about the exact process other than the bonding is done by plastic deformation followed by high temp and high pressure diffusion bonding using an intermediate material to enhance the bonding.
I can tell you that I felt better flying in planes with Pratt engines versus GE engines back in the 80s and early 90s. Even when I was at GE in the late 90s, I still didn't trust them and I was working in the group that was responsible for improving material testing. But things evolve. Both companies are not what they used to be. Pratt may have fallen more. A lot of us at GE in the late 90s were originally from UT research and we did make a lot of progress at GE. Titanium raw stock inspection improved as did crack detection. And we made a lot of progress in laser shot peening to improve material strength. I was only there briefly due to the caustic environment but I got two patents from that work. And an improvement to the laser shot peening laser was held back as a trade secret.
I loved working at UTRC when I did my two internships there. It was great. Prior to the 1992 recession, GE's research center was good too. Caustic, but good. Now it is just caustic. That recession ruined a lot of corporate research centers. Hopefully the merger with Raytheon helps the former UT divisions. Not sure what the impact has been on Sikorski now that they are part of Lockheed but I assumed it would be positive. Interesting side note, my father knew Igor Sikorski. While at UT, I worked on a Blackhawk project to detect transmission failure early and enable the pilot to land before it failed. I solved a major issue they were struggling with. My supervisor wrote a recommendation letter that got me into MIT for grad school. Poor guy was stuck at UTRC because his wife was a tenured professor at a local college. Great guy though, as opposed to my project lead at GE. He was insane. A macho hockey player from Canada who was such a stress case that he went temporarily blind in one eye from the stress. He eventually got demoted and divorced. Horrible excuse for a human being. But, for a time, he thrived at GE. Dude would have made a great study case on the subject of ego and peaking too early in life.
I mentioned these things on another group this afternoon...
Agreed, not looking good for P&W. Having flown the TF-30, I was never a fan... other than the J58
I'd still like to know how RR was able to "inflate" titanium. I knew one of their engineers but that was always a taboo subject. Thanks for filling in some of the details on the series numbers.
That 747 uses the PW4056-94 engine which, I believe does not use diffusion bonded hollow blades. The UAL 777 uses the PW4077-112 which does use diffusion bonded hollow blades. It is the same engine that failed in 2018 in another UAL 777. There was also a failure on a JAL 777 in December which used the PW4084-112. That engine also uses diffusion bonded blades.
Not looking good for Pratt.
As for carbon fiber, I think it is only GE that uses it. But RR may be making them by now too. I was at GE R&D in 2000 when that was brand new. Scared the crap out of me. I was in the nondestructive testing department and I know how hard it is to test carbon fiber. One of my first patents was on this topic. We were working closely with Lockheed on testing F-35 parts, unrelated to the engines. We also used our system to test some F1 parts for Ferrari. I believe GE aircraft engines was using standard ultrasound for the CF fan blades. To be honest, I don't love the idea of fusion bonded blades either. Not sure which I distrust more but time will tell.
I also did two internships at United Technologies Research Center working on nondestructive testing. At that point I would have said they were well ahead of GE on testing. Both companies ruined their R&D centers so neither is what it used to be. But maybe UT (now Raytheon) is now worse. I do completely different work now so I don't follow NDE/NDT closely anymore. Haven't for 20 years. Same song, second verse.
Yes it did Clyde Romero
If you have no enemies You have no character !
Scars are tattoos with better stories! ![]() When you're out of F-4's you're out of fighters!
Still, I think the kevlar blanket around the primary fan did a amazing job!!
Oh no It was uncontained definitely
![]() RF4-4EVR
Scars are Tattoos with better stories !
If you have no enemies, you have no character !
Clyde Romero
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail ( including attachments ) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U. S. C., Sections 2510-2521, and is intended only for the persons or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, copying, forwarding or distribution is prohibited. This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is priviledged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information containes in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at Clyderomerof4 [at] gmail.com or by telephone at (678 6419932)and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk.
I know RR also uses the hollow or inflated titanium primary fan blades. Is it only GE that uses carbon fiber?
While there have been some arguments about whether this was contained or uncontained, I think these pics seem to show a nice hole near the turbine are and the fuselage damage is a smoking gun for something coming out radially...
Looks like blade failure They PW use hollow blades
![]() RF4-4EVR
Scars are Tattoos with better stories !
If you have no enemies, you have no character !
Clyde Romero
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail ( including attachments ) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U. S. C., Sections 2510-2521, and is intended only for the persons or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, copying, forwarding or distribution is prohibited. This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is priviledged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information containes in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at Clyderomerof4 [at] gmail.com or by telephone at (678 6419932)and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Fan blade failure? From a bird strike?
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/tbauco%40gmail.com
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/tbauco%40gmail.com
Sponsored by BooyahMedia.com
and F1 Headlines
http://www.F1Headlines.com/
_________________________________________________________________To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:https://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/clyderomerof4%40gmail.comSponsored by BooyahMedia.comand F1 Headlineshttp://www.F1Headlines.com/
|
gmail.com)