Rick is always such a treat to have on. He’s such a master of knowledge on military aviation. The DOD should listen to him today. Your show is always great . I try not to miss it every week. Thank you for your service guys.
History repeats itself - which is why I love this format whenever you get chance to interview the old and bold (pilot, engineer) and compare the current world... you never know someone in the right place might learn something! (Doesn't hold breath).
As a former jet engine mechanic who worked on both PW and GE. I would take the GE anytime. PW is innovative and forward thinking but they do not follow through. They never take into consideration that maintenance needs quick turn around. GE gives better performance and easier to maintain. It remains to be seen how the new adaptive engine will perform.
Current PW maintainer, spot on. The convenience of GE’s is unparalleled. Having a split case so you don’t have to roll ducts to do core work is mind blowing.
I would really rather see F-35 get the XA100, but I've heard that there's still a long way to go with it. It's several hundred pounds heavier than the F135 and is a little bit to large to fit as is. It's also still such new technology that it's going to take time for the material science to catch up. It makes so much more sense to go adaptive cycle with a 30% range increase especially pacific theater, than an optimistic 10% from PW's Engine Core Upgrade for the F135 though.
Had the honor of working under Rick Abell in the late 80's. Men like him were a wealth of knowledge and dedicated public servants. He's nailing here everything I became a part of. Many years ago I was at an air show at Edwards; I mentioned to the F-16 pilot I was in the GE-129 program office, and he damn near kissed me for how much he loved the engine's operability throughout the envelope.
I was a Crew Chief on f-16s at Shaw Air Force Base South Carolina in 1985. I couldn't believe how many aircraft crashes we had because of the Pratt & Whitney engines. After the first few crashes Colonel Lanning what is fired and replaced by Colonel Loxbyer. After a few more crashes he was in replaced by a third Colonel who I don't remember the name because he wasn't there very long before he got fired. Pratt & Whitney set an engineer to speak with us about the problems we've been having with their motors. It was common to see up to two engines being replaced in a squadron every other day or so. During desert Storm I asked planning and scheduling to track all the motors in our squadron that were coming in and going out over the 7-month process during our deployment in UAE. Upon out return to Shaw I complied the data to find out that our squadron 17th TFS had removed and replaced 3.5 motors a day seven days a week for a total of seven months. This should tell you just what kind of motors P&W produce.
One of the big issues with the Pratt F100-PW-200 motors was the rear bearing seals. IIRC, we had three or four go down (in 1986) and actually had one captain save one when he ran out of oil over the Mediterranean and was able to glide for 15 minutes or so back to Aviano AB in Italy. That helped determine what was going on. So Rick was the guy at the other end of our pipeline, huh. Was part of the bed-down/logistics crew at 5th AF back in 1986, for when we swapped the F-16A's we had at Osan, Kunsan and Misawa, with the Block 30 F-16C/D's with GE F-110-GE-129's. Germany got the Block 32 F-16C's with F-100-PW-220's when they switched. As the GE motor was a 29,000 pound thrust motor over the Pratt 22,500 thrust motor, there was a scramble by Pratt to come out with the -229 version, at 29,000 as well. Another airplane that benefited from the 'War" was the F-15 Strike Eagle EX as it has the GE motor. And, yes we benefited greatly from the competition, and we should have been allowed to do the same thing with the F-135 and F-136 motors, but Pratt was good at lobbying the monopoly this time so we are stuck with engine improvements on their schedule and not ours.
Personally, your last interview with Rick is my favorite episode of yours. I can’t wait to watch this new one. I’m so glad you got him back on the show.
I too was blessed with working GE engines over Pratts during my career on F-16C's block 30's and early block 50's and later the F-117. Except for the F-22, but we won't talk about that.
Maybe Rick tell us more about GE & PW? My pops worked for a company (B&V) that GE brought in to help consult on the engines for the Viper years ago, love to hear that story from another perspective.
I worked with a Navy AD Chief who was also an A-3 Skywarrior Crew Chief. The A-3 used the J57-P10. On his leather flight jacket had had a patch that "looked like" the "Pratt and Whitney Dependable Engines" eagle patch. His patch had a drunk buzzard on the patch instead of the eagle and the wording was changed to "Pratt and Whitney Generally Decrepit Engines".
Fascinating topic. I was assigned to the F-16 SPO at that epoque. I was in the test office, where we handled all accidents to ensure that any lessons/changes that came from the analysis, would be reflected in updates to the Dash One (and other manuals). By the time I left in 1986, we had lost 120 F-16, fully half were attributed to F-100 failures. I was there in the configuration control board with General Moynihan when the F110 was adopted (and of course, mods to the airplane to make the two engines interchangeable, with variable buy shares performance based.
"The airplane that is good for a mission is good for a mission. And an airplane isn't good for several different different missions, it's just sort of mediocre for all of 'em." Yes! Thank you!!! 👏👏👏👏👏
I was on the flight line, at General Dynamics, when we stuffed an F101 DFE motor into an F-16 block 15 for flight demo. While installing, we dropped the motor on its' afterburner can! We told the DFE managers what happened and they had to remove an F101 from an Edwards Flight Test F-14, ship it to Fort Worth to meet the flight demo phase. This one, we did not drop, flight went great an the F101 DFE morphed into the F110 and went into the F-16 block 30 and the rest they say is history. Along this same time-frame we installed the General Electric J79 into an F-16 block 15 in preparation for an export version of the F-16 to countries that we did not wish to do technology transfer of the F100 technology. That didn't happen, everyone got the F100. Pilots that flew the J79 F-16 were impressed when the aircraft was below 25K feet altitude, but the aircraft lost a lot above 25K.
As an Ole A-4 Skyhawk Driver (1969-1975) with the experience of going from the Wright J-65 (A-4C) to the P&W J-52x performance over the years, P&W got it right for us with the A-4F with the J-52-P408 finally in 1973. Great performance we called the Super Fox! And the Marines continued with the A-4M, S/F.
@@CWLemoine super cool man! I love being a part of it, no matter how small. I’m actually working on some parts for the 129 as we speak. And as I’m sure you know, it’s a beast of an engine!
Pratt & Whitney always an innovative company, but many times delivered an unfinished product with the TF-30, F-100, F-119, F-135 in military and JT9D in civilian world. GE knew how to build reliable engines with the F101/ F110 and the CF6. The Tomcat would still be flying had it not been for the TF-30’s shortcomings and accidents
It would still be flying if the A model was gone when it should have been. Hard to defend the air frame when A models were still on the front line as late as 2003.
You could probably make more of a case for the P&W F401 engine, which the F-14 was originally supposed to have, not working out. It was a derivative of the F100 engine being used for the F-15. The TF-30, by all accounts, was a fine engine in the F-111...it was just a lousy choice for an actual fighter like the F-14.
@@RocketToTheMoose except the TF-30 also stunk in the A-7A , USAF and then USN adopted the RR Spey Turbofan as the Allison TF-41 in the A-7D/K and A-7E respectively
I like Rick. He kind of reminds me of my first boss when I was a kid. I worked at a local marina and this guy who ran the place was an "old", retired sailor. The guy would bring cupcakes and other stuff that is wife made, to work for everybody. He'd sit there and tell stories like your grandfather but if you did or said something that he wasn't aligned with you would get a real quick, sharp response. Things like "horseshit on that", "that don't make no gd sense", "well you're the one doing it, if you don't know who the hell knows", etc. He had a quick, salty, objectionable phrase for everything. I can't even mention some of the slang terms he used LOL Underneath the personality he had a wealth of knowledge and experience.
Same stuff going on with the AETP program. GE's XA100 is further along, can fit all three F-35s, while Pratt is behind and can't fit the B. So Pratt is now saying the program will result in too much spending to be worth it, and it should be cancelled. GE disagrees, but Pratt seems to be winning the spin war since funding for AETP got cut. Never mind the 30% range gain with the new engines, if GE gets the contract then Pratt loses, so since Pratt is losing they'd rather poison the well.
Regarding the F-35: When Jello often would say an aircraft is a series of compromises, it implies many things. There are always tradeoffs between roles, loadouts, capabilities, and expenditures. The question is whether the capabilities engendered in the new designs are able to win the next war (and perhaps even the one after that). It requires a level of strategic insight that proceeds the existence of an aircraft with an expectation that, in 30-40 years, the aircraft will have have achieved its objectives and surmounted anything adversaries can produce. But since we live in the real world with limited budgets and constant tradeoffs between cost and benefits-we will always end up in these situations.
It seems that the DoD is basically keeping Pratt around with GE/CFM and Rolls eating their lunch for years in civilian jet engines. I rather chuckle when I've seen some of the PW decals on the side of a nacelle saying "DEPENDABLE ENGINES". I'm thinking the TF30 in the F-14A. Still - General Electric has been one hell of a dumpster fire over the past decade, shedding lighting, home appliances, transportation, lending, health care, and power generation. Basically all that's will be left of what's officially General Electric is aerospace, which includes marine propulsion. Makes sense since much of that is just jet engines driving a shaft, but then again gas turbines are just jet engines driving a shaft, and that's being moved to the spun off power division.
Roughly 25% of the F-35 is common among the three variants due to the B being drastically different. But if you take out the B, there's over 50% commonality.
I might argue with your percentages, but I'd rather focus on agreeing with the core point - the A & C have a lot more in common, the B has a need to be different.
IIRC you have it reversed, not that it really matters. Point is that there is less commonality than there should be. I think The C has less in common, although the design itself may have had more impact from the STOVL requirement. I was told by someone in the JPO that the NG submission was by far the best, but it never got built because they chose to ignore the STOVL requirement.
@@80Juvat No, I do not have it reversed. From a logistics perspective, to have commonality, you want parts to be interchangeable between the variants. For example a 787-8 and 787-9 is only 50% commonality because of restructuring changes to make the range it needs while the 787-9 and 787-10 is 95% commonality since the only change is the hull stretch.
I just looked it up. I recalled correctly. It has migrated since, but as of 2011 the CV had 40ish% unique parts while STOVL had 32ish% with roughly equal amount of similar but not identical parts. It got worse from there as they shaved weight. The main driver for the CV difference was the larger wing and landing gear, as those drove major changes to the empennage. The biggest impact the STOVL requirement had was on the overall design. It would have looked a LOT different had that not been a requirement. It's a fascinating topic.
Different part numbers don't mean they aren't sharing 90% R&D and manufacturing/testing. Further, the really innovative stuff like coatings and the sensor package/avionics are shared across all the platforms. To have three separate platforms coming in at the flyaway cost the A/B/C do and with the R&D expenditure (x3) being less than the JSF would be nearly impossible to imagine.
I was quite upset when we passed on the GE XA100 engine upgrade for F-35. Raytheon's CEO (Raytheon owns Pratt) said (I'm paraphrasing) that the Air Force can't afford the engine they want, so they get what we give them. Just ... gross. GE was like, we can give you 98% of what you're asking for, significantly improving performance and make it more reliable than what you have. I thought it was a lock for GE. Surprise, for some stupid reason, we continued with an updated F135 from Pratt that is worse on paper in every way than the demonstrated performance on GE XA100 prototypes. Pratt can do good work, but they won't even try until you put a metaphorical knife to their neck. That "knife" is often awarding significant engine contracts to GE. Not "considering" a GE engine, actually buying them in significant numbers. Competition only works in capitalism if we actually spend competitively.
I thought the reason that happened was because the GE offering was nearly 3x as expensive. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, that it should have been picked, but if that's the case GE was always likely to lose.
@@mobiusflammel9372 No, the engines were comparably priced. That is comparing the GE XA100 to the PW "new core" F135 However, a new engine obviously costs more than refurbishing existing engines. I mean the DoD isn't going to replace all the 1000 or so F135 they have in stock. The sole consideration was for engines on new TR4/5 F35. You may have gotten that idea because Pratt disingenuously compared the cost of a new GE engine with refurbishment costs for existing F135 engines. IIRC the GE estimated refurbishment costs for their proposed XA100 were lower than PWF135 costs.
This harkens back to Adm. "Tomcat" Conolly's testimony before congress: Unknown congressman: I've been assured that newer engines with better thrust will rectify all of the problems you've entailed...... Adm. Conolly: Sir, there isn't enough thrust on this planet to make that airplane a fighter.......
That's why the Air Force went to the Rolls Royce motor (Allison TF41), our SLUFFs were sweet, worked them at the end of the SouthEast Asian 'experiment'. Never lost a mission time.
Rich just explained why the A10 is the best for CAS. It’s designed and purposed for that mission. And does it exceptionally well. The A 35 is the Jack of most trades and does none well. And forget about the CAS mission. It’s not designed for that mission.
dude Rick was funny. " Gets 10 million from the Navy. Deposit the money into the contractor account 15 minutes later:). Navy comes back next day.. " we want our money back" !!! lol Sorry Charlie - its gone:) lol" Would have loved to explain why 10 million on some engine!
As I have been told the one size pantie hose didn't work very well either. I learned years ago that there is no such thing as a do all tool or a person that is an efficient multitasker. Simple math says you can put 100% into one task but at four tasks each only gets 25%. I see it every day. Things get missed and forgotten. Would you want your surgeon discussing an issue about his car with his mechanic while your under his knife? Me either.
This is really cool. I love watching these old aviators tell stories. Makes me miss my grandfather and his WW2 b-17 stories. Thanks for doing this interview, C.W. Also, hey maybe you and the comment section could give me a little help with picking a block for my Tamiya 1/48 f-16 aggressor/adversary build. I'm no expert on the engine blocks and still learning about it all and the box gives me a choice of going for the block 30,32,42, or the f-16N. If you guys had to pick a block for the f-16, which would you prefer and why? I'm leaning towards the top gun f-16N, or the block 30 black/white AK airforce base since my friend spent 10 years at eilison. Obviously I can paint whatever whatever, but I'm going for accuracy and detail.
GE always has the better and more advanced engines for example XA100 Adaptive Engine and also the GE engine for F 22 and F 23 was better and more advanced but we're not chosen due to cost
My understanding was that it was relatively new technology that could revolutionize efficiency, but that came with the risk of reliability issues. I guess there were similar concerns with the PW PurePower geared turbofan engines, even though that's civilian.
The F-35 original program specifications were for an engine related to the F-22 engine. So Lockheed designed the F-35 around this engine. This made sense because it would help keep engines for both planes in a ‘more streamlined’ production. Of course at the time, the plan was for several hundred more F-22 being produced and in operations, and the F-35 would be combat ready by 2006-2009. What a freaking dumpster fire. F-35 program’s runaway cost and resource hogging kills development on the F-22, and now we can never build the number of F-22 that we need. Adaptive engines were considered too new, the guess was 20 years away, and they were right. Who would’ve thought the F-35 development program would still have the issues it does now. The problem is, the F-35 wasn’t designed for an adaptive engine. GE’s current adaptive engine fits in an F-35A, but it isn’t an ideal fit. The engine is physically larger than the airframe was designed for, the engine is also much heavier, and balance of the plane would change significantly. Don’t confuse the competition for the F-35 engine between the original and adaptive engines. Adaptive engines are a separate thing, and were never part of the original specifications for the F-35. Pratt&Whitney have their own adaptive engine, that will probably get tested in the F-35 and also get rejected. The F-35 was never designed for an adaptive engine. I suspect adaptive engines will get specified for NGAD, and the advancements for that program will eventually lead to a proper plane design with a more advanced adaptive engine. Hopefully, that will eventually lead to an advanced version that works better for the F-35. Or, as I like to say(or half joke) Lockheed just needs to design and build a Super Lightning II version, like the Super Hornet. A version with a moderately larger airframe and more load capacity, designed to take full advantage of the adaptive engine. I totally agree with the need for competition among engine vendors, but for the F-35 the competition should’ve been for the original engine types. Just don’t confuse it as a competition between the original and adaptive engine types.
I liked it better on what John Boyd said about the F-111. Something about “I’d paint the goddamn thing yellow.” I think he said that to a General. Not to mention him poking his finger into the chest of one of the F-111 engineers while they were at a bar. We could really use another Mad Major to kick some ass at the Pentagon.
Which may be more indicative of Air to Air guys NOT liking the F-111 because it was impossible to kill when it was on its mission. Red Flag exercise scenarios always started out with us doing a full mission package of low-level attack and F-15's and F-16's complaining we had to be cheating, until they looked at the tape. After a few days of that and the interceptor guys complaining, they'd change the hard deck rules to 500 or a thousand so they could at least get shots.
@@paulholmes672 it’s been proven before that it was very possible to be shot down. Even before the first one was built Kelly Johnson proved it with Look Down Shoot Down capability on one of the Intercept variants of the Black Bird. It’s why we have the Strike Eagle, stealth and everything else why that planes isn’t around.
It seems kinda backwards how the airplane manufacturer doesn’t make the engines. I guess that is supposed to give you a choice but you don’t see that in cars. Sure there are engine manufacturers that sell to car manufacturers but when you by a car you are buying the whole package.
FWIW these two look at the design of F-35. (One is amazingly _in depth,_ tech-wise, but I forget which is which.) * ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-m127ytxzL_o.html * ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1lCOgFPtaZ4.html
When is the last time this guy flew a plane, especially a fighter jet. The pratt engines are 2nd to none. Did they just have a issue ( yes they did) but it was a isolated incident with the metal cooling process. Other then that the engines go thru all kinds of testing before they are ever put in a jet. If their was such a big issue they would have not been put in
I am going out on a limb here and say: They'll ask 2 bn $ a pop for NGAD. And when Congress asks: "Why so much?" They'll say: "Because it is a flying Aircraft carrier, and we build those for 14 bn. We'll save money!" And once they get 2 squads going, they are at 14 Billions aswell. Just without the range, or firepower.
Most don’t realize the people building the stuff and the top brass have a disconnect. The military industrial complex is designed to create a need for an upgrade. That’s why we’ve been very advanced aircraft fail. Or look at a Blackhawk how they pussyfooted around on upgrading engine power when it was blatantly obvious it needed more power immediately. But it’s all about creating a product that has 10% of the capability. And then they tell the military. “HEY HEY! Listen, YOU NEED the New (ECHO MODEL) or 60MIkE. They put bigger engines but they added 250lbs for the glass cockpit or avionics so it canceled out the gain I think we need to stop buying the crap and literally just wait until we are attacked. Then we can just take it in the ass. It’s pointless to build this crap when our nuclear ICBMs is what actually defends this country. American hubris prevents people from seeing the only thing that keeps us safe is ICBM missile fields. If you ask our enemies
