Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

So, pardon my dumb question, but why not use the GE engines?  Isn't that what the current F-16 uses?  While I realize there's no physical parts in common it's modeled so there are software development reasons for commonality.

Besides, in the immortal words of Hoser, if it says Pratt & Whitney on the engines it better say Martin Baker on the seats!  🙃

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

So, pardon my dumb question, but why not use the GE engines?  Isn't that what the current F-16 uses?  While I realize there's no physical parts in common it's modeled so there are software development reasons for commonality.

Besides, in the immortal words of Hoser, if it says Pratt & Whitney on the engines it better say Martin Baker on the seats!  🙃

F-15C never had GE!

  • Like 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, F-2 said:

F-15C never had GE!

Well, that would be the answer then!  Warned you it was a dumb question; I thought the 15 was part of the engine war.  Thanks!

  • Like 1
Posted

IIRC GE required slightly more room even though the main diameter was the same, it would require airframe modification. And its intakes may, or may not, have sufficient flow for the mass-pushing GE engines. F-14 may possibly not have sufficient flow in some regimes for the GE engines, but i'm not sure. F-16 required new, bigger intake to utilize GE engine to the fullest.

Oh, BTW, such modified F-15C coupled with GE engines would have empty Thrust to Weight above 2:1 😅 and in combat configuration (50% fuel, 8 AAM, gun ammo) ~1.5:1😀 It would have higher T/W than any fighter in history, including F-22...

  • Like 1
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...