Talk:General Electric F110

Dry Thrust vs. Max. Thrust

I've never bothered to do this before, but I'm a bit annoyed. I haven't looked at more than a few articles on jet engines, but why is it that none of the ones I have read, like RB-199, or the F110 never bother to list the dry thrust in the specs.? At least in the RB-199 article, it mentions both dry and augmented thrust in the text. On this page all that is mentioned (in the text AND the specifications) is Maximum Thrust, i.e. on afterburner. Since a jet spends most of it's flight time on dry thrust, it seems like it would be nice to include that as well. I suppose instead of bitching about it, I should just go dig up my big tome on modern jets, look it up and fix it myself. I just wonder if ALL the jet engine articles neglect this, or if I was just unlucky. .45Colt (talk)

I think you're just getting unlucky with what you look at. The standard is generally to list both like in the Westinghouse J46 article. If you're interested in helping out with engines, swing by the Aircraft Engines Task Force. We're always looking for people to pitch in! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Write F-14 section

We need to redo the F-14 paragraph on this page. The F110-GE-400 was an great benifit to the F-14. It should still be mentioned PARTICULARLY, to a stronger degree on the old main article on F-14. But in a lesser way on the GE F110 page, since the F-14 has been retired from service for so long now - less relevance on the F110 program. F-14 shouldnt necessarily be the lead article either Bwebb00 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by the lead article. I think the sections should be in chronological order; F-16, F-14, F118 then F-15K. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the unit cost of the engine if that is known? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.57.154 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"While these engines solved the serviceability problems, the fuel consumption and thrust was comparable to the initial model–considerably less than what the F-14 had been designed for." I find the wording "considerably less" confusing. With thrust, having "less" thrust is a bad thing for a fighter aircraft, but with fuel consumption, having "less" of it helps endurance. Therefore I think "fuel consumption" should be changed to "fuel efficiency" or otherwise reword to make it clear whether both thrust and fuel efficiency were improved with the F110 compared to the previous TF-30. This is probably what the reader wants to know anyhow in the F-14 section. AadaamS (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)