Thread resume (for a moment or two anyway).
One of the other differences is not immediatey apparant in the military word.
Longivity.
Military engines, whether piston or jet, have traditionally been highly stressed. This has been to ensure, as far as practible, most power from least size/weight. The drawback from operating highly stressed engines is that they don't last as long.
As an example, some of you may remember a number of years back, CFM and Rolls-Royce were alternating adverts in Flight singing their own praises as one of their respective engines had broken new records. For RR it was a 211. For CFM it was a 56. Each manufacturer proudly stated that their engine had accomplished 30,000 hours and seven years 'on-wing' if memory serves me well. I am not aware of any military, front-line engines being this long-legged. Cue someone telling me otherwise.
Both adverts stopped around the same time...
Off thread now. With regard to the Real B0llicks 199, what a piece of tripe. A three-spool engine. WOW. Unfortunately, the IP (intermediate pressure) spool was so inefficient, it failed to contribute to engine thrust (i.e. it only produced enough to power itself). Read excess weight and wear for no performance gain. Good design, that. This is why the EJ200 is a two-spool engine (as it was designed using the 199 as a starting block).
camlobe