Twin engine aircraft have been operating routinely from USN carriers for nearly sixty years now. The earliest to routinely operate was the AJ Savage, (which actually had three engines, of course), I guess. The F2H was in the Fleet about that time as well - 1950ish. (I figure the F7F doesn't count since as far as I know no squadron ever deployed on a cruise.)

Anyway...

Has any twin-engine aircraft been authorized (per manual or NATOPS) to land with an engine inoperative? Has any twin-engine aircraft ever landed aboard with an engine out?

"Larry Cauble" > wrote...
>
> Has any twin-engine aircraft been authorized (per manual or NATOPS) to
> land with an engine inoperative? Has any twin-engine aircraft ever
> landed aboard with an engine out?

Don't know of one off hand that has NOT!

A-6, E-2, F-4, F/A-18...

In article >,
Larry Cauble > wrote:
>
>Twin engine aircraft have been operating routinely from USN carriers for
>nearly sixty years now. The earliest to routinely operate was the AJ
>Savage, (which actually had three engines, of course), I guess. The F2H
>was in the Fleet about that time as well - 1950ish. (I figure the F7F
>doesn't count since as far as I know no squadron ever deployed on a
>cruise.)
>
>Anyway...
>
>Has any twin-engine aircraft been authorized (per manual or NATOPS) to
>land with an engine inoperative? Has any twin-engine aircraft ever
>landed aboard with an engine out?

Dunno about the USN, but of RN types the Fairey Gannet could, of course.
IIRC the Short Sturgeon was the first twin designed to be able to land on
with an engine out, but of course it never went operational from 'carriers.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 23:07:44 +0100, Larry Cauble
> wrote:

>
>Twin engine aircraft have been operating routinely from USN carriers for
>nearly sixty years now. The earliest to routinely operate was the AJ
>Savage, (which actually had three engines, of course), I guess. The F2H
>was in the Fleet about that time as well - 1950ish. (I figure the F7F
>doesn't count since as far as I know no squadron ever deployed on a
>cruise.)
>
>Anyway...
>
>Has any twin-engine aircraft been authorized (per manual or NATOPS) to
>land with an engine inoperative? Has any twin-engine aircraft ever
>landed aboard with an engine out?

Many times in the S-2/E-1/C-1 community. The barrier was rigged for
the landing and it frequently resulted in serious (even "strike")
damage to the aircraft.

I would guess the same to be true for the E-2/C-2 community.

And the S-3 community.

Bill Kambic

Member, RAFS

;519294']"Larry Cauble" wrote...

Has any twin-engine aircraft been authorized (per manual or NATOPS) to
land with an engine inoperative? Has any twin-engine aircraft ever
landed aboard with an engine out?

Don't know of one off hand that has NOT!

A-6, E-2, F-4, F/A-18...

So when an A-6, F-4, F-14 or F-18 with one engine out lands, is it into the barrier like the props?

"Larry Cauble" > wrote in message
...
>
> 'John Weiss[_1_ Wrote:
>> ;519294']"Larry Cauble"
>> wrote...-
>>
>> Has any twin-engine aircraft been authorized (per manual or NATOPS)
>> to
>> land with an engine inoperative? Has any twin-engine aircraft ever
>> landed aboard with an engine out?-
>>
>> Don't know of one off hand that has NOT!
>>
>> A-6, E-2, F-4, F/A-18...
>
> So when an A-6, F-4, F-14 or F-18 with one engine out lands, is it into
> the barrier like the props?

Generally not. There's enough thrust single engine to bolter.

R / John

> Don't know of one off hand that has NOT!
> A-6, E-2, F-4, F/A-18...

Any done at night? THAT would be a superman story!

TV

In article >,
"John Carrier" > wrote:

> "Larry Cauble" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 'John Weiss[_1_ Wrote:
> >> ;519294']"Larry Cauble"
> >> wrote...-
> >>
> >> Has any twin-engine aircraft been authorized (per manual or NATOPS)
> >> to
> >> land with an engine inoperative? Has any twin-engine aircraft ever
> >> landed aboard with an engine out?-
> >>
> >> Don't know of one off hand that has NOT!
> >>
> >> A-6, E-2, F-4, F/A-18...
> >
> > So when an A-6, F-4, F-14 or F-18 with one engine out lands, is it into
> > the barrier like the props?
>
> Generally not. There's enough thrust single engine to bolter.
>
> R / John

And / or the boat can make enough wind over the deck to make it
reasonable.

I have one each S2 and S3 trap with one out, the S3 trap was at night.
Neither case had the barrier rigged. Neither was a particular problem.

In the case of the S3, the a/c was a bit more sensitive to glide slope
control since the operating engine was at much higher power than either
engine if both were operating.
Allan Rypka
VS 38, VS 22, VS 41
TV wrote:
>> Don't know of one off hand that has NOT!
>> A-6, E-2, F-4, F/A-18...
>
> Any done at night? THAT would be a superman story!
>
> TV
>
>

"Larry Cauble" > wrote...
>
> So when an A-6, F-4, F-14 or F-18 with one engine out lands, is it into
> the barrier like the props?

In general, no. The pilot will usually get a couple chances to make a normal
approach and landing. However, bad weather may dictate the barricade for the
first try.

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:47:11 -0700, "John Weiss"
<jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote:

>"Larry Cauble" > wrote...
>>
>> Has any twin-engine aircraft been authorized (per manual or NATOPS) to
>> land with an engine inoperative? Has any twin-engine aircraft ever
>> landed aboard with an engine out?
>
>Don't know of one off hand that has NOT!
>
>A-6, E-2, F-4, F/A-18...
Also S-3A/B. Bingo was always preferred if available, however, the
S-3 had a fairly decent single engine profile. I don't recall ever
rigging the barricade for a single engine S-3.
Regards,

>

Thanks, all. I woulda figured a higher pucker factor.

Just another day at the office!

"Charlie Wolf" > wrote...
>>Don't know of one off hand that has NOT!
>>
>>A-6, E-2, F-4, F/A-18...
> Also S-3A/B. Bingo was always preferred if available, however, the
> S-3 had a fairly decent single engine profile. I don't recall ever
> rigging the barricade for a single engine S-3.

I didn't intend the list to be all inclusive; there are others.

I never had the "pleasure" -- never had a J-65 or J-52 quit on me in 3500 hours
of A-4 and A-6 flying! All 525 traps were with all installed engines running.

The only twins that didn't do single engine landing to my knowledge were the
A-3 and RA-5s. I've seen an RA-5 land with the canopy blown and an A-3 take
a barricade when it's hook presure system failed causing hook skip, but no
single engine landings.
Art Greer

"Charlie Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:47:11 -0700, "John Weiss"
> <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote:
>
>>"Larry Cauble" > wrote...
>>>
>>> Has any twin-engine aircraft been authorized (per manual or NATOPS) to
>>> land with an engine inoperative? Has any twin-engine aircraft ever
>>> landed aboard with an engine out?
>>
>>Don't know of one off hand that has NOT!
>>
>>A-6, E-2, F-4, F/A-18...
> Also S-3A/B. Bingo was always preferred if available, however, the
> S-3 had a fairly decent single engine profile. I don't recall ever
> rigging the barricade for a single engine S-3.
> Regards,
>
>>
>

Art Greer wrote:
>> The only twins that didn't do single engine landing to my knowledge
>> were the A-3 and RA-5s. I've seen an RA-5 land with the canopy blown
>> and an A-3 take a barricade when it's hook presure system failed
>> causing hook skip, but no single engine landings.
>> Art Greer
>>



I guess a go-aroound would be an adventure on an A-3 (even an S-3) with the
engines so far apart.





--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

"Dave Kearton" > wrote
>
> I guess a go-aroound would be an adventure on an A-3 (even an S-3) with the
> engines so far apart.

Rudders are sized to the requirement...

Even the A-6 needed a footfull of rudder on 1 engine.

In early 60's I never saw an engine failure in VAH-5's A3D's although
single engine approaches and landings were practiced in the RAG with one
engine pulled back to idle. In 1962, an A-3 doing a loft maneuver on the
Lake George, FL, target had the port (I think) engine break away about
40deg nose up and follow the loft bomb trajectory presumably into the
Lake. The scoring towers declined to score the engine splash. The A-3
returned to NAS Sanford, about 40 miles, and called in that they had
lost an engine. The tower operator reportedly replied quite bored,
"Cleared for straight-in runway 9, standard single engine approach."
Only after being told in no uncertain terms that the port engine was
missing did the tower alert the crash crews and VAH-5 maintenance. Given
the A-3's narrow 'wheelbase' the maintenance chief sent 12-15 men out to
the runway, after rollout they climbed on the wing to counterbalance the
missing engine. I've seen a picture of the A-3 taxiing or being towed in
to the line with the dozen or so men on the pylon-only wing, in one of
the A-3 Skywarrior monographs. But from 1960-63 I don't remember any
engine failures - an event which seems to have increased with age, as I
read these postings.
Joel McEachen VAH-5

Dave Kearton wrote:
> Art Greer wrote:
>>>The only twins that didn't do single engine landing to my knowledge
>>>were the A-3 and RA-5s. I've seen an RA-5 land with the canopy blown
>>>and an A-3 take a barricade when it's hook presure system failed
>>>causing hook skip, but no single engine landings.
>>>Art Greer
>>>
>
> I guess a go-aroound would be an adventure on an A-3 (even an S-3) with the
> engines so far apart.
>

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 07:37:12 +0930, "Dave Kearton"
> wrote:

>Art Greer wrote:
>>> The only twins that didn't do single engine landing to my knowledge
>>> were the A-3 and RA-5s. I've seen an RA-5 land with the canopy blown
>>> and an A-3 take a barricade when it's hook presure system failed
>>> causing hook skip, but no single engine landings.
>>> Art Greer
>>>
>
>
>
>I guess a go-aroound would be an adventure on an A-3 (even an S-3) with the
>engines so far apart.
Actually, S-3 had fairly decent single engine characteristics.
Regards,