Phantom-II development story

[Tony Volk]

Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book
about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the preliminary
design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators to
see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about what
their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when
alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine
fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the
safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype to
have two engines.
Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong
preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF). Cheers,

Tony

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:06:21 -0400, "Tony Volk"
istoo> wrote:

> Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book
>about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the preliminary
>design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators to
>see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about what
>their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when
>alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine
>fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the
>safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype to
>have two engines.
> Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong
>preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF). Cheers,
>
>Tony
>
Highly unlikely. First, consider how often fighter pilot's sit around
discussing with their spouses the preference for number of engines on
their jet. I've tried two wives and never discussed engine count with
either. It isn't a hot topic.

Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and
increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the
system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being
unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a
training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at
least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single
engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4
that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine
shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine.
(There are exceptions to every generality of course.)

But, third, and most likely issue is take a look at the immediate
predecessor from MacD--the F-101. Taken side-by-side there is a clear
generational development picture. Two engine, two place, big radar,
interceptor, etc. Add a bigger wing with BLC for lower wing-loading,
eliminate the T tail and droop the slab to correct pitch-up and you've
got a Voodoo become Phantom.

Competition currently between one and two engine drivers is usually
related more to mission and performance rather than dependability of
motors.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[John Carrier]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:06:21 -0400, "Tony Volk"
> istoo> wrote:
>
> > Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book
> >about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the
preliminary
> >design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators
to
> >see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about
what
> >their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when
> >alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine
> >fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the
> >safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype
to
> >have two engines.
> > Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong
> >preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF).
Cheers,
> >
> >Tony
> >
> Highly unlikely. First, consider how often fighter pilot's sit around
> discussing with their spouses the preference for number of engines on
> their jet. I've tried two wives and never discussed engine count with
> either. It isn't a hot topic.
>
> Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
> cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and
> increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the
> system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being
> unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a
> training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at
> least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single
> engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4
> that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine
> shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine.
> (There are exceptions to every generality of course.)
>
> But, third, and most likely issue is take a look at the immediate
> predecessor from MacD--the F-101. Taken side-by-side there is a clear
> generational development picture. Two engine, two place, big radar,
> interceptor, etc. Add a bigger wing with BLC for lower wing-loading,
> eliminate the T tail and droop the slab to correct pitch-up and you've
> got a Voodoo become Phantom.
>
> Competition currently between one and two engine drivers is usually
> related more to mission and performance rather than dependability of
> motors.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)

I agree with Ed. Urban legend about wives totally bogus. The early F-4
concept (an attack design) was single engine. They went to two to get the
desired thrust to make a relatively large (for the radar, fuel and heavy
missiles) aircraft go mach 2. They also had a history of success with twin
engine aircraft: Banshee and Voodoo. By comparison, their single engine
Demon was not entirely successful.

R / John

[Woody Beal]

On 8/25/04 8:57, in article , "Ed
Rasimus" > wrote:
>>
> Highly unlikely. First, consider how often fighter pilot's sit around
> discussing with their spouses the preference for number of engines on
> their jet. I've tried two wives and never discussed engine count with
> either. It isn't a hot topic.
>

Ed, I agree with you that the spouse thing is bogus. I do remember
(however) seeing a PR video (perhaps also bogus) touting interviews with old
fighter pilots and their desires as inputs to the F-14's design.

> Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
> cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and
> increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the
> system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being
> unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a
> training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at
> least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single
> engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4
> that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine
> shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine.
> (There are exceptions to every generality of course.)
>

I disagree with the one engine is as reliable as two issue. I was in the
room when a former COMNAVAIRSYSCOM VADM recited the phrase that the JSF
would be single engine because the Navy could save 5% program cost (still a
lot of money) and that the single JSF engine would statistically be as
reliable as the 2 F404's in the Hornet today... which is great until you FOD
that motor on the cat launch.

Additional complexity? Yes. Better redundancy? Most definitely. That
engine is a critical piece potentially single point failure. You lose it,
life is bad (especially in the carrier environment where you don't have the
luxury of a perpetually ready deck and a precautionary or SFO approach).

Look at the number of Vipers lost to engine failure and the number of
Hornets lost to engine failure. I bet we've lost more F-16's.

> But, third, and most likely issue is take a look at the immediate
> predecessor from MacD--the F-101. Taken side-by-side there is a clear
> generational development picture. Two engine, two place, big radar,
> interceptor, etc. Add a bigger wing with BLC for lower wing-loading,
> eliminate the T tail and droop the slab to correct pitch-up and you've
> got a Voodoo become Phantom.
>

Good family tree review.

> Competition currently between one and two engine drivers is usually
> related more to mission and performance rather than dependability of
> motors.
>

In my experience these days it's mostly cost driven.

--Woody

>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
> Both from Smithsonian Books
> ***www.thunderchief.org

[The Raven]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:06:21 -0400, "Tony Volk"
> istoo> wrote:
>
> > Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book
> >about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the
preliminary
> >design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators
to
> >see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about
what
> >their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when
> >alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine
> >fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the
> >safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype
to
> >have two engines.
> > Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong
> >preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF).
Cheers,
> >
> >Tony
> >
> Highly unlikely. First, consider how often fighter pilot's sit around
> discussing with their spouses the preference for number of engines on
> their jet. I've tried two wives and never discussed engine count with
> either. It isn't a hot topic.
>
> Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
> cracked up to be.

And aint that the truth! Anyone who's done some basic reliability calcs will
see it isn't going to make a huge difference when both are burning
simultaneously. If you factor in the probability that what takes out one
engine may take out both or, if one goes it may decide to lunch the other
(or some key component nearby) then it narrows down heaps.

Now get past survivability and look at operational availability and turn
around time. Twin engines are going to cost you heaps in both areas, unless
you like going on missions missing an engine.....

> There's the problem of increased complexity and
> increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the
> system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being
> unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a
> training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at
> least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single
> engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4
> that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine
> shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine.
> (There are exceptions to every generality of course.)

BINGO!

>
> But, third, and most likely issue is take a look at the immediate
> predecessor from MacD--the F-101. Taken side-by-side there is a clear
> generational development picture. Two engine, two place, big radar,
> interceptor, etc. Add a bigger wing with BLC for lower wing-loading,
> eliminate the T tail and droop the slab to correct pitch-up and you've
> got a Voodoo become Phantom.
>
> Competition currently between one and two engine drivers is usually
> related more to mission and performance rather than dependability of
> motors.

But it's interesting how the two engines is better for reliability argument
is used to justify buying one type over another.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[John Carrier]

SNIP

> > Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
> > cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and
> > increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the
> > system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being
> > unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a
> > training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at
> > least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single
> > engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4
> > that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine
> > shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine.
> > (There are exceptions to every generality of course.)
> >
>
> I disagree with the one engine is as reliable as two issue. I was in the
> room when a former COMNAVAIRSYSCOM VADM recited the phrase that the JSF
> would be single engine because the Navy could save 5% program cost (still
a
> lot of money) and that the single JSF engine would statistically be as
> reliable as the 2 F404's in the Hornet today... which is great until you
FOD
> that motor on the cat launch.

Sounds logical, but not supported by statistics from over 50 years of
aviation. As an example, your beloved A-6 had an appalling early history
due in part to the complexities of its two-engine powerplant installation
(more correctly, the associated bleed air plumbing).

R/ John

[Mike Weeks]

>From: "John Carrier"
>Date: 8/26/2004 04:50 Pacific Daylight Time

>SNIP
>
>> > Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
>> > cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and
>> > increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the
>> > system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being
>> > unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a
>> > training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at
>> > least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single
>> > engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4
>> > that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine
>> > shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine.
>> > (There are exceptions to every generality of course.)
>> >
>>
>> I disagree with the one engine is as reliable as two issue. I was in the
>> room when a former COMNAVAIRSYSCOM VADM recited the phrase that the JSF
>> would be single engine because the Navy could save 5% program cost (still
>a
>> lot of money) and that the single JSF engine would statistically be as
>> reliable as the 2 F404's in the Hornet today... which is great until you
>FOD
>> that motor on the cat launch.
>
>Sounds logical, but not supported by statistics from over 50 years of
>aviation. As an example, your beloved A-6 had an appalling early history
>due in part to the complexities of its two-engine powerplant installation
>(more correctly, the associated bleed air plumbing).

But that's the "early history" -- which was how long ago? <g>

Any stats on the F/A-18 for example which would indicate it had (or has)
problems based on two engines?

I'm sure the F-101 for example had plenty of problems based on its two engines,
but again that was how long ago ...

Just a thought.

MW

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tony Volk" istoo> wrote
in message ...
>
> Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book
> about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the
preliminary
> design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators
to
> see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about what
> their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when
> alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine
> fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the
> safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype to
> have two engines.
> Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong
> preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF).
Cheers,
>

Sounds bogus to me. At that time, the overwhelming majority of Navy
fighters had been single-engined. I believe the only twin-engined fighters
to become operational were the Tigercat, Phantom, and Banshee. I don't
think they put two engines in them for safety, but rather the performance
requirements dictated two engines.

By the way, it's F4H, not F-4H.

[Elmshoot]

I still like twins. Not only in the plane! I have made 3 carrier single engine
landings. 2 others on the beach. Without a doubt one was a engine loss on the
cat. I would have given that one back to the taxpayers. And my survival whould
be suspect. I'm very disapointed that the follow on fighters are singles. We
have now given a dollar figure to what a life is worth. 1 engine.
Sparky

[John Carrier]

"Elmshoot" > wrote in message
...
>I still like twins. Not only in the plane! I have made 3 carrier single
>engine
> landings. 2 others on the beach. Without a doubt one was a engine loss on
> the
> cat. I would have given that one back to the taxpayers. And my survival
> whould
> be suspect. I'm very disapointed that the follow on fighters are singles.
> We
> have now given a dollar figure to what a life is worth. 1 engine.
> Sparky

Three SE traps? Somebody was trying to tell you to change careers.

About 60% of my 4800 hours were in twin-engine aircraft. Had 7 engine
failures that required SE landings (No CV, but maybe somebody was telling me
the same thing). The remainder, F-8's and A-4's, not a hiccup from the
motor.

R / John

[Pechs1]

John-<< About 60% of my 4800 hours were in twin-engine aircraft. Had 7 engine
failures that required SE landings (No CV, but maybe somebody was telling me
the same thing). The remainder, F-8's and A-4's, not a hiccup from the
motor. >><BR><BR>

About 1000 hours in SE A/C, F-16N and 'T', A-4E,F, F+, M. Never lost an engine
but DID have two J52-6(both A-4E) engines come unglued when I was CO. One guy
made it(my XO) and one didn't(Bug Roach).

E model seat problem made me ground all my 'E' models.

Lost an engine twice in a F-4, in the 'break' at Cubi, and A/B blowout off the
cat...never had any other problems in the F-4 or Turkey.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Tony Volk]

> Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong
> preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF).
Cheers,

Thanks for the great answers everyone. I thought the story was urban
legend quality based on the fact that wives would care so much about the
details of their husbands jobs. I could easily see the pilots wax
poetically about their mounts, but would have a hard time seeing the wives
listening attentively to details. Let's hope the rest of the book sticks
more to facts. If not, at least there's some great pictures in the book!
Cheers,

Tony

[Tony Volk]

> Lost an engine twice in a F-4, in the 'break' at Cubi, and A/B blowout off
the
> cat...never had any other problems in the F-4 or Turkey.

You never had any problems in the Turkey? Did you fly the -B or -D,
because I thought the TF30s regularly suffered from compressor stalls and
turbine blade failures (especially early on before it was modified). -A
pilots I've spoken to talked about having the fly the engine just as much as
having to fly the plane. So I would've thought that it'd make a great
posterboy for the 2-engine argument, or were they exagerrating? Thanks,

Tony

[Elmshoot]

>
>Three SE traps? Somebody was trying to tell you to change careers.
>

I thought it was a reminder to stay out of SE airplanes. While others love the
scooter I was loath to fly it with THE engine. I figure the T-38/F-5 would be
my choice of mount when I become a multi-millionair.

Sparky

[John Carrier]

"Tony Volk" istoo> wrote
in message ...
>> Lost an engine twice in a F-4, in the 'break' at Cubi, and A/B blowout
>> off
> the
>> cat...never had any other problems in the F-4 or Turkey.
>
> You never had any problems in the Turkey? Did you fly the -B or -D,
> because I thought the TF30s regularly suffered from compressor stalls and
> turbine blade failures (especially early on before it was modified). -A
> pilots I've spoken to talked about having the fly the engine just as much
> as
> having to fly the plane. So I would've thought that it'd make a great
> posterboy for the 2-engine argument, or were they exagerrating? Thanks,

In approx 1000 hours, I had one F-14 engine fuel control failure. It was a
gradual rollback to the point the engine was below idle in flight with no
throttle control. I experienced 1 engine that would predictably generate
compressor stalls (more than one because I was doing a post-SDLM check and
wanted to document the engine's stall mode AOA, A/S etc).

Throttle transients at high AOA (and the Turkey could momentarily generate
BIG AOA, albeit could not sustain ala F-18) would stall the motors. The
engine didn't like high altitude (45K+) much. The early TF-30's had weak
compressor sections ... lost a few that way. The last iteration I saw,
TF-30P414, was adequate, but not nearly as sweet as the J-52, J-57, J-79.

Only engine prob I had with a J-79 was an oil pressure failure. Shut one
down in the break at Cubi (hmmm, something in the air there?) but that was a
function of a fuel control that had insufficient fuel flow on snap-back and
a bit of excess smack in the break. Relit without a problem.

The real issue with the TF-30 powered Turkey was it was plain flat
underpowered. A VX-4 guy once told several admirals the only thing the F-14
needed was Tumanski engines. That was a career-ending statement.

R / John

[Pechs1]

Tony-<< You never had any problems in the Turkey? Did you fly the -B or -D,
because I thought the TF30s regularly suffered from compressor stalls and
turbine blade failures >><BR><BR>

'A' model in VF-31, A+ in VX-4. By the time I got to the F-14(1984) the engine
problems were well known and from the first day in the RAG, they harped about
how to 'fly the engines'. You did NOT move the trottles around a lot when
flying it or fighting it. The biggest probelm I saw was flap/slat lockout. A
potentially superior system, designed well, with crappy components. The slats
in the F-4S never gave anybody any headaches. The F-14, a common problem that
could really bite you blue water, around the CV.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

John-<< A VX-4 guy once told several admirals the only thing the F-14
needed was Tumanski engines. That was a career-ending statement. >><BR><BR>

Please who was that?-email direct if you wish.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

elmshoot-<< I figure the T-38/F-5 would be
my choice of mount when I become a multi-millionair. >><BR><BR>

I'm gonna have two. An F-4S and a A-4F+.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Yofuri]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
>
<snip>

> The real issue with the TF-30 powered Turkey was it was plain flat
> underpowered. A VX-4 guy once told several admirals the only thing the
> F-14 needed was Tumanski engines. That was a career-ending statement.
>
> R / John
>

IIRC, Swoose Snead was fired as PMA in 1972 for making a statement that the
Turkey was unsuitable for fleet introduction with the current engine. Once
a few Congresscritters hung up the phone, he was hired back next day, or the
day after that.

Rick

[Sergio]

Pechs1 wrote :

> The biggest probelm I saw was flap/slat lockout. A
> potentially superior system, designed well, with crappy components. The
> slats in the F-4S never gave anybody any headaches. The F-14, a common
> problem that could really bite you blue water, around the CV.

Could you explain what was the flap/slat problem of the F-14 ?

--
Sergio

[Pechs1]

sergio-<< Could you explain what was the flap/slat problem of the F-14 ?
>><BR><BR>

In a nutshell, if the LE slats were forced to reverse direction quickly, a
torque tube broke, and 'system' said no more movement of the slats...they
stayed at that position. If the configuration was certain ways, it precluded a
CV recovery. Why lots of F-14 pilots used manual slat deployment when fighting
it.

They just needed stronger components and a smarter deployment schedule but the
jet was pretty 'basic', not electronic at all, ala the F-16/8.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Sergio]

Thanks, Commander.

--
Sergio

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 8/27/04 6:54 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>
> "Elmshoot" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I still like twins. Not only in the plane! I have made 3 carrier single
>> engine
>> landings. 2 others on the beach. Without a doubt one was a engine loss on
>> the
>> cat. I would have given that one back to the taxpayers. And my survival
>> whould
>> be suspect. I'm very disapointed that the follow on fighters are singles.
>> We
>> have now given a dollar figure to what a life is worth. 1 engine.
>> Sparky
>
> Three SE traps? Somebody was trying to tell you to change careers.
>
> About 60% of my 4800 hours were in twin-engine aircraft. Had 7 engine
> failures that required SE landings (No CV, but maybe somebody was telling me
> the same thing). The remainder, F-8's and A-4's, not a hiccup from the
> motor.
>
> R / John
>
>

John,

Is it your contention from these statements that single engine fighters are
already more reliable than twins?

--Woody

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:20:43 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

>On 8/27/04 6:54 AM, in article , "John
>Carrier" > wrote:
>
>> Three SE traps? Somebody was trying to tell you to change careers.
>>
>> About 60% of my 4800 hours were in twin-engine aircraft. Had 7 engine
>> failures that required SE landings (No CV, but maybe somebody was telling me
>> the same thing). The remainder, F-8's and A-4's, not a hiccup from the
>> motor.
>>
>> R / John
>John,
>
>Is it your contention from these statements that single engine fighters are
>already more reliable than twins?
>
>--Woody

Dunno about John, but my conclusion is that there is no essential
advantage in combat between a one and two jet aircraft. As long as T/W
is adequate, it doesn't make much difference. The increased complexity
of dual systems raises the support costs and increases the probability
of an aircraft being unavailable due to maintenance. The redundance of
the second engine allows for some recoveries for inflight emergencies,
but a good argument can be made that battle damage losses aren't
impacted statistically between one and two engine birds.

There are very good arguments to be made for both sides of the issue.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[José Herculano]

> Dunno about John, but my conclusion is that there is no essential
> advantage in combat between a one and two jet aircraft. As long as T/W
> is adequate, it doesn't make much difference. The increased complexity

The stats I've seen seem to support your comment that for fighting the
aircraft it really doesn't matter much, although there is not a lot of
relevant data regarding the latest generation of birds... the latest wars
have not - thankfully! - been high on combat attrition.

As for anecdotal evidence, I've seen pictures of an F-105 and an F/A-18 that
came home with an IR missile in the butt. Don't know if an F-16 could have
survived that, though.

But most of the flight hours are not spent in combat, and the stats say that
engine-failure prangs are higher for single engine birds. Those stats also
say that those engine related mishaps are not usually fatal, due to the new
high-tech escape systems. So the question seems to be whether an higher rate
of silk coming down is that relevant. And the answer seem to be, it depends.
In the frozen expanses of Finland or Canada, the rugged terrain of
Switzerland, the outback of Australia or the big drinks, it may well be an
issue. And all those have opted for a twin engine solution.

I don't think that the USAF F-35 will have a problem by being a single
engine aircraft. And the perceived need for the STOVL variant almost
mandated the single engine. And so the Navy must get the short end of that
deal...
_____________
José Herculano

[John Carrier]

SNIP

>> About 60% of my 4800 hours were in twin-engine aircraft. Had 7 engine
>> failures that required SE landings (No CV, but maybe somebody was telling
>> me
>> the same thing). The remainder, F-8's and A-4's, not a hiccup from the
>> motor.
>>
>> R / John
>>
>>
>
> John,
>
> Is it your contention from these statements that single engine fighters
> are
> already more reliable than twins?
>
> --Woody

No, merely that greater "twin-engine" reliability is a fiction, amply
supported by both statistical and anecdotal (aka "inconvenient") evidence.
Incidentally, the F-8 and the A-4 were a hell of a lot more fun to fly than
the F-4 and F-14. I also readily admit that the F-4 was a better fighter
than the F-8 (although many F-4 drivers never demonstrated that fact) and
the F-14 was a better fighter than the F-4.

R / John

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 8/30/04 9:24 AM, in article ,
"Ed Rasimus" > wrote:

>
> Dunno about John, but my conclusion is that there is no essential
> advantage in combat between a one and two jet aircraft. As long as T/W
> is adequate, it doesn't make much difference. The increased complexity
> of dual systems raises the support costs and increases the probability
> of an aircraft being unavailable due to maintenance. The redundance of
> the second engine allows for some recoveries for inflight emergencies,
> but a good argument can be made that battle damage losses aren't
> impacted statistically between one and two engine birds.
>
> There are very good arguments to be made for both sides of the issue.

I agree about the both arguments statement, but I don't know a single Navy
(right now) driver who, if given the choice, would pick single engine over
dual engine in the carrier environment. It always comes down to that small
percentage/large dollar issue.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 8/30/04 3:11 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>>
>> Is it your contention from these statements that single engine fighters
>> are
>> already more reliable than twins?
>>
>> --Woody
>
> No, merely that greater "twin-engine" reliability is a fiction, amply
> supported by both statistical and anecdotal (aka "inconvenient") evidence.
> Incidentally, the F-8 and the A-4 were a hell of a lot more fun to fly than
> the F-4 and F-14. I also readily admit that the F-4 was a better fighter
> than the F-8 (although many F-4 drivers never demonstrated that fact) and
> the F-14 was a better fighter than the F-4.
>
> R / John

True enough. I can't take a hard stand against your contention except to
state that anecdotally, I know of many more Viper drivers who have ejected
due to engine fires/failures (one of them is a 111th FS... GWB's squadron...
guy) than have ejected from the Hornet for same.

In the A-7/A-4/F-8, if an engine fails at the boat, it's an ejection. In
the Hornet, the engine fails and you've got a more difficult trap ahead...
Beats ejecting. To me, common sense says that around the boat, two engines
are better than one... But I keep saying the same things over and over.

My hat's off to your honesty on fighter evaluation.

--Woody

[WaltBJ]

My info on this 2 vs 1 is way out of date; does anyone have up to date
stats? FWIW In about 3500 hours I lost an engine in each of the T33
and 102; 2 engines in 104s, got all 4 of them back (all flameouts; ice
([probably) in the T33 and duct stalls in the others.) But in just
over 2000 hours in the F4 I lost 5 and never got any of them back. 2
shutdown for zero oil pressure, 1 for accessory drive failure, and 2
at once for fuel blockage. On that last one we also lost the airplane.
10/10/78 was my "second birthday".

[Ozman Trad]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message

> Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
> cracked up to be.

I've heard a saying regarding this: "the second engine takes you to the
crash"