Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough. [Archive]

Jack Linthicum

February 8th 08, 10:15 PM

On Feb 8, 5:01 pm, "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
> > Lexington Institute.
> >http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/797.pdf
>
> That'll be little consolation to the pilot who experiences an total
> engine failure 300 miles from the carrier!
>
> Seriously though, It is nothing short of incredible how reliability has
> increased in engines and aircraft. I'd still worry just a little bit
> though....
>
> Dean

I look at a statement like

"Using two different engine designs on the Joint Strike Fighter will
be detrimental to American industry. Splitting the manufacture and
sustainment of engines between two teams means that each company
participating in the program will get less work than they would have
if all the engines had been purchased from a single source.When
workloads shrink, the potential for economies of scale are reduced.
Fixed costs must be spread over a smaller business base and there are
fewer opportunities to extract price reductions from vendors on big
orders. Thus industry becomes less efficient. In addition, the
decision to fund a redundant "alternate" engine is an industrial
subsidy to the dominant military-engine supplier, weakening
its main competitor despite the fact that competitor's product was
deemed to be superior in past comparisons. None of these consequences
is likely to help U.S. industry in its struggle to remain competitive
in global markets."

I see a 21st century F/B-111.

Ed Rasimus[_1_]

February 8th 08, 11:05 PM

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:24:35 -0500, Mike Williamson
> wrote:

>Dean A. Markley wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
>>> Lexington Institute.
>>> http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/797.pdf
>>
>> That'll be little consolation to the pilot who experiences an total
>> engine failure 300 miles from the carrier!
>>
>> Seriously though, It is nothing short of incredible how reliability has
>> increased in engines and aircraft. I'd still worry just a little bit
>> though....
>>
>> Dean
>
> It wouldn't give him any consolation if there were two, since in
>this case the other engine would be sitting in a shop someplace-
>the article is about having two separate engine designs and
>suppliers rather than two engines on the airframe.
>
>Mike

None of this strikes me as particularly new or earthshaking. When the
Lightweight Fighter program was on-going (that's the one that led to
the F-16), one of the big selling factors was the idea of engine
sharing with the Eagle fleet. Both aircraft were supposed to be
compatible with two different engines. A GE and a P&W engine were both
developed. Never happened in practice, though.

When we were in the Dem/Val phase of ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter),
aka YF-23/YF-22, each proposal was supposed to demonstrate
compatibility with an engine from each manufacturer. Operational
aircraft? Single engine source.

So, here we are again. Do we have two companies competing for the
engine contract? Are we at a point where it no longer is beneficial to
have that dual track? OK, lets single-source the engine.

Sounds reasonable, prudent, proper, etc.

And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

dott.Piergiorgio

February 9th 08, 12:30 AM

Ed Rasimus ha scritto:

> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.

More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

Dean A. Markley

February 9th 08, 12:49 AM

Mike Williamson wrote:
> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
>>> Lexington Institute.
>>> http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/797.pdf
>>
>> That'll be little consolation to the pilot who experiences an total
>> engine failure 300 miles from the carrier!
>>
>> Seriously though, It is nothing short of incredible how reliability
>> has increased in engines and aircraft. I'd still worry just a little
>> bit though....
>>
>> Dean
>
> It wouldn't give him any consolation if there were two, since in
> this case the other engine would be sitting in a shop someplace-
> the article is about having two separate engine designs and
> suppliers rather than two engines on the airframe.
>
> Mike
Yes Mike, I do know what the article was about. I was making a (bad)
pun over the next carrier borne aircraft only possessing one engine.
Wasn't it a naval aviator who said "It's better to lose AN engine rather
than THE engine"?

Dean A. Markley

February 9th 08, 12:50 AM

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>
>> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
>> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
>> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>
> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
> still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
> interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> Dott. Piergiorgio.

So what was the first "true" fighter plane? I am not even going to
attempt to set limits on this. Let's just let 'er rip.

Dean

Eeyore[_2_]

February 9th 08, 01:21 AM

"Dean A. Markley" wrote:

> dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> > Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
> >
> >> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
> >> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
> >> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
> >
> > More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
> > still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
> > interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
> >
> > Best regards from Italy,
> > Dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> So what was the first "true" fighter plane? I am not even going to
> attempt to set limits on this. Let's just let 'er rip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_F.B.5

" It was the first aircraft purpose-built for air-to-air combat to see
service, making it the world's first operational fighter aircraft."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Vickers_F.B.5._Gunbus.jpg

Graham

Richard Casady

February 9th 08, 03:27 AM

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:50:44 -0500, "Dean A. Markley"
> wrote:

>dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>>
>>> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
>>> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
>>> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>>
>> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
>> still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
>> interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>>
>> Best regards from Italy,
>> Dott. Piergiorgio.
>
>So what was the first "true" fighter plane? I am not even going to
>attempt to set limits on this. Let's just let 'er rip.

I think about the first really decent fighters were the ones that
could fire two guns through the prop. Two seat aircraft with a guy in
back with a single gun just didn't make the cut.

Casady

David Nicholls

February 9th 08, 04:19 AM

"Richard Casady" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:50:44 -0500, "Dean A. Markley"
> > wrote:
>
>>dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>>> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
>>>> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
>>>> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>>>
>>> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
>>> still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
>>> interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>>>
>>> Best regards from Italy,
>>> Dott. Piergiorgio.
>>
>>So what was the first "true" fighter plane? I am not even going to
>>attempt to set limits on this. Let's just let 'er rip.
>
> I think about the first really decent fighters were the ones that
> could fire two guns through the prop. Two seat aircraft with a guy in
> back with a single gun just didn't make the cut.
>
> Casady

You are defining it rather strangely (it counts out the F15!!!!) - the FB5
fired its gun forward, it was a "pusher" design, as were several early
fighters. The Fokker E.1 that was the devastating first fighter that could
fire through the propeller (had a deflector plate on the propeller - not an
interupter gear) had only got 1 machine gun.

David

Ian MacLure

February 9th 08, 07:40 AM

"dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote in
:

> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>
>> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
>> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
>> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>
> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
> still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
> interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)

Uh Dottore, thats "aircraft" not "aircrafts". Plural same as
singular. Like "moose" and "moose".

IBM

Richard Casady

February 9th 08, 11:26 AM

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:19:15 +0200, "David Nicholls"
> wrote:

>You are defining it rather strangely (it counts out the F15!!!!)
Oh yes, I forgot the the F-15, one of the very first fighters. I bet
it those WWI Germans white. You did't notice the the discussion was
about early ones, not late models?
\
Casady

Andrew Chaplin

February 9th 08, 01:08 PM

"Ian MacLure" > wrote in message
...
> "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>>
>>> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
>>> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
>>> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>>
>> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
>> still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
>> interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>
> Uh Dottore, thats "aircraft" not "aircrafts". Plural same as
> singular. Like "moose" and "moose".

Don't take it wrong, Dottore, but this is sometimes done by native English
speakers (and is subject to more than a little regional variation). North
American professional/academic usage tends to "aircraft" when referring to
more than one. NDHQ in Ottawa has more than a few francophone blue jobs who
sound almost like native Ottawans, and as soon as they said "aircrafts" you
could peg them for their furrin origins -- until I found that guys I knew to
be square heads from out West doing it. It's catching!
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Jack Linthicum

February 9th 08, 01:38 PM

On Feb 8, 7:30 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>
> > And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
> > aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
> > for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>
> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
> still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
> interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> Dott. Piergiorgio.

Morane-Saulnier, Roland Garros used a set of steel wedges to deflect
the rounds that hit the propeller. He eventually shot down, by a
rifleman, and landed behind the German lines. The Germans looked at
the idea and rejected it, turned the problem over to Anthony Fokker
who had been working on the problem of forward-firing machine guns and
came up with synchronized firing using an interrupter cam.

The EI and EII generally used a single Spandau MG with 500 rounds, the
EIII eventually added a second gun.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWmorane.htm

Typhoon502

February 9th 08, 02:32 PM

On Feb 8, 7:49*pm, "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
> Mike Williamson wrote:
> > Dean A. Markley wrote:
> >> Mike wrote:
>
> >>> Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
> >>> Lexington Institute.
> >>>http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/797.pdf
>
> >> That'll be little consolation to the pilot who experiences an total
> >> engine failure 300 miles from the carrier!
>
> >> Seriously though, It is nothing short of incredible how reliability
> >> has increased in engines and aircraft. *I'd still worry just a little
> >> bit though....
>
> >> Dean
>
> > * It wouldn't give him any consolation if there were two, since in
> > this case the other engine would be sitting in a shop someplace-
> > the article is about having two separate engine designs and
> > suppliers rather than two engines on the airframe.
>
> > Mike
>
> Yes Mike, I do know what the article was about. *I was making a (bad)
> pun over the next carrier borne aircraft only possessing one engine.
> Wasn't it a naval aviator who said "It's better to lose AN engine rather
> than THE engine"?

IIRC, it seemed to work out OK for A-4s, A-7s, and F-8s. What were the
loss rates on those due to engine failures?

Vince

February 9th 08, 02:41 PM

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> "Ian MacLure" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
>>>> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
>>>> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>>> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
>>> still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
>>> interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>> Uh Dottore, thats "aircraft" not "aircrafts". Plural same as
>> singular. Like "moose" and "moose".
>
> Don't take it wrong, Dottore, but this is sometimes done by native English
> speakers (and is subject to more than a little regional variation). North
> American professional/academic usage tends to "aircraft" when referring to
> more than one. NDHQ in Ottawa has more than a few francophone blue jobs who
> sound almost like native Ottawans, and as soon as they said "aircrafts" you
> could peg them for their furrin origins -- until I found that guys I knew to
> be square heads from out West doing it. It's catching!

It depends on whether they are good at Math or Maths

Vince

Corey C. Jordan

February 9th 08, 11:46 PM

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:19:15 +0200, "David Nicholls" >
wrote:

>You are defining it rather strangely (it counts out the F15!!!!) - the FB5
>fired its gun forward, it was a "pusher" design, as were several early
>fighters. The Fokker E.1 that was the devastating first fighter that could
>fire through the propeller (had a deflector plate on the propeller - not an
>interupter gear) had only got 1 machine gun.
>
>David
>
>

The E-1 used an interrupter gear. The Morane of Garros used deflecter plates.

My regards,

C.C. Jordan
http://www.hitechcreations.com
http://www.trainers.hitechcreations.com

"If it's red, it's dead." - Mike "Hammer" Harris

Gordon[_2_]

February 10th 08, 12:24 AM

On Feb 9, 7:38*am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 7:30 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>
> > wrote:
> > Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>
> > > And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
> > > aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
> > > for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>
> > More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
> > still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
> > interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>
> > Best regards from Italy,
> > Dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> Morane-Saulnier, Roland Garros used a set of steel wedges to deflect
> the rounds that hit the propeller. He eventually shot down, by a
> rifleman, and landed behind the German lines.

The mythology that we are taught here in America is that he was
blipping his motor during an attack on a railway station and he
couldn't get the engine to 'un-blip. What followed, I imagine, was a
pregnant silence, then a blast of French vitriol, and ultimately a
hand-delivered war prize. Fokker's reply resulted in the most radical
advance in air warfare to date. I may have the details convoluted; I
suffer from "too many books read", with too many variations between
them - and you can never tell which version is really giving the right
story.

Gordon

Gordon[_2_]

February 10th 08, 01:09 AM

On Feb 9, 8:32*am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 7:49*pm, "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mike Williamson wrote:
> > > Dean A. Markley wrote:
> > >> Mike wrote:
>
> > >>> Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
> > >>> Lexington Institute.
> > >>>http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/797.pdf
>
> > >> That'll be little consolation to the pilot who experiences an total
> > >> engine failure 300 miles from the carrier!
>
> > >> Seriously though, It is nothing short of incredible how reliability
> > >> has increased in engines and aircraft. *I'd still worry just a little
> > >> bit though....
>
> > >> Dean
>
> > > * It wouldn't give him any consolation if there were two, since in
> > > this case the other engine would be sitting in a shop someplace-
> > > the article is about having two separate engine designs and
> > > suppliers rather than two engines on the airframe.
>
> > > Mike
>
> > Yes Mike, I do know what the article was about. *I was making a (bad)
> > pun over the next carrier borne aircraft only possessing one engine.
> > Wasn't it a naval aviator who said "It's better to lose AN engine rather
> > than THE engine"?

That was my sig for years - most of our business in the fleet was the
recovery of A-7 drivers that had sallied forth and ended up in the
drink due to engine failure. On the cruise with the Midway
battlegroup in 1985, the two Corsair squadrons combined to lose five
A-7s in six months. I thoroughly believe that motto as gospel. As a
rotorhead, I believe single-engine status is pretty much already an
emergency situation - I can't understand why a single-engined Naval
jet aircraft would be accepted for fleet duty.

> IIRC, it seemed to work out OK for A-4s, A-7s, and F-8s. What were the
> loss rates on those due to engine failures?- Hide quoted text -

My first rescue was Cdr J.M. "Twister" Twiss, who had just parted
company with Champ 404, the third A-7E that had defaulted on him.
After three ejections, he had to switch to a non-ejection seat
aircraft. From my experience during the 1980s, the Corsair II seemed
to have inordinately high loss rates on deployment. Not that our
Tomcats fared much better - their twin engines were no guaratee of a
safe return from the higher performance realm, and around the boat
there were far too many lost. These problems were articular to the
early A-models and thankfully the later variants had much greater
reliability. Few things worse than seeing shipmates perish when they
are within a few feet of a safe landing.

v/r Gordon

Ian MacLure

February 10th 08, 07:10 AM

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in
:

> "Ian MacLure" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote
>> in :
>>
>>> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
>>>> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite
>>>> nicely for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>>>
>>> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
>>> still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
>>> interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>>
>> Uh Dottore, thats "aircraft" not "aircrafts". Plural same as
>> singular. Like "moose" and "moose".
>
> Don't take it wrong, Dottore, but this is sometimes done by native
> English speakers (and is subject to more than a little regional
> variation). North American professional/academic usage tends to
> "aircraft" when referring to more than one. NDHQ in Ottawa has more than
> a few francophone blue jobs who sound almost like native Ottawans, and
> as soon as they said "aircrafts" you could peg them for their furrin
> origins -- until I found that guys I knew to be square heads from out
> West doing it. It's catching!

Indeed.
And then there are the folks, who refer to what might rate
as an FFG only by courtesy, as a "battleship".

IBM

Dean A. Markley

February 10th 08, 01:07 PM

Gordon wrote:
> On Feb 9, 8:32 am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 7:49 pm, "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Mike Williamson wrote:
>>>> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>> Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
>>>>>> Lexington Institute.
>>>>>> http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/797.pdf
>>>>> That'll be little consolation to the pilot who experiences an total
>>>>> engine failure 300 miles from the carrier!
>>>>> Seriously though, It is nothing short of incredible how reliability
>>>>> has increased in engines and aircraft. I'd still worry just a little
>>>>> bit though....
>>>>> Dean
>>>> It wouldn't give him any consolation if there were two, since in
>>>> this case the other engine would be sitting in a shop someplace-
>>>> the article is about having two separate engine designs and
>>>> suppliers rather than two engines on the airframe.
>>>> Mike
>>> Yes Mike, I do know what the article was about. I was making a (bad)
>>> pun over the next carrier borne aircraft only possessing one engine.
>>> Wasn't it a naval aviator who said "It's better to lose AN engine rather
>>> than THE engine"?
>
> That was my sig for years - most of our business in the fleet was the
> recovery of A-7 drivers that had sallied forth and ended up in the
> drink due to engine failure. On the cruise with the Midway
> battlegroup in 1985, the two Corsair squadrons combined to lose five
> A-7s in six months. I thoroughly believe that motto as gospel. As a
> rotorhead, I believe single-engine status is pretty much already an
> emergency situation - I can't understand why a single-engined Naval
> jet aircraft would be accepted for fleet duty.
>
>> IIRC, it seemed to work out OK for A-4s, A-7s, and F-8s. What were the
>> loss rates on those due to engine failures?- Hide quoted text -
>
> My first rescue was Cdr J.M. "Twister" Twiss, who had just parted
> company with Champ 404, the third A-7E that had defaulted on him.
> After three ejections, he had to switch to a non-ejection seat
> aircraft. From my experience during the 1980s, the Corsair II seemed
> to have inordinately high loss rates on deployment. Not that our
> Tomcats fared much better - their twin engines were no guaratee of a
> safe return from the higher performance realm, and around the boat
> there were far too many lost. These problems were articular to the
> early A-models and thankfully the later variants had much greater
> reliability. Few things worse than seeing shipmates perish when they
> are within a few feet of a safe landing.
>
> v/r Gordon
>
Thanks Gordon! I rest my case!

Dean

[email protected][_2_]

February 10th 08, 02:26 PM

Andrew Chaplin

February 10th 08, 04:45 PM

"Ian MacLure" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Ian MacLure" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote
>>> in :
>>>
>>>> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>>> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
>>>>> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite
>>>>> nicely for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>>>>
>>>> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
>>>> still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
>>>> interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>>>
>>> Uh Dottore, thats "aircraft" not "aircrafts". Plural same as
>>> singular. Like "moose" and "moose".
>>
>> Don't take it wrong, Dottore, but this is sometimes done by native
>> English speakers (and is subject to more than a little regional
>> variation). North American professional/academic usage tends to
>> "aircraft" when referring to more than one. NDHQ in Ottawa has more than
>> a few francophone blue jobs who sound almost like native Ottawans, and
>> as soon as they said "aircrafts" you could peg them for their furrin
>> origins -- until I found that guys I knew to be square heads from out
>> West doing it. It's catching!
>
> Indeed.
> And then there are the folks, who refer to what might rate
> as an FFG only by courtesy, as a "battleship".

That is a different matter, since it deals with jargon rather than plural
forms in use.

It does grate, I'll give you.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

David Nicholls

February 10th 08, 05:36 PM

spammers.net (Corey C. Jordan)> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:19:15 +0200, "David Nicholls"
> >
> wrote:
>
>
>>You are defining it rather strangely (it counts out the F15!!!!) - the FB5
>>fired its gun forward, it was a "pusher" design, as were several early
>>fighters. The Fokker E.1 that was the devastating first fighter that
>>could
>>fire through the propeller (had a deflector plate on the propeller - not
>>an
>>interupter gear) had only got 1 machine gun.
>>
>>David
>>
>>
>
> The E-1 used an interrupter gear. The Morane of Garros used deflecter
> plates.
>
> My regards,
>
> C.C. Jordan
> http://www.hitechcreations.com
> http://www.trainers.hitechcreations.com
>
> "If it's red, it's dead." - Mike "Hammer" Harris

You are right - apologise to the group - but they both had one machine gun.

David

Richard Casady

February 11th 08, 01:21 AM

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:10:46 -0600, Ian MacLure > wrote:

>Indeed.
> And then there are the folks, who refer to what might rate
> as an FFG only by courtesy, as a "battleship".

They are simply taking ' battleship' to mean 'ship for battle'.
Warship in other words. Not as important to get it right, now that all
the proper BB have gone.

Casady

Ian B MacLure

February 11th 08, 03:31 AM

(Richard Casady) wrote in
:

> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:10:46 -0600, Ian MacLure > wrote:
>
>>Indeed.
>> And then there are the folks, who refer to what might rate
>> as an FFG only by courtesy, as a "battleship".
>
> They are simply taking ' battleship' to mean 'ship for battle'.
> Warship in other words. Not as important to get it right, now that all
> the proper BB have gone.

Never mind the fact that warship or earlier man o' war has been in
common use since time immemorial.

IBM

[email protected][_2_]

February 11th 08, 05:58 AM

>
> I think about the first really decent fighters were the ones that
> could fire two guns through the prop. Two seat aircraft with a guy in
> back with a single gun just didn't make the cut.
>

Sooo, that means F-4Es, F-105F/Gs, F-14s, F-16B/Ds, F-18B/D/Fs, and
Tornado F-3s (to name a few) aren't fighters? I'm sure their pilots &
GIBs would be surprised to hear that! ;>)

Kirk

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 11th 08, 05:06 PM

(Richard Casady) wrote in
:

> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:50:44 -0500, "Dean A. Markley"
> > wrote:
>
>>dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>>> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
>>>> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
>>>> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>>>
>>> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
>>> still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
>>> interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>>>
>>> Best regards from Italy,
>>> Dott. Piergiorgio.
>>
>>So what was the first "true" fighter plane? I am not even going to
>>attempt to set limits on this. Let's just let 'er rip.
>
> I think about the first really decent fighters were the ones that
> could fire two guns through the prop. Two seat aircraft with a guy in
> back with a single gun just didn't make the cut.
>

I bet you wouldn't say that if you were in an unarmed airplane nearby.

Bertie

[email protected][_2_]

February 11th 08, 06:21 PM

On Feb 11, 12:06*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> (Richard Casady) wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:50:44 -0500, "Dean A. Markley"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> >>> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>
> >>>> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
> >>>> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
> >>>> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>
> >>> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
> >>> still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
> >>> interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>
> >>> Best regards from Italy,
> >>> Dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> >>So what was the first "true" fighter plane? *I am not even going to
> >>attempt to set limits on this. *Let's just let 'er rip.
>
> > I think about the first really decent fighters were the ones that
> > could fire two guns through the prop. Two seat aircraft with a guy in
> > back with a single gun just didn't make the cut.
>
> I bet you wouldn't say that if you were in an unarmed airplane nearby.
>
> Bertie

Among the blind, the one-eyed rules?

R.C. Payne

February 11th 08, 07:36 PM

Dean A. Markley wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>> Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
>> Lexington Institute.
>> http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/797.pdf
> That'll be little consolation to the pilot who experiences an total
> engine failure 300 miles from the carrier!
>
> Seriously though, It is nothing short of incredible how reliability has
> increased in engines and aircraft. I'd still worry just a little bit
> though....

In the days of piston engines, no serious fighter had more than one
engine. In more recent naval aviation, the Harrier seems to have been
reasonably successfully operated with a single engine. It is indeed
astounding how reliable modern jet engines are.

Robin

Andrew Venor

February 11th 08, 09:01 PM

R.C. Payne wrote:
> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
>>> Lexington Institute.
>>> http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/797.pdf
>>
>> That'll be little consolation to the pilot who experiences an total
>> engine failure 300 miles from the carrier!
>>
>> Seriously though, It is nothing short of incredible how reliability
>> has increased in engines and aircraft. I'd still worry just a little
>> bit though....
>
>
> In the days of piston engines, no serious fighter had more than one
> engine.

I think all the pilots who flew P-38 Lightnings might disagree with that
statement.

ALV

Tex Houston[_2_]

February 11th 08, 09:28 PM

"R.C. Payne" > wrote in message
...

>
> In the days of piston engines, no serious fighter had more than one
> engine. In more recent naval aviation, the Harrier seems to have been
> reasonably successfully operated with a single engine. It is indeed
> astounding how reliable modern jet engines are.
>
> Robin

Dick Bong, Tommy McGuire and Rex Barber ring a bell? We bought 10,037 of
those 'non serious' fighters during WW-II. WW-II? It was in the papers.

Tex Houston

Ed Rasimus[_1_]

February 11th 08, 09:34 PM

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:36:05 +0000, "R.C. Payne" >
wrote:

>In the days of piston engines, no serious fighter had more than one
>engine. In more recent naval aviation, the Harrier seems to have been
>reasonably successfully operated with a single engine. It is indeed
>astounding how reliable modern jet engines are.
>
>Robin

One doesn't need to restrict the argument to piston engines.

Consider F-84, F-86, F-100, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, or maybe
MiG-15,17,21,23,27, or possibly Mirage 3, 5, or A-4, A-7, F-8.

To name just a few.

And, my basic argument is that if the engine loss is due to battle
damage, I've never seen the second engine survive the demise of the
first. Having one engine provides less plumbing to be battle damaged,
and with A/B the aft section of the engine doesn't really care what
the front is doing as long as the airflow continues.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Dean A. Markley

February 11th 08, 10:29 PM

wrote:
>> I think about the first really decent fighters were the ones that
>> could fire two guns through the prop. Two seat aircraft with a guy in
>> back with a single gun just didn't make the cut.
>>
>
> Sooo, that means F-4Es, F-105F/Gs, F-14s, F-16B/Ds, F-18B/D/Fs, and
> Tornado F-3s (to name a few) aren't fighters? I'm sure their pilots &
> GIBs would be surprised to hear that! ;>)
>
> Kirk
None of those were around in the 1910-1916 period were they?

Keith Willshaw[_3_]

February 11th 08, 10:58 PM

"Dean A. Markley" > wrote in message
. ..
> wrote:
>>> I think about the first really decent fighters were the ones that
>>> could fire two guns through the prop. Two seat aircraft with a guy in
>>> back with a single gun just didn't make the cut.
>>>
>>
>> Sooo, that means F-4Es, F-105F/Gs, F-14s, F-16B/Ds, F-18B/D/Fs, and
>> Tornado F-3s (to name a few) aren't fighters? I'm sure their pilots &
>> GIBs would be surprised to hear that! ;>)
>>
>> Kirk
> None of those were around in the 1910-1916 period were they?

The Bristol Fighter aka Brisfit was around in 1917 and was rather
successful.
One pilot, Lt A E McKeever and his observer Sgt. Powell shot down
three Albatross single seat fighters and one two seater when attacked by
seven Albatross and three two seat German fighters on a single day in 1917.

Keith

Gernot Hassenpflug[_2_]

February 12th 08, 04:18 AM

Ian MacLure > writes:

> "dott.Piergiorgio" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>>
>>> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
>>> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
>>> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>>
>> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
>> still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
>> interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>
> Uh Dottore, thats "aircraft" not "aircrafts". Plural same as
> singular. Like "moose" and "moose".

Not to worry Dottore, my best friend, and Israeli, constantly says
"sheeps" for the plural of "sheep" which is absolutely hilarious: "See
any sheeps today?" As we're often referring to the ridiculous attire
of Japanese girls for wedding receptions, where the slightly shorter
than Western legs attached to a sinking bottom are poking out from
under a fluffed-up dress, and similarly puffed-up hairstyles decorate
the top. You get the idea!
--
BOFH excuse #402:

Secretary sent chain letter to all 5000 employees.

Gernot Hassenpflug[_2_]

February 12th 08, 04:21 AM

" > writes:

>>
>> I think about the first really decent fighters were the ones that
>> could fire two guns through the prop. Two seat aircraft with a guy in
>> back with a single gun just didn't make the cut.
>>
>
> Sooo, that means F-4Es, F-105F/Gs, F-14s, F-16B/Ds, F-18B/D/Fs, and
> Tornado F-3s (to name a few) aren't fighters? I'm sure their pilots &
> GIBs would be surprised to hear that! ;>)

Well, also the guy in the back with a gun telling the pilot where to
go makes it a rather strange combination LOL
--
BOFH excuse #396:

Mail server hit by UniSpammer.

fudog50[_2_]

February 12th 08, 10:37 AM

What would certainly be interesting is to see the Stats on how many
cat shot 2 engine jets with a maintenance failure or FOD on one engine
made it back around to a "no event, single engine trap".

I know first hand one incident in a previous prowler command I was
MMCO and the Pilot was very happy he had 2 engines after losing one on
takeoff due to maintenance error. The 4 souls made it back safely on
one engine.

We all know the biggest arguement is blue water ops it is better to
have 2 engines.

Redundancy is the key arguement, not performance.

Reliability in normal ops has surely improved, but have the FOD #'s
gone down? Maintenance error? I would bet stats show they have
improved but by how much?

Lets not get confused with a turbo fan that sits high up on a
commercial jet, with a vacuum cleaner on the flight deck.

Sure the turbo fans have been certed for 2 engine long haul
transoceanic flights, but they don't operate in the same environment,
not even close as a Navy Fighter/Bomber/Jammer with a turbojet.

It's a great debate either way. Bottom line is cost over safety. I
would like to see the stats before I could come up with a decision.

Other than finding a needle in a haystack using FAA website, NTSB and
Naval safety center, does anyone have stats on Navy Jets having 2
engines making it back to ground safely with a one engine failure,
(combat, FOD, maintenance) readily available to peruse?

It don't matter anyway JSF is being shoved down the Navy's throat
(gag).

OBTW, with JSF where will you get the 270 VDC? You sure can't get it
from deck edge or hangar SESS. It is estimated 4 million per carrier
for that MOD.

(The new Mobile Electric Power Plant (MEPP) has 270 VDC. This MEPP
also can supply Hawkeye H2K with enough power to be the single power
source.)

This new MEPP is being carrier OpEvaled right now. It probably will
pass OpEval.

But then how many will a carrier need for JSF and H2K? 30 of these at
least on each carrier? Has this been calculated into "deck multiple"?

Can the carrier AIMD IM4 division fix it? Can you say Contractor
support again? Please can we have it?

This is the best arguement of all to scrap JSF, we don't need it, and
too expensive to support. Let alone the single engine arguement.

Super Hornet is plenty enough to get us through 2030 at least, and
all the ILS elements are in place and are strong.

Thanks.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:34:58 GMT, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:36:05 +0000, "R.C. Payne" >
>wrote:
>
>>In the days of piston engines, no serious fighter had more than one
>>engine. In more recent naval aviation, the Harrier seems to have been
>>reasonably successfully operated with a single engine. It is indeed
>>astounding how reliable modern jet engines are.
>>
>>Robin
>
>One doesn't need to restrict the argument to piston engines.
>
>Consider F-84, F-86, F-100, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, or maybe
>MiG-15,17,21,23,27, or possibly Mirage 3, 5, or A-4, A-7, F-8.
>
>To name just a few.
>
>And, my basic argument is that if the engine loss is due to battle
>damage, I've never seen the second engine survive the demise of the
>first. Having one engine provides less plumbing to be battle damaged,
>and with A/B the aft section of the engine doesn't really care what
>the front is doing as long as the airflow continues.
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>www.thunderchief.org
>www.thundertales.blogspot.com

dott.Piergiorgio

February 12th 08, 08:28 PM

Gernot Hassenpflug ha scritto:

>
> Not to worry Dottore, my best friend, and Israeli, constantly says
> "sheeps" for the plural of "sheep" which is absolutely hilarious: "See
> any sheeps today?" As we're often referring to the ridiculous attire
> of Japanese girls for wedding receptions, where the slightly shorter
> than Western legs attached to a sinking bottom are poking out from
> under a fluffed-up dress, and similarly puffed-up hairstyles decorate
> the top. You get the idea!

Aside that I refer to J-Girls as "Foemina Japonicus" (subtly pointing
that they're a different stock of women) I roughly agree about japanese
girl's dressing; I think that is because of the tendency of Japanese
legs to being not exactly straight; but I disagree about sinking
bottoms; I take this for what in this part of Italy we call "culi bassi"
that is, bottoms whose are low; In my experience with Japanese girls,
both in pics and in RL, I think the standard definition I give for their
asses is "flat" ("Culo piatto"), that is, aren't bulging from the back.

I guess that this stem from the Latin vs. German POV on female Aesthetic ;)

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

Dave[_6_]

February 13th 08, 08:47 AM

fudog50 <> wrote in :

[redacted]

> OBTW, with JSF where will you get the 270 VDC? You sure can't get it
> from deck edge or hangar SESS. It is estimated 4 million per carrier
> for that MOD.
>
> (The new Mobile Electric Power Plant (MEPP) has 270 VDC. This MEPP
> also can supply Hawkeye H2K with enough power to be the single power
> source.)
>
> This new MEPP is being carrier OpEvaled right now. It probably will
> pass OpEval.
>
> But then how many will a carrier need for JSF and H2K? 30 of these at
> least on each carrier? Has this been calculated into "deck multiple"?

Last time I checked, carriers didn't depend on MEPPs. That's what deck edge
power is for. I'm sure they can put a system on a carrier to provide 270 VDC
for less money than trying to outfit with MEPPs that will sit unused and take
up space most of the time.

Dave in San Diego
AT1 USN Ret

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 14th 08, 01:55 AM

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 11, 12:06*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> (Richard Casady) wrote
>> innews:47ae1c8c.2657705
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:50:44 -0500, "Dean A. Markley"
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >>dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>> >>> Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>>
>> >>>> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
>> >>>> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite
>> >>>> nicel
> y
>> >>>> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>>
>> >>> More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess
>> >>> we're still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend
>> >>> on one's interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>>
>> >>> Best regards from Italy,
>> >>> Dott. Piergiorgio.
>>
>> >>So what was the first "true" fighter plane? *I am not even going to
>> >>attempt to set limits on this. *Let's just let 'er rip.
>>
>> > I think about the first really decent fighters were the ones that
>> > could fire two guns through the prop. Two seat aircraft with a guy
>> > in back with a single gun just didn't make the cut.
>>
>> I bet you wouldn't say that if you were in an unarmed airplane
>> nearby.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Among the blind, the one-eyed rules?
>

Yeah! if you were in a BE2 or a Taube with nothing but a pistol and
something with a flexible gun and two knots on you comes along, it's the
deadliest thing on the planet in your eyes.

bertie

Bertie

beausabre

February 14th 08, 08:18 PM

On Feb 8, 7:50 pm, "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
> dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> > Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>
> >> And, don't even get started on the one engine versus two engine
> >> aircraft business. Single engine fighters have been doing quite nicely
> >> for decades....ooops, make that more than a century.
>
> > More a century, yes, for *aircrafts* ; for *fighters* I guess we're
> > still 5-7 years prior of a century of Fighters.... (depend on one's
> > interpretation of what bird was the first Fighter...)
>
> > Best regards from Italy,
> > Dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> So what was the first "true" fighter plane? I am not even going to
> attempt to set limits on this. Let's just let 'er rip.
>
> Dean

SNIP

Wright Model B pusher of the US Army in 1911. One Lewis gun pointed by
the gunner (CPT Raymond Chandler) while the other guy drove.

http://www.first-to-fly.com/History%20Images/1910-1916/1911%20Kirkland%20and%20Chadler%20with%20Machine%2 0Gun%20in%20Model%20B.jpg