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