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