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