Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.

Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
Lexington Institute.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/797.pdf

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

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.

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

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.

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"?

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

"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/wikipedi....5._Gunbus.jpg

Graham

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

"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