Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.

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.

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

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

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

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

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?