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.

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....

In the days of piston engines, no serious fighter had more than one
engine. In more recent naval aviation, the Harrier seems to have been
reasonably successfully operated with a single engine. It is indeed
astounding how reliable modern jet engines are.

Robin

R.C. Payne 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....


In the days of piston engines, no serious fighter had more than one
engine.

I think all the pilots who flew P-38 Lightnings might disagree with that
statement.

ALV

"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
...


In the days of piston engines, no serious fighter had more than one
engine. In more recent naval aviation, the Harrier seems to have been
reasonably successfully operated with a single engine. It is indeed
astounding how reliable modern jet engines are.

Robin

Dick Bong, Tommy McGuire and Rex Barber ring a bell? We bought 10,037 of
those 'non serious' fighters during WW-II. WW-II? It was in the papers.

Tex Houston

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:36:05 +0000, "R.C. Payne"
wrote:

In the days of piston engines, no serious fighter had more than one
engine. In more recent naval aviation, the Harrier seems to have been
reasonably successfully operated with a single engine. It is indeed
astounding how reliable modern jet engines are.

Robin

One doesn't need to restrict the argument to piston engines.

Consider F-84, F-86, F-100, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, or maybe
MiG-15,17,21,23,27, or possibly Mirage 3, 5, or A-4, A-7, F-8.

To name just a few.

And, my basic argument is that if the engine loss is due to battle
damage, I've never seen the second engine survive the demise of the
first. Having one engine provides less plumbing to be battle damaged,
and with A/B the aft section of the engine doesn't really care what
the front is doing as long as the airflow continues.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

What would certainly be interesting is to see the Stats on how many
cat shot 2 engine jets with a maintenance failure or FOD on one engine
made it back around to a "no event, single engine trap".

I know first hand one incident in a previous prowler command I was
MMCO and the Pilot was very happy he had 2 engines after losing one on
takeoff due to maintenance error. The 4 souls made it back safely on
one engine.

We all know the biggest arguement is blue water ops it is better to
have 2 engines.

Redundancy is the key arguement, not performance.

Reliability in normal ops has surely improved, but have the FOD #'s
gone down? Maintenance error? I would bet stats show they have
improved but by how much?

Lets not get confused with a turbo fan that sits high up on a
commercial jet, with a vacuum cleaner on the flight deck.

Sure the turbo fans have been certed for 2 engine long haul
transoceanic flights, but they don't operate in the same environment,
not even close as a Navy Fighter/Bomber/Jammer with a turbojet.

It's a great debate either way. Bottom line is cost over safety. I
would like to see the stats before I could come up with a decision.

Other than finding a needle in a haystack using FAA website, NTSB and
Naval safety center, does anyone have stats on Navy Jets having 2
engines making it back to ground safely with a one engine failure,
(combat, FOD, maintenance) readily available to peruse?

It don't matter anyway JSF is being shoved down the Navy's throat
(gag).

OBTW, with JSF where will you get the 270 VDC? You sure can't get it
from deck edge or hangar SESS. It is estimated 4 million per carrier
for that MOD.

(The new Mobile Electric Power Plant (MEPP) has 270 VDC. This MEPP
also can supply Hawkeye H2K with enough power to be the single power
source.)

This new MEPP is being carrier OpEvaled right now. It probably will
pass OpEval.

But then how many will a carrier need for JSF and H2K? 30 of these at
least on each carrier? Has this been calculated into "deck multiple"?

Can the carrier AIMD IM4 division fix it? Can you say Contractor
support again? Please can we have it?

This is the best arguement of all to scrap JSF, we don't need it, and
too expensive to support. Let alone the single engine arguement.

Super Hornet is plenty enough to get us through 2030 at least, and
all the ILS elements are in place and are strong.













Thanks.




On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:34:58 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:36:05 +0000, "R.C. Payne"
wrote:

In the days of piston engines, no serious fighter had more than one
engine. In more recent naval aviation, the Harrier seems to have been
reasonably successfully operated with a single engine. It is indeed
astounding how reliable modern jet engines are.

Robin

One doesn't need to restrict the argument to piston engines.

Consider F-84, F-86, F-100, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, or maybe
MiG-15,17,21,23,27, or possibly Mirage 3, 5, or A-4, A-7, F-8.

To name just a few.

And, my basic argument is that if the engine loss is due to battle
damage, I've never seen the second engine survive the demise of the
first. Having one engine provides less plumbing to be battle damaged,
and with A/B the aft section of the engine doesn't really care what
the front is doing as long as the airflow continues.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

fudog50 wrote in :

[redacted]

OBTW, with JSF where will you get the 270 VDC? You sure can't get it
from deck edge or hangar SESS. It is estimated 4 million per carrier
for that MOD.

(The new Mobile Electric Power Plant (MEPP) has 270 VDC. This MEPP
also can supply Hawkeye H2K with enough power to be the single power
source.)

This new MEPP is being carrier OpEvaled right now. It probably will
pass OpEval.

But then how many will a carrier need for JSF and H2K? 30 of these at
least on each carrier? Has this been calculated into "deck multiple"?

Last time I checked, carriers didn't depend on MEPPs. That's what deck edge
power is for. I'm sure they can put a system on a carrier to provide 270 VDC
for less money than trying to outfit with MEPPs that will sit unused and take
up space most of the time.

Dave in San Diego
AT1 USN Ret