Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.

Gordon wrote:
On Feb 9, 8:32 am, Typhoon502 wrote:
On Feb 8, 7:49 pm, "Dean A. Markley" wrote:





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"?

That was my sig for years - most of our business in the fleet was the
recovery of A-7 drivers that had sallied forth and ended up in the
drink due to engine failure. On the cruise with the Midway
battlegroup in 1985, the two Corsair squadrons combined to lose five
A-7s in six months. I thoroughly believe that motto as gospel. As a
rotorhead, I believe single-engine status is pretty much already an
emergency situation - I can't understand why a single-engined Naval
jet aircraft would be accepted for fleet duty.

IIRC, it seemed to work out OK for A-4s, A-7s, and F-8s. What were the
loss rates on those due to engine failures?- Hide quoted text -

My first rescue was Cdr J.M. "Twister" Twiss, who had just parted
company with Champ 404, the third A-7E that had defaulted on him.
After three ejections, he had to switch to a non-ejection seat
aircraft. From my experience during the 1980s, the Corsair II seemed
to have inordinately high loss rates on deployment. Not that our
Tomcats fared much better - their twin engines were no guaratee of a
safe return from the higher performance realm, and around the boat
there were far too many lost. These problems were articular to the
early A-models and thankfully the later variants had much greater
reliability. Few things worse than seeing shipmates perish when they
are within a few feet of a safe landing.

v/r Gordon

Thanks Gordon! I rest my case!

Dean

On Feb 8, 7:49*pm, "Dean A. Markley" wrote:
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"?

P-38 pilot.....

"Ian MacLure" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in
:

"Ian MacLure" wrote in message
...
"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote
in :

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...)

Uh Dottore, thats "aircraft" not "aircrafts". Plural same as
singular. Like "moose" and "moose".

Don't take it wrong, Dottore, but this is sometimes done by native
English speakers (and is subject to more than a little regional
variation). North American professional/academic usage tends to
"aircraft" when referring to more than one. NDHQ in Ottawa has more than
a few francophone blue jobs who sound almost like native Ottawans, and
as soon as they said "aircrafts" you could peg them for their furrin
origins -- until I found that guys I knew to be square heads from out
West doing it. It's catching!

Indeed.
And then there are the folks, who refer to what might rate
as an FFG only by courtesy, as a "battleship".

That is a different matter, since it deals with jargon rather than plural
forms in use.

It does grate, I'll give you.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

spammers.net (Corey C. Jordan) wrote in message
...
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

You are right - apologise to the group - but they both had one machine gun.

David

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:10:46 -0600, Ian MacLure wrote:

Indeed.
And then there are the folks, who refer to what might rate
as an FFG only by courtesy, as a "battleship".

They are simply taking ' battleship' to mean 'ship for battle'.
Warship in other words. Not as important to get it right, now that all
the proper BB have gone.

Casady

(Richard Casady) wrote in
:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:10:46 -0600, Ian MacLure wrote:

Indeed.
And then there are the folks, who refer to what might rate
as an FFG only by courtesy, as a "battleship".

They are simply taking ' battleship' to mean 'ship for battle'.
Warship in other words. Not as important to get it right, now that all
the proper BB have gone.

Never mind the fact that warship or earlier man o' war has been in
common use since time immemorial.

IBM

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

(Richard Casady) wrote in
:

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.


I bet you wouldn't say that if you were in an unarmed airplane nearby.



Bertie

On Feb 11, 12:06*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
(Richard Casady) wrote :





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.

I bet you wouldn't say that if you were in an unarmed airplane nearby.

Bertie

Among the blind, the one-eyed rules?

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