A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 8th 08, 08:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.military, rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Mike[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.

Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
Lexington Institute.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/797.pdf
  #2  
Old February 8th 08, 11:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Dean A. Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.

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
  #3  
Old February 8th 08, 11:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.military, rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.

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.
  #4  
Old February 9th 08, 12:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Ed Rasimus[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default 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
  #5  
Old February 9th 08, 01:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
dott.Piergiorgio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.

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.
  #6  
Old February 9th 08, 01:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Dean A. Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.

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"?
  #7  
Old February 9th 08, 01:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Dean A. Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default First Fighter Plane?

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
  #8  
Old February 9th 08, 02:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Eeyore[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default First Fighter Plane?



"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

  #9  
Old February 9th 08, 04:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Richard Casady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default First Fighter Plane?

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
  #10  
Old February 9th 08, 05:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
David Nicholls
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default First Fighter Plane?


"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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Engine-out procedures and eccentric forces on engine pylons Mxsmanic Piloting 18 May 26th 07 01:03 AM
Westland Wyvern Prototype - RR Eagle Engine - Rolls Royce Eagle 24cyl Liq Cooled Engine.jpg Ramapo Aviation Photos 0 April 17th 07 09:14 PM
Saturn V F-1 Engine Testing at F-1 Engine Test Stand 6866986.jpg [email protected] Aviation Photos 1 April 11th 07 04:48 PM
F-1 Engine for the Saturn V S-IC (first) stage depicts the complexity of the engine 6413912.jpg [email protected] Aviation Photos 0 April 9th 07 01:38 PM
1710 allison v-12 engine WWII p 38 engine Holger Stephan Home Built 9 August 21st 03 08:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.