Phantom-II development story

Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book
about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the preliminary
design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators to
see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about what
their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when
alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine
fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the
safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype to
have two engines.
Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong
preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF). Cheers,

Tony

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:06:21 -0400, "Tony Volk"
histoo wrote:

Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book
about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the preliminary
design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators to
see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about what
their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when
alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine
fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the
safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype to
have two engines.
Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong
preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF). Cheers,

Tony

Highly unlikely. First, consider how often fighter pilot's sit around
discussing with their spouses the preference for number of engines on
their jet. I've tried two wives and never discussed engine count with
either. It isn't a hot topic.

Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and
increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the
system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being
unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a
training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at
least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single
engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4
that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine
shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine.
(There are exceptions to every generality of course.)

But, third, and most likely issue is take a look at the immediate
predecessor from MacD--the F-101. Taken side-by-side there is a clear
generational development picture. Two engine, two place, big radar,
interceptor, etc. Add a bigger wing with BLC for lower wing-loading,
eliminate the T tail and droop the slab to correct pitch-up and you've
got a Voodoo become Phantom.

Competition currently between one and two engine drivers is usually
related more to mission and performance rather than dependability of
motors.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:06:21 -0400, "Tony Volk"
histoo wrote:

Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book
about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the
preliminary
design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators
to
see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about
what
their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when
alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine
fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the
safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype
to
have two engines.
Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong
preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF).
Cheers,

Tony

Highly unlikely. First, consider how often fighter pilot's sit around
discussing with their spouses the preference for number of engines on
their jet. I've tried two wives and never discussed engine count with
either. It isn't a hot topic.

Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and
increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the
system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being
unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a
training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at
least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single
engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4
that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine
shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine.
(There are exceptions to every generality of course.)

But, third, and most likely issue is take a look at the immediate
predecessor from MacD--the F-101. Taken side-by-side there is a clear
generational development picture. Two engine, two place, big radar,
interceptor, etc. Add a bigger wing with BLC for lower wing-loading,
eliminate the T tail and droop the slab to correct pitch-up and you've
got a Voodoo become Phantom.

Competition currently between one and two engine drivers is usually
related more to mission and performance rather than dependability of
motors.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)

I agree with Ed. Urban legend about wives totally bogus. The early F-4
concept (an attack design) was single engine. They went to two to get the
desired thrust to make a relatively large (for the radar, fuel and heavy
missiles) aircraft go mach 2. They also had a history of success with twin
engine aircraft: Banshee and Voodoo. By comparison, their single engine
Demon was not entirely successful.

R / John

On 8/25/04 8:57, in article , "Ed
Rasimus" wrote:

Highly unlikely. First, consider how often fighter pilot's sit around
discussing with their spouses the preference for number of engines on
their jet. I've tried two wives and never discussed engine count with
either. It isn't a hot topic.


Ed, I agree with you that the spouse thing is bogus. I do remember
(however) seeing a PR video (perhaps also bogus) touting interviews with old
fighter pilots and their desires as inputs to the F-14's design.

Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and
increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the
system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being
unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a
training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at
least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single
engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4
that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine
shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine.
(There are exceptions to every generality of course.)


I disagree with the one engine is as reliable as two issue. I was in the
room when a former COMNAVAIRSYSCOM VADM recited the phrase that the JSF
would be single engine because the Navy could save 5% program cost (still a
lot of money) and that the single JSF engine would statistically be as
reliable as the 2 F404's in the Hornet today... which is great until you FOD
that motor on the cat launch.

Additional complexity? Yes. Better redundancy? Most definitely. That
engine is a critical piece potentially single point failure. You lose it,
life is bad (especially in the carrier environment where you don't have the
luxury of a perpetually ready deck and a precautionary or SFO approach).

Look at the number of Vipers lost to engine failure and the number of
Hornets lost to engine failure. I bet we've lost more F-16's.

But, third, and most likely issue is take a look at the immediate
predecessor from MacD--the F-101. Taken side-by-side there is a clear
generational development picture. Two engine, two place, big radar,
interceptor, etc. Add a bigger wing with BLC for lower wing-loading,
eliminate the T tail and droop the slab to correct pitch-up and you've
got a Voodoo become Phantom.


Good family tree review.

Competition currently between one and two engine drivers is usually
related more to mission and performance rather than dependability of
motors.


In my experience these days it's mostly cost driven.

--Woody


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:06:21 -0400, "Tony Volk"
histoo wrote:

Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book
about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the
preliminary
design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators
to
see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about
what
their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when
alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine
fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the
safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype
to
have two engines.
Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong
preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF).
Cheers,

Tony

Highly unlikely. First, consider how often fighter pilot's sit around
discussing with their spouses the preference for number of engines on
their jet. I've tried two wives and never discussed engine count with
either. It isn't a hot topic.

Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
cracked up to be.

And aint that the truth! Anyone who's done some basic reliability calcs will
see it isn't going to make a huge difference when both are burning
simultaneously. If you factor in the probability that what takes out one
engine may take out both or, if one goes it may decide to lunch the other
(or some key component nearby) then it narrows down heaps.

Now get past survivability and look at operational availability and turn
around time. Twin engines are going to cost you heaps in both areas, unless
you like going on missions missing an engine.....

There's the problem of increased complexity and
increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the
system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being
unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a
training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at
least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single
engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4
that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine
shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine.
(There are exceptions to every generality of course.)

BINGO!


But, third, and most likely issue is take a look at the immediate
predecessor from MacD--the F-101. Taken side-by-side there is a clear
generational development picture. Two engine, two place, big radar,
interceptor, etc. Add a bigger wing with BLC for lower wing-loading,
eliminate the T tail and droop the slab to correct pitch-up and you've
got a Voodoo become Phantom.

Competition currently between one and two engine drivers is usually
related more to mission and performance rather than dependability of
motors.

But it's interesting how the two engines is better for reliability argument
is used to justify buying one type over another.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

SNIP

Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and
increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the
system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being
unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a
training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at
least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single
engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4
that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine
shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine.
(There are exceptions to every generality of course.)


I disagree with the one engine is as reliable as two issue. I was in the
room when a former COMNAVAIRSYSCOM VADM recited the phrase that the JSF
would be single engine because the Navy could save 5% program cost (still
a
lot of money) and that the single JSF engine would statistically be as
reliable as the 2 F404's in the Hornet today... which is great until you
FOD
that motor on the cat launch.

Sounds logical, but not supported by statistics from over 50 years of
aviation. As an example, your beloved A-6 had an appalling early history
due in part to the complexities of its two-engine powerplant installation
(more correctly, the associated bleed air plumbing).

R/ John

From: "John Carrier"
Date: 8/26/2004 04:50 Pacific Daylight Time

SNIP

Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's
cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and
increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the
system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being
unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a
training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at
least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single
engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4
that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine
shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine.
(There are exceptions to every generality of course.)


I disagree with the one engine is as reliable as two issue. I was in the
room when a former COMNAVAIRSYSCOM VADM recited the phrase that the JSF
would be single engine because the Navy could save 5% program cost (still
a
lot of money) and that the single JSF engine would statistically be as
reliable as the 2 F404's in the Hornet today... which is great until you
FOD
that motor on the cat launch.

Sounds logical, but not supported by statistics from over 50 years of
aviation. As an example, your beloved A-6 had an appalling early history
due in part to the complexities of its two-engine powerplant installation
(more correctly, the associated bleed air plumbing).

But that's the "early history" -- which was how long ago? g

Any stats on the F/A-18 for example which would indicate it had (or has)
problems based on two engines?

I'm sure the F-101 for example had plenty of problems based on its two engines,
but again that was how long ago ...

Just a thought.

MW

"Tony Volk" histoo wrote
in message ...

Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book
about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the
preliminary
design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators
to
see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about what
their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when
alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine
fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the
safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype to
have two engines.
Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong
preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF).
Cheers,


Sounds bogus to me. At that time, the overwhelming majority of Navy
fighters had been single-engined. I believe the only twin-engined fighters
to become operational were the Tigercat, Phantom, and Banshee. I don't
think they put two engines in them for safety, but rather the performance
requirements dictated two engines.

By the way, it's F4H, not F-4H.

I still like twins. Not only in the plane! I have made 3 carrier single engine
landings. 2 others on the beach. Without a doubt one was a engine loss on the
cat. I would have given that one back to the taxpayers. And my survival whould
be suspect. I'm very disapointed that the follow on fighters are singles. We
have now given a dollar figure to what a life is worth. 1 engine.
Sparky

"Elmshoot" wrote in message
...
I still like twins. Not only in the plane! I have made 3 carrier single
engine
landings. 2 others on the beach. Without a doubt one was a engine loss on
the
cat. I would have given that one back to the taxpayers. And my survival
whould
be suspect. I'm very disapointed that the follow on fighters are singles.
We
have now given a dollar figure to what a life is worth. 1 engine.
Sparky

Three SE traps? Somebody was trying to tell you to change careers.

About 60% of my 4800 hours were in twin-engine aircraft. Had 7 engine
failures that required SE landings (No CV, but maybe somebody was telling me
the same thing). The remainder, F-8's and A-4's, not a hiccup from the
motor.

R / John