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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
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..... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
"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.) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
First Fighter Plane?
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
First Fighter Plane?
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
First Fighter Plane?
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
First Fighter Plane?
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? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |