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
|
|||
|
|||
sergio- Could you explain what was the flap/slat problem of the F-14 ?
BRBR In a nutshell, if the LE slats were forced to reverse direction quickly, a torque tube broke, and 'system' said no more movement of the slats...they stayed at that position. If the configuration was certain ways, it precluded a CV recovery. Why lots of F-14 pilots used manual slat deployment when fighting it. They just needed stronger components and a smarter deployment schedule but the jet was pretty 'basic', not electronic at all, ala the F-16/8. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, Commander.
-- Sergio |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:20:43 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote: On 8/27/04 6:54 AM, in article , "John Carrier" wrote: 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 John, Is it your contention from these statements that single engine fighters are already more reliable than twins? --Woody Dunno about John, but my conclusion is that there is no essential advantage in combat between a one and two jet aircraft. As long as T/W is adequate, it doesn't make much difference. The increased complexity of dual systems raises the support costs and increases the probability of an aircraft being unavailable due to maintenance. The redundance of the second engine allows for some recoveries for inflight emergencies, but a good argument can be made that battle damage losses aren't impacted statistically between one and two engine birds. There are very good arguments to be made for both sides of the issue. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books ***www.thunderchief.org |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Dunno about John, but my conclusion is that there is no essential
advantage in combat between a one and two jet aircraft. As long as T/W is adequate, it doesn't make much difference. The increased complexity The stats I've seen seem to support your comment that for fighting the aircraft it really doesn't matter much, although there is not a lot of relevant data regarding the latest generation of birds... the latest wars have not - thankfully! - been high on combat attrition. As for anecdotal evidence, I've seen pictures of an F-105 and an F/A-18 that came home with an IR missile in the butt. Don't know if an F-16 could have survived that, though. But most of the flight hours are not spent in combat, and the stats say that engine-failure prangs are higher for single engine birds. Those stats also say that those engine related mishaps are not usually fatal, due to the new high-tech escape systems. So the question seems to be whether an higher rate of silk coming down is that relevant. And the answer seem to be, it depends. In the frozen expanses of Finland or Canada, the rugged terrain of Switzerland, the outback of Australia or the big drinks, it may well be an issue. And all those have opted for a twin engine solution. I don't think that the USAF F-35 will have a problem by being a single engine aircraft. And the perceived need for the STOVL variant almost mandated the single engine. And so the Navy must get the short end of that deal... _____________ José Herculano |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
SNIP
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 John, Is it your contention from these statements that single engine fighters are already more reliable than twins? --Woody No, merely that greater "twin-engine" reliability is a fiction, amply supported by both statistical and anecdotal (aka "inconvenient") evidence. Incidentally, the F-8 and the A-4 were a hell of a lot more fun to fly than the F-4 and F-14. I also readily admit that the F-4 was a better fighter than the F-8 (although many F-4 drivers never demonstrated that fact) and the F-14 was a better fighter than the F-4. R / John |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
My info on this 2 vs 1 is way out of date; does anyone have up to date
stats? FWIW In about 3500 hours I lost an engine in each of the T33 and 102; 2 engines in 104s, got all 4 of them back (all flameouts; ice ([probably) in the T33 and duct stalls in the others.) But in just over 2000 hours in the F4 I lost 5 and never got any of them back. 2 shutdown for zero oil pressure, 1 for accessory drive failure, and 2 at once for fuel blockage. On that last one we also lost the airplane. 10/10/78 was my "second birthday". |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's cracked up to be. I've heard a saying regarding this: "the second engine takes you to the crash" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1990 "Hornet: The Inside Story of the F/A-18" Fighter Jet Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 8th 04 07:07 AM |
George W. Bush Abortion Scandal that should have been | Psalm 110 | Military Aviation | 0 | August 12th 04 09:40 AM |
FS: 1990 "Hornet: The Inside Story of the F/A-18" Fighter Jet Book | J.R. Sinclair | Military Aviation | 0 | June 2nd 04 07:59 AM |
AF unveils force development plan | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 11th 03 04:55 AM |
PFC Lynch gets a Bronze Star? | Brian | Military Aviation | 77 | August 2nd 03 11:15 AM |