Phantom-II development story

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

Thanks, Commander.

--
Sergio

On 8/27/04 6:54 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:


"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



John,

Is it your contention from these statements that single engine fighters are
already more reliable than twins?

--Woody

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

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

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

On 8/30/04 9:24 AM, in article ,
"Ed Rasimus" wrote:


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.

I agree about the both arguments statement, but I don't know a single Navy
(right now) driver who, if given the choice, would pick single engine over
dual engine in the carrier environment. It always comes down to that small
percentage/large dollar issue.

--Woody

On 8/30/04 3:11 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:


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

True enough. I can't take a hard stand against your contention except to
state that anecdotally, I know of many more Viper drivers who have ejected
due to engine fires/failures (one of them is a 111th FS... GWB's squadron...
guy) than have ejected from the Hornet for same.

In the A-7/A-4/F-8, if an engine fails at the boat, it's an ejection. In
the Hornet, the engine fails and you've got a more difficult trap ahead...
Beats ejecting. To me, common sense says that around the boat, two engines
are better than one... But I keep saying the same things over and over.

My hat's off to your honesty on fighter evaluation.

--Woody

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".

"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"