Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.

"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".

IBM

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:19:15 +0200, "David Nicholls"
wrote:

You are defining it rather strangely (it counts out the F15!!!!)
Oh yes, I forgot the the F-15, one of the very first fighters. I bet
it those WWI Germans white. You did't notice the the discussion was
about early ones, not late models?
\
Casady

"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!
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On Feb 8, 7:30 pm, "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.

Morane-Saulnier, Roland Garros used a set of steel wedges to deflect
the rounds that hit the propeller. He eventually shot down, by a
rifleman, and landed behind the German lines. The Germans looked at
the idea and rejected it, turned the problem over to Anthony Fokker
who had been working on the problem of forward-firing machine guns and
came up with synchronized firing using an interrupter cam.

The EI and EII generally used a single Spandau MG with 500 rounds, the
EIII eventually added a second gun.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWmorane.htm

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"?

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?

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
"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!


It depends on whether they are good at Math or Maths


Vince

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

On Feb 9, 7:38*am, Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Feb 8, 7:30 pm, "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.

Morane-Saulnier, Roland Garros used a set of steel wedges to deflect
the rounds that hit the propeller. He eventually shot down, by a
rifleman, and landed behind the German lines.

The mythology that we are taught here in America is that he was
blipping his motor during an attack on a railway station and he
couldn't get the engine to 'un-blip. What followed, I imagine, was a
pregnant silence, then a blast of French vitriol, and ultimately a
hand-delivered war prize. Fokker's reply resulted in the most radical
advance in air warfare to date. I may have the details convoluted; I
suffer from "too many books read", with too many variations between
them - and you can never tell which version is really giving the right
story.

Gordon

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

"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".

IBM