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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
R.C. Payne 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.... In the days of piston engines, no serious fighter had more than one engine. I think all the pilots who flew P-38 Lightnings might disagree with that statement. ALV |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
... 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 Dick Bong, Tommy McGuire and Rex Barber ring a bell? We bought 10,037 of those 'non serious' fighters during WW-II. WW-II? It was in the papers. Tex Houston |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:36:05 +0000, "R.C. Payne"
wrote: 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 One doesn't need to restrict the argument to piston engines. Consider F-84, F-86, F-100, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, or maybe MiG-15,17,21,23,27, or possibly Mirage 3, 5, or A-4, A-7, F-8. To name just a few. And, my basic argument is that if the engine loss is due to battle damage, I've never seen the second engine survive the demise of the first. Having one engine provides less plumbing to be battle damaged, and with A/B the aft section of the engine doesn't really care what the front is doing as long as the airflow continues. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
First Fighter Plane?
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
First Fighter Plane?
"Dean A. Markley" wrote in message . .. wrote: 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 None of those were around in the 1910-1916 period were they? The Bristol Fighter aka Brisfit was around in 1917 and was rather successful. One pilot, Lt A E McKeever and his observer Sgt. Powell shot down three Albatross single seat fighters and one two seater when attacked by seven Albatross and three two seat German fighters on a single day in 1917. Keith |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
Ian MacLure writes:
"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". Not to worry Dottore, my best friend, and Israeli, constantly says "sheeps" for the plural of "sheep" which is absolutely hilarious: "See any sheeps today?" As we're often referring to the ridiculous attire of Japanese girls for wedding receptions, where the slightly shorter than Western legs attached to a sinking bottom are poking out from under a fluffed-up dress, and similarly puffed-up hairstyles decorate the top. You get the idea! -- BOFH excuse #402: Secretary sent chain letter to all 5000 employees. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
First Fighter Plane?
" writes:
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! ;) Well, also the guy in the back with a gun telling the pilot where to go makes it a rather strange combination LOL -- BOFH excuse #396: Mail server hit by UniSpammer. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
What would certainly be interesting is to see the Stats on how many
cat shot 2 engine jets with a maintenance failure or FOD on one engine made it back around to a "no event, single engine trap". I know first hand one incident in a previous prowler command I was MMCO and the Pilot was very happy he had 2 engines after losing one on takeoff due to maintenance error. The 4 souls made it back safely on one engine. We all know the biggest arguement is blue water ops it is better to have 2 engines. Redundancy is the key arguement, not performance. Reliability in normal ops has surely improved, but have the FOD #'s gone down? Maintenance error? I would bet stats show they have improved but by how much? Lets not get confused with a turbo fan that sits high up on a commercial jet, with a vacuum cleaner on the flight deck. Sure the turbo fans have been certed for 2 engine long haul transoceanic flights, but they don't operate in the same environment, not even close as a Navy Fighter/Bomber/Jammer with a turbojet. It's a great debate either way. Bottom line is cost over safety. I would like to see the stats before I could come up with a decision. Other than finding a needle in a haystack using FAA website, NTSB and Naval safety center, does anyone have stats on Navy Jets having 2 engines making it back to ground safely with a one engine failure, (combat, FOD, maintenance) readily available to peruse? It don't matter anyway JSF is being shoved down the Navy's throat (gag). OBTW, with JSF where will you get the 270 VDC? You sure can't get it from deck edge or hangar SESS. It is estimated 4 million per carrier for that MOD. (The new Mobile Electric Power Plant (MEPP) has 270 VDC. This MEPP also can supply Hawkeye H2K with enough power to be the single power source.) This new MEPP is being carrier OpEvaled right now. It probably will pass OpEval. But then how many will a carrier need for JSF and H2K? 30 of these at least on each carrier? Has this been calculated into "deck multiple"? Can the carrier AIMD IM4 division fix it? Can you say Contractor support again? Please can we have it? This is the best arguement of all to scrap JSF, we don't need it, and too expensive to support. Let alone the single engine arguement. Super Hornet is plenty enough to get us through 2030 at least, and all the ILS elements are in place and are strong. Thanks. On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:34:58 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote: On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:36:05 +0000, "R.C. Payne" wrote: 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 One doesn't need to restrict the argument to piston engines. Consider F-84, F-86, F-100, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, or maybe MiG-15,17,21,23,27, or possibly Mirage 3, 5, or A-4, A-7, F-8. To name just a few. And, my basic argument is that if the engine loss is due to battle damage, I've never seen the second engine survive the demise of the first. Having one engine provides less plumbing to be battle damaged, and with A/B the aft section of the engine doesn't really care what the front is doing as long as the airflow continues. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
Gernot Hassenpflug ha scritto:
Not to worry Dottore, my best friend, and Israeli, constantly says "sheeps" for the plural of "sheep" which is absolutely hilarious: "See any sheeps today?" As we're often referring to the ridiculous attire of Japanese girls for wedding receptions, where the slightly shorter than Western legs attached to a sinking bottom are poking out from under a fluffed-up dress, and similarly puffed-up hairstyles decorate the top. You get the idea! Aside that I refer to J-Girls as "Foemina Japonicus" (subtly pointing that they're a different stock of women) I roughly agree about japanese girl's dressing; I think that is because of the tendency of Japanese legs to being not exactly straight; but I disagree about sinking bottoms; I take this for what in this part of Italy we call "culi bassi" that is, bottoms whose are low; In my experience with Japanese girls, both in pics and in RL, I think the standard definition I give for their asses is "flat" ("Culo piatto"), that is, aren't bulging from the back. I guess that this stem from the Latin vs. German POV on female Aesthetic Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Powering JSF: One Engine Is Enough.
fudog50 wrote in :
[redacted] OBTW, with JSF where will you get the 270 VDC? You sure can't get it from deck edge or hangar SESS. It is estimated 4 million per carrier for that MOD. (The new Mobile Electric Power Plant (MEPP) has 270 VDC. This MEPP also can supply Hawkeye H2K with enough power to be the single power source.) This new MEPP is being carrier OpEvaled right now. It probably will pass OpEval. But then how many will a carrier need for JSF and H2K? 30 of these at least on each carrier? Has this been calculated into "deck multiple"? Last time I checked, carriers didn't depend on MEPPs. That's what deck edge power is for. I'm sure they can put a system on a carrier to provide 270 VDC for less money than trying to outfit with MEPPs that will sit unused and take up space most of the time. Dave in San Diego AT1 USN Ret |
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 |