Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 6/9/2014 9:43:49 AM EST
The push is on once again in Canada to scrap the purchase of the F-35.
The new twist is the lack of a second engine.

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/f-35s-single-engine-too-dangerous-for-canadian-military-report-says-1
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 9:46:09 AM EST
Totally valid concern for any naval aircraft.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 9:48:23 AM EST
I'd like to hear what our aviators think of this.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 9:54:29 AM EST
If I was waiting on the sidelines for this hunk of shit, I'd toss in the towel and go check out the used lot too.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 9:58:49 AM EST
This article is dumb.

Entitled "One Dead Pilot," the report argues that fighter aircraft with a single engine — as the F-35 has — are too dangerous and unreliable to be used by the Canadian military.
...
In the report, Byers compares the F-35 to the single-engine CF-104 Starfighter, which the Canadian air force used from the 1960s to 1987 and which was involved in 110 crashes in that time.

A quarter of those crashes were attributed to bird strikes and the fact there was no secondary engine to allow the plane to keep flying.
View Quote


The F-104 does not equal the F-35. And he'd have to prove that the F-104 would've kept flying with a second engine, which you can't.

Of course, they could always buy Super Hornets
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:02:33 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Spade:
This article is dumb.



The F-104 does not equal the F-35. And he'd have to prove that the F-104 would've kept flying with a second engine, which you can't.

Of course, they could always buy Super Hornets
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Spade:
This article is dumb.

Entitled "One Dead Pilot," the report argues that fighter aircraft with a single engine — as the F-35 has — are too dangerous and unreliable to be used by the Canadian military.
...
In the report, Byers compares the F-35 to the single-engine CF-104 Starfighter, which the Canadian air force used from the 1960s to 1987 and which was involved in 110 crashes in that time.

A quarter of those crashes were attributed to bird strikes and the fact there was no secondary engine to allow the plane to keep flying.


The F-104 does not equal the F-35. And he'd have to prove that the F-104 would've kept flying with a second engine, which you can't.

Of course, they could always buy Super Hornets


Or Typhoons.


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:12:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/9/2014 10:13:02 AM EST by ericnhitterdal]
Does Canada even fighter jet bro?
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:13:31 AM EST
Maybe we can buy their used ones at a discount.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:14:28 AM EST
The think-tank that this came from is known for hippy bullshit. This has nothing to do with the fighter's suitability and everything to do with "military spending bad, socialist spending good".
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:15:48 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:
If I was waiting on the sidelines for this hunk of shit, I'd toss in the towel and go check out the used lot too.
View Quote


F/A-18 yo.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:16:50 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dominus:
The think-tank that this came from is known for hippy bullshit. This has nothing to do with the fighter's suitability and everything to do with "military spending bad, socialist spending good".
View Quote


"Group-think"-Tanks, comrade
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:18:26 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tweeter:


F/A-18 yo.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tweeter:
Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:
If I was waiting on the sidelines for this hunk of shit, I'd toss in the towel and go check out the used lot too.


F/A-18 yo.


CF-18s never crash, with the dual engines they are invincible...



I'm not a fan of single engine airplanes either, and the Canucks have a lot more problems with BASH than the US does...
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:28:36 AM EST
How many engines did the F16 have?
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:31:47 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cigardad:
How many engines did the F16 have?
View Quote


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:35:10 AM EST
Has there ever been an incident with current generation aircraft where one engine failed and the pilot had to putter on home with the other?
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:38:23 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By cigardad:
How many engines did the F16 have?


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.



Deferring to the experts here. How many pilots did we lose? I thought the F16 was supposed to be the be all end all.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:39:20 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Has there ever been an incident with current generation aircraft where one engine failed and the pilot had to putter on home with the other?
View Quote


Yes, it happens fairly frequently.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:40:28 AM EST
One engine is fine and dandy... till it takes a shit and you're flying a 85 million dollar glider and trying to decide on a suitable crash site.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:40:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/9/2014 10:41:45 AM EST by DnPRK]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By cigardad:
How many engines did the F16 have?


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.

Go to the safety center websites and do the math...

Attrition rate for F-16 is 3.2 per 100K flight hours
Attrition rate for F-15 is 2.0 per 100K flight hours
Attrition rate for F/A-18 is 3.6 per 100K flight hours
Attrition rate for F-4 is 5.2 oer 100K flight hours
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:41:10 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cigardad:



Deferring to the experts here. How many pilots did we lose? I thought the F16 was supposed to be the be all end all.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cigardad:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By cigardad:
How many engines did the F16 have?


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.



Deferring to the experts here. How many pilots did we lose? I thought the F16 was supposed to be the be all end all.


The F-16 was the "low" end of the high-low mix of F-15 and F-16. It was intended to be cheaper to buy and operate than the F-15, with less capability, and it is. It's killed plenty of pilots, but I don't have time to look up the exact number.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:42:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/9/2014 10:46:14 AM EST by murph1329]
Originally Posted By Dagger41:
The push is on once again in Canada to scrap the purchase of the F-35.
The new twist is the lack of a second engine.

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/f-35s-single-engine-too-dangerous-for-canadian-military-report-says-1
View Quote



i'd love to see the accident numbers between a f-16, f-15, and f-18

that should validate if this is a myth or not


here we go...

Compared to Other Aircraft

Air Force statistics show that Fighting Falcons have crashed an average of 13 times a year since 1982, when the plane was first flown heavily, costing an average $260 million annually in destroyed aircraft.

The statistics also show the Air Force's F-16s are more prone to crash than its other aircraft.

While there are more F-16s in service than other planes — nearly 1,400 — meaning there are more opportunities for them to crash, they also crash at greater rates. Over the past 19 fiscal years, from 1982 to 2000, the Air Force averaged about 4.5 Class-A mishaps for every 100,000 flight hours per year for its F-16s.

That's significantly higher than those of its other aircraft, including the other front-line fighter, the F-15, which is made by Boeing.

The F-15 has a lifetime Class-A mishap rate of 2.53, and has had only two such mishaps this year and three in 2000. The only other aircraft to have a Class-A this year was the A-10. It had one.

The Navy says its most widely flown, multi-role aircraft, the twin-engine carrier-based F/A-18 C/Ds, have a lifetime Class-A rate of 3.45.

The F-16's average rate, though, was higher during the first 10 years of that period, 5.6, than during the most recent nine, when it was 3.3, showing improving safety.

With July's crashes and two months to go before the end of the fiscal year, the Fighting Falcons's rate of Class-A mishaps in 2001 is 4.5.

Different Missions, Aircraft Types

Supporters of the F-16 say the plane's generally higher destruction rate than that of other Air Force aircraft isn't necessarily a fault of the plane, but rather, is a factor of the types of missions it flies.
View Quote

Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:44:02 AM EST
This is exactly why I ride a motorcycle an not a unicycle -- if one tire goes out, I can still keep going. Hell, my bike even has four cylinders -- it'll work just fine with only one and still have more HP than a Sportster.

Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:47:34 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By murph1329:



i'd love to see the accident numbers between a f-16, f-15, and f-18

that should validate if this is a myth or not



View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By murph1329:
Originally Posted By Dagger41:
The push is on once again in Canada to scrap the purchase of the F-35.
The new twist is the lack of a second engine.

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/f-35s-single-engine-too-dangerous-for-canadian-military-report-says-1



i'd love to see the accident numbers between a f-16, f-15, and f-18

that should validate if this is a myth or not





You can't compare carrier aircraft to land based, but here are the numbers for the F-15 and F-16:

F-15: 2.36 class A mishaps per 100K flying hours
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-062.pdf
It's killed 43 pilots.

F-16: 3.56 class A mishaps per 100K flying hours:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131209-032.pdf
It's killed 84 pilots.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:50:26 AM EST
F-35 is fantastic, very stealthy, and reliable. Combat effectiveness will be decided if the aircraft is visually seen by opposing forces. The Aussies lost every non-visual fight with F/A-18's due to the stealthy nature of the F-35, but turned the tables when they were able to visual acquire. IIRC, the Aussie pilots nicknamed it the "Baby Harp Seal".
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:50:43 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:


You can't compare carrier aircraft to land based, but here are the numbers for the F-15 and F-16:

F-15: 2.36 class A mishaps per 100K flying hours
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-062.pdf
It's killed 43 pilots.

F-16: 3.56 class A mishaps per 100K flying hours:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131209-032.pdf
It's killed 84 pilots.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By murph1329:
Originally Posted By Dagger41:
The push is on once again in Canada to scrap the purchase of the F-35.
The new twist is the lack of a second engine.

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/f-35s-single-engine-too-dangerous-for-canadian-military-report-says-1



i'd love to see the accident numbers between a f-16, f-15, and f-18

that should validate if this is a myth or not





You can't compare carrier aircraft to land based, but here are the numbers for the F-15 and F-16:

F-15: 2.36 class A mishaps per 100K flying hours
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-062.pdf
It's killed 43 pilots.

F-16: 3.56 class A mishaps per 100K flying hours:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131209-032.pdf
It's killed 84 pilots.


so i guess that validates the concern of 1 engine


Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:52:04 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By murph1329:


so i guess that validates the concern of 1 engine


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By murph1329:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By murph1329:
Originally Posted By Dagger41:
The push is on once again in Canada to scrap the purchase of the F-35.
The new twist is the lack of a second engine.

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/f-35s-single-engine-too-dangerous-for-canadian-military-report-says-1



i'd love to see the accident numbers between a f-16, f-15, and f-18

that should validate if this is a myth or not





You can't compare carrier aircraft to land based, but here are the numbers for the F-15 and F-16:

F-15: 2.36 class A mishaps per 100K flying hours
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-062.pdf
It's killed 43 pilots.

F-16: 3.56 class A mishaps per 100K flying hours:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131209-032.pdf
It's killed 84 pilots.


so i guess that validates the concern of 1 engine




Indeed. Another data point in favor of twin engine aircraft, the U-2 has a long operational history, and a mishap rate of 5.35.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:52:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/9/2014 10:53:22 AM EST by CaptainPatSmith]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DnPRK:

Go to the safety center websites and do the math...

Attrition rate for F-16 is 3.2 per 100K flight hours
Attrition rate for F-15 is 2.0 per 100K flight hours
Attrition rate for F/A-18 is 3.6 per 100K flight hours
Attrition rate for F-4 is 5.2 oer 100K flight hours
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DnPRK:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By cigardad:
How many engines did the F16 have?


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.

Go to the safety center websites and do the math...

Attrition rate for F-16 is 3.2 per 100K flight hours
Attrition rate for F-15 is 2.0 per 100K flight hours
Attrition rate for F/A-18 is 3.6 per 100K flight hours
Attrition rate for F-4 is 5.2 oer 100K flight hours


Out of context the attrition rate per 100k flight hours doesn't mean anything. You have to compare the roles of the aircraft, theaters of operation, combat missions flown, and what branch of the military operates a specific aircraft type. Of course the F-18s and F-4s are going to have more losses than the F-15s and F-16s because of carrier operations and roles in responses to conflict. This is apples to oranges. The F-15 to F-16 comparison gives better insight into single engine vs multi-engine operations.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:56:01 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By cigardad:
How many engines did the F16 have?


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.


We also built 4 times as many F-16's (4,500 F-16's vs. 1,100 F-15's.)

But it does pay to have 2 engines, especially for naval aviation.

Hell, I'm surprised the FAA allows 2-engine ocean-crossing passenger aircraft. Always seemed like a risky thing to do. Give me a 747 any day.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:57:00 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mattja:


We also built 4 times as many F-16's (4,500 F-16's vs. 1,100 F-15's.)

But it does pay to have 2 engines, especially for naval aviation.

Hell, I'm surprised the FAA allows 2-engine ocean-crossing passenger aircraft. Always seemed like a risky thing to do. Give me a 747 any day.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mattja:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By cigardad:
How many engines did the F16 have?


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.


We also built 4 times as many F-16's (4,500 F-16's vs. 1,100 F-15's.)

But it does pay to have 2 engines, especially for naval aviation.

Hell, I'm surprised the FAA allows 2-engine ocean-crossing passenger aircraft. Always seemed like a risky thing to do. Give me a 747 any day.


Number of airframes is irrelevant. The numbers I compared (read up) are per 100K flying hours. It's as apples to apples as it gets.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:57:33 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Middlelength:
Totally valid concern for any naval aircraft.
View Quote

Which explains why the Navy operated the A-7 for 23 years or the A-4 for 47 years.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 10:58:18 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mattja:


We also built 4 times as many F-16's (4,500 F-16's vs. 1,100 F-15's.)

But it does pay to have 2 engines, especially for naval aviation.

Hell, I'm surprised the FAA allows 2-engine ocean-crossing passenger aircraft. Always seemed like a risky thing to do. Give me a 747 any day.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mattja:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By cigardad:
How many engines did the F16 have?


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.


We also built 4 times as many F-16's (4,500 F-16's vs. 1,100 F-15's.)

But it does pay to have 2 engines, especially for naval aviation.

Hell, I'm surprised the FAA allows 2-engine ocean-crossing passenger aircraft. Always seemed like a risky thing to do. Give me a 747 any day.


Since the inception of ETOPS do you know how many twin engine passenger aircraft have been lost on transoceanic flights due to engine failure? I'll give you a hint, it's a number not divisible by itself.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:02:26 AM EST
Once you pass the $50 million dollar mark, is it really that big of a deal to go ahead and fit it with a second engine? Leather seats and an mp3 player ought to be standard equipment.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:03:39 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Middlelength:
Totally valid concern for any naval aircraft.
View Quote



I know. Canada was smart to not deploy these on their carriers
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:04:44 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MiG-21:


Or Typhoons.


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MiG-21:
Originally Posted By Spade:
This article is dumb.

Entitled "One Dead Pilot," the report argues that fighter aircraft with a single engine — as the F-35 has — are too dangerous and unreliable to be used by the Canadian military.
...
In the report, Byers compares the F-35 to the single-engine CF-104 Starfighter, which the Canadian air force used from the 1960s to 1987 and which was involved in 110 crashes in that time.

A quarter of those crashes were attributed to bird strikes and the fact there was no secondary engine to allow the plane to keep flying.


The F-104 does not equal the F-35. And he'd have to prove that the F-104 would've kept flying with a second engine, which you can't.

Of course, they could always buy Super Hornets


Or Typhoons.


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Lol that would sting
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:07:19 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:


Yes, it happens fairly frequently.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Has there ever been an incident with current generation aircraft where one engine failed and the pilot had to putter on home with the other?


Yes, it happens fairly frequently.



So, what was the logic that won over the single-engine thing for the F35? A super-duper unsinkable engine?
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:07:40 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Napoleon451:
F-35 is fantastic, very stealthy, and reliable. Combat effectiveness will be decided if the aircraft is visually seen by opposing forces. The Aussies lost every non-visual fight with F/A-18's due to the stealthy nature of the F-35, but turned the tables when they were able to visual acquire. IIRC, the Aussie pilots nicknamed it the "Baby Harp Seal".
View Quote



Ok General Armchair
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:08:36 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mattja:


We also built 4 times as many F-16's (4,500 F-16's vs. 1,100 F-15's.)

But it does pay to have 2 engines, especially for naval aviation.

Hell, I'm surprised the FAA allows 2-engine ocean-crossing passenger aircraft. Always seemed like a risky thing to do. Give me a 747 any day.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mattja:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By cigardad:
How many engines did the F16 have?


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.


We also built 4 times as many F-16's (4,500 F-16's vs. 1,100 F-15's.)

But it does pay to have 2 engines, especially for naval aviation.

Hell, I'm surprised the FAA allows 2-engine ocean-crossing passenger aircraft. Always seemed like a risky thing to do. Give me a 747 any day.




Under certain stringent rules.......
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:09:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/9/2014 11:14:54 AM EST by 2A373]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:


Yes, it happens fairly frequently.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Has there ever been an incident with current generation aircraft where one engine failed and the pilot had to putter on home with the other?


Yes, it happens fairly frequently.


Yes it does. Seen it many times in my 18+ years maintaining F-15s and 22s.

And every time I said that if it was a Lawn Dart it would have done what a Lawn Dart does best.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:10:47 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:


Since the inception of ETOPS do you know how many twin engine passenger aircraft have been lost on transoceanic flights due to engine failure? I'll give you a hint, it's a number not divisible by itself.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By mattja:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By cigardad:
How many engines did the F16 have?


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.


We also built 4 times as many F-16's (4,500 F-16's vs. 1,100 F-15's.)

But it does pay to have 2 engines, especially for naval aviation.

Hell, I'm surprised the FAA allows 2-engine ocean-crossing passenger aircraft. Always seemed like a risky thing to do. Give me a 747 any day.


Since the inception of ETOPS do you know how many twin engine passenger aircraft have been lost on transoceanic flights due to engine failure? I'll give you a hint, it's a number not divisible by itself.



I would say the conditions a F/A airframe operate in are a tad more demanding than a bus in the sky but as to the civil aircraft I think the bigger twin's have better ability to limp on one than a 4 turbine on 3 these days
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:17:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/9/2014 11:22:08 AM EST by Chairborne]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:



So, what was the logic that won over the single-engine thing for the F35? A super-duper unsinkable engine?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Has there ever been an incident with current generation aircraft where one engine failed and the pilot had to putter on home with the other?


Yes, it happens fairly frequently.



So, what was the logic that won over the single-engine thing for the F35? A super-duper unsinkable engine?


It all comes down to the "joint" in the junk strike fighter. Due to size constraints on the USMC's baby carriers, it couldn't be twin engine. Since we built a "common" airframe it was doomed to be a single engine jet from the outset. It also helps it meet weight requirements since engines are the single largest and heaviest component on any airframe. They are also the most expensive, and since the JSF is so "cheap" it had to be the MkIII lawn dart.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:19:23 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 2A373:


Yes it does. Seen it many times in my 18+ years maintaining F-15s and 22s.

And every time I said that if it was a Lawn Dart it would have done what a Lawn Dart does best.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 2A373:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Has there ever been an incident with current generation aircraft where one engine failed and the pilot had to putter on home with the other?


Yes, it happens fairly frequently.


Yes it does. Seen it many times in my 18+ years maintaining F-15s and 22s.

And every time I said that if it was a Lawn Dart it would have done what a Lawn Dart does best.


The F-22 manages a 6.16 Class A mishap rate. Maybe the lesson isn't don't buy single engine, it's don't buy Lockheed junk.

Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:21:04 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CaptainPatSmith:
One engine is fine and dandy... till it takes a shit and you're flying a 85 million dollar glider rock and trying to decide on a suitable crash site.
View Quote

Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:25:02 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CaptainPatSmith:


Out of context the attrition rate per 100k flight hours doesn't mean anything. You have to compare the roles of the aircraft, theaters of operation, combat missions flown, and what branch of the military operates a specific aircraft type. Of course the F-18s and F-4s are going to have more losses than the F-15s and F-16s because of carrier operations and roles in responses to conflict. This is apples to oranges. The F-15 to F-16 comparison gives better insight into single engine vs multi-engine operations.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CaptainPatSmith:
Originally Posted By DnPRK:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By cigardad:
How many engines did the F16 have?


We've crashed 300 of those turds, and it has double the accident rate of the F-15. You might want to make your case with another airframe.

Go to the safety center websites and do the math...

Attrition rate for F-16 is 3.2 per 100K flight hours
Attrition rate for F-15 is 2.0 per 100K flight hours
Attrition rate for F/A-18 is 3.6 per 100K flight hours
Attrition rate for F-4 is 5.2 oer 100K flight hours


Out of context the attrition rate per 100k flight hours doesn't mean anything. You have to compare the roles of the aircraft, theaters of operation, combat missions flown, and what branch of the military operates a specific aircraft type. Of course the F-18s and F-4s are going to have more losses than the F-15s and F-16s because of carrier operations and roles in responses to conflict. This is apples to oranges. The F-15 to F-16 comparison gives better insight into single engine vs multi-engine operations.

Ah, statistical comparisons. Watch while I use actual apples-to-apples facts to lie to you and blow your mind.

The USAF engine-related Class-A loss rate for F-15s using F100-PW-229 engines is 0.50 per 100,000 flight hours. For F-16s using the same engine, the engine-related Class-A loss rate is 0.00. That's right, the single-engine F-16 is more reliable.

Or is it?

http://www.afsec.af.mil/organizations/aviation/enginestatistics/index.asp
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:31:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/9/2014 12:04:42 PM EST by theyoyomaster]
Really? I'm pretty sure that by now it's a bit late to pull out. I mean they can if they don't really want to ride it out to completion, but by this point I'm pretty sure theyre still gonna end up paying us child support for what they've already committed to.


*edit*
Stuck on i.e. 8 and didn't notice that my typing rate was faster than its parsing rate.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:31:50 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Middlelength:
Totally valid concern for any naval aircraft.
View Quote


A4, A7,F8......
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:31:51 AM EST
Just buy Super Hornets and then make some sort of joint training program with the US and Australia and be awesome.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:33:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/9/2014 11:35:28 AM EST by 2A373]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:


The F-22 manages a 6.16 Class A mishap rate. Maybe the lesson isn't don't buy single engine, it's don't buy Lockheed junk.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By 2A373:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Has there ever been an incident with current generation aircraft where one engine failed and the pilot had to putter on home with the other?


Yes, it happens fairly frequently.


Yes it does. Seen it many times in my 18+ years maintaining F-15s and 22s.

And every time I said that if it was a Lawn Dart it would have done what a Lawn Dart does best.


The F-22 manages a 6.16 Class A mishap rate. Maybe the lesson isn't don't buy single engine, it's don't buy Lockheed junk.



Everything is so damn expensive for it that a little ding becomes a class A.

The AF needs to set different class thresholds for it.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:36:44 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 2A373:


Everything is so damn expensive for it that a little ding becomes a class A.

The AF needs to set different class thresholds for it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 2A373:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By 2A373:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Has there ever been an incident with current generation aircraft where one engine failed and the pilot had to putter on home with the other?


Yes, it happens fairly frequently.


Yes it does. Seen it many times in my 18+ years maintaining F-15s and 22s.

And every time I said that if it was a Lawn Dart it would have done what a Lawn Dart does best.


The F-22 manages a 6.16 Class A mishap rate. Maybe the lesson isn't don't buy single engine, it's don't buy Lockheed junk.



Everything is so damn expensive for it that a little ding becomes a class A.

The AF needs to set different class thresholds for it.


That makes sense, but DoD did raise the mishap class thresholds pretty recently. I don't know if they can justify raising them again.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:45:17 AM EST
I think in a few decades the F-35 will be looked at as a great success
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:48:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/9/2014 11:49:36 AM EST by Chairborne]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Caboose314:
I think in a few decades the F-35 will be looked at as a great success
View Quote


Just like the last great joint aircraft, right?





$1.2T that's all I've got to say about the JSF.
Link Posted: 6/9/2014 11:51:40 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By matthardcore:

I know. Canada was smart to not deploy these on their carriers
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By matthardcore:
Originally Posted By Middlelength:
Totally valid concern for any naval aircraft.

I know. Canada was smart to not deploy these on their carriers

This is what I was thinking. How does the phrase "naval aircraft" figure into a discussion about the RCAF?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top