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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Phantom-II development story
Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book
about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the preliminary design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators to see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about what their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype to have two engines. Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF). Cheers, Tony |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:06:21 -0400, "Tony Volk"
histoo wrote: Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the preliminary design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators to see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about what their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype to have two engines. Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF). Cheers, Tony Highly unlikely. First, consider how often fighter pilot's sit around discussing with their spouses the preference for number of engines on their jet. I've tried two wives and never discussed engine count with either. It isn't a hot topic. Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4 that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine. (There are exceptions to every generality of course.) But, third, and most likely issue is take a look at the immediate predecessor from MacD--the F-101. Taken side-by-side there is a clear generational development picture. Two engine, two place, big radar, interceptor, etc. Add a bigger wing with BLC for lower wing-loading, eliminate the T tail and droop the slab to correct pitch-up and you've got a Voodoo become Phantom. Competition currently between one and two engine drivers is usually related more to mission and performance rather than dependability of motors. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books ***www.thunderchief.org |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:06:21 -0400, "Tony Volk" histoo wrote: Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the preliminary design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators to see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about what their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype to have two engines. Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF). Cheers, Tony Highly unlikely. First, consider how often fighter pilot's sit around discussing with their spouses the preference for number of engines on their jet. I've tried two wives and never discussed engine count with either. It isn't a hot topic. Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4 that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine. (There are exceptions to every generality of course.) But, third, and most likely issue is take a look at the immediate predecessor from MacD--the F-101. Taken side-by-side there is a clear generational development picture. Two engine, two place, big radar, interceptor, etc. Add a bigger wing with BLC for lower wing-loading, eliminate the T tail and droop the slab to correct pitch-up and you've got a Voodoo become Phantom. Competition currently between one and two engine drivers is usually related more to mission and performance rather than dependability of motors. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) I agree with Ed. Urban legend about wives totally bogus. The early F-4 concept (an attack design) was single engine. They went to two to get the desired thrust to make a relatively large (for the radar, fuel and heavy missiles) aircraft go mach 2. They also had a history of success with twin engine aircraft: Banshee and Voodoo. By comparison, their single engine Demon was not entirely successful. R / John |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SNIP
Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's cracked up to be. There's the problem of increased complexity and increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4 that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine. (There are exceptions to every generality of course.) I disagree with the one engine is as reliable as two issue. I was in the room when a former COMNAVAIRSYSCOM VADM recited the phrase that the JSF would be single engine because the Navy could save 5% program cost (still a lot of money) and that the single JSF engine would statistically be as reliable as the 2 F404's in the Hornet today... which is great until you FOD that motor on the cat launch. Sounds logical, but not supported by statistics from over 50 years of aviation. As an example, your beloved A-6 had an appalling early history due in part to the complexities of its two-engine powerplant installation (more correctly, the associated bleed air plumbing). R/ John |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
... On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:06:21 -0400, "Tony Volk" histoo wrote: Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the preliminary design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators to see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about what their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype to have two engines. Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF). Cheers, Tony Highly unlikely. First, consider how often fighter pilot's sit around discussing with their spouses the preference for number of engines on their jet. I've tried two wives and never discussed engine count with either. It isn't a hot topic. Second, two versus one isn't all the reliability advantage it's cracked up to be. And aint that the truth! Anyone who's done some basic reliability calcs will see it isn't going to make a huge difference when both are burning simultaneously. If you factor in the probability that what takes out one engine may take out both or, if one goes it may decide to lunch the other (or some key component nearby) then it narrows down heaps. Now get past survivability and look at operational availability and turn around time. Twin engines are going to cost you heaps in both areas, unless you like going on missions missing an engine..... There's the problem of increased complexity and increased probability of a critical component failure. There's the system maintenance cost and the greater incidence of an aircraft being unavailable for an engine problem. While two engines are great in a training environment, they don't offer that much more in combat (at least in that historic time frame.) My experience with both single engine and two engine airplanes over North Vietnam was that an F-4 that suffered battle damage to an engine usually lost the other engine shortly thereafter due to fratricide from the breaking up engine. (There are exceptions to every generality of course.) BINGO! But, third, and most likely issue is take a look at the immediate predecessor from MacD--the F-101. Taken side-by-side there is a clear generational development picture. Two engine, two place, big radar, interceptor, etc. Add a bigger wing with BLC for lower wing-loading, eliminate the T tail and droop the slab to correct pitch-up and you've got a Voodoo become Phantom. Competition currently between one and two engine drivers is usually related more to mission and performance rather than dependability of motors. But it's interesting how the two engines is better for reliability argument is used to justify buying one type over another. -- The Raven http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3 ** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's ** since August 15th 2000. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Volk" histoo wrote in message ... Here's an interesting tidbit that I got while reading Airtime's book about the Phantom (looks great so far). Apparantly, during the preliminary design stage, McDonnell and an aide went around talking to naval aviators to see what they wanted. Then, they talked to the aviators' wives about what their husbands told them that they wanted in a fighter. Apparantly, when alone, the pilots generally talked about wanting a hot-rod, single-engine fighter. But, when with their wives, they mentioned a preference for the safety of a twin-engined fighter. So, Mr. Mac built the F-4H prototype to have two engines. Does anyone know if this story is true? Is there currently a strong preference for two engines (e.g., comparing the F-18E to the JSF). Cheers, Sounds bogus to me. At that time, the overwhelming majority of Navy fighters had been single-engined. I believe the only twin-engined fighters to become operational were the Tigercat, Phantom, and Banshee. I don't think they put two engines in them for safety, but rather the performance requirements dictated two engines. By the way, it's F4H, not F-4H. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
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 |