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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
wrote: Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too. Anyone? There's a lot to be said for redundancy, particularly over water. This is true, but IIRC my Dad said that if his F-101B (for example) needed both of its J-57's and should he lose an engine, often that meant that it's time to eject. How long can the F-5, F-4, F-18, -14, -15, Tornado, etc. fly on only one engine? -Mike Marron |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
(ArtKramr) wrote:
"All single engine aircraft go into automatic rough when out of sight of land". The is supposedly a true story, If it isn't, it should be. (grin) An old wives tail, Art. I've flown thousands of miles over water in single-engine planes and each flight was a non-event (well, except for one time when the nosegear malfuctioned while flying down in the Keys). Anyway, flying over water is safe enough. Crashing into the water gets a little tedious at times, though. -Mike Marron |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote: wrote: Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too. Anyone? There's a lot to be said for redundancy, particularly over water. This is true, but IIRC my Dad said that if his F-101B (for example) needed both of its J-57's and should he lose an engine, often that meant that it's time to eject. How long can the F-5, F-4, F-18, -14, -15, Tornado, etc. fly on only one engine? A lot further than an F-16 with one out. -- Mortimer Schnerd, RN http://www.mortimerschnerd.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
An old wives tail, Art. I've flown thousands of miles over water in single-engine planes and each flight was a non-event (well, except for one time when the nosegear malfuctioned while flying down in the Keys). Anyway, flying over water is safe enough. Crashing into the water gets a little tedious at times, though. I've got a couple of hundred hours flying over water in single engines. My theory has always been that the airplane doesn't know what it's over. Never tried ditching, though I have managed to crash twice. And as I think about it, I've had three engines quit over water (once at night). Luckily, I was able to get a restart each time. No need for seatbelts; I had a cheeklock on the seat that wouldn't quit. As a matter of fact, I had a twin engine flameout in nighttime IFR conditions over the Appalachian Mountains once. My fault, really... I fell asleep while I was on the aux tanks. I woke up pretty damned quick after the first one quit. Sad to say, the second one quit before I got the first one restarted. After I got them both going again, I had time to marvel on how close I had them leaned. You have to find the good wherever you can. Now I work with HIV patients as a nurse, so I can be safe. -- Mortimer Schnerd, RN http://www.mortimerschnerd.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message news We all know that the Canucks never really did have an "air force" This gave me a chuckle....and a fond memory of a good friend!! I can just see you walking into Bader's inner office at 242 at Coltishall during the BOB and saying this!! Douglas wouldn't have known whether to buy you a drink and beg for more planes and people, or hit you over the head with a tin leg!!!. Knowing him like I did, I'd make a guess he'd bash you first with the tin leg, then pick you up and offer you the drink! :-)))) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
1950s P2V Neptunes. No jets. Alameda to Hawaii. 12 hour flight. Maybe 3
hours of "single engine time" during which if one engine goes, you're too heavy with fuel to make land, but if you discharge enough fuel to stay airborne, you haven't enough fuel to make land. Catch 22. There are a couple of possibilities ("ground" effect for one) but essentially you are a single engine aircraft - - with two engines. With greater than twice the chance of engine failure. Scary. Quent |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message news Andrew Chaplin We all know that the Canucks never really did have an "air force" (the number of personnel in all branches of their military is approx. the size of the NYC police department!), but I digress... More misinformed B.S. The RCAF was the fourth largest allied airforce at the end of WWII. Quite an achievment for a country with a population of around 12 million I would think. Check your history! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
While peace-time redundancy is good--losing an engine due to a maintenance malfunction, the airplane is still recoverable, the situation changes in combat. My experience (and admittedly lots of things have changed since then), was that when the engine loss occurs due to battle damage, it won't be long before the engine sheds parts, throws turbine blades, starts a major fire, or whatever. That means losing the second engine and the situation then is identical to the single engine airplane. As for how long the listed aircraft can fly on one engine, I brought an F-4E with one engine shut-down due to a fire light home from the NVN/Laos border near Sam Neue, through an aerial refueling and back to Thailand where I recovered at Udorn. I cleaned the airplane off (the tanks had already been jettisoned earlier in the mission, and the racks went when the engine got shut down,) it it flew quite comfortably. Ed, these two paragraphs seem to contradict one another. It seems to me if an engine is shut down before it self destructs catastrophically, you're better off with the second engine. If it flushes itself too quickly to catch, then you're no worse off than in a single engine aircraft... flying the proverbial lead sled. Of course, there are aspects of flight where I'd just as soon just have a single anyway, but that's been beat to death already. -- Mortimer Schnerd, RN http://www.mortimerschnerd.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote: While peace-time redundancy is good--losing an engine due to a maintenance malfunction, the airplane is still recoverable, the situation changes in combat. My experience (and admittedly lots of things have changed since then), was that when the engine loss occurs due to battle damage, it won't be long before the engine sheds parts, throws turbine blades, starts a major fire, or whatever. That means losing the second engine and the situation then is identical to the single engine airplane. As for how long the listed aircraft can fly on one engine, I brought an F-4E with one engine shut-down due to a fire light home from the NVN/Laos border near Sam Neue, through an aerial refueling and back to Thailand where I recovered at Udorn. I cleaned the airplane off (the tanks had already been jettisoned earlier in the mission, and the racks went when the engine got shut down,) it it flew quite comfortably. Ed, these two paragraphs seem to contradict one another. It seems to me if an engine is shut down before it self destructs catastrophically, you're better off with the second engine. If it flushes itself too quickly to catch, then you're no worse off than in a single engine aircraft... flying the proverbial lead sled. I don't think there's a contradiction. The first paragraph refers to losing an engine due to battle damage. If you've take a hit in the engine, even shutting it down won't stop it from spinning and in an unbalanced or shattered condition it will still damage fuel tanks, hydraulic lines, bulkheads, whatever. If it stops spinning (not windmilling) then you've got a huge speedbrake on that side (note this is before hi-bypass turbofans) and all bets are off on S/E performance. The second paragraph (despite the location) is a classic "peacetime" engine shutdown. Nothing really wrong with the engine, simply a precautionary shut-down due to a fire warning light, which in this instance was a system malfunction, not a fire and not due to battle damage. Of course, there are aspects of flight where I'd just as soon just have a single anyway, but that's been beat to death already. There are a lot of factors in the equation, with excellent arguments on both sides. Certainly with improved reliability and increased performance of jet engines, the idea of fewer is better is taking hold. While we won't soon see single engine jet-liners, take a look at the latest generations from Boeing and AirBus--all are two-engine types rather than three or four. 757, 767, 777 all doing quite nicely on a pair rather than a handful of thrusters. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret) ***"When Thunder Rolled: *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam" *** from Smithsonian Books ISBN: 1588341038 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Question | Charles S | Home Built | 4 | April 5th 04 09:10 PM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |