P-51 question.

"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

(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

wrote:

David Windhorst wrote:

At what point did the USN decide they preferred twin-engined a/c?
What's the evolution of that philosophy? Did it come out of the
sometimes questionable reliability of early turbine powerplants? Before
the advent of jets, was there ever any similar preference expressed for
piston twins?

Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.

Anyone?

Since you open it to "anyone" I will point out that the RCAF was
disbanded on 1 February 1968 -- IT CEASED TO EXIST. Please see the
National Defence Act as amended by the Canadian Forces Reorganization
Act, especially Section 14.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-5/83413.html#section-14

The money-bag from which Canada buys its aircraft takes into account
many needs, one of which is survival over vast expanses of terrain
with small populations. Two engines would seem to be the ticket. This
significantly reduces the time that the land force spends traipsing
across the tundra looking for lost airmen.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

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

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

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

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

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!

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

"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