Forum: Program and politics

Duth refuse to consider Super Hornet



Search Search  Register Register  Private Messages Private Messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
SpeakTheTruth
PostPosted: Jul 15, 2008 - 04:11 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Jul 26, 2006 - 10:11 AM
Posts: 145

Status: Offline
dwightlooi wrote:
Finally, one can also make a case for one engine being more reliable than two engines. With the same failure rate per engine, two engines = twice as many failure per unit service time. While having two engines gives the aircraft limp home power with some failure modes, others will render the aircraft inoperable even if it originated from only one of two engines -- a runaway fire, blade out damaging the adjacent engine or fuel tanks, etc. Basically, any kind of engine failure that renders a singe engined aircraft unglidable also renders the two engine safety net moot. A larger engine is more resistant to certain events like bird ingestion.


Actually I think that is a plausible argument but it has a limitation for single engined aircraft where your effectively trading redundancy for reliability. One of the arguments for twin transtlantic commercial airliners apart from greater operating efficiency was that an equivelent 4 engined aircraft would have twice the chance of an engine failure which would result in it having to divert immediately. The difference here is that unlike the twin jet that had redundancy in that it could fly on one remaining engine, the F-35 would more than likely be lost if it had an engine malfunction.

Its true that a lot of causes of engine failure would result in more or all of the engines failing on a multi engine aircraft but likewise there are many causes that would just cause the one engine to fail. You mentioned one which was bird/debris ingestion which is rare to occur in more than one engine at a given time. Also you mentioned damage caused by the failing to adjacent engines/systems, I know that modern civil turbofans have kevlar shielding to contain and protect vital systems and areas of the aircraft in the event of a blade out. I would have thought an advanced combat aircraft would have something similar.

I totally agree with the increased reliability with a single engine but you do sacrifice the redundancy you get with two engines. At least a twin engined aircraft that has lost an engine can limp back and be used another day (if nothing else major has packed in).
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: May 24, 2013 - 4:58 PM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor





  Send private message  
 
dwightlooi
PostPosted: Jul 15, 2008 - 06:08 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Aug 02, 2006 - 01:14 AM
Posts: 1170

Status: Offline
SpeakTheTruth wrote:

I totally agree with the increased reliability with a single engine but you do sacrifice the redundancy you get with two engines. At least a twin engined aircraft that has lost an engine can limp back and be used another day (if nothing else major has packed in).


As I said, it can be argued both ways, but operational statistics of single engine types and twins do not indicate a lower in-service attrition rate over time for twins. In otherwords, the disadvantages and advantages at best washes out even. If so, and given the cost, performance, weight, size and efficiency advantages of a single, why go for a twin? The only thing I can think of is requiring a level of thrust that cannot be had in a single engine at the present state of the art.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic