1 engine vs 2 engine fighters

[Denniss]

The G-7 was not simply a G-6 with Jumo 213E, it also had some structural changes. By war's end G-7 airframes were in production but none known as completed.

 

[davparlr]

Sorry, back to an earlier diversion. Neither the F-16 nor the F-18 were wanted by their services, the AF wanted more F-15s and the Navy wanted more F-14s. AF selected the F-16 because it wanted the engine to be the same as the F-15, therefore lowering unit cost of engine. Navy didn't want the F-16, 1) it was an AF bird, and 2) they wanted twin engines for safety (I guess this was unimportant for the F-35!). I'm prejudice here but I don't think the F-16 was a good selection for the AF. Initially, it could only carry AIM 9 due to the lack of an illuminator so it was a VFR Fighter, and sold to Europe as such. In addition, growth space for avionics was very limited, 2 cuft (I think this was measured by filling the fuselage with water and measuring what poured out). Initially (IIRC), the F-16 had severe engine failure problems causing the loss of quite a few aircraft and some pilots. The AF started installing only engines in the F-16 that had been satisfactorily pre-flown in F-15s. Obviously this problem was corrected. The F-16 did not seem to play much of a role in the Persian Gulf War in the air to air role, having very few engagements and only two kills. The F-18 also played only a small part in the air to air role. The F-15 seemed to be king of the air to air fighting.

 

[GregP]

I don't think twin engines were unimportant at all for Navy, but a twin-engine STOVL wasn't in the cards as an engine failure in vertical mode would be a landing immediately ahead almost regardless of load.

Had they gone for a fleet defense fighter NOT with VTOL capabilities, I'm pretty sure it would have been a twin.

I know it never happens, but they SHOULD let the pilots decide on the next fighter, not the poiticians.

 

[swampyankee]

Sorry, back to an earlier diversion. Neither the F-16 nor the F-18 were wanted by their services, the AF wanted more F-15s and the Navy wanted more F-14s. AF selected the F-16 because it wanted the engine to be the same as the F-15, therefore lowering unit cost of engine. Navy didn't want the F-16, 1) it was an AF bird, and 2) they wanted twin engines for safety (I guess this was unimportant for the F-35!). I'm prejudice here but I don't think the F-16 was a good selection for the AF. Initially, it could only carry AIM 9 due to the lack of an illuminator so it was a VFR Fighter, and sold to Europe as such. In addition, growth space for avionics was very limited, 2 cuft (I think this was measured by filling the fuselage with water and measuring what poured out). Initially (IIRC), the F-16 had severe engine failure problems causing the loss of quite a few aircraft and some pilots. The AF started installing only engines in the F-16 that had been satisfactorily pre-flown in F-15s. Obviously this problem was corrected. The F-16 did not seem to play much of a role in the Persian Gulf War in the air to air role, having very few engagements and only two kills. The F-18 also played only a small part in the air to air role. The F-15 seemed to be king of the air to air fighting.

One significant issue with the rejection of a navalized F-16 was that the F-16 couldn't get to a sufficient angle of attack to meet the USN's approach speed requirements. To do so would require a massive redesign of the landing gear or a significant upsweep of the rear fuselage.