some F35 info

[Lucky13]

How much of what they have now, missiles etc., is too big for the -35's weapons bay?
Gripen have some 'hot stuff' in its armament, what does -35 in comparison?
Also, is it really 'only' a Mach 1,6 bird? Gripen is Mach 2 something with supercruise at Mach 1,3 or thereabouts....isn't that a tad slow for such a bird?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

How much of what they have now, missiles etc., is too big for the -35's weapons bay?
Gripen have some 'hot stuff' in its armament, what does -35 in comparison?
Also, is it really 'only' a Mach 1,6 bird? Gripen is Mach 2 something with supercruise at Mach 1,3 or thereabouts....isn't that a tad slow for such a bird?

First, there are some munitions that won't fit in the F-35B in the planned loadout, later mods will take care of that. As far as weapons, it depends what model of the F-35 you're talking about.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkADougHayward.pdf

The F-35 could carry 18,000 pounds of bombs in internal and external stores (depending on model) From what have read on the Gripen, there's nothing definitive on it's bomb load (because its primary role is an air to air fighter?) but loadouts don't come close to 18,000 pounds.

As far as speed - compare both birds at lower altitude because that's where it's really going to make a difference. BTW the F-117 was subsonic...

 

[syscom3]

High reliability modern jet engine. Hey, they don't fail. Do they?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

High reliability modern jet engine. Hey, they don't fail. Do they?

Do you even have a hair on your @ss or a molecule in your brain to explain WHY they fail or don't fail? How many jet engines have you worked on behind your desk or at your recliner to honestly show us that you really know what you're talking about? I could post a photo of a downs syndrome brain and try to compare it to some of your posts but I would rather show some meaningful facts for comparison, so if you cant do the same I suggest you just STFU and ether be educated or go away!!!

 

[syscom3]

The engine failed or not? Good thing it was still on the ground.

 

[syscom3]

Lookie here. Another modern high tech engine failure. I thought engine failures were a thing of the past.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You showed two engine failures - provide statistical comparisons of the aircraft type, engine type and hours flown. If you don't I will ban you.

 

[GrauGeist]

F-18 crashes involving engine failures:
7 February 1987 - USMC - F/A‑18A - VMFA‑122
21 September 1987 - CAF - CF-18
16 November 1987 - USMC - F/A‑18A - FVMFA‑531
10 May 1988 - USN - F/A‑18A - VFA‑125
22 June 1989 - USN - F/A‑18A - VFA‑151
31 March 1990 - USN - F-18A - VFA‑136
24 January 1991 - USN - F-18C
29 May 1992 - USMC - F/A-18D - VMFA[AW]-121
22 June 1993 - USMC - F/A‑18A - MAG 42, Det. A, 4th MAW
21 June 1994 - USN - F/A-18 - VFA-82
18 November 1994 - USN - F/A‑18A - VFA‑97
9 May 2000 - USMC - F/A‑18D - VMFAT(AW)‑101
23 October 2001 - USN - F/A-18C - VFA-105

These were specifically listed as "crash due to engine failure" listings, several others between the years of 1987 and 2001 alluded to engine failure, but stopped short of the claim. There was a good number of crashes between 1994 and 2000 that were very vague as to cause.

However, from 2001 onward, "crash due to engine failure" ceases to exist...not because they stopped crashing, because there is plenty of crashes listed...however, the "crash due to...." is now vaguely listed.

Even so, this is quite a few twin engined aircraft that crashed due to engine failures...so at what point did that extra engine come in handy?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

F-18 crashes involving engine failures:
7 February 1987 - USMC - F/A‑18A - VMFA‑122
21 September 1987 - CAF - CF-18
16 November 1987 - USMC - F/A‑18A - FVMFA‑531
10 May 1988 - USN - F/A‑18A - VFA‑125
22 June 1989 - USN - F/A‑18A - VFA‑151
31 March 1990 - USN - F-18A - VFA‑136
24 January 1991 - USN - F-18C
29 May 1992 - USMC - F/A-18D - VMFA[AW]-121
22 June 1993 - USMC - F/A‑18A - MAG 42, Det. A, 4th MAW
21 June 1994 - USN - F/A-18 - VFA-82
18 November 1994 - USN - F/A‑18A - VFA‑97
9 May 2000 - USMC - F/A‑18D - VMFAT(AW)‑101
23 October 2001 - USN - F/A-18C - VFA-105

These were specifically listed as "crash due to engine failure" listings, several others between the years of 1987 and 2001 alluded to engine failure, but stopped short of the claim. There was a good number of crashes between 1994 and 2000 that were very vague as to cause.

However, from 2001 onward, "crash due to engine failure" ceases to exist...not because they stopped crashing, because there is plenty of crashes listed...however, the "crash due to...." is now vaguely listed.

Even so, this is quite a few twin engined aircraft that crashed due to engine failures...so at what point did that extra engine come in handy?

Good post - and if we could compare those number with the hours flown, it would probably make you want to fly in an F-18 in lieu of driving your car.... For a number of reasons!

 

[GrauGeist]

Good post - and if we could compare those number with the hours flown, it would probably make you want to fly in an F-18 in lieu of driving your car.... For a number of reasons!

Dunno...does an F-18 have early warning for old women driving Buicks?

 

[parsifal]

also the disastrous engine failures shown in those photos would almost certainly have caused a failure also of an engine housed right beside it.

So, the brief after seeing those photos gets even more specific....how many aircraft with engines housed together, or in close proximity, can survive as compared to a single engine configuration.

Having two engines can probably help in some situations, that much im prepared to concede, but how much safer, and do you make sacrifices like increased signatures , incresed costs, decreased serviceability rates and the like.

I trust the military and the the manufacturer enough to believe these issues would be considered at concept stage. I want to give this issue better consideration and clear air, but there is just nothing in front of us to demonstrate any significant problem

 

[Glider]

The engine failed or not? Good thing it was still on the ground.

You are correct, it was lucky that they were on the ground as the first one almost certainly would have resulted in the loss of the aircraft.

The only aircraft I can think of that was deliberately designed for survivability in the case of the loss of an engine was the A10. Its competitor the Northdrop A9 also had two engines but didn't get the contract. One reason was that the engines were close to each other and damage to one would almost certainly damage the other.

I notice that you still haven't answered any of the questions put to you or supplied any evidence to support your position. This silence speaks louder than any words could say.

The occasional photo doesn't prove anything, as whatever we discuss, someone can always find a photo of the exception. As the saying goes, the exception proves the rule, particularly if that's all you've got

 

[Gixxerman]

The only aircraft I can think of that was deliberately designed for survivability in the case of the loss of an engine was the A10.

I can't give you quotations but I am pretty certain that from the F15 F14 onwards engine/engine-bay layouts for those military twin engine aircraft did take into account the possibility of damage to one being contained as much as possible so as to (hopefully) leave the other still able to operate.
Clearly not to the same degree as an A10 but I am pretty sure I have read it was a consideration during their design.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I notice that you still haven't answered any of the questions put to you or supplied any evidence to support your position. This silence speaks louder than any words could say.

The occasional photo doesn't prove anything, as whatever we discuss, someone can always find a photo of the exception. As the saying goes, the exception proves the rule, particularly if that's all you've got

And Syscom, you will answer my earlier post as well. You've been nothing more than a moronic disruption so put up or I'll shut you up!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I can't give you quotations but I am pretty certain that from the F15 F14 onwards engine/engine-bay layouts for those military twin engine aircraft did take into account the possibility of damage to one being contained as much as possible so as to (hopefully) leave the other still able to operate.
Clearly not to the same degree as an A10 but I am pretty sure I have read it was a consideration during their design.

The MiG-19 had two side - by - side engines, but that was done more to attain the desired performance.

 

[Gixxerman]

The MiG-19 had two side - by - side engines, but that was done more to attain the desired performance.

Indeed FLYBOYJ ( similarly aircraft like the F4 Phantom etc) it's just that I'm pretty sure I've read hisories of the design of the F15 F14 where they specifically paid attention to the possibility of one engine being hit trying to then enure that it would not (as easlily as may have been the case previously) be able to take out the other (although clearly severe levels of damage would make that imposible).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Indeed FLYBOYJ ( similarly aircraft like the F4 Phantom etc) it's just that I'm pretty sure I've read hisories of the design of the F15 F14 where they specifically paid attention to the possibility of one engine being hit trying to then enure that it would not (as easlily as may have been the case previously) be able to take out the other (although clearly severe levels of damage would make that imposible).

And agree as well, but the situation that we have is more than likely if any of these aircraft did take a well placed hit it's going down (or loosing both engines) so in going full circle here is it better to place yourself in a situation where the possibility of being tracked and shot at is mitigated (stealth technology) or flying an aircraft with two engines that paint a huge radar target and you're hoping to survive the possibility of being hit? I rather not be shot at but some people prefer the punishment!

 

[Greyman]

Cool video on Italy's f-35:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxXM7j4nmQg

 

[Glider]

I can't give you quotations but I am pretty certain that from the F15 F14 onwards engine/engine-bay layouts for those military twin engine aircraft did take into account the possibility of damage to one being contained as much as possible so as to (hopefully) leave the other still able to operate.
Clearly not to the same degree as an A10 but I am pretty sure I have read it was a consideration during their design.

You are correct but two engines in close proximity is always a risk, a fire in one will almost always lead to damage to the other even if its one of the feeds into the system fuel, oil, or a disruption to the power. As Syscom is always keen to mention we are talking about combat aircraft and a hit/proximity fuse hit will produce shrapnel and they will hit both engines. On the A10 the engines are as far away as possible from each other whereas the A9 didn't have this advantage.

 

[GregP]

Here's a very low altitude jet application:

Looks like a B-47 crashed into a train ...

I might decline to drive the one below:

I've seen the checklist for an F-104's Emergency Procedures. Fully 75% of them end with the word "Eject!"

Here's a short list of notable uncontained engine failure incidents:

1) Qantas Flight 32: an Airbus A380 flying from London Heathrow to Sydney (via Singapore) in 2010 had an uncontained failure in a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine. The failure was found to have been caused by a misaligned counter bore within a stub oil pipe leading to a fatigue fracture. This in turn led to an oil leakage followed by an oil fire in the engine. The fire led to the release of the Intermediate Pressure Turbine (IPT) disc.

2) Delta Air Lines Flight 1288: a McDonnell Douglas MD-88 flying from Pensacola, Florida to Atlanta in 1996 had a cracked compressor rotor hub failure on one of its Pratt Whitney JT8D-219 engines. 2 died.

3) United Airlines Flight 232: a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 flying from Denver to Chicago in 1989. The failure of the rear General Electric CF6-6 engine caused the loss of all hydraulics forcing the pilots to attempt a landing using differential thrust. 111 fatalities. Prior to the United 232 crash, the probability of a simultaneous failure of all three hydraulic systems was considered as high as a billion-to-one. However, the statistical models used to come up with this figure did not account for the fact that the number-two engine was mounted at the tail close to all the hydraulic lines, nor the possibility that an engine failure would release many fragments in many directions. Since then, more modern aircraft engine designs have focused on keeping shrapnel from penetrating the cowling or ductwork, and have increasingly utilized high-strength composite materials to achieve the required penetration resistance while keeping the weight low.

4) Cameroon Airlines Flight 786: a Boeing 737 flying between Douala and Garoua,Cameroon in 1984 had a failure of a Pratt Whitney JT8D-15 engine. 2 people died.

5) Two LOT Polish Airlines flights, both Ilyushin Il-62s, suffered catastrophic uncontained engine failures in the 1980s. The first was in 1980 on LOT Flight 7 where flight controls were destroyed, killing all 87 on board. In 1987, on LOT Flight 5055, the aircraft's inner left (#2) engine, damaged the outer left (#1) engine, setting both on fire and causing in-flight break up, killing all 183 people on board. In both cases, the turbine shaft in engine #2 disintegrated due to production defects in the engines' bearings, which were missing rollers.[5]

6) National Airlines Flight 27: a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 flying from Miami to San Francisco in 1973 had an overspeed failure of a General Electric CF6-6, resulting in one fatality.

7) British Airways Flight 2276: a Boeing 777-200ER flying from Las Vegas to London in 2015 suffered an uncontained engine failure on its #1 GE90 engine during takeoff, resulting in a large fire on its port side. The aircraft successfully aborted takeoff and the plane was evacuated with no fatalities.

But, considering the number of flights every day, this a VERY low percentage. It's probably the safest engine ever built as long as it has oil and fuel to burn. Of course, we know from Capt. Sullenberger that geese are a serious threat to commercial turbine engines in New York airspace around the Hudson River.

Fortunately the geese that perpetrated that incident will never so it again as they got sliced, diced, julienned, and fried by said turbines. So it turns out commercial turbines also function as blenders under the right circumstances, and perhaps vacuum cleaners, too, though the exhuast would likley bring down the wrath, as well as their entire apartment, of the upstairs neighbors.