Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?
High reliability modern jet engine. Hey, they don't fail. Do they?
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!
The engine failed or not? Good thing it was still on the ground.
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 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
The MiG-19 had two side - by - side engines, but that was done more to attain the desired performance.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.
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).
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.