swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,152
- Jun 25, 2013
I tend to agree. Also, looking at loss rates would be useful: how do, say, the F-16 and F-18 compare? Neglecting a couple of early F-18s where one engine performed partial self-disassembly and fodded the other, there have been several F-18s operating from land lost after a single engine failure. I don't know whether the loss was due to some sort of cascading failure, operating at too great a weight or flaws in training, but it does little good for the argument in favor of twin engine safety.If we want twin engines and an aircraft from outside of the US, we have only the Eurofighter and Rafale. But is that false reassurance anyway? IIRC, today's jet engined are very reliable, and if a failure damages critical systems (hydraulics, fuel lines, avionics), both engines might be intact, but the aircraft is still doomed.
SAAB will need to update its website. They were smart to leave it up.
As a somewhat irrelevant aside, when I was active in the helicopter industry, twin-turbine helicopters' loss rate was driven by a common failure mode: the transmission. Twin helicopters had a significantly higher rate of transmission failure than did singles.
Last edited: