http://www.becomefighterpilot.com/the-evolution-and-future-of-carrier-operations/Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:16:59 +0000hourly1http://www.becomefighterpilot.com/the-evolution-and-future-of-carrier-operations/#comment-233Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:16:59 +0000http://www.afterburnerclub.com/?p=1320#comment-233I think that single-engine fighters are not a problem because the Royal Navy uses the Harrier and has no problems, the Marines use them too so there is no preoblem from my point of view.

]]>http://www.becomefighterpilot.com/the-evolution-and-future-of-carrier-operations/#comment-232Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:47:45 +0000http://www.afterburnerclub.com/?p=1320#comment-232I’ve seen more that one twin engine fighter lose one engine and the crew have to punch out even though they still had one good engine still powered up. How well does an F-15, F-16, FA-18, or F-22 fly on one engine during the approach and landing phase?

]]>http://www.becomefighterpilot.com/the-evolution-and-future-of-carrier-operations/#comment-231Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:26:31 +0000http://www.afterburnerclub.com/?p=1320#comment-231The reliability of dual engines is sometimes overtaken by the complexity of the system. I don’t think that the lack of redundincy causes a reduction of safety if the systems are simple enough. Complexity can be almost as dangerous at times.

]]>http://www.becomefighterpilot.com/the-evolution-and-future-of-carrier-operations/#comment-230Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:11:10 +0000http://www.afterburnerclub.com/?p=1320#comment-230The importance of a pilots skill set will even be more important when they go back to a single engine for the Navy. I think the carrier personnel level of readiness won’t change. But for the pilot the level of readiness will be higher and probably more alert. The F-18 pilots who have been shot at, lost an engine, ingested a bird, and babied it home to the carrier won’t have that option anymore. We have all seen the YouTube videos of F-16’s ingesting birds, tree limbs, etc. and don’t make it back to base. Then there’s the story of the missile exploding off the tail totaling one engine and still making it home. Now obviously single engine attack aircraft isn’t a new territory for the Navy; remember they and the USMC flew the A-4 Skyhawk heavily in the 60’s – 70’s and they built that aircraft to make emergency landings with the drop tanks attached.

]]>http://www.becomefighterpilot.com/the-evolution-and-future-of-carrier-operations/#comment-229Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:44:56 +0000http://www.afterburnerclub.com/?p=1320#comment-229greetings from southern africa. two engines are good when there is a landing error and afterburner is required to ensure the aircraft takesoff to safety. F35 can land vertically thereby eliminating any landing difficulties

]]>http://www.becomefighterpilot.com/the-evolution-and-future-of-carrier-operations/#comment-228Tue, 03 Aug 2010 03:57:36 +0000http://www.afterburnerclub.com/?p=1320#comment-228I suppose it depends on the track record of the engine in the F-35. Though, while you cannot land a fighter on the water, obviously, it seems that your only engine in a plane going out over any terrain would be an awfully big deal, no?

]]>http://www.becomefighterpilot.com/the-evolution-and-future-of-carrier-operations/#comment-227Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:09:59 +0000http://www.afterburnerclub.com/?p=1320#comment-227In our area of business, redundancy or backup is a BIG thing
in those areas of operations where single point of failure
is a hazard or risks people and safety.
I can so totally appreciate the Navys longstanding desire
to have twin engine aircraft. Those techs on duty had better
make sure the eject seats are in GOOD order.

]]>