F-35C meets US Navy's single-engine derision

Flight Global ^ | July 27, 2009 | Stephen Trimble

[Tarpon]

The conclusion writes itself.

[Redleg Duke]

Yep, the US Navy has never had a successful, single-engine carrier plane!

World War II never happened, either.

[for-q-clinton]

F-35 is a decent aircraft, F-22 will destroy it but still the F-35 will help against any other nation’s air force at a cheaper cost.

[Alex Murphy]

The F/A-18 pilot says the Navy has worked hard to get to a point where only twin-engine jets were serving on the decks of carriers. In a single engine aircraft such as the Lockheed F-16, "a failure in any engine component that leads to a loss of thrust or flame-out equates to a quick attempt to try to troubleshoot the problem for a few seconds before making the decision to eject. In a Hornet, by contrast, even a total single engine failure can be ignored" if the situation warrants it, the pilot says.

Ideally, he adds, in the event of an engine failure, "flight can easily be maintained at a safe altitude while carrying out emergency procedures".

Ping for later

[Vaquero]

[grobdriver]

World War II never happened, either.

Yes, well, I'll take the survivability of a multi-row radial over a turbine any day.

This is a bad idea. They can design in all the subsystem hardening they want, but when bad things happen (these are warplanes, after all), some aviator is going for a swim.

[Sudetenland]

Yeah, really. Like there was never an A-4, A-7, or F-8.

I understand the concern, but most of the fighter aircraft flown thoughout history have been single-engined.

[Vaquero]

[Thrownatbirth]

On the bright side, my ship was 3 for 3 during planeguard.

[Sudetenland]

meant to say “carrier based” fighter aircraft/ :P

[TheBattman]

You beat me to it...

[joe fonebone]

"Yep, the US Navy has never had a successful, single-engine carrier plane!"
with the exception of the last gunfighter, the F-8... :)

[OneWingedShark]

What F-22? I thought they’d just cut funding for it... or did they recant? Or is it in limbo? {Ah, the sweet insecurity of bureaucracy. [/sarc]}

[12Gauge687]

F-8 Crusader and A-7 Corsair II had single P&W engines.

[Charles Martel]

Yep, the US Navy has never had a successful, single-engine carrier plane!

Actually, the Navy has been pretty consistent on this point, with regard to design choices. In WWII and into Korea, the Navy chose air-cooled radial engines due to their better ability to survive severe battle damage, compared with the liquid-cooled V-12s. More than a few of those big Pratt & Whitney engines brought fighter planes back from missions with entire cylinders shot away.

[SZonian]

It sounds like they’re (media) going after the F35 now that the F22 got axed. Start writing articles explaining how the pilots don’t like the plane, etc. I’m not sure, it’s just something about the negative tone of the article.

I fail to see how any of this could be helped seeing as how the DOD set the requirements for the aircraft. I think they learned their lesson from the F22 and did their best to not change and revise their requirements during development.

The last line of the article does say alot though.

Personally, I tend to agree that if a pilot is over water and has an engine problem, it sure would be nice to have that second one spinning to give him/her a chance.

SZ

[Vroomfondel]

ping

[laotzu]

Pictures of pilots that were shot down makes a good point. Well done.

[Fire_on_High]

I don’t know...I remember hearing the F-35 is a turd 2 years or so ago, long before this mess and while the Raptor was in full swing.