Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr. Blond

I have been saying since Day 1, when Defense Minister Peter MacKay did that photo op in the cockpit of that F-35 Edsel prototype, that the F-35 was not the right aircraft for Canada.
First off, one engine. In the arctic?
Secondly, by the time these things are built (if ever) the bad guys will have “stealth” all figured out. It will be useless.
Cost. Please.

Yes, go with the Super Hornet. It will be good for the next twenty years, anyways. Good fighter, good ground support aircraft. And, they’re still in production, we can buy them right off the shelf. If not, then consider the Eurofighter.


23 posted on 01/08/2013 6:04:27 PM PST by Dartman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: Dartman

Mean time between mission failures for turbofan engines tends to be over 80,000 hours. Mean time between mission abort would be about half that, or 40,000 hours.

With two engines, mean time between mission abort would be 40,000 hours.

You simply fly a single engine aircraft differently. With a hiccup, you abort and fly back. With a two engine aircraft with a hiccup, you continue to fly, and monitor it. If you lose an engine, you fly back.

All bets are off if someone is slinging 37mm cannon fire at you. You are nearly as likely to lose both fighter engines from one hit as you are to lose one engine. That is because two engine fighters have the engines close to each other.


24 posted on 01/08/2013 9:53:50 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson