raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) (07/30/90)
From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) In <1990Jul27.015630.22235@cbnews.att.com> Duane P Mantick quoting Adrian Hurt in <1990Jul24.024951.21186@cbnews.att.com> >>17: Northrop F-17; competitor to F-16 which failed. Later resurrected as: >>18: McDonnell-Douglas F-18 Hornet > Hmmmm.....I don't think McD/D would agree with that.... :-) I don't think MD has a leg to stand on to disagree. While MD probably put in more design, research and development time in working out the detail of the F/A-18, the whole plane is just an YF-17 scaled up 10% to meet Navy requirement. The fact is the Navy did not like doing business with Northrop which they considered having no naval plane experience and the cooperation with MD was a force majeure. Then why did the Navy chosed the YF-17 in the first place? Well the Congress in their infinite wisdom to save money, directed the Navy to choose a plane from the contenders in the YF-16 vs YF-17 fly off, their intention was to have the Navy using the same plane as the UASF. But the Navy of course dislike using an USAF plane(when was the last time that happened? The FB-111 fiasco came pretty close.) all the more when the winner, YF-16 was single engined, giving the Navy a good excuse (actually F-8U, A-4, A-1 Skyradier**, A-7 are all SE) to choose the loser of the fly off. **In a previous post, I wrote the A-3 was the first of A planes. Obviously I am correcting myself here. But heck, someone will very soon point this out anyway. As for why YF-17 lost, Ray Braybrook said something I shall quote in the next post. Just call me `Man'. "And why take ye thought for " -- Matt. 6:28 raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu
terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (08/01/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <1990Jul30.015802.8659@cbnews.att.com> raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) writes:
:
:I don't think MD has a leg to stand on to disagree. While MD probably
:put in more design, research and development time in working out the
:detail of the F/A-18, the whole plane is just an YF-17 scaled up
:10% to meet Navy requirement. The fact is the Navy did not like
:doing business with Northrop which they considered having no
:naval plane experience and the cooperation with MD was a force
:majeure. Then why did the Navy chosed the YF-17 in the first place?
:Well the Congress in their infinite wisdom to save money, directed
:the Navy to choose a plane from the contenders in the YF-16 vs YF-17
:fly off, their intention was to have the Navy using the same plane
:as the UASF. But the Navy of course dislike using an USAF plane(when
:was the last time that happened? The FB-111 fiasco came pretty close.)
:all the more when the winner, YF-16 was single engined, giving the Navy
:a good excuse (actually F-8U, A-4, A-1 Skyradier**, A-7 are all SE) to
:choose the loser of the fly off.
The situation was a little more complicated than that. Yes, the Navy
has a preference for 2 engined planes, whatever the reason. The
F/A-18 was both a fighter and an attack plane, so the Navy could use
one airframe to replace 2 aging designs (F-4 and A-7). This was a
tremendous cost-effectiveness measure. It also made the carrier air
groups more flexible since in a high-threat situation you could have
more fighters, and in a low-threat strike situation you could have
more attack planes, all without juggling the numbers and types of
aircraft on board. There are also range and load considerations. If
it is going to be used as a strike plane it has to be able to carry a
large load. In addition, since carrier admirals don't like to park
their birdfarms near anybody who is shooting at them, those admirals
like to have as much range as possible. That was one of the biggest
complaints about the F-18, that its range was less than the A-7 that
it was supposed to replace.
--
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogi.eduraymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) (08/05/90)
From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) In <1990Jul30.015802.8659@cbnews.att.com> Terry Rooker talked about the Navy's choice of F/A-18 because F/A-18 was both a fighter and an attack plane. Well, the choice was YF-16 vs YF-17 and they were so similar in performance that the only major difference is number of engines. The Navy actually bought a new plane becasue, while the aerodynamics are almost the same, by virtual of being 10% larger makes F/A-18 so much different as a system. Many things do not simply scale. Just call me `Man'. "And why take ye thought for " -- Matt. 6:28 raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu
Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) (08/05/90)
From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson)
TR> the fly off.
TR> The situation was a little more complicated than that. Yes,
TR> the Navy has a preference for 2 engined planes, whatever the
TR> reason.
The Navy loves twin engine planes because of survivability. In the Air
Force, if you get engine trouble in a one engine plane, you route to the
nearest emergency airfield. In the Navy, when you get engine trouble you
got lots of nice pretty ocean to land in and not much else, except for your
friendly neighborhood postagestamp which could be hundreds of miles away.
Much better to have a back up engine than to lose a megabuck plane because
of an engine failure.henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/08/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) > The Navy loves twin engine planes because of survivability. In the Air >Force, if you get engine trouble in a one engine plane, you route to the >nearest emergency airfield. In the Navy, when you get engine trouble you >got lots of nice pretty ocean to land in... The one-vs-two-engines debate unfortunately isn't that simple when you dig into the technical side. *If* one and only one engine goes out, yes, you are better off with one left than with none. However, there are some complications. For one thing, there are *literally* complications, since a two-engined aircraft is more complex and harder to manage, leading to a higher probability of mistakes in a crisis. Another fly in the ointment is that two-engined aircraft with the two engines snuggled up right next to each other have a high probability of losing *both* engines if one goes out, because an engine-bay fire will often knock out the good engine a moment later. It is possible to make a case that the safety advantage is anywhere from large to slightly negative, depending on how you pick the evidence and what assumptions you make. On a nasty practical note, in general a two-engined aircraft will spend less time flying (greater complexity -> poorer reliability) and will be bigger and therefore easier to spot and a better target. The Navy loves twin-engine planes because *it thinks* they are more survivable. That much is indisputable. :-) Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) (08/09/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <1990Aug5.042424.28125@cbnews.att.com> raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) writes: > > >From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) > >In <1990Jul30.015802.8659@cbnews.att.com> Terry Rooker talked about >the Navy's choice of F/A-18 because F/A-18 was both a fighter and an >attack plane. > >Well, the choice was YF-16 vs YF-17 and they were so similar in performance >that the only major difference is number of engines. The Navy actually >bought a new plane becasue, while the aerodynamics are almost the same, >by virtual of being 10% larger makes F/A-18 so much different as a system. >Many things do not simply scale. My point was a response to someone who said that the choice was made only because the YF-17 had two engines, and implying that the choice was made because the navy did not want to get into a dual procurement mode with the Air Force. That is probably true, and I imagine the Air Force doesn't want it either. The YF-17 had several advantages for scaling up. The AF lightweight fighter would not meet the Navy requirements, so whichever was chosen would have to be enlarged to meet the Naval requirements. The YF-17 simply had more potential, and not just because it had two engines, although two engines provides a greater opportunity to increase the payload. The basic airframe had greater potential to enlarge without major modifications. It was larger and hence could carry more ordanance and fuel. I agree that the Hornet is not the same plane as the Cobra. Considering the extremes that the AF has gone through to add an air-to-ground capability to the F-15 and F-16, the Navy approach with the F-18 seems to be vindicated. Ironic, considering that when it was first procured the extra cost of the dual mode aircraft was one of the biggest criticisms directed at the program. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
dak@sq (08/14/90)
From: dak@sq
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
:>From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson)
:> The Navy loves twin engine planes because of survivability. In the Air
:>Force, if you get engine trouble in a one engine plane, you route to the
:>nearest emergency airfield. In the Navy, when you get engine trouble you
:>got lots of nice pretty ocean to land in...
:The one-vs-two-engines debate unfortunately isn't that simple when you dig
:into the technical side. *If* one and only one engine goes out, yes,
:The Navy loves twin-engine planes because *it thinks* they are more
:survivable. That much is indisputable. :-)
I'd like to point out that the Canadian Forces have drawn the same
conclusion; this was apparently one of the reasons for rejecting the
F-20 for DEW-line defense.dak@sq.sq.com (David A Keldsen) (08/15/90)
From: dak@sq.sq.com (David A Keldsen) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >The one-vs-two-engines debate unfortunately isn't that simple when you dig >into the technical side. *If* one and only one engine goes out, yes, you >The Navy loves twin-engine planes because *it thinks* they are more >survivable. That much is indisputable. :-) I'd like to point out that the Canadian Forces have drawn the same conclusion; this was apparently one of the reasons for rejecting the F-20 for DEW-line defense. // David A. 'Dak' Keldsen dak@sq.com or utai[.cs.toronto.edu]!sq!dak // "Two disappointed believers/Two people playing the game/ // Negotiations and love songs/Are often mistaken for one and the same" // --Train In The Distance, Paul Simon
gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond) (08/24/90)
From: gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond)
>>>>> On 15 Aug 90 03:22:09 GMT, dak@sq.sq.com (David A Keldsen) said:
David> I'd like to point out that the Canadian Forces have drawn the same
David> conclusion; this was apparently one of the reasons for rejecting the
David> F-20 for DEW-line defense.
The Australian air force also chose F/A-18s over F-16s. The 2-vs-1
engine argument was prominent, although issues of dual-role and
greater range probably held greater weight.
When it comes down to it, issues like licenced manufacturing, local
content and technology transfer probably had just as much weight with
the pollies.
Greg.
--
Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Internet: gnb@melba.bby.oz.au non-MX: gnb%melba.bby.oz@uunet.uu.net
Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnb