Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!att!cbnews!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Mcdonnell-douglas/northrop F/a-18 Message-ID: <1990Aug8.030635.26316@cbnews.att.com> Date: 8 Aug 90 03:06:35 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 31 Approved: military@att.att.com 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