[…]
@ Tomcat

you gave the answer yourself: it’s the vendor (Airbus) selling their stuff… just as LM says that single engine F-35 is as safe as any multi engine, Airbus does the same.

I may ask you, why is there no single engine airliner?

the answer is safety, pure and simple

This is a fascinating question. Part of the answer is that there is alrdy a full range of single engined airliner: General aviation aircraft (turbine powered).

The second aspect is dictated by the general arrangement of the tube and wing model and market acceptance. But with the new high powered turbofans for big twins, there will certainly be a place in the future for a single engined 200- airliner (flying wing ?), given that right engineers can be backed by the bright entrepreneurial leadership (E. Musk?).

But don’t hold your breath on it 😉

As I have alrdy written, engine technology is now at a similar phase as piston engined were when Twin meant twice the probability of a failure (in fact it’s more than just the double, there is slight synergy of occurrence due to over complexification of a system).

A recent example was the F5. It had a twin arrangement but a single failure meant often a double engine shut down after 5 minute of flight on the remaining one.

Jay. The range of a fighter is the same no matter the size of the country it is tasked to protect.

You take a 700nm range for the 35, add a refuel and got 1100nm (nbr are extracted from my poor memory). You won’t get anything near the 3000nm of the whole Canada territory. That it has to be a 35, a 18E/F, a Raf or a Typhoon. For this, you’ll need to shop Russian or, if you really want to make actual patrol in the far remote part of the country, shop some Tu128 out of Russian Museums.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]233978[/ATTACH]

And I did cross Canada from E to W and then S to North one year… by the road 😉

The Bigger wing on the smaller fuselage was in fact one of the poorest decision of the “old” managing team. That and the decision to not “bulge” the second deck for poor marketing insight have ruined the profitability that companies could have expected from the plane.

…and the above have been written long before today.

I don’t know if they are really serious about a 380Neo. You know, it could be only an announcement targeted to the market.

I would think that the perference of two engines is the fact that for an aircraft operating as far away from civilization / help as the RCAF do in the far north, having TWO engines would HOPEFULLY allow an aircraft to fly back to a forward operating base at least, on ONE engine. IF the plane only has one engine to start with, no matter how reliable it may be, should it cut out, the plane is going down. And going down in the absolute and inhospitable far north is NOT a situation anyone would want, loss of a very expensive plane and potentially ( above average chances ) of loosing the pilot as well vs. the chance that the plane / pilot can make it back to some sort of airfield on one engine and loosing neither…I think that that breaks down the hub of the “multi engined” issue to it;s simplest form.

It has less to do with older engines vs. new engine capabilities, and more to do with over all survivability with engine failure and potential aircraft loss vs. ability to get back with pilot and plane and repair for duty again.

It may matter less to a Nation that is looking at having over 1000 planes of the one type, but if the expected numbers for a country like Canada are 70 or less, loosing one is a VERY expensive lesson to learn. And I would hazard a guess that many smaller air forces will simularily not be able to absorb losses easily.

Things have changed.

We are now at a stage where the probability of an Engine failure has been lowered bellow that of the probability of an increased rate of failures due to the complexification of a system.

It has happened in the past with Piston engines: Multi-engined aircraft suffered a higher probability of incident (one engine failure etc…) than their single/twin engined counterparts.

I have no number for you but, as an example, you could search the incident rates of the Airbus A340 Vs that of the A330.

Nobody want a pilot lost or left to its death because of a remote ejection/crash site. Not the CAF. Nor the USAF or even the US NAVY. If the 35 is single engined, it’s because it has been deemed to be inherently safe to fly in the range of mission flown by the services.

USAF fly above Alaska on a daily basis. It’s very comparable the North of Canada… add the Alaskan chain of mountains.

The US NAVY does not fly only over Caribbean “sexy” atolls surrounded by warm waters. They are flying in the south Atlantic for example where life expectancy of a pilot is even lower than in the far north of Canada.

Other NATO nations have flown for years single engined fighter over vast empty spaces similar than the North of Canada. They didn’t rebuke their F16 for example.

So, I understand that argument about twin Vs Single .But sadly, it does not take into account the state of the technology. 20 years from now, this would have been a valuable arguments.

…It is no more.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]233852[/ATTACH]

Russian Porn !

Thx for posting that amazing shot

So let me get this straight… The only way the F-35 is better is if you actually have to take it to war?

Gee, why would anyone consider war performance when selecting a weapons system?

Dumbasses

yeah, let me guess: the F35 is no more suitable to make coffee, shovel snow on the morning (huumm that big Typhie’s Canards) and hold your favorite Canadian (Heeeey) shop of beer at a hockey field… Do I am guessing right ?

Can’t believe how ridiculous the 35 debate have turned up there. If I was LM, I would publish my sincere apologies to all Canadians in a national newspaper begging excuses for having turned their politicians… irrational.

Let’s get it straight, there is some Voodoo magics in that number! 35 , 35 35…

Fuel Temperature Can Shut Down F-35

This new vulnerability of the F-35 is likely to give a new meaning to the expression “summer offensive,” as future aggressors will no doubt take the precaution of waiting for summer (or even a heatwave) to attack, knowing their opponents’ F-35s will be unable to take off and oppose them.

Damn… Some needs to put more ice in their… favorite fuel

the French have only ordered 60 AESA radars to date, these to equip the Tranche 4 aircraft that Dassault is now delivering

50/50 is the overall ratio b/w B&C. Marine is all single seater.

Dassault Rafale Armée de l’AirFrance Multirole fighter aircraft
C 45
B 48

Source:
http://www.ainonline.com/
Wiki