Then, to compare losses due to engine failure gets one nowhere.
It is a valuable guide as to the chances of safely operating the type in future. Something you appeared to care not one jot about.
The Lighting didn’t suffer from an undue number of engine failures, it suffered from engine fires.
Oh well that’s alright then I suppose! Good grief. Fires which often burned through the flying control connections!
Even so, the chances of a civilian-operated Lightning suffering an engine fire, a subsequent abandonment, and a crash which causes injury or death (when compared to a whole fleet operated exhaustively for decades), is pretty-much zero.
Again – (and with due respect Bruce, I am not treading on the SA investigation) there are photos showing ZU-BEX on fire before it crashed. That does not indicate the chances are ‘pretty-much zero’. I’m sure this fatal loss is inconvenient for your increasingly bonkers argument Chox but you cannot wish it away.
As for the Harrier, the situation is obviously more critical. Lose one engine and the aircraft is lost, but again it begs the question of whether it is therefore more likely to crash on someone’s house than a Hunter or a Jet Provost?
Again your ignorance shows. Go away and learn something about the Harrier and its systems compared to a Hunter or Jet Provost.
Sign In
