Originally Posted by
riff_raff
Consider this example. A single engine is apparently acceptable for the F-35B, a couple of which just safely flew across the Atlantic Ocean. Yet the new CH-53K helo is designed to use three engines to make the same flight.
When the established reliability rate of turboshaft engines meets or exceeds that of the rest of the propulsion system which has no operational fault tolerance, such as much of the rotor system and gearbox, what is the justification for not using a single engine?
:
Maybe the F35B is not the best choice of example for propulsion reliability…? They may have flown here but when they go back to the factory for repair it will be by surface. The UK’s forward thinking MOD is building 2 new ‘transporter’ ships, so they can run a shuttle service across the pond
Also an ejection seat and parachute might be some comfort to the F35B pilot, as he bobs around on his personal life-raft, waiting to be collected by a twin-engined helicopter, expecting it to be capable of the return journey.
I do understand your point and that reasoning is why we now see 2-engined airliners crossing the Atlantic whereas the norm used to be 4-engined. Not yet singles though...