送交者: coubert 于 2010-04-21, 11:23:04:

• 这句话尤其SB: with two engines, you're twice as likely.. - tinaliang (171 bytes) 2010-04-21, 12:12:35 (433771)
  • the key is the aircraft can survive one engine failure - so more reliable (无内容) - meiyou (0 bytes) 2010-04-21, 13:22:50 (433814)
    • that's been my point, and navy's point. (无内容) - tinaliang (0 bytes) 2010-04-21, 13:26:23 (433815)
  • that is a simple probability, - steven (236 bytes) 2010-04-21, 12:32:06 (433775)
    • see my post. less stressed engines less likely to fail. - tinaliang (63 bytes) 2010-04-21, 12:40:51 (433778)
      • why it is less stressed? (无内容) - steven (0 bytes) 2010-04-21, 13:13:17 (433804)
        • 功率冗余。 (无内容) - tinaliang (0 bytes) 2010-04-21, 13:16:22 (433809)
          • Not that many jet engine failure are stresse related. - steven (81 bytes) 2010-04-21, 13:30:33 (433818)
            • ok. now tell us twine engines fails twice as many as single, would you? (无内容) - tinaliang (0 bytes) 2010-04-21, 13:35:41 (433822)
• 你不知道国防部费了多大劲说服海军用双发吧？ (无内容) - tinaliang (0 bytes) 2010-04-21, 11:49:51 (433758)
  • you meant the US or Chinese? Most US Navy planes are twin engines. (无内容) - steven (0 bytes) 2010-04-21, 12:27:22 (433774)
  • 停用双发，跟其他兵种共用单发。 (无内容) - tinaliang (0 bytes) 2010-04-21, 11:53:08 (433761)
    • JSF F-35? 双发应该不会停用。 (无内容) - DW (0 bytes) 2010-04-21, 12:56:00 (433787)
      • eventually. - tinaliang (543 bytes) 2010-04-21, 13:02:07 (433793)
        • 也许搭配使用. - DW (71 bytes) 2010-04-21, 13:21:15 (433812)
    • steve, see here the correct one. (无内容) - tinaliang (0 bytes) 2010-04-21, 12:37:35 (433777)

加跟贴