Reason why aircrafts has two engines instead one.

Same was with the F-4, F-5, F-14 and as well F/A-18.

Not for the safety, but for the performance.

Similar thing with the MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-22, Su-24 and Su-27 etc.

Performance requirements instead safety.

Simple aerodynamics and lift factors that which one was decided to be used.

Today again we are with the F-35, Gripen, J-10, JF-17, Tejas etc with a single engine.

US Navy might have selected F/A-18 because dual engines, but that was not reason in design but performance.

I'll be honest: I have no idea whatsoever what you are trying to say here.

There's an old joke among pilots that the reason for two engines is that if you have an engine failure, the second engine is there to get you to the crash site.

There's an old joke among pilots that the reason for two engines is that if you have an engine failure, the second engine is there to get you to the crash site.

Similar wise words come from Ron "Tater Salad" White, as well.

I love this part of the video ( it is set to the proper time, just hit play)

...But you'll notice there's a difference between our airplanes and the Russian in that our engine tend to be quite close together...we like that because it essentially it give you center line thrust and an engine out situation loss of one engine doesn't give you an asymmetric trust problem similar to the one the MIG-29 had in Paris

"The large thrust imbalance between the left and the right engines caused the aircraft to depart controlled flight and the aircraft was unrecoverable within the altitude available."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/investigation-finds-stuck-piston-likely-led-to-crash-of-cf-18-hornet-in-air-show-practice/article6220481/

I think it would have been fine if he was doing anything but a high alpha pass. The MiG-29 has its ends of its engines pointed slightly outward so with one engine the thrust is closer to centerline. India had an episode of engine problems and did something like 9 single engine MiG-29 landings in the space of a year.

I think mvsgas' point was that if you do a very slow high-alpha pass at low altitude like the MiG-29 in the first video, there isn't much you can do if one of the engines fails you - the CF-18 in the second video did the exact same thing with the exact same result ...and you cannot put the engines much closer together than on the F-18.

Anyway, I think the Canadian pilot was a little more modest than he needed to be in saying that he was just lucky to be alive - IMO it had more to do with good skills/split second reaction and a good ejection seat(SJU-17) than luck :)

No one can argue that two engines provide additional safety. If your bird is equipped with one engine and you lose this engine, you have zero engines in total. Some might say another motor doubles the chance for something to break, but if something does break you luckily have another one. Of course many factors come into play during the initial design but with one engine driving all your equipment there is a need for an independent power source. A battery won't last long and hydraulics do not power themselves.

I'll be honest: I have no idea whatsoever what you are trying to say here.

I thought it was fairly clear, it is not for a safety that you can keep fighting or fly home if your other engine goes down, but for performance (range, speed, acceleration, capability carry heavier loads etc).