Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL (CCL-S)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: F/A-18 {Navy}
Message-ID: <1990Aug7.041144.7722@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 7 Aug 90 04:11:44 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From:     "Hugh A. Huntzinger" (CCL-S) <huntzing@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) writes:

>raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET writes:
>:all the more when the winner, YF-16 was single engined, giving the Navy
>:a good excuse (actually F-8U, A-4, A-1 Skyradier**, A-7 are all SE) to
>:choose the loser of the fly off.

>The situation was a little more complicated than that.  Yes, the Navy
>has a preference for 2 engined planes, whatever the reason.  The...

The Navy preference to non-single-engined aircraft has surface before;
I've heard the "over water" arguement, but have also heard the argument
that 2x engines means 2x likely to have a problem.  Interestingly, the
requirement doesn't seem too new.  I first heard about it in a biography
of Lindburg - he apparently helped a lot during WW-II despite being a
prewar isolationist.  I think he did a duration flight with the P-38
Lightning trying to sell it to the Navy, but all my references are too
old (High School report, 1970's).  Anyone up on this one?

-hh