Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: dak@sq
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mcdonnell-douglas/northrop F/a-18
Message-ID: <1990Aug14.034643.11088@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 14 Aug 90 03:46:43 GMT
References: <1990Aug8.030635.26316@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 20
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: dak@sq
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

:>From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson)
:>     The Navy loves twin engine planes because of survivability. In the Air
:>Force, if you get engine trouble in a one engine plane, you route to the
:>nearest emergency airfield. In the Navy, when you get engine trouble you
:>got lots of nice pretty ocean to land in...

:The one-vs-two-engines debate unfortunately isn't that simple when you dig
:into the technical side.  *If* one and only one engine goes out, yes, 

:The Navy loves twin-engine planes because *it thinks* they are more
:survivable.  That much is indisputable. :-)

I'd like to point out that the Canadian Forces have drawn the same 
conclusion; this was apparently one of the reasons for rejecting the
F-20 for DEW-line defense.