Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: dak@sq.sq.com (David A Keldsen)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mcdonnell-douglas/northrop F/a-18
Message-ID: <1990Aug15.032209.26208@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 15 Aug 90 03:22:09 GMT
References: <1990Aug8.030635.26316@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc.
Lines: 19
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: dak@sq.sq.com (David A Keldsen)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>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, you

>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.

// David A. 'Dak' Keldsen      dak@sq.com or utai[.cs.toronto.edu]!sq!dak
// "Two disappointed believers/Two people playing the game/
//  Negotiations and love songs/Are often mistaken for one and the same"
//  --Train In The Distance, Paul Simon