Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!cornell!llenroc!batcomputer!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: v059l49z@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier Aircraft
Message-ID: <1991Mar14.041017.28694@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 14 Mar 91 04:10:17 GMT
References: <1991Mar8.021800.7056@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar13.003648.7991@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 20
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: v059l49z@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy)

In article <1991Mar13.003648.7991@cbnews.att.com>, igor!yoda!wab@uunet.UU.NET (Bill Baker) writes...
>and landing gear relative weakness.  I've always assumed that the
>reason the F-4 converted so easily to carrier flight was that it was
>built like a tank anyway.


You seem to be mistaken here.  The F-4 started out as a Navy aircraft that the
Air Force decided to buy for themselves.

I believe that (at least the early AF versions) they still have the wing-
folding system used by the Navy.




				Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy