Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier Aircraft
Message-ID: <1991Mar18.004031.23675@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 18 Mar 91 00:40:31 GMT
References: <1991Mar14.040911.28598@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung)
>>But certainly possible.  The land-based BAE Hawk has recently been
>>modified to be a carrier-based trainer for the USN.
>
>true, but it wasn't without some trial and tribulation.  :o)
>	five major problems - with stability, control, and
>	engine performance ...

Aviation Leak does seem to have a somewhat pro-USAnian anti-foreign slant
to its coverage sometimes, and there was at least one relevant fact left
out of this piece.  The reason for the engine problem -- basically, not
enough power -- was that the USN had deliberately asked for a less powerful
engine!  Well, more precisely, they had decided to use a derated version
of the original engine, in hopes that this would give longer life.  They
have now reversed that decision.  This one was the customer's fault.
(Not a new problem; the aircraft or its manufacturer often gets blamed
for things that were really the customer's mistake.)

Most of the other difficulties seem to have been side effects, one way
or another, of design changes that were either necessary or at the USN's
request.  For example, some of the stability problems were the result of
the larger nose gear.
-- 
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry