On 8/30/04 3:11 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:


Is it your contention from these statements that single engine fighters
are
already more reliable than twins?

--Woody

No, merely that greater "twin-engine" reliability is a fiction, amply
supported by both statistical and anecdotal (aka "inconvenient") evidence.
Incidentally, the F-8 and the A-4 were a hell of a lot more fun to fly than
the F-4 and F-14. I also readily admit that the F-4 was a better fighter
than the F-8 (although many F-4 drivers never demonstrated that fact) and
the F-14 was a better fighter than the F-4.

R / John

True enough. I can't take a hard stand against your contention except to
state that anecdotally, I know of many more Viper drivers who have ejected
due to engine fires/failures (one of them is a 111th FS... GWB's squadron...
guy) than have ejected from the Hornet for same.

In the A-7/A-4/F-8, if an engine fails at the boat, it's an ejection. In
the Hornet, the engine fails and you've got a more difficult trap ahead...
Beats ejecting. To me, common sense says that around the boat, two engines
are better than one... But I keep saying the same things over and over.

My hat's off to your honesty on fighter evaluation.

--Woody