<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Yes, the F-20 designation was deliberately skipped. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Lol...and he calls himself "webmaster" ... I wouldn't go to his site just for that stupid note....
Perhaps because I'm a Tigershark lover for years
I thought F-5 was pretty cool..and F-20 was even better designed (even if close to)
A so pretty forgotten and unexploited tremendous plane:
<img src="http://members.aon.at/mwade/f20d.jpg" border=0>
The world should have trust in him...:
'The F-20 was reliable and easy to maintain. Based on comparisons with the average of contemporary international fighters, the F-20 consumed 53 percent less fuel, required 52 percent less maintenance manpower, had 63 percent lower operating and maintenance costs and had four times the reliability'
and as far as I remember, F-16 can barely reach M2 as F-20 did 'easily' (was designed for should I say) and it was the best to exploit high computer technology at that time.