Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "The FH-1 Phantom Was A Pioneering Jet Fighter That Deserves More Recognition" video.

Everybody likes to repeat that because the Navy wanted the F-18 instead of the F-16. But the number of single-engine Navy fighters and attack aircraft far outnumbers those with twin engines, and the Navy's latest fighter is again a single-engine.
4
5:55 "The tricycle landing gear was possible because there was no propeller needing ground clearance." The P-38, P-39, F7F, and others would call that preposterous. What kept a nosewheel off most prop fighters was inconvenience of the nose mounted engine.
2
@petestorz172 The first three aircraft you just listed had to be twin engine to have the performance desired (speed and load). At the time a single engine could not do the job.
1
@RCAvhstape Apparently you did not comprehend my comment, which is that I do not believe that story. Of course the Navy said that, but the real reason was to prevent having the F-16 forced on them. The F-18 as developed did end up with attributes more suitable for the dual role the Navy planned for it, but two engines was not the primary attraction of the YF-17.
1
@jedibusiness789 I think if the Spitfire could be navalized anything can be navalized, the question whether it is the best choice available. The F-16 as developed for USAF use was not carrier suitable, but neither was the YF-17 before it was navalized, so the YF-16 could have also been navalized. I'm not saying it would have been better or even as good as the F-18 was for the Navy, but the commonality and potential cost savings was behind the proposal to have the Navy adopt the F-16.
1
Tips tanks of the P-80 could be dropped in flight. The F-104 could also drop its tip tanks.
1