Yeah I think it was me who asked and I do think it is interesting and relevant here, as someone had brought up the Taipan change as support for the notion that the F16 weight should change. The implication was that this said something about the feasibility of building an F16 to minimum weight. Without further facts, that information could have contributed to the FUD that Rolf referred to so insightfully. Danny's information provides some helpful data to support the view that (as I think some of us probably suspected) the change reflects a change in the builder more than some new knowledge about the Taipan design itself.

I know the past week has been a rough one for those of us who care about rational, respectful and constructive dialog, but let's not allow that to make us over-sensitive about what's fair to post here.