>>64219776
>it’s obviously newer jet still doesn’t take any nicks from its design.
what?
>326 was just too big to be comparable
The hawk is literally bigger and heavier beside wingspan due to the tip pylons
>346 tail doesn’t look anything like the EF/Tornado
Personally I can see the resemblance, in one of the books about the M-346 they even stated the similar look was literally due to the same engineers that have worked on the Tornado being on the team. The position of the BAH exchanger is a good indicator.
>They also literally have mockups of the trainers and even then those CGI pics were released by AERALIS themselves. The design is set in stone.
We'll see, I have never saw a production military jet being the exact same as its early mockups.
>Aside from engines the Hawk has always been rather sluggish for a trainer.
How can you claim that "aside from the engines", which are what would usually be the main cause for a jet to be sluggish it being sluggish?
>The fact that it go outmaneuvered by heavier trainers like the Alpha jet
Anon, the Apha jet ever so slightly beats the Hawk in top speed at altitude due to its low aspect ratio, thin airfoil, long chord, etc, but in regards to being outmanouvered the Hawk and other trainers like the MB-339 all (relatively) outclass it, especially at lower speeds where less swept wings are better at retaining energy in a turn.