I was reading the December issue recently, and wondered if I was the only one who felt that the article o the Lightning reflected the author's personal opinion and bias to the ex tent of destroying its objectivity as an informative article. The premise throughout is that the Lightning was a wonderful aircraft, and it was only officialdom being risk-averse in the extreme that meant if did not achieve its full potential. For example, one caption stated that "The Short SB5 was built to prove that the RAE was correct in dismissing English Electric's configu ration for the P. I. In fact it served only to prove that the company'srndesign was flawless."
展开▼
机译：我最近在阅读12月号，想知道我是否是唯一认为《闪电》的文章反映了作者的个人观点和偏向于破坏其内容丰富的客观性的人。贯穿始终的前提是，闪电是一架出色的飞机，只有在极端情况下规避风险才是官僚主义，这意味着如果不能充分发挥其潜力。例如，一个标题说明：“ Short SB5的制造是为了证明RAE在驳回英国电气针对P. I的配置方面是正确的。实际上，它仅用于证明该公司的设计没有缺陷。”
展开▼
