On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:11:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:21:10 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

And most that sky high price is because they keep slashing numbers.

No, most of the sky high price is a direct result of losing
configuration
control; the excessive R&D is Peter Principle driven. Did you know
that
Lockheed's winning entry to be the YF-22 would not even fly? I think
the
taxpayer would have been better off to have let the contract to GD.


ROTFLMAO!!! So you do read my posts huh?

No Ferrin, I consider you to be an outsider with little to no knowlege of
actual airplanes or the process which produces them. Back in the days
when
ram's cut and paste trolls were marginal it is possible you served a
purpose
here, but that is no longer the case.


Seeing how you practically cut-and-pasted

Bull****.

Now that you are trying to write what I have been posting since 1998 you
have a lot of nerve pretending you have any original thoughts on the matter,
Ferrin.



Gotta love dejanews

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...com%26rnum%3D1


Goddamn, now THAT'S a link.


The only thing *your* name brings up is some gibberish about the YF-22
having canards until late in the design process. It N-E-V-E-R had
canards at A-N-Y point in the design process. You obviously got it
confused with Lockheed's early X-32 (which was switched to X-35 when
JAST became JSF). Looks like your "experience" is helping you out
loads.

Why don't you give us a relavant link that supports your claim of
saying the Lockheed ATF couldn't fly. I'll even help you. Go to
http://www.dejanews.com Good luck though I expect you'll resort to
childish badmouthing instead of any evidence. As always.