"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:47:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

Yeah but of the three companies producing fighters it was the
closest
to finishing up production. Grumman didn't have anything in the
pipeline after the Tomcat and where at this point in the ATF program
NATF was still a consideration Grumman would seem to be a shoe-in if
they were just interested in keeping the manufacturers going. Come
to
think of it one of the reasons the F-22 was chosen over the F-23 was
because of the NATF requirement. Lockheed had planned a swing-wing
F-22 for the carrier requirement.

Not likely.

In fact, the finite element analysis that the F-22 was built off of
renders
your comments laughable, Ferrin.

Sorry but it's pretty much common knowledge Tarver. The fact that a
self-claimed expert like yourself has never heard of it really makes
me question your claim.

It is less common knowlede that such a change would require a complete
redesign of the F-22. The finite element design of the F-22 does not
allow
for forces in the direction of any tailhook.

Nobody said it was going to be EXACTLY the same.

It could not be the same internal structure at all; finite element design is
one of the technological advances the F-22 makes major use of.

The fact of the
matter is that from the get go there was going to be a NATF in the
decision equation. It wasn't ever intended that the ATF/NATF would be
as similar as say the F-35A and F-35C

It is just more bull**** from 20 years ago.

snip of kook website similar to Kopp's

Yeah those facts are a damn inconvenience aren't they?

Facts are something you have always been in short supply of Ferrin,
otherwise you would have agreed with me about the F-22 from the time I
started posting about it at ram. If you mean that cheerleaders like
yourself like to reference URLs from other cheerleaders, then I agree.