View Single Post
  #15  
Old March 6th 04, 03:16 AM
John Cook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 02:09:45 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
John Cook wrote:

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:50:27 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Or, more to the point, it has a *lot* more than a 540 mile combat
radius, over 840 miles.


and the source of this 840 mile figure is???,


Several, including:



OK first their not really what I would call 'good' sources, OK for
homework and newspaper reporters, not for much more though...

This is going to sound a little harsh... but do you have anything with
a little more authority or credability?

http://www.periscope.ucg.com/sampleWeapons.html

You might want them to check their fuel load ;-) its possible they
confused kg with litres... and thats where the error has crept in.

I would wager that the Raptors real fuel load is sub 20,000lbs my
educated guess is around 18,000-19,500lbs.
But you'll have to wait till its not classified to prove me right or
wrong, or someone 'in the know' gives us a hint.


http://www.fighters.co.yu/Data/Usa/FA22ARaptor-data.htm

This site is under construction, try to go to the UK link etc..
BTW the Eurofighter Data has errors (see if you can find it)... so
what makes you think that the F-22 is correct?


http://www.harcirepulo.hu/F-22/


This site has lots of inaccurate info on it, and it only took me 10
seconds to find out too.


I'm not convinced by these sites, If it was from Janes, Brasseys,
Lockheed, USAF, GAO, RAND, these I would be more interested in.


Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :-
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk