F-32 vs F-35

In article ,
"Errol Cavit" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article .net,
"Felger Carbon" wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
to ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
C_D_U of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

Considering that C_D_U only has a scale of 1 to 250, that's hard to say.


You forgot to allow for the LUF (Load Ugliness Factor) - all those Mavericks
staring back at you.

....and you get an extra ten points for each piece of tree embedded in
the leading edge.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:21:35 GMT, "Felger Carbon"
wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due
to
ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a
C_D_U
of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Mary, only my great respect for the technical accuracy of your
previous posts prevents me from suspecting that you're considerably
overestimating the attractiveness of the Warthog.

At an SETP Symposium many, many years ago, the A-10 test pilot who
complained that the classically graceful lines of the A-10 were ruined
by a tested gun gas deflector also opined that the A-10 looked like
the result of a menage a trois between a hyper bomber and two cement
trucks.

It's kind of hard to top that.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Ian" wrote in message
...
Has an aircraft that lost a US (or any government fly-off) ever made it to
production?

Well.......
I guess it depends on how strictly you wish to interpret the question.
Clearly there were a lot of US built products during WWII that
never saw any real service with US forces.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:12:09 -0000, Ian wrote:
Has an aircraft that lost a US (or any government fly-off) ever made it to
production?

The Heinkel He 112 saw limited production, IIRC.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Mary Shafer wrote:


Well, you have to remember that C_D_U, the coefficient of drag due to
ugliness, is a factor in how well aircraft fly. The A-10 has a C_D_U
of about 278, which the latest gliders have one of about 14.

Why am I reminded of formulaic relationships
between "angle of dangle" and the "mass of ass"?

;-)

Chad Irby wrote:

[ concerning ugly warthogs...]

...and you get an extra ten points for each piece of tree embedded in
the leading edge.

Double bonus for a birdstrike on trailing edges...

Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:16:21 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:
The F-22 was developed by Lockheed and the B-2 by Northrop. IIRC on
both aircraft the "stealthy" features are all done inhouse. So as
far as publicly known projects go Boeing seems to be limited to the
BoP the X-45, and X-46. Sure they've done things like the Super
Hornet and SLAM-ER that have a degree of stealth and the datat form
the Commanche and X-36 which they inherited but both Lockheed and
Northrop's experience goes clear back to the fifties. Compared to
Lockheed and Northrop does have very little experience. I never said
they didn't have *any* I just meant that compared to the other two
they don't have much.


(uh. . .if you need that in english let me know LOL)

No, I think I got it. :-)

And I guess I don't really disagree. If we're talking about designing
stealth, Boeing does seem to be less experienced. They have a lot more
experience with fabrication, though, which is sort of what I was getting at.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

On or about Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:02:53 -0500, Dweezil Dwarftosser
allegedly uttered:

Chad Irby wrote:

[ concerning ugly warthogs...]

...and you get an extra ten points for each piece of tree embedded in
the leading edge.

Double bonus for a birdstrike on trailing edges...

Hey, that wouldn't be there if they indicated before overtaking! Damn
seagulls, showing off their speed.......
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

"The Raven" writes:

For various political reasons Boeing could have pushed forward with the X-32
into other non-JSF (and friendly) markets. Imagine the competition that
potentially could be generated from an F32 vs F35 sale to foreign nations?

Won't happen. DOD would/does not like having competition for foreign
military sales of their choice; as that would drive down the volume
and up their price.

Any X-32 sales approvals would be lost in the shuffle until just after
it was too late....
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
link.net...
The Raven wrote:

Sorry, I dispute that on the fact that there are plenty of military
aircraft in use around the world which weren't adopted by the US
military. Yes, the US military may be the largest buyer and thus have
an influence on other buyers etc but to claim that people seldom buy
equipment not adopted by the US military is false.

I left out a word here, so let me clarify. There is a lot of reluctance
to
buy warplanes not in service with the builder's own national miliary. No
one wants to buy a *US-built* fighter not in service with the US military.
Nor do they want a European plane not flying with a European air force
first. And so forth.

For examples,
see the F-20 and F-18L.

OK, that's two.

Well, for a counterexample, find me any example of a successful export of
a
fighter aircraft post WW2 where some version of the same aircraft was not
in
service with the building country's own armed forces. AFAIK, the only one
that even comes close is the F-5, which was never an operational fighter
for
the USAF. But it was designed in an era when front-line US hardware was
not
available to many buyers.

I think you're right that Boeing would have a non-starter on its hands but
the Ajeet is another example of a (for the time) high performance fighter
not adopted by the originating country that was very successful in India.
The Folland Gnat was designed with much the same philosphy of simplicity
that Ed Heineman used on the A-4, making it attractive for a third world
country with aspirations.