![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... Boeing was fourth with damn near no stealth experience (in the white world anyway) and the historical king of fighter producers McD was 5th. McDonnell already had two fighter contracts and GD had one. The only logic that would apply is one where the Pentagon wanted to create an additional provider. Grumman would have been the logical choice if that's all they wanted to do. They already had experience building figthers and were current. Yeah it had the Tomcat but even back then production was starting to taper off. Grumman was already building a fighter. To go from supplying the USAF with their premier fighter for the last forty or so years (F-4/F-15) to placing FIFTH in the competition to build a new fighter suggests that though the USAF wanted it all, aerodynamic performance took a distant second place behind stealth. Son, let me tell it like it is, when you take it down the road from number one you get less, not more. ???? Less *what*? Performance? It was number one on the F-15 and nobody who's flown the F-22 will give the nod to the F-15 when it comes to flight performance vs. the F-22. If the avionics stay lit and the tails doesn't delaminate on the F-22. Obviously it could be said "if they'd made flight performance the #1 priority on the F-22 it would fly better than it currently does". The thing is, what do you get these days by making it number one? When it comes to flying what is more important than stealth that the F-22 can't do? What you do to maximize revenue is observe Dr. Peter's processes and let the Pentagon and any stry dogs that happen by make changes to the airplane. there are always a few milkmen around an airplane project, but the ATF is it's own dairy. It might even be that the air force *did* know Lockheed's entry was questionable aerodynamically but stealth was important enough to accept it. Politics. Joe politician can kick and scream all he wants, it's not going to magically bestow stealth expertise on a company. Stealth is what got Lockheed to contract IMO. Bringing GD onboard is what made the aircraft a fighter. Boeing. . .well they did something. Tail boom and wire. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |