![]() |
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 ... On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:46:28 -0700, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "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. 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. 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. The F-15 also had problems with delamination. What? Any idea what airframe number they implimented the fix in on the F-22? Or is it still on the to-do list? AV-19 is supposed to be fixed, but there is no way for anyone to know that. |
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 |