A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old April 16th 04, 03:32 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.