No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

"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.

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.





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. Any idea what airframe
number they implimented the fix in on the F-22? Or is it still on the
to-do list?

"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.

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.


Sorry but it's pretty much common knowledge Tarver. The fact that a
self-claimed expert like yourself has never heard of it really makes
me question your claim.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0132.shtml






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?


The F-15 had the same kind of delamination problems with the
horizontal tail that has popped up with the F-22.




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.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

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.

Sorry but it's pretty much common knowledge Tarver. The fact that a
self-claimed expert like yourself has never heard of it really makes
me question your claim.

It is less common knowlede that such a change would require a complete
redesign of the F-22. The finite element design of the F-22 does not allow
for forces in the direction of any tailhook.

snip of kook website similar to Kopp's

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:47:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Sorry but it's pretty much common knowledge Tarver. The fact that a
self-claimed expert like yourself has never heard of it really makes
me question your claim.

It is less common knowlede that such a change would require a complete
redesign of the F-22. The finite element design of the F-22 does not allow
for forces in the direction of any tailhook.

Nobody said it was going to be EXACTLY the same. The fact of the
matter is that from the get go there was going to be a NATF in the
decision equation. It wasn't ever intended that the ATF/NATF would be
as similar as say the F-35A and F-35C





snip of kook website similar to Kopp's

Yeah those facts are a damn inconvenience aren't they?

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:47:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Sorry but it's pretty much common knowledge Tarver. The fact that a
self-claimed expert like yourself has never heard of it really makes
me question your claim.

It is less common knowlede that such a change would require a complete
redesign of the F-22. The finite element design of the F-22 does not
allow
for forces in the direction of any tailhook.

Nobody said it was going to be EXACTLY the same.

It could not be the same internal structure at all; finite element design is
one of the technological advances the F-22 makes major use of.

The fact of the
matter is that from the get go there was going to be a NATF in the
decision equation. It wasn't ever intended that the ATF/NATF would be
as similar as say the F-35A and F-35C

It is just more bull**** from 20 years ago.

snip of kook website similar to Kopp's

Yeah those facts are a damn inconvenience aren't they?

Facts are something you have always been in short supply of Ferrin,
otherwise you would have agreed with me about the F-22 from the time I
started posting about it at ram. If you mean that cheerleaders like
yourself like to reference URLs from other cheerleaders, then I agree.