Air-dams/strakes on Stealth AC

"Mike Zaharis" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
(Grantland) wrote:

Do they do without?

Note the complete lack of them on any stealth planes in evidence.
While
adding some aerodynamic advantages, they also blow the stealth
characteristics.

You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings?

Funny, none of the official photos from the first production batch
seem
to have anything like this. Maybe they stuck some on for one or two
flight tests, but they're sure not there on current F-22s.

The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail occuring
for
the "entire flight envelope". Unless Lockmart has addressed the tail
crack
issue in a different manner, the 8 inch wing "reflectors" have to be
there.

According to Flight International from about a month ago, this issue
was addressed by switching one of the tail spars from CF to Titanium.
I didn't see any mention of strakes/reflectors. Sounds like the
F/A-18 solution - a bit of a non-starter for an aircraft that is being
sold as a low-observable. The same article stated that the F-22 was
meeting its low-observability goals.

So, unless the air force was all but lying to the reporter, or the
reporter muffed the story(a possibility I certainly won't rule out),
it looks like they did find an alternative solution.

As the program keeps the F-22 in a dog house when on the ground, we can't
know yet.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail occuring
for
the "entire flight envelope". Unless Lockmart has addressed the tail
crack
issue in a different manner, the 8 inch wing "reflectors" have to be
there.

"Have to be there" but aren't.

How do you know they aren't there Irby?

Not in *any* of the recent photos.

There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
outside, so noone can take a picture.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The F-22's live in dog houses when
outside, so noone can take a picture.

So they keep them indoors when they fly?

What an idiot.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:41:52 GMT, Grantland wrote:
Chad Irby wrote:

(Grantland) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

(Grantland) wrote:

Do they do without?

Note the complete lack of them on any stealth planes in evidence. While
adding some aerodynamic advantages, they also blow the stealth
characteristics.

Nothing a structural sine-wave wouldn't cure I'm sure.

...while blowing the aerodynamic streamlining all to hell...

The corrugations would be longditudinal.. so no. Lift might be
affected - anyone ever try a corrugated wing, I wonder.

The Junkers Ju-52 had corrugated metal panels on the wings and fuselage.
The corrugations were parallel to the chord of the wing, but somehow I
suspect the "Tante Ju" was not exactly a shining example of aerodynamic
efficiency.


ljd

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:34:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail occuring
for
the "entire flight envelope". Unless Lockmart has addressed the tail
crack
issue in a different manner, the 8 inch wing "reflectors" have to be
there.

"Have to be there" but aren't.

How do you know they aren't there Irby?

Not in *any* of the recent photos.

There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
outside, so noone can take a picture.



Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of Raptor
018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:34:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
occuring
for
the "entire flight envelope". Unless Lockmart has addressed the tail
crack
issue in a different manner, the 8 inch wing "reflectors" have to be
there.

"Have to be there" but aren't.

How do you know they aren't there Irby?

Not in *any* of the recent photos.

There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
outside, so noone can take a picture.

Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of Raptor
018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.

There is what dippy?

For a guy who couldn't find his ass with both hands, you talk a lot of
smack, Ferrin.

Perhaps the wing dams were replaced with a titanium tail, but the only place
I have seen that is at ram. What I am posting is public sector in the news
type information.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The F-22's live in dog houses when
outside, so noone can take a picture.

So they keep them indoors when they fly?

When they fly?

You don't know much about photgraphing airplanes do you, Irby.

What an idiot.

We are discussing an 8 inch addition to each wing, as reported in the press.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail occuring
for
the "entire flight envelope". Unless Lockmart has addressed the tail
crack
issue in a different manner, the 8 inch wing "reflectors" have to be
there.

"Have to be there" but aren't.

How do you know they aren't there Irby?

Not in *any* of the recent photos.

There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
outside, so noone can take a picture.

check out: http://www.f-22raptor.com/index_gallery.php

it's the official F/A 22 web site, and although i'm just a lowly ground
pounder, i didn't see anything that looked like an air-dam/strake in the
pictures they show....

redc1c4,
"Scouts Out!"
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:34:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
occuring
for
the "entire flight envelope". Unless Lockmart has addressed the tail
crack
issue in a different manner, the 8 inch wing "reflectors" have to be
there.

"Have to be there" but aren't.

How do you know they aren't there Irby?

Not in *any* of the recent photos.

There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
outside, so noone can take a picture.

Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of Raptor
018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.

There is what dippy?

For a guy who couldn't find his ass with both hands, you talk a lot of
smack, Ferrin.

Perhaps the wing dams were replaced with a titanium tail, but the only place
I have seen that is at ram. What I am posting is public sector in the news
type information.


Tarver,

The article is entitled "Ready or Not . . . ", and is in the September
9, 2003 issue of Flight International. It has a rather good
discussion of the Raptor's software woes, but also claims that the
tail buffet problem was being solved by the Ti rear spar.

The only place I've heard of any 8-inch strake is from your posts.
Can you provide a source (print or internet)? The only thing that I
can find to support this is a May 9, 2002 Aviation Week article that
indicates that it was being "considered" (
http://www.aviationnow.com/content/p...0506/aw26b.htm
). It describes the fence as the "least preferred approach."
Interestingly enough, that article also confirms that the Ti spar was
being used. From that article:

"They also speculate that previously-approved modifications for
increasing vertical tail strength may play a role in alleviating the
buffeting issue. The changes, in which a titanium spar is substituted
for a composite one, will start with ship No. 18, which begins final
assembly in the next month or so. The changes were made to allow
rolling maneuvers when the Raptor is in a ferry condition carrying
four 600-gal. external tanks and weapons. "

Since then, the Flight International article indicates that the
Titanium rear spar fix has been cleared above 10,000 feet, and will be
tested below that altitude to clear it at all altitudes.

Public sector enough for you?

"Mike Zaharis" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:34:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
occuring for
the "entire flight envelope". Unless Lockmart has addressed the
tail crack
issue in a different manner, the 8 inch wing "reflectors" have to
be there.

"Have to be there" but aren't.

How do you know they aren't there Irby?

Not in *any* of the recent photos.

There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
outside, so noone can take a picture.

Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of Raptor
018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.

There is what dippy?

For a guy who couldn't find his ass with both hands, you talk a lot of
smack, Ferrin.

Perhaps the wing dams were replaced with a titanium tail, but the only
place
I have seen that is at ram. What I am posting is public sector in the
news
type information.


Tarver,

The article is entitled "Ready or Not . . . ", and is in the September
9, 2003 issue of Flight International. It has a rather good
discussion of the Raptor's software woes, but also claims that the
tail buffet problem was being solved by the Ti rear spar.

I havn't seen the magazine, but I'll take your word for it.

The only place I've heard of any 8-inch strake is from your posts.
Can you provide a source (print or internet)? The only thing that I
can find to support this is a May 9, 2002 Aviation Week article that
indicates that it was being "considered" (
http://www.aviationnow.com/content/p...0506/aw26b.htm
). It describes the fence as the "least preferred approach."

I'd say that is probably true, but there was never any information asd to
whether that solution worked. I'd go so far as to say the 8-inch strake
failed and the program is on to trying solution number trhee for the
problem. Word from the flightline is that "no two Lockmart aircraft" are
the same.

Interestingly enough, that article also confirms that the Ti spar was
being used. From that article:

I thank you for offering some information to this thread.

"They also speculate that previously-approved modifications for
increasing vertical tail strength may play a role in alleviating the
buffeting issue. The changes, in which a titanium spar is substituted
for a composite one, will start with ship No. 18, which begins final
assembly in the next month or so. The changes were made to allow
rolling maneuvers when the Raptor is in a ferry condition carrying
four 600-gal. external tanks and weapons. "

In that case there is no confirmation that the spar works and we will not
know for about 300 hours of flight if fix numbewr three is even addressing
the real problem. Being that there was a lot of effort put into keeping a
Nyquist shake (s-plane) of the airframe before going to production, there is
still a real possibility the tail cracks and the tail boom problems are
actually intermodal vibration.

Since then, the Flight International article indicates that the
Titanium rear spar fix has been cleared above 10,000 feet, and will be
tested below that altitude to clear it at all altitudes.

Hours are what will give the answer.

Public sector enough for you?

Close enough, and far superior to the failed strake attempt to solve the
tail crack/tail boom stiffness issue.