F22 air dams/strakes: the definitive answer.

In article ,
(Gerdeus) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
om...
In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

Look at the changes they had to make to the F-15: a dogtooth on the
horizontal stab and clipped wingtips. Did anybody care? That's what
testing is for. Would people rather discover and FIX the problems or
discover them and bury them so people don't squak?

Like the recent three week grounding of the Eurofighter because the
*brakes* didn't work... (one little circuit was badly designed, and it
took them that long to figure it out and fix it).

What is so unusual about that?

Not a thing in the world. When you're building new planes, things go
wrong in new ways, and you have to fix them. Like the problems the F-22
had with the tail. Or the Osprey's hydraulic issues. Or the wing hinge
on the F-111. Or the landing gear on the C-5.

Some folks, however, have been taking the tack that since the F-22 had
some typical problems, the program is doomed.

Europe needs are much different than the U.S. Unimproved runways, for
example, necessitate good braking systems.

People have been building braking systems for planes for most of the
last century, and the system on the Eurofighter isn't particularly
extreme or unusual. But they had problems anyway.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 16 Nov 2003 08:56:07 -0800, (Gerdeus) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
om...
In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

Look at the changes they had to make to the F-15: a dogtooth on the
horizontal stab and clipped wingtips. Did anybody care? That's
what
testing is for. Would people rather discover and FIX the problems or
discover them and bury them so people don't squak?

Like the recent three week grounding of the Eurofighter because the
*brakes* didn't work... (one little circuit was badly designed, and it
took them that long to figure it out and fix it).


What is so unusual about that? Europe needs are much different than
the U.S. Unimproved runways, for example, necessitate good braking
systems.

And, there's the incredible level of the technology today. A close
friend, hunting buddy, fighter pilot and now American Airlines aviator
recently converted to the 777. I asked him about losing an engine at
Vmc on take-off and how much leg it took to rudder against one of
those huge fans--he said it was all done by the computer. Triple
redundant, necessary cross-controls all automatic.

The most amazing thing was the brakes. Seems that the GPS tell the
airplane where it is, the database tells it how long the runway is,
the central air data computer tells it what the gross weight,
airspeed, temperature, humidity, etc. are, then the computer applies
the brakes at touchdown as necessary to stop with 2000 feet remaining
on the runway--no more pressure than necessary and no less. That's
magic!

Lots different than the rudimentary Wheatstone bridge circuit that was
anti-skid in the Century Series days.

"Gerdeus" wrote in message
om...
Ed Rasimus wrote in message
. ..

In the ever-waning hope that some semblance of meaningful dialog might
be restored to this newsgroup,

See "Silicone Snakeoil" by Clifford Stoll. There has never been
"meaningful dialog" on this, or any other usenet newsgroup on a
consistent basis.

This newsgroup has an entire multi-year archive of the Shafer "kook troll",
only now is there any meaningful discussion on this newsgroup. With of
course, the requisite number of "clueless trolls", to add to the noise
level. Then add in the company partisan and you have ram. In the F-22's
case the company man has always served the purpose obfuscation at ram;
raising the noise level still further.

I think Ed is onto something in changing the subject, but it amounts to just
more noise to burry the signal.

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

Pretending you don't know about the F-22's tail problems is at best
dishonest, Irby.

Never said that. Good luck finding anything I said in this thread (or
others) even vaguely like that.

Chad, you have posted to three distinct different threads at ram in the past
couple of weeks where you pretend the F-22 has no prolems and either the
Eurofighter has problems, or French airplanes are crap. Perhaps Lockheed
Martin pays you to troll here, like they did Ken Garlington. If so,
Lockmart has made a good decision in replacing their spam bot with someone
less a maniac.

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

The most amazing thing was the brakes. Seems that the GPS tell the
airplane where it is, the database tells it how long the runway is,
the central air data computer tells it what the gross weight,
airspeed, temperature, humidity, etc. are, then the computer applies
the brakes at touchdown as necessary to stop with 2000 feet remaining
on the runway--no more pressure than necessary and no less. That's
magic!

Lots different than the rudimentary Wheatstone bridge circuit that was
anti-skid in the Century Series days.

It's not that far out compared to what you can find in automobile
antilock/traction control systems now. Differential wheel braking,
pulsed according to the speed/weight of the car, temp sensors, chassis
angle sensors, et cetera.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Chad, you have posted to three distinct different threads at ram in the past
couple of weeks where you pretend the F-22 has no prolems

Then you could easily come up with examples, then.

Unless you're lying about it to deflect people making fun of you for
being a complete fool.

Which you usually do, when you completely lose an argument about
something stupid you said.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Gerdeus" wrote in message
om...


What is so unusual about that? Europe needs are much different than
the U.S. Unimproved runways, for example, necessitate good braking
systems.


You know here in Europe we caught on to hard surfaces
for runways quite some time ago. I think you'll find most
RAF bases have runways that are a little higher in standard
than unimproved.



Keith

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



People have been building braking systems for planes for most of the
last century, and the system on the Eurofighter isn't particularly
extreme or unusual. But they had problems anyway.


As did the F-22 program , Paul Metz chief test pilot on the
program said in 1999

"First, we have had occasional minor, but nonetheless irritating (to me),
problems that have cost us schedule and money, and cost me flight time.
Typical "glitches" include instrumentation system failures, erratic brake
operation, and fuel pump failures."

As the man said, thats why you test aircraft.

Keith

From: "Keith Willshaw"

snip

You know here in Europe we caught on to hard surfaces for runways quite some
time ago. I think you'll find most RAF bases have runways that are a little
higher in standard than unimproved.



Keith

I think what was meant was the cold war theory where we would block forward
deploy aircraft in case some bad guy dropped a nuke on the home bases. In that
event the aircraft might be parked at rest stops along the Autobahn and use the
roadways as runways. Last I heard highways are not built to the standards of
runways and thus must be considered "unimproved runways."

There were also a few other ideas, but you get the idea.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:56:45 -0700, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

As far as this squabble is concerned, the F-22 isn't the first aircraft to
suffer from flutter problems during development and cheese-paring about the
fixes has lead to this latest "he said/she said/Maaaa".

Look at the changes they had to make to the F-15: a dogtooth on the
horizontal stab and clipped wingtips. Did anybody care? That's what
testing is for. Would people rather discover and FIX the problems or
discover them and bury them so people don't squak?

Only clipping the tips was for flutter, though. Snagging the tail was
for another problem.

Flight test is "where the rubber meets the road", of course. Better
to fix them than to write waivers for them.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer