What a shock!!! Lockheed is over budget on the F-35

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

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

I only quote public sector published information on the F-22.

Except for the stuff you can't quote, like the strakes thing.

Even the Lockmart email posted here assuring us that the titanium tail
spar
is the fix for the F-22's tail problems mentions the strakes, Chad.

Funny, I can't seem to find that in Google. Refresh our memory on that
one (or are you imagining it again?).

It was posted here for all to see, Chad.

Your cognitive abilities are not my problem.

Now, get back to discussing the F-35's problems.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

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

Even the Lockmart email posted here assuring us that the titanium
tail spar is the fix for the F-22's tail problems mentions the
strakes, Chad.

Funny, I can't seem to find that in Google. Refresh our memory on that
one (or are you imagining it again?).

It was posted here for all to see, Chad.

Suuure it was, Tarver. Except that you should know by now that not all
posts make it to all servers, and it might not have made it past your
host.

So since it was "here for all to see," you should be able to find it in
mere moments, and repost it "for all to see," since nobody else seems to
have seen it. Don't forget to include the original article ID. Or give
us a groups.google.com link to the original.

So if that post actually *did* exist, it should be child's play for you
to find it, and settle the matter once and for all. Unless it didn't
exist, in which case you're going to tell us that it's my problem for
not trusting your word that it exists.

Your cognitive abilities are not my problem.

Ah, there we go. Pass that buck...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:26:40 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


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

I only quote public sector published information on the F-22.

Except for the stuff you can't quote, like the strakes thing.

Even the Lockmart email posted here assuring us that the titanium tail spar
is the fix for the F-22's tail problems mentions the strakes, Chad.

Glad you brought that up. Show us where it says they where the
mention strakes other than to say the F-22 has never had them?

"i am participating in the newsgroup rec.aviation.military where the
discussion centers around the existence or lack thereof of "strakes"
or "air dams" in and around the vertical stabilizers of the F22.

the general consensus is that there were some affixed temporarily
after a problem was discovered, but that an engineering fix has made
them unnecessary, and for obvious reasons relating to stealth
characteristics, they have not been retained.

the quote in question is:
"The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
occurring 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."

so, does the F-22 have such an attachment?
(assuming, of course, that this information is not classified.)

thanks in advance for your organization's time in this small matter.

reply portion follows

The discussion you've included is a bit mixed. There were two issues
that I think have become confused.

The first was a "tail crack" issue with the HORIZONTAL stabilators.
The composite skins were delaminating (pulling off the internal
structure). We redesigned the stabilator to include more titanium and
its working.

The fin buffet or tail flutter issue involved the VERTICAL
stabilizers,
which was fixed by stiffening the internal structure with additional
titanium.

There are no air dams or strakes or anything else. Here is a recent
photo -- you should be able to see how smooth the jets external mold
lines are.

Thanks for asking,

Greg"

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:08:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

snip
No strakes huh? Didn't think so.

I can dig you up articles where Lockmart suggests they will be trying
strakes and then another where Lockmart calls strakes the least apealing
solution to their "buffeting" problems, but you could do that yourself.

"Suggesting it" and actually doing it are two entirely different
matters. That they mentioned the possibility of strakes isn't the
issue here ( I read a long time ago that they were *considering* them
as a last resort). You've stated repeatedly that they have them.
First you claimed that the production models had them until you were
called on it and photos showed that they didn't have them. Then you
said only some of them had them but when we asked for vehicle numbers
you couldn't give them and when we looked at photos none of them had
them. Now you are backpeddling further by saying essentially "well
Lockheed said they might try them". Is it any wonder you've taken so
much **** over it? I realize the concept of you being wrong about
anything is completely alien to you but if you'd admit you're wrong
when it obvious (and I suspect you know when you're wrong) you'd gain
a measure of respect here rather than the constant ridecule. That's
just some friendly advise, take it or leave it.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

snip
"i am participating in the newsgroup rec.aviation.military where the
discussion centers around the existence or lack thereof of "strakes"
or "air dams" in and around the vertical stabilizers of the F22.

the general consensus is that there were some affixed temporarily
after a problem was discovered,

So, in fact, reguardless of your partisan pratle, there were strakes on the
F-22.

The overweight issue resurfaced in June when Lockheed Martin finally
completed the full PDR after an extensive nose-to-tail structural
rework to deal with the fact that the airframe was actually going to
be a massive 35 per cent heavier than estimated.

That says to me that the weight issue was identified and corrected. Note
that is says that the airframe "was" going to be overweight.

It goes on to say that the F-35's weight will be reduced a further 700 to 800
pounds.

Not a problem.

Al Minyard

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:08:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

snip
No strakes huh? Didn't think so.

I can dig you up articles where Lockmart suggests they will be trying
strakes and then another where Lockmart calls strakes the least apealing
solution to their "buffeting" problems, but you could do that yourself.

"Suggesting it" and actually doing it are two entirely different
matters.

You already know Lockmart did use strakes, from your other post.

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

The overweight issue resurfaced in June when Lockheed Martin finally
completed the full PDR after an extensive nose-to-tail structural
rework to deal with the fact that the airframe was actually going to
be a massive 35 per cent heavier than estimated.

That says to me that the weight issue was identified and corrected. Note
that is says that the airframe "was" going to be overweight.

It goes on to say that the F-35's weight will be reduced a further 700 to 800
pounds.

Not a problem.

Apparently the weight problem still exists, see:-
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/7687756.htm

The Ctol empty weight should be 29000lbs and is currently at approx
31000lbs

Around 7% overweight, and includes the saving from abandoning the
quick mate process (700-800lbs)

Spokesman for LM John Smith said "We don't think we're where we need
to be,"

Pentagon officials decided to budget more money and delay plane orders
because they are concerned that Lockheed will find it even more
difficult to meet weight goals for the Navy and Marine F-35 variants.


Cheers


Al Minyard

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:32:20 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

I John Cook for posting truth here.

No your not I'm John Cook, I'm bloody sure i am... Unless you can
provide pictures of course....;-)


and I have to admit that my first thought that Mr Tarver was not only
agreeing with me, but praising me was:-

OH no nonono

I'm off to sulk in a courner...

seeya





John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:32:20 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

I'm off to sulk in a courner...

You should be, being the largest poster of bad news for Lockmart on these
newsgroups.