F22 air dams/strakes: the definitive answer.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
"Chad Irby" wrote:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

So what I wrote in the first place is correct.

Except for the whole the remaining part where you were *certain*
that
all production aircraft have them...

I never wrote that, Irby,

Not in those exact words, but that was certainly what you were
contending for the last week or so.

Trying to put words in my mouth is not going to work, Irby.

And we're still waiting for those photos showing *any* of them on
production aircraft.

I never offered you photos.

Once Lockmart produces any two F-22's the same, then we can discuss
production configuration. Unit there are at least 500 hours on AV 19,
there
is no reason to believe Lockmart has solved their structural problems.

Besides that, Irby, you have already been caugt being dishonest in this
thread.

as have you..... glass house boy. "PKB" mean anything to you?
sucks to get busted by an 11B, don't it?

I gave an honest answer to a poster's question and drew some clueless
trolls.

bull****.

you gave a clueless answer and drew some serious flak. rather than admit
you fu*ked up, you kept going. now you've been hammered by an 11B and
you don't know whether to **** or go blind.

you're in the running for the "Daryl Hunt" post alike contest, and
frankly, i don't see much difference.

redc1c4,
btw, that's not a GOOD thing.... %-)

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

Army Officer's Guide

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

I gave an honest answer to a poster's question.

Maybe "honest," but certainly insane.

And Irby lied.

Repeating back what you said earlier is not a "lie."

But your definition of "truth" is pretty plain to see.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

The real queation is why the production F-22 is looking like a full scale
development instead.


Still not able to meet range criteria and will never be able to meet in its
current configuration,so it will always be a full scale development program.

On 15 Nov 2003 16:35:50 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

The real queation is why the production F-22 is looking like a full scale
development instead.


Still not able to meet range criteria and will never be able to meet in its
current configuration,so it will always be a full scale development program.

In the ever-waning hope that some semblance of meaningful dialog might
be restored to this newsgroup, let me suggest that "range criteria" is
a nebulous concept at best. Certainly the basic concept requirement
for "supercruise" means exceptional range and the goals might be
optimistic. One would than have to address the question of
missions--how deep must the aircraft go? what profile? is this an
attack or a/a profile? if a/a is endurance or range predominant? There
aren't going to be simple answers.

To suggest that the aircraft "will never be able to meet (something)
in its current configuration" indicates a level of prescience that
doesn't seem possible.

What meeting range criteria has to do with where in the acquisition
sequence the aircraft is, escapes me. The airplane is in OT & E. FSD
means demonstration of a producible system; one that is airworthy,
manufactureable, and capable of meeting the program requirements
(which often change through the propcurement cycle.)

Few aircraft that push the technology envelope do so without growing
pains.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote...

In the ever-waning hope that some semblance of meaningful dialog might
be restored to this newsgroup, let me suggest that "range criteria" is
a nebulous concept at best. Certainly the basic concept requirement
for "supercruise" means exceptional range and the goals might be
optimistic. One would than have to address the question of
missions--how deep must the aircraft go? what profile? is this an
attack or a/a profile? if a/a is endurance or range predominant? There
aren't going to be simple answers.

Actually, in the military aircraft development process the technical
specifications and operational test criteria are VERY clear when it comes to
things like range and endurance. The various mission configurations and
profiles are described in enough detail so there is no question as to what is
expected.

OTOH, the willingness of the procurement agencies to adhere to those
specifications and criteria is often politically motivated and VERY nebulous.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:53:34 GMT, "John R Weiss"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote...

In the ever-waning hope that some semblance of meaningful dialog might
be restored to this newsgroup, let me suggest that "range criteria" is
a nebulous concept at best. Certainly the basic concept requirement
for "supercruise" means exceptional range and the goals might be
optimistic. One would than have to address the question of
missions--how deep must the aircraft go? what profile? is this an
attack or a/a profile? if a/a is endurance or range predominant? There
aren't going to be simple answers.

Actually, in the military aircraft development process the technical
specifications and operational test criteria are VERY clear when it comes to
things like range and endurance. The various mission configurations and
profiles are described in enough detail so there is no question as to what is
expected.

Of course, but I was tweaking the rather generic, unsubstantiated
statement that "range criteria" was not met and "never would be".

If we go back to the original RFP, we also find the interesting
limitation of 50,000 pounds MGTOW (pretty close) and $35 million fly
away cost (totally missed.)

At this point, the aircraft is awfully close to what's needed and the
real concern is whether the program gets gutted by those who would
rather extend 25 year old Eagles indefinitely into the future, arguing
until the next Pearl Harbor, that there's no threat that the old
technology can't defeat...and besides, if we don't suffer major
casualties in our wars, we aren't fighting fairly and morally.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:OCutb.156437$mZ5.1066327@attbi_s54...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote...

In the ever-waning hope that some semblance of meaningful dialog might
be restored to this newsgroup, let me suggest that "range criteria" is
a nebulous concept at best. Certainly the basic concept requirement
for "supercruise" means exceptional range and the goals might be
optimistic. One would than have to address the question of
missions--how deep must the aircraft go? what profile? is this an
attack or a/a profile? if a/a is endurance or range predominant? There
aren't going to be simple answers.

Actually, in the military aircraft development process the technical
specifications and operational test criteria are VERY clear when it comes
to
things like range and endurance. The various mission configurations and
profiles are described in enough detail so there is no question as to what
is
expected.

OTOH, the willingness of the procurement agencies to adhere to those
specifications and criteria is often politically motivated and VERY
nebulous.

I think you mean "realistic". Many programs have killed themselves by
pursuing the best as an enemy of good enough.

The F-22 has a very high fuel fraction and very efficient engines. If the
CONOPS requires modification to allow e.g. external tanks during ingress
until the RWR goes off to increase radius, then There You Are.

It's not as if the F-22 is the first bird to have a shortfall in mission
radius: think F-18x or for that matter, F-111A.

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".

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:OCutb.156437$mZ5.1066327@attbi_s54...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote...

In the ever-waning hope that some semblance of meaningful dialog might
be restored to this newsgroup, let me suggest that "range criteria" is
a nebulous concept at best. Certainly the basic concept requirement
for "supercruise" means exceptional range and the goals might be
optimistic. One would than have to address the question of
missions--how deep must the aircraft go? what profile? is this an
attack or a/a profile? if a/a is endurance or range predominant? There
aren't going to be simple answers.

Actually, in the military aircraft development process the technical
specifications and operational test criteria are VERY clear when it comes
to
things like range and endurance. The various mission configurations and
profiles are described in enough detail so there is no question as to what
is
expected.

In the case of the F-22, there was supposed to be a cost savings by skipping
the full scale development step in the normal aircraft development process.

OTOH, the willingness of the procurement agencies to adhere to those
specifications and criteria is often politically motivated and VERY
nebulous.

Perhaps.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:OCutb.156437$mZ5.1066327@attbi_s54...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote...

In the ever-waning hope that some semblance of meaningful dialog might
be restored to this newsgroup, let me suggest that "range criteria" is
a nebulous concept at best. Certainly the basic concept requirement
for "supercruise" means exceptional range and the goals might be
optimistic. One would than have to address the question of
missions--how deep must the aircraft go? what profile? is this an
attack or a/a profile? if a/a is endurance or range predominant? There
aren't going to be simple answers.

Actually, in the military aircraft development process the technical
specifications and operational test criteria are VERY clear when it
comes
to
things like range and endurance. The various mission configurations and
profiles are described in enough detail so there is no question as to
what
is
expected.

OTOH, the willingness of the procurement agencies to adhere to those
specifications and criteria is often politically motivated and VERY
nebulous.

I think you mean "realistic". Many programs have killed themselves by
pursuing the best as an enemy of good enough.

The only mission for the F-22 is against the Eurofighter and I don't believe
that is a direction we should make politically viable.

The F-22 has a very high fuel fraction and very efficient engines. If the
CONOPS requires modification to allow e.g. external tanks during ingress
until the RWR goes off to increase radius, then There You Are.

Nope, you just blew stelth out the window. (ie pilons)

It's not as if the F-22 is the first bird to have a shortfall in mission
radius: think F-18x or for that matter, F-111A.

Comparing the Navalized YF-17 to the F-22 WRT weight is a non-seuuitur.

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".

The F-22 is in production, your claim of "not the first aircraft ..." is a
non-sequitur.

"Paul F Austin" wrote...

OTOH, the willingness of the procurement agencies to adhere to those
specifications and criteria is often politically motivated and VERY
nebulous.

I think you mean "realistic". Many programs have killed themselves by
pursuing the best as an enemy of good enough.

Having been part of that procurement process in the past, I have to disagree.

The same program managers who publish the tech specs in the first place are the
ones who later push for relief from them when the chosen vendor can't come
through with his promises to deliver the product based on those specs. If the
specs were "pie in the sky" in the first place, they should never have been
published. All they do is provide false hope that current hardware can be
pushed along 'just a little longer' until the bigger/better/faster replacement
comes out.


It's not as if the F-22 is the first bird to have a shortfall in mission
radius: think F-18x or for that matter, F-111A.

EXACTLY! We should have learned from those mistakes! Instead, we repeat them,
resulting in the SNAFUs represented by ASPJ, F-22, and, probably, JSF (Will it
meet price and performance? Only your hairdresser knows for sure!).