F22 air dams/strakes: the definitive answer.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
"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."

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

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

Yep, I put the truth about the F-22's structural problems right out in
public for all to see.

Perhaps later we can discuss the F-22's avionics and weapons integration
problems. The f-22 is zero for three with the new joint standoff munition
and it's super fast MPP main computer is an antique.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:%Zytb.158428$mZ5.1094061@attbi_s54...

snip
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!).

I'll go ahead and support the F-35 until such time as there is evidence it
doesn't work.

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?

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:40:33 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"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)

From what I've heard the external stuff is for after day one or in
ferry configuration. In fact some of the external missiles can't even
be fired when in ferry configuration. Four 600 gallon tanks witll get
you a lot more range but yeah, only if stealth isn't *required* ie.
IADs have been knocked out. Some would say "well we could just use
cheaper F-15s then instead of buying expensice F-22s" But that would
kill the option of even USING stealth not to mention all the other
benefits the F-22 brings to the table in addition to the fact that
F-15s won't last forever nor are they an adequate overmatch against a
likely advisary.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The only mission for the F-22 is against the Eurofighter

....and the Russian planes sold to everyone, and the Chinese planes sold
to everyone, and the French planes sold to everyone, and the various
missile threats sold to everyone by all of the above...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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.

As a matter of fact, I acknowledged that they had them. What I pointed
out was that they didn't install 8" wing strakes on them, as you claimed.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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.

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.

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.