F22 air dams/strakes: the definitive answer.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Chad Irby" 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 ,

Never (and I mean never, despite Tarver's babblings) said it didn't.

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.

....and that's why it's a fairly normal aircraft program, not the
unmitigated disaster that Tarver so desperately wants it to be.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
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.

What flight test?

The F-22 is in production.

In article ,
(Gerdeus) writes:
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.

Erm... That would be "Silicon Snake Oil". Silicone Snake Oil has its
own Pros and Cons, but it's genrally found in various alt.binaries
groups.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Peter Stickney" wrote...

Erm... That would be "Silicon Snake Oil". Silicone Snake Oil has its
own Pros and Cons, but it's genrally found in various alt.binaries
groups.

Not quite... The silicone is usually quite separate from the snakes over
there...

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

Sure, that is why the RAF practised forward deployment for the
Harrier force but I dont recall anything about Eurofighter operating
in such a mode.

Keith

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:56:44 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
.com...
In article ,
"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, but I can see how you'd like to save face.

As opposed to you, who'd rather continue to loook like a clueless
poser. Pictures of those strakes baby LOL!

Speakin' of cclueless ...

Bwahahahahaha

From: "Keith Willshaw"

Sure, that is why the RAF practised forward deployment for the
Harrier force but I dont recall anything about Eurofighter operating
in such a mode.

Keith

I hadn't thought of that, but I would have assumed they would have at least
considered it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

As opposed to you, who'd rather continue to loook like a clueless
poser. Pictures of those strakes baby LOL!

Speakin' of cclueless ...

Bwahahahahaha



No pictures yet huh? You sure are a glutton for punishment I'll give
ya that.

B2431 wrote:
From: "Keith Willshaw"

Sure, that is why the RAF practised forward deployment for the
Harrier force but I dont recall anything about Eurofighter operating
in such a mode.

Keith


I hadn't thought of that, but I would have assumed they would have at least
considered it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired



AFAIK only Sweden, Poland and (maybe?) Finland practise this capability.

John

On or about Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:59:21 +0000, John Mullen
allegedly uttered:

B2431 wrote:
From: "Keith Willshaw"

Sure, that is why the RAF practised forward deployment for the
Harrier force but I dont recall anything about Eurofighter operating
in such a mode.

Keith


I hadn't thought of that, but I would have assumed they would have at least
considered it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired



AFAIK only Sweden, Poland and (maybe?) Finland practise this capability.

Singapore also periodically practices operating from roads, although
there's only do far they can go :-)

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster