Did the F/A-22 Raptor turn the corner in 2003?

AV-1 is Northrop's airframe, I do not know of any upgrade for that bird.
AV-2 thru AV-6 were ungraded to production version, about that time.

Not true. The final B-2 production run was to be 20 planes after the program
was cut from 132 then to 75 and finally 20. AV--2 thru -6 were to be flight
test assets but when the cut to 20 came, they were included as part of the 20
iin SAC's Bomber Roadmap with plans to upgrade them to final production
configuration. AV-1 was so different than the others that it was warranted to
not be worth the cost of upgrade. At that time Northrop-Grumman was quoting
$350 MIllion. Then the $550M long lead initiative came along. the AF took
the position that It couldn't afford to support another 20 and the $550M got
diverted to upgrading AV-1 to operational configuration. Interestingly, the
cost for the upgrade rose from $350M to $550M at the same time. It was the
final B-2 out of 21 delivered. It is flying at Whiteman today.

2001(IIRC), the non flying structural test article was recently delivered to
the AF Museum.
Pilot shortages were not the issue with a 40 plane fleet. At 150+
maintenanace manhours per flight hour, there weren't enough greensuiters at the
time to maintain a larger fleet. I trust that number has gone down some.

I thought the "AV" in AV-1 was for "air vehicle". I know there was
one that wasn't intended to go into service but did in the end. The
only one I know of that didn't was the "iron bird" that had different
landing gear, wasn't flyable, but was the same size and configuaration
as the production B-2. Could that be the one you are thinking of as
Northrop's aircraft?







The Iron bird was just that, a mockup of steel girders with much of the flight
and mission hardware installed, and the whole thing was tied to a full motion
simulator. Pretty awesome to see but not eactaly an airplane by any stretch.
..There wre two static test articles built IIRC tail #s 1001 and 1002, or maybe
2001/2. One is still at Plant 42 at Palmdale. the other at the AF Museum.

"SteveM8597" wrote in message
...
AV-1 is Northrop's airframe, I do not know of any upgrade for that bird.
AV-2 thru AV-6 were ungraded to production version, about that time.

Not true. The final B-2 production run was to be 20 planes after the
program
was cut from 132 then to 75 and finally 20. AV--2 thru -6 were to be
flight
test assets

AV-2 thru AV-6 were flight test assets and were always intended to be
brought up to production configuration; I have the complte set of crew
shirts. Including my wife's, "ship from hell", crew shirt.

but when the cut to 20 came, they were included as part of the 20
iin SAC's Bomber Roadmap with plans to upgrade them to final production
configuration. AV-1 was so different than the others that it was
warranted to
not be worth the cost of upgrade.

No ****.

At that time Northrop-Grumman was quoting
$350 MIllion. Then the $550M long lead initiative came along. the AF
took
the position that It couldn't afford to support another 20 and the $550M
got
diverted to upgrading AV-1 to operational configuration. Interestingly,
the
cost for the upgrade rose from $350M to $550M at the same time. It was
the
final B-2 out of 21 delivered. It is flying at Whiteman today.

Geeze, they had to rip the entire flight deck and ebay to make that work.

2001(IIRC), the non flying structural test article was recently delivered
to the AF Museum.
Pilot shortages were not the issue with a 40 plane fleet.

Pilot jobs are, pay attention and try not to take the most rediculess
interpretation of your own misreadings.

At 150+
maintenanace manhours per flight hour, there weren't enough greensuiters
at the
time to maintain a larger fleet. I trust that number has gone down some.

Body and fender work is not so skilled.

"SteveM8597" wrote in message
...
I thought the "AV" in AV-1 was for "air vehicle". I know there was
one that wasn't intended to go into service but did in the end. The
only one I know of that didn't was the "iron bird" that had different
landing gear, wasn't flyable, but was the same size and configuaration
as the production B-2. Could that be the one you are thinking of as
Northrop's aircraft?







The Iron bird was just that, a mockup of steel girders with much of the
flight
and mission hardware installed, and the whole thing was tied to a full
motion
simulator. Pretty awesome to see but not eactaly an airplane by any
stretch.
.There wre two static test articles built IIRC tail #s 1001 and 1002, or
maybe
2001/2. One is still at Plant 42 at Palmdale. the other at the AF Museum.

A simple shake of AV-1 was all that was required to validate the test rig
results.

It is the same reason Lockmart blocked a shake of the F-22 prior to
production, for it might have killed the program right then. (ie "buffeting"

"SteveM8597" wrote in message
...
I thought the "AV" in AV-1 was for "air vehicle". I know there was
one that wasn't intended to go into service but did in the end. The
only one I know of that didn't was the "iron bird" that had different
landing gear, wasn't flyable, but was the same size and configuaration
as the production B-2. Could that be the one you are thinking of as
Northrop's aircraft

The Iron bird was just that, a mockup of steel girders with much of the
flight
and mission hardware installed, and the whole thing was tied to a full
motion
simulator. Pretty awesome to see but not eactaly an airplane by any
stretch.
.There wre two static test articles built IIRC tail #s 1001 and 1002, or
maybe
2001/2. One is still at Plant 42 at Palmdale. the other at the AF Museum.

A simple shake of AV-1 was all that was required to validate the test rig
results.

Iam curious where you got your information. The iron bird "test rig" was at
Pico Rivera and was officially called the SIL or systems integration lab. Now
used for structural testing at all.

1001. 1002 and AV-1 were stored at Palmdale 60 miles away. 1001 was loaded up
in a hangar at Palmdale and then shook until it broke at 207% of mission
loading. You can go to the AF Museum today and see the scab plates on the
right wing where it brokeso it could be put on display.

AV-1 was never subjected to stress testing. It was the first flying
prototype. It was rolled out in 1987 and used to validate initial flying
qualities. It is easy to spot in pictures because it was grey with black
leading edges before the refurb, not black all over as is the operational
fleet.






It is the same reason Lockmart blocked a shake of the F-22 prior to
production, for it might have killed the program right then. (ie "buffeting"

Not true. The final B-2 production run was to be 20 planes after the
program
was cut from 132 then to 75 and finally 20. AV--2 thru -6 were to be
flight
test assets

AV-2 thru AV-6 were flight test assets and were always intended to be
brought up to production configuration; I have the complte set of crew
shirts. Including my wife's, "ship from hell", crew shirt.

Still wrong. Under the 132 and 75 plane programs, pre 1991, they were the
pre-production LRIP (Limited Rate Initial Production) planes to be used as
life cycle flight test assets. Possibly AVs 5 - 6 could be made operational
because they were close to the rate production configuration but the AVs 2-4
and especially AV-1 were so far from the production configuration that they
wouldn't be supportable as they were. At the time the program was cut back the
third time at the fall of the Soviet Union, the government wanted to curtail
the program but the cost of accepting 20 was the same as contract termination
costs. The program went forward and made the decision in 1990 to proceed with
a 20 plane fleet that included the upgrade of AV 2-6 to near production
configuration. Thise six planes all have their own separate support
requirements because of their vaying uniqueness.It was run as a separate
program within the government and the contractor. How do II know this? I
worked in the B-2 System Program Office at Wright-Patt in the 90s and did some
of the anaylsis on these planes myself.







but when the cut to 20 came, they were included as part of the 20
iin SAC's Bomber Roadmap with plans to upgrade them to final production
configuration. AV-1 was so different than the others that it was
warranted to
not be worth the cost of upgrade.

No ****.

At that time Northrop-Grumman was quoting
$350 MIllion. Then the $550M long lead initiative came along. the AF
took
the position that It couldn't afford to support another 20 and the $550M
got
diverted to upgrading AV-1 to operational configuration. Interestingly,
the
cost for the upgrade rose from $350M to $550M at the same time. It was
the
final B-2 out of 21 delivered. It is flying at Whiteman today.

Geeze, they had to rip the entire flight deck and ebay to make that work.

2001(IIRC), the non flying structural test article was recently delivered
to the AF Museum.
Pilot shortages were not the issue with a 40 plane fleet.

Pilot jobs are, pay attention and try not to take the most rediculess
interpretation of your own misreadings.



I misread nothing See above. I was a senior analyst on the program when
twahe dscisis made. It had absolutely nothing to do with pilot shortages. In
fact, at that time the AF was banking pilots and scaling way back on
Undergraduate Pilot Training slots because there were too many pilots for the
cockpits that were available. We were flying KC135s with two crews at once
just so everone could get enough time to stay current. Twenty B-2s soaked up
more maintenance assets than an entire wing of fighters. 40 B-2s would have
cost two fighter wings. At that time the fighter mafia had wrested control of
the AF from the old SAC types and were working hard to increase the number of
fighter wings. Sorry but you can't fly fighters or anything else without
green suiters.






At 150+
maintenanace manhours per flight hour, there weren't enough greensuiters
at the
time to maintain a larger fleet. I trust that number has gone down some.

Body and fender work is not so skilled.



Wrong again. Had anybody work done lately?

"Smartace11" wrote in message
...
"SteveM8597" wrote in message
...
I thought the "AV" in AV-1 was for "air vehicle". I know there was
one that wasn't intended to go into service but did in the end. The
only one I know of that didn't was the "iron bird" that had different
landing gear, wasn't flyable, but was the same size and configuaration
as the production B-2. Could that be the one you are thinking of as
Northrop's aircraft

The Iron bird was just that, a mockup of steel girders with much of the
flight
and mission hardware installed, and the whole thing was tied to a full
motion
simulator. Pretty awesome to see but not eactaly an airplane by any
stretch.
.There wre two static test articles built IIRC tail #s 1001 and 1002,
or maybe
2001/2. One is still at Plant 42 at Palmdale. the other at the AF
Museum.

A simple shake of AV-1 was all that was required to validate the test rig
results.

Iam curious where you got your information. The iron bird "test rig" was
at
Pico Rivera and was officially called the SIL or systems integration lab.
Now
used for structural testing at all.

I was commenting on the Nyquist shake of the B-2, are you confused?

1001. 1002 and AV-1 were stored at Palmdale 60 miles away. 1001 was
loaded up
in a hangar at Palmdale and then shook until it broke at 207% of mission
loading. You can go to the AF Museum today and see the scab plates on the
right wing where it brokeso it could be put on display.

Right, no B-2 was broken to prove the structure.

AV-1 was never subjected to stress testing. It was the first flying
prototype. It was rolled out in 1987 and used to validate initial flying
qualities. It is easy to spot in pictures because it was grey with black
leading edges before the refurb, not black all over as is the operational
fleet.

Do you understand the difference between a Nyquist shake and stress testing?
I expect not, but such a shake produces a nice mathematical model of the
airframe. Using those methods, the breaking point is completely
predictable.

"Smartace11" wrote in message
...
Not true. The final B-2 production run was to be 20 planes after the
program
was cut from 132 then to 75 and finally 20. AV--2 thru -6 were to be
flight
test assets

AV-2 thru AV-6 were flight test assets and were always intended to be
brought up to production configuration; I have the complte set of crew
shirts. Including my wife's, "ship from hell", crew shirt.

Still wrong.

No, the conversion of the 5 airframes to production configuration was
planned from the very beginning.

Under the 132 and 75 plane programs, pre 1991, they were the
pre-production LRIP (Limited Rate Initial Production) planes to be used
as
life cycle flight test assets. Possibly AVs 5 - 6 could be made
operational
because they were close to the rate production configuration but the AVs
2-4
and especially AV-1 were so far from the production configuration that
they
wouldn't be supportable as they were.

The Government had no way of knowing that AV-1 would be drasticly different,
until after first flight. You are shoveling bull****, my friend.

"Smartace11" wrote in message
...
Not true. The final B-2 production run was to be 20 planes after the
program
was cut from 132 then to 75 and finally 20. AV--2 thru -6 were to be
flight
test assets

AV-2 thru AV-6 were flight test assets and were always intended to be
brought up to production configuration; I have the complte set of crew
shirts. Including my wife's, "ship from hell", crew shirt.

Still wrong.

No, the conversion of the 5 airframes to production configuration was
planned from the very beginning.



Beginning of what? I don't need to argue the pount becaue I was there when
the decision was made. You are free to believe whatever you want. In truth
they are not production configuration to this day. They are opeational but are
in varying degress of difference from the rest of the fleet, AV- being the most
different. Mainly structural differences. Therefore they are not the final
approved (meaning accepted at the milestone called the Critical Design Review)
"prduction configuration". Ditto with the early LRIP/test models of most
planes, including the B-1, F-117, and F-22, several of which are now at the AF
Museum because thier configuration isn't easily supported. We had planned to
either use AV-1 as a part task trainer at Whiteman or turn it over to the AF
Museum. Theother planes were made operational because of cost - too expensive
to use strictly as test assets.

Under the 132 and 75 plane programs, pre 1991, they were the
pre-production LRIP (Limited Rate Initial Production) planes to be used
as
life cycle flight test assets. Possibly AVs 5 - 6 could be made
operational
because they were close to the rate production configuration but the AVs
2-4
and especially AV-1 were so far from the production configuration that
they
wouldn't be supportable as they were.

The Government had no way of knowing that AV-1 would be drasticly different,
until after first flight. You are shoveling bull****, my friend.

Youi obviously know little about the weapn system acquisition process. The
plane went through numerous design reviews and flight test readiness reviews
long before it flew and each change from AV to AV went through a configuration
control review board so the design of AV-1 and changes incorporated in in each
subsequent AV was well known as they were being built.

AV-1 was never subjected to stress testing. It was the first flying
prototype. It was rolled out in 1987 and used to validate initial flying
qualities. It is easy to spot in pictures because it was grey with black
leading edges before the refurb, not black all over as is the operational
fleet.

Do you understand the difference between a Nyquist shake and stress testing?
I expect not, but such a shake produces a nice mathematical model of the
airframe. Using those methods, the breaking point is completely
predictable.

I am not a structures guy nor do I claim to be other than having had several
college level courses in finite element analysis studying for my degree in
aerospace engneering.. Do I need to know Nyquist to manage projects on a
major weapon system acquisition program?

This must be the beginning of the" if you can't dazzle them with brilliance,
baffle them with bull****" phase of the discussion.

So far you have talked about stress testing of the iron bird and of AV-1,
neither of which happened. What does this have to do with anything, especially
with the configuration of the 21 operational B-2s and the evolution of the
fleet which I thought was the subject at hand?

Oh well, this is all very entertaining just seeing what you can come upt with
in a legitmate discussion but I have to go now, John.