Air-dams/strakes on Stealth AC

[Grantland]

Do they do without?

G

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Grantland) wrote:

> Do they do without?

Note the complete lack of them on any stealth planes in evidence. While
adding some aerodynamic advantages, they also blow the stealth
characteristics.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Grantland]

Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> (Grantland) wrote:
>
>> Do they do without?
>
>Note the complete lack of them on any stealth planes in evidence. While
>adding some aerodynamic advantages, they also blow the stealth
>characteristics.
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com

Nothing a structural sine-wave wouldn't cure I'm sure.

Genayev

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> (Grantland) wrote:
>
> > Do they do without?
>
> Note the complete lack of them on any stealth planes in evidence. While
> adding some aerodynamic advantages, they also blow the stealth
> characteristics.

You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings? :)

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Grantland) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (Grantland) wrote:
> >
> >> Do they do without?
> >
> >Note the complete lack of them on any stealth planes in evidence. While
> >adding some aerodynamic advantages, they also blow the stealth
> >characteristics.
>
> Nothing a structural sine-wave wouldn't cure I'm sure.

....while blowing the aerodynamic streamlining all to hell...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > (Grantland) wrote:
> >
> > > Do they do without?
> >
> > Note the complete lack of them on any stealth planes in evidence. While
> > adding some aerodynamic advantages, they also blow the stealth
> > characteristics.
>
> You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings? :)

Funny, none of the official photos from the first production batch seem
to have anything like this. Maybe they stuck some on for one or two
flight tests, but they're sure not there on current F-22s.

But that's to be expected.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > In article >,
> > > (Grantland) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do they do without?
> > >
> > > Note the complete lack of them on any stealth planes in evidence.
While
> > > adding some aerodynamic advantages, they also blow the stealth
> > > characteristics.
> >
> > You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings? :)
>
> Funny, none of the official photos from the first production batch seem
> to have anything like this. Maybe they stuck some on for one or two
> flight tests, but they're sure not there on current F-22s.

The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail occuring 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.

[Grantland]

Chad Irby > wrote:

> (Grantland) wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> > (Grantland) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do they do without?
>> >
>> >Note the complete lack of them on any stealth planes in evidence. While
>> >adding some aerodynamic advantages, they also blow the stealth
>> >characteristics.
>>
>> Nothing a structural sine-wave wouldn't cure I'm sure.
>
>...while blowing the aerodynamic streamlining all to hell...
>
The corrugations would be longditudinal.. so no. Lift might be
affected - anyone ever try a corrugated wing, I wonder.

G
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
>Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
>Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Mike Zaharis]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > (Grantland) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Do they do without?
> > > >
> > > > Note the complete lack of them on any stealth planes in evidence.
> While
> > > > adding some aerodynamic advantages, they also blow the stealth
> > > > characteristics.
> > >
> > > You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings? :)
> >
> > Funny, none of the official photos from the first production batch seem
> > to have anything like this. Maybe they stuck some on for one or two
> > flight tests, but they're sure not there on current F-22s.
>
> The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail occuring 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.

According to Flight International from about a month ago, this issue
was addressed by switching one of the tail spars from CF to Titanium.
I didn't see any mention of strakes/reflectors. Sounds like the
F/A-18 solution - a bit of a non-starter for an aircraft that is being
sold as a low-observable. The same article stated that the F-22 was
meeting its low-observability goals.

So, unless the air force was all but lying to the reporter, or the
reporter muffed the story(a possibility I certainly won't rule out),
it looks like they did find an alternative solution.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail occuring 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.

"Have to be there" but aren't.

Not in *any* of the recent photos.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > > m...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > (Grantland) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do they do without?
> > > > >
> > > > > Note the complete lack of them on any stealth planes in evidence.
> > While
> > > > > adding some aerodynamic advantages, they also blow the stealth
> > > > > characteristics.
> > > >
> > > > You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings? :)
> > >
> > > Funny, none of the official photos from the first production batch
seem
> > > to have anything like this. Maybe they stuck some on for one or two
> > > flight tests, but they're sure not there on current F-22s.
> >
> > The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail occuring
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.
>
> According to Flight International from about a month ago, this issue
> was addressed by switching one of the tail spars from CF to Titanium.
> I didn't see any mention of strakes/reflectors. Sounds like the
> F/A-18 solution - a bit of a non-starter for an aircraft that is being
> sold as a low-observable. The same article stated that the F-22 was
> meeting its low-observability goals.
>
> So, unless the air force was all but lying to the reporter, or the
> reporter muffed the story(a possibility I certainly won't rule out),
> it looks like they did find an alternative solution.

As the program keeps the F-22 in a dog house when on the ground, we can't
know yet.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail occuring
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.
>
> "Have to be there" but aren't.

How do you know they aren't there Irby?

> Not in *any* of the recent photos.

There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
outside, so noone can take a picture.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> The F-22's live in dog houses when
> outside, so noone can take a picture.

So they keep them indoors when they fly?

What an idiot.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Laurence Doering]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:41:52 GMT, Grantland > wrote:
> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>> (Grantland) wrote:
>>
>>> Chad Irby > wrote:
>>>
>>> > (Grantland) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Do they do without?
>>> >
>>> >Note the complete lack of them on any stealth planes in evidence. While
>>> >adding some aerodynamic advantages, they also blow the stealth
>>> >characteristics.
>>>
>>> Nothing a structural sine-wave wouldn't cure I'm sure.
>>
>>...while blowing the aerodynamic streamlining all to hell...
>>
> The corrugations would be longditudinal.. so no. Lift might be
> affected - anyone ever try a corrugated wing, I wonder.

The Junkers Ju-52 had corrugated metal panels on the wings and fuselage.
The corrugations were parallel to the chord of the wing, but somehow I
suspect the "Tante Ju" was not exactly a shining example of aerodynamic
efficiency.


ljd

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:34:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> > The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail occuring
>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.
>>
>> "Have to be there" but aren't.
>
>How do you know they aren't there Irby?
>
>> Not in *any* of the recent photos.
>
>There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
>outside, so noone can take a picture.
>


Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of Raptor
018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:34:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
occuring
> >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.
> >>
> >> "Have to be there" but aren't.
> >
> >How do you know they aren't there Irby?
> >
> >> Not in *any* of the recent photos.
> >
> >There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
> >outside, so noone can take a picture.

> Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of Raptor
> 018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.

There is what dippy?

For a guy who couldn't find his ass with both hands, you talk a lot of
smack, Ferrin.

Perhaps the wing dams were replaced with a titanium tail, but the only place
I have seen that is at ram. What I am posting is public sector in the news
type information.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > The F-22's live in dog houses when
> > outside, so noone can take a picture.
>
> So they keep them indoors when they fly?

When they fly? :)

You don't know much about photgraphing airplanes do you, Irby.

> What an idiot.

We are discussing an 8 inch addition to each wing, as reported in the press.

[redc1c4]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail occuring
> 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.
> >
> > "Have to be there" but aren't.
>
> How do you know they aren't there Irby?
>
> > Not in *any* of the recent photos.
>
> There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
> outside, so noone can take a picture.

check out: http://www.f-22raptor.com/index_gallery.php

it's the official F/A 22 web site, and although i'm just a lowly ground
pounder, i didn't see anything that looked like an air-dam/strake in the
pictures they show....

redc1c4,
"Scouts Out!"
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Mike Zaharis]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:34:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> In article >,
> > >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
> occuring
> 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.
> > >>
> > >> "Have to be there" but aren't.
> > >
> > >How do you know they aren't there Irby?
> > >
> > >> Not in *any* of the recent photos.
> > >
> > >There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
> > >outside, so noone can take a picture.
>
> > Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of Raptor
> > 018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.
>
> There is what dippy?
>
> For a guy who couldn't find his ass with both hands, you talk a lot of
> smack, Ferrin.
>
> Perhaps the wing dams were replaced with a titanium tail, but the only place
> I have seen that is at ram. What I am posting is public sector in the news
> type information.


Tarver,

The article is entitled "Ready or Not . . . ", and is in the September
9, 2003 issue of Flight International. It has a rather good
discussion of the Raptor's software woes, but also claims that the
tail buffet problem was being solved by the Ti rear spar.

The only place I've heard of any 8-inch strake is from your posts.
Can you provide a source (print or internet)? The only thing that I
can find to support this is a May 9, 2002 Aviation Week article that
indicates that it was being "considered" (
http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020506/aw26b.htm
). It describes the fence as the "least preferred approach."
Interestingly enough, that article also confirms that the Ti spar was
being used. From that article:

"They also speculate that previously-approved modifications for
increasing vertical tail strength may play a role in alleviating the
buffeting issue. The changes, in which a titanium spar is substituted
for a composite one, will start with ship No. 18, which begins final
assembly in the next month or so. The changes were made to allow
rolling maneuvers when the Raptor is in a ferry condition carrying
four 600-gal. external tanks and weapons. "

Since then, the Flight International article indicates that the
Titanium rear spar fix has been cleared above 10,000 feet, and will be
tested below that altitude to clear it at all altitudes.

Public sector enough for you?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Zaharis" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:34:05 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> In article >,
> > > >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
occuring 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.
> > > >>
> > > >> "Have to be there" but aren't.
> > > >
> > > >How do you know they aren't there Irby?
> > > >
> > > >> Not in *any* of the recent photos.
> > > >
> > > >There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
> > > >outside, so noone can take a picture.
> >
> > > Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of Raptor
> > > 018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.
> >
> > There is what dippy?
> >
> > For a guy who couldn't find his ass with both hands, you talk a lot of
> > smack, Ferrin.
> >
> > Perhaps the wing dams were replaced with a titanium tail, but the only
place
> > I have seen that is at ram. What I am posting is public sector in the
news
> > type information.
>
>
> Tarver,
>
> The article is entitled "Ready or Not . . . ", and is in the September
> 9, 2003 issue of Flight International. It has a rather good
> discussion of the Raptor's software woes, but also claims that the
> tail buffet problem was being solved by the Ti rear spar.

I havn't seen the magazine, but I'll take your word for it.

> The only place I've heard of any 8-inch strake is from your posts.
> Can you provide a source (print or internet)? The only thing that I
> can find to support this is a May 9, 2002 Aviation Week article that
> indicates that it was being "considered" (
> http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020506/aw26b.htm
> ). It describes the fence as the "least preferred approach."

I'd say that is probably true, but there was never any information asd to
whether that solution worked. I'd go so far as to say the 8-inch strake
failed and the program is on to trying solution number trhee for the
problem. Word from the flightline is that "no two Lockmart aircraft" are
the same.

> Interestingly enough, that article also confirms that the Ti spar was
> being used. From that article:

I thank you for offering some information to this thread.

> "They also speculate that previously-approved modifications for
> increasing vertical tail strength may play a role in alleviating the
> buffeting issue. The changes, in which a titanium spar is substituted
> for a composite one, will start with ship No. 18, which begins final
> assembly in the next month or so. The changes were made to allow
> rolling maneuvers when the Raptor is in a ferry condition carrying
> four 600-gal. external tanks and weapons. "

In that case there is no confirmation that the spar works and we will not
know for about 300 hours of flight if fix numbewr three is even addressing
the real problem. Being that there was a lot of effort put into keeping a
Nyquist shake (s-plane) of the airframe before going to production, there is
still a real possibility the tail cracks and the tail boom problems are
actually intermodal vibration.

> Since then, the Flight International article indicates that the
> Titanium rear spar fix has been cleared above 10,000 feet, and will be
> tested below that altitude to clear it at all altitudes.

Hours are what will give the answer.

> Public sector enough for you?

Close enough, and far superior to the failed strake attempt to solve the
tail crack/tail boom stiffness issue.

[Tarver Engineering]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
occuring
> > 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.
> > >
> > > "Have to be there" but aren't.
> >
> > How do you know they aren't there Irby?
> >
> > > Not in *any* of the recent photos.
> >
> > There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
> > outside, so noone can take a picture.
>
> check out: http://www.f-22raptor.com/index_gallery.php
>
> it's the official F/A 22 web site, and although i'm just a lowly ground
> pounder, i didn't see anything that looked like an air-dam/strake in the
> pictures they show....

Perhaps you would do better to just read at ram, sock.

[Scott Ferrin]

>> Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of Raptor
>> 018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.
>
>There is what dippy?

Unless you have a reading comprehension problem it's pretty plain.



>
>For a guy who couldn't find his ass with both hands, you talk a lot of
>smack, Ferrin.

Well let's see, I found lots of pictures of Raptor with no
"deflectors". If you want to talk about someone who couldn't find his
ass with both hand I suggest you look in the mirror. On second
thought why don't you supply us with a photo of your myrhical
"deflectors"? Yeah, that's what I thought loser.

[redc1c4]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >
> > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
> occuring
> > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > "Have to be there" but aren't.
> > >
> > > How do you know they aren't there Irby?
> > >
> > > > Not in *any* of the recent photos.
> > >
> > > There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses when
> > > outside, so noone can take a picture.
> >
> > check out: http://www.f-22raptor.com/index_gallery.php
> >
> > it's the official F/A 22 web site, and although i'm just a lowly ground
> > pounder, i didn't see anything that looked like an air-dam/strake in the
> > pictures they show....
>
> Perhaps you would do better to just read at ram, sock.

or perhaps you could point out the picture that shows this dam strake
you're on about....

redc1c4,
all i know about socks is how they smell after being in my boots. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[redc1c4]

Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
> >> Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of Raptor
> >> 018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.
> >
> >There is what dippy?
>
> Unless you have a reading comprehension problem it's pretty plain.
>
> >
> >For a guy who couldn't find his ass with both hands, you talk a lot of
> >smack, Ferrin.
>
> Well let's see, I found lots of pictures of Raptor with no
> "deflectors". If you want to talk about someone who couldn't find his
> ass with both hand I suggest you look in the mirror. On second
> thought why don't you supply us with a photo of your myrhical
> "deflectors"? Yeah, that's what I thought loser.

i told him about: http://www.f-22raptor.com/index_gallery.php
and he got snippy with me also. lots of photos, no strakes.

redc1c4,
a "Scout", not a "sock".... ask Yeff. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Perhaps the wing dams were replaced with a titanium tail, but the only place
> I have seen that is at ram. What I am posting is public sector in the news
> type information.

You vaguely remember some photot of air dams from some test flight a few
years back, so *all* F-series aircraft have them...

Except, of course, for the current planes.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> You don't know much about photgraphing airplanes do you, Irby.

Way more than you, moron.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > You don't know much about photgraphing airplanes do you, Irby.
>
> Way more than you, moron.

You don't even know the history of the F-22's developmnet problems, Irby.
There were in fact strakes on some F-22s between the time the tail cracks
were found in the F-22 and vehicle 18's production.

Do you post here as an expert to be clueless, or are you just a liar, Chad?

[Tarver Engineering]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
> > occuring
> > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Have to be there" but aren't.
> > > >
> > > > How do you know they aren't there Irby?
> > > >
> > > > > Not in *any* of the recent photos.
> > > >
> > > > There are no recent photos, Irby. The F-22's live in dog houses
when
> > > > outside, so noone can take a picture.
> > >
> > > check out: http://www.f-22raptor.com/index_gallery.php
> > >
> > > it's the official F/A 22 web site, and although i'm just a lowly
ground
> > > pounder, i didn't see anything that looked like an air-dam/strake in
the
> > > pictures they show....
> >
> > Perhaps you would do better to just read at ram, sock.
>
> or perhaps you could point out the picture that shows this dam strake
> you're on about....

No, you should just read and leave the aircraft to the airplane people,
sock.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of Raptor
> >> 018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.
> >
> >There is what dippy?
>
> Unless you have a reading comprehension problem it's pretty plain.

Why do you post here, Ferrin? Your trolling is of poor quality, you have no
knowledge of the subject, and you never served. What about being a server
administrator qualifys you to post difinitively at ram?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the wing dams were replaced with a titanium tail, but the only
place
> > I have seen that is at ram. What I am posting is public sector in the
news
> > type information.
>
> You vaguely remember some photot of air dams from some test flight a few
> years back, so *all* F-series aircraft have them...

But Chad, the 8-inch strakes were not added to the F-22 until last year.

[Scott Ferrin]

>Why do you post here, Ferrin? Your trolling is of poor quality, you have no
>knowledge of the subject, and you never served. What about being a server
>administrator qualifys you to post difinitively at ram?
>


A typically clueless Tarver post. What the hell makes you think I'm a
server admin.?

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:47:27 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> > Perhaps the wing dams were replaced with a titanium tail, but the only
>place
>> > I have seen that is at ram. What I am posting is public sector in the
>news
>> > type information.
>>
>> You vaguely remember some photot of air dams from some test flight a few
>> years back, so *all* F-series aircraft have them...
>
>But Chad, the 8-inch strakes were not added to the F-22 until last year.
>


SHOW US THE PICTURES **** HEAD. Oh wait, I forgot, they're all
secretly hidden in Hanger 18.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Why do you post here, Ferrin? Your trolling is of poor quality, you have
no
> >knowledge of the subject, and you never served. What about being a
server
> >administrator qualifys you to post difinitively at ram?
> >
>
>
> A typically clueless Tarver post. What the hell makes you think I'm a
> server admin.?

I still have your email from when I started posting on this board.

Now, back to the subject at hand, Ferrin. Why would you feel that you have
any business replying to me on an airplane technical matter? It is clear to
me after so much time that you are not much above willshaw as a participant
at ram. I see no basis upopn which you are participating in this thread,
outside your being a troll.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:47:27 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Perhaps the wing dams were replaced with a titanium tail, but the
only
> >place
> >> > I have seen that is at ram. What I am posting is public sector in
the
> >news
> >> > type information.
> >>
> >> You vaguely remember some photot of air dams from some test flight a
few
> >> years back, so *all* F-series aircraft have them...
> >
> >But Chad, the 8-inch strakes were not added to the F-22 until last year.

> SHOW US THE PICTURES **** HEAD. Oh wait, I forgot, they're all
> secretly hidden in Hanger 18.

Each airframe has it's own dog house.

Do you suppose Scott is just a lun?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> You don't even know the history of the F-22's developmnet problems, Irby.

The thing is that I kept paying attention to them *after* they started
fixing them, instead of just assuming that they never got fixed, as you
did.

> There were in fact strakes on some F-22s between the time the tail cracks
> were found in the F-22 and vehicle 18's production.

For a short time, and they were removed after they figured out what was
happening. You didn't seem to know that, though. You also don't seem
to know that there are actually public photos of the planes, released on
a regular basis. And that they fly these planes, in daylight, wher
epeople get to see them all of the time.

> Do you post here as an expert to be clueless, or are you just a liar, Chad?

Once again, you're really an idiot.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> But Chad, the 8-inch strakes were not added to the F-22 until last year.

....and then removed.

As is obvious from photos from *this* year.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Each airframe has it's own dog house.

....and according to Tarver, they *never* leave, evne when flying on a
regular basis...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Scott Ferrin]

>Now, back to the subject at hand, Ferrin. Why would you feel that you have
>any business replying to me on an airplane technical matter? It is clear to
>me after so much time that you are not much above willshaw as a participant
>at ram. I see no basis upopn which you are participating in this thread,
>outside your being a troll.
>


I'll bet if we had a vote you'd get voted off the island and I'd still
be here. You've demonstrated on numerous ocassions that just because
you sweep the floors in a place where they make airplanes doesn't mean
you know **** about them.

[Scott Ferrin]

>
>Each airframe has it's own dog house.

Show me a picture of an F-22 parked in it's "doghouse" and I'll show
you five where they're not. And the shed where they test the engines
isn't one of the so called doghouses you mention either.




>
>Do you suppose Scott is just a lun?
>


A lun? What the hell is that? Looks like your knowledge of the
english language is right up there with your knowledge of aircraft.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 07:40:10 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> > You don't know much about photgraphing airplanes do you, Irby.
>>
>> Way more than you, moron.
>
>You don't even know the history of the F-22's developmnet problems, Irby.
>There were in fact strakes on some F-22s between the time the tail cracks
>were found in the F-22 and vehicle 18's production.


Oh this is rich. Tell me exactly which ones had the strakes and I'll
show you a picture with it non strakes.

I've got pics of 1,2,5,7,8,10,11,12,14,15 and 18 and none of them have
strakes. Let me guess, it was 4,6,9, and 13 that had them right? Can
you produce ONE picture of an F-22 with strakes? Didn't think so.
But hey you sure do know about airplanes huh?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Now, back to the subject at hand, Ferrin. Why would you feel that you
have
> >any business replying to me on an airplane technical matter? It is clear
to
> >me after so much time that you are not much above willshaw as a
participant
> >at ram. I see no basis upopn which you are participating in this thread,
> >outside your being a troll.
> >
>
>
> I'll bet if we had a vote you'd get voted off the island and I'd still
> be here.

From day one, but that makes you no less clueless, Ferrin. My disruption of
the Shafer "kook troll" is grounds for exile from ram.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Each airframe has it's own dog house.
>
> ...and according to Tarver, they *never* leave, evne when flying on a
> regular basis...

How would you go about photographing the underside of an F-22 departing
Edwards' flight line, Chad? :)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> >Each airframe has it's own dog house.
>
> Show me a picture of an F-22 parked in it's "doghouse" and I'll show
> you five where they're not. And the shed where they test the engines
> isn't one of the so called doghouses you mention either.

You can't show us any F-22s, Scott, you have never participated in any
aviation activity anywhere.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > But Chad, the 8-inch strakes were not added to the F-22 until last year.
>
> ...and then removed.
>
> As is obvious from photos from *this* year.

what is obvious from this year's photos is that vehicle 18 is attempting yet
a third fix for the F-22's tail problems. (ie tail boom stiffen, add
strakes, add titanium tail spar)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > You don't even know the history of the F-22's developmnet problems,
Irby.
>
> The thing is that I kept paying attention to them *after* they started
> fixing them, instead of just assuming that they never got fixed, as you
> did.

The F-22's structural problems are not fixed. All that has happened is that
the program is attempting a third fix for the aircraft's tail problems.
Although F-22 vehicle 18 may demonstrate over several hundred hours of
operation that this latest fix works, there is no evidence yet that the tail
spar change is anything more than strike three.

> > There were in fact strakes on some F-22s between the time the tail
cracks
> > were found in the F-22 and vehicle 18's production.
>
> For a short time, and they were removed after they figured out what was
> happening. You didn't seem to know that, though. You also don't seem
> to know that there are actually public photos of the planes, released on
> a regular basis. And that they fly these planes, in daylight, wher
> epeople get to see them all of the time.

I can say to you for a certainty that the shotgun approach Lockmart hs taken
to the tail problems with the F-22 indicates that they do not understand the
problem well even now. At best it can be concluded that lockmart *hopes*
this latest attempt will work.

> > Do you post here as an expert to be clueless, or are you just a liar,
Chad?
>
> Once again, you're really an idiot.

So then, Chad is clueless; although more polite than Lockmart's Garlintgton
spam bot.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 07:40:10 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > You don't know much about photgraphing airplanes do you, Irby.
> >>
> >> Way more than you, moron.
> >
> >You don't even know the history of the F-22's developmnet problems, Irby.
> >There were in fact strakes on some F-22s between the time the tail cracks
> >were found in the F-22 and vehicle 18's production.
>
>
> Oh this is rich. Tell me exactly which ones had the strakes and I'll
> show you a picture with it non strakes.

All Scot can do is once again demonstrate that he has no business posting at
ram, outside certain "tea bag" type threads.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:56:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >
>> >Each airframe has it's own dog house.
>>
>> Show me a picture of an F-22 parked in it's "doghouse" and I'll show
>> you five where they're not. And the shed where they test the engines
>> isn't one of the so called doghouses you mention either.
>
>You can't show us any F-22s, Scott, you have never participated in any
>aviation activity anywhere.
>


And no pictures of the F-22 have ever been published huh? Or did they
photoshop the strakes out of all the released pictures. You're
getting more desterate by the post and you STILL haven't shown us even
a single picture with the strakes. Put up or shut the HELL up.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:30:02 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >Why do you post here, Ferrin? Your trolling is of poor quality, you have
>no
>> >knowledge of the subject, and you never served. What about being a
>server
>> >administrator qualifys you to post difinitively at ram?
>> >
>>
>>
>> A typically clueless Tarver post. What the hell makes you think I'm a
>> server admin.?
>
>I still have your email from when I started posting on this board

Yeah, me too. Show me where it says I was or am a server admin.
Right up there with your strakes claim.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> How would you go about photographing the underside of an F-22 departing
> Edwards' flight line, Chad? :)

I'd use a gadget called a "camera."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:30:02 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> >Why do you post here, Ferrin? Your trolling is of poor quality, you
have
> >no
> >> >knowledge of the subject, and you never served. What about being a
> >server
> >> >administrator qualifys you to post difinitively at ram?
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> A typically clueless Tarver post. What the hell makes you think I'm a
> >> server admin.?
> >
> >I still have your email from when I started posting on this board
>
> Yeah, me too. Show me where it says I was or am a server admin.
> Right up there with your strakes claim.

What is it you do that has to do with military aviation, Ferrin?

I mean, it is possible you have more to offer than just being a clueless
prick, but such is not in evidence from your posts, Scott.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:56:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Each airframe has it's own dog house.
> >>
> >> Show me a picture of an F-22 parked in it's "doghouse" and I'll show
> >> you five where they're not. And the shed where they test the engines
> >> isn't one of the so called doghouses you mention either.
> >
> >You can't show us any F-22s, Scott, you have never participated in any
> >aviation activity anywhere.
> >
>
>
> And no pictures of the F-22 have ever been published huh?

Lots of F-22 photos have been published, but that does not change the facts
WRT the program. I'm sure you are quite the photo downloader, Scott, but I
fail to see how that allows you to bring anything relevent to this thread.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > How would you go about photographing the underside of an F-22 departing
> > Edwards' flight line, Chad? :)
>
> I'd use a gadget called a "camera."

Then you'd be in jail.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >> Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of Raptor
> > >> 018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.
> > >
> > >There is what dippy?
> >
> > Unless you have a reading comprehension problem it's pretty plain.
>
> Why do you post here, Ferrin? Your trolling is of poor quality, you have no
> knowledge of the subject, and you never served. What about being a server
> administrator qualifys you to post difinitively at ram?

Well, at least he has not regaled us with ludicrous tales of "optical
nukes", "splaps", and fictional problems involving the F-22, not to
mention a rather mystifying history of the pitot tube, or how the
Confederate Navy supposedly blockaded the North during the Civil
War...

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > >> Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of
Raptor
> > > >> 018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > >There is what dippy?
> > >
> > > Unless you have a reading comprehension problem it's pretty plain.
> >
> > Why do you post here, Ferrin? Your trolling is of poor quality, you
have no
> > knowledge of the subject, and you never served. What about being a
server
> > administrator qualifys you to post difinitively at ram?
>
> Well, at least he has not regaled us with ludicrous tales of "optical
> nukes", "splaps", and fictional problems involving the F-22, not to
> mention a rather mystifying history of the pitot tube, or how the
> Confederate Navy supposedly blockaded the North during the Civil
> War...

Other than being a clueless prick, what is it you offer at ram, Kevin
Brooks?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Lots of F-22 photos have been published, but that does not change the
> facts WRT the program.

Except that lack of airdams on current planes.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > How would you go about photographing the underside of an F-22 departing
> > > Edwards' flight line, Chad? :)
> >
> > I'd use a gadget called a "camera."
>
> Then you'd be in jail.

Nope.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > How would you go about photographing the underside of an F-22
departing
> > > > Edwards' flight line, Chad? :)
> > >
> > > I'd use a gadget called a "camera."
> >
> > Then you'd be in jail.
>
> Nope.

Perhaps you are unaware of Edward's camera policy.

I have a question for you, Chad. I noticed that you have participated in
several fighter threads here at ram lately. In each of these threads you
have presented the F-22 in a certain light. Yet, in this thread when UROs
were provided for your reading, proving that I am correct about the F-22's
tail problems, you claimed to have known all along that there are/were
strakes on some F-22 's. It would seem from that revelation that you, Mr.
Irby, have been dishonest over a large number of posts. I was sort of
hoping that this thread had been an education for you and that you might
tone down your chauvanism, but if you truely knew the F-22 was as I say,
then you are truely a dishonest person.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Lots of F-22 photos have been published, but that does not change the
> > facts WRT the program.
>
> Except that lack of airdams on current planes.

No two of Lockmart's aircraft are the same, Irby.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> > How would you go about photographing the underside of an F-22 departing
>> > Edwards' flight line, Chad? :)
>>
>> I'd use a gadget called a "camera."
>
>Then you'd be in jail.
>
An aircraft in flight after take off is departing the flightline. If that phase
ofthe flight is what was meant and the camera was used off base the individual
taking the pictures has committed no crime.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:42:36 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:56:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Each airframe has it's own dog house.
>> >>
>> >> Show me a picture of an F-22 parked in it's "doghouse" and I'll show
>> >> you five where they're not. And the shed where they test the engines
>> >> isn't one of the so called doghouses you mention either.
>> >
>> >You can't show us any F-22s, Scott, you have never participated in any
>> >aviation activity anywhere.
>> >
>>
>>
>> And no pictures of the F-22 have ever been published huh?
>
>Lots of F-22 photos have been published, but that does not change the facts
>WRT the program. I'm sure you are quite the photo downloader, Scott, but I
>fail to see how that allows you to bring anything relevent to this thread.
>


Still no photos of your F-22 with strakes huh? No surpise there
poser.

[Scott Ferrin]

>I mean, it is possible you have more to offer than just being a clueless
>prick, but such is not in evidence from your posts, Scott.
>


Heh heh. I guess when you can't back up your claims you resort to
name calling huh? I'd have thought you'd have gotten over that in
elementary school but apparently not. I'll tell you what, you come
up with ONE real picture of an F-22 with strakes and I'll bow down to
your godlike superiority. If not then shut your pie hole.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:49:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
>> In article >,
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> > How would you go about photographing the underside of an F-22 departing
>> > Edwards' flight line, Chad? :)
>>
>> I'd use a gadget called a "camera."
>
>Then you'd be in jail.
>


Oh pu-LEASE. They had an F-22 flying at the airshow at Edwards.

http://www.tvrphotography.com/edwards03.htm


This guy obviously made it home but hey don't confuse yourself with
facts.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > How would you go about photographing the underside of an F-22
departing
> >> > Edwards' flight line, Chad? :)
> >>
> >> I'd use a gadget called a "camera."
> >
> >Then you'd be in jail.
> >
> An aircraft in flight after take off is departing the flightline. If that
phase
> ofthe flight is what was meant and the camera was used off base the
individual
> taking the pictures has committed no crime.

You don't really know much about Edwards, Dan, so just pack it in.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:42:36 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:56:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Each airframe has it's own dog house.
> >> >>
> >> >> Show me a picture of an F-22 parked in it's "doghouse" and I'll show
> >> >> you five where they're not. And the shed where they test the
engines
> >> >> isn't one of the so called doghouses you mention either.
> >> >
> >> >You can't show us any F-22s, Scott, you have never participated in any
> >> >aviation activity anywhere.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> And no pictures of the F-22 have ever been published huh?
> >
> >Lots of F-22 photos have been published, but that does not change the
facts
> >WRT the program. I'm sure you are quite the photo downloader, Scott, but
I
> >fail to see how that allows you to bring anything relevent to this
thread.

> Still no photos of your F-22 with strakes huh? No surpise there
> poser.

Not a chance of that, Ferrin, I am the real deal.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:08:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:42:36 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:56:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Each airframe has it's own dog house.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Show me a picture of an F-22 parked in it's "doghouse" and I'll show
>> >> >> you five where they're not. And the shed where they test the
>engines
>> >> >> isn't one of the so called doghouses you mention either.
>> >> >
>> >> >You can't show us any F-22s, Scott, you have never participated in any
>> >> >aviation activity anywhere.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And no pictures of the F-22 have ever been published huh?
>> >
>> >Lots of F-22 photos have been published, but that does not change the
>facts
>> >WRT the program. I'm sure you are quite the photo downloader, Scott, but
>I
>> >fail to see how that allows you to bring anything relevent to this
>thread.
>
>> Still no photos of your F-22 with strakes huh? No surpise there
>> poser.
>
>Not a chance of that, Ferrin, I am the real deal.
>


Well "real deal" I notice no pictures to back up your claim poser.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > >> Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of
> Raptor
> > > > >> 018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.
> > > > >
> > > > >There is what dippy?
> > > >
> > > > Unless you have a reading comprehension problem it's pretty plain.
> > >
> > > Why do you post here, Ferrin? Your trolling is of poor quality, you
> have no
> > > knowledge of the subject, and you never served. What about being a
> server
> > > administrator qualifys you to post difinitively at ram?
> >
> > Well, at least he has not regaled us with ludicrous tales of "optical
> > nukes", "splaps", and fictional problems involving the F-22, not to
> > mention a rather mystifying history of the pitot tube, or how the
> > Confederate Navy supposedly blockaded the North during the Civil
> > War...
>
> Other than being a clueless prick, what is it you offer at ram, Kevin
> Brooks?

Well, I *don't* offer up the fictional weapons systems (optical
nukes?!), adulterated Civil War history, conspiracy-theory-worthy F-22
pipedreams, etc., that you regularly ply us with, nor have I tried
your laughable "I know a Senator and you'll be sorry!" crap. Those are
things that only the Tarvernaut can claim parentage of.

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:08:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:42:36 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:56:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Each airframe has it's own dog house.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Show me a picture of an F-22 parked in it's "doghouse" and I'll
show
> >> >> >> you five where they're not. And the shed where they test the
> >engines
> >> >> >> isn't one of the so called doghouses you mention either.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You can't show us any F-22s, Scott, you have never participated in
any
> >> >> >aviation activity anywhere.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And no pictures of the F-22 have ever been published huh?
> >> >
> >> >Lots of F-22 photos have been published, but that does not change the
facts
> >> >WRT the program. I'm sure you are quite the photo downloader, Scott,
but I
> >> >fail to see how that allows you to bring anything relevent to this
thread.
> >
> >> Still no photos of your F-22 with strakes huh? No surpise there
> >> poser.
> >
> >Not a chance of that, Ferrin, I am the real deal.

> Well "real deal" I notice no pictures to back up your claim poser.

What do you think Lockmart did, Ferrin, wait around for a year, or go ahead
with the 8-inch strakes and see if it would work? What is it you said you
do, Scott?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Sorry but you're full of ****. There's an in flight photo of
> > Raptor
> > > > > >> 018 in Florida. No strakes or "deflectors" whatsoever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >There is what dippy?
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless you have a reading comprehension problem it's pretty plain.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you post here, Ferrin? Your trolling is of poor quality, you
> > have no
> > > > knowledge of the subject, and you never served. What about being a
> > server
> > > > administrator qualifys you to post difinitively at ram?
> > >
> > > Well, at least he has not regaled us with ludicrous tales of "optical
> > > nukes", "splaps", and fictional problems involving the F-22, not to
> > > mention a rather mystifying history of the pitot tube, or how the
> > > Confederate Navy supposedly blockaded the North during the Civil
> > > War...
> >
> > Other than being a clueless prick, what is it you offer at ram, Kevin
> > Brooks?
>
> Well, I *don't*

Yes well, it must be real sad being you, Kevin Brooks.

[Scott Ferrin]

>What do you think Lockmart did, Ferrin, wait around for a year, or go ahead
>with the 8-inch strakes and see if it would work?

You tell me. No pictures yet huh? Looks like they're still waiting.
Poser.