F22 air dams/strakes: the definitive answer.

[Admin]

being a Cav Scout, i went and collected information......

i e-mailed "Lockmart" and received this reply today:


-----Original Message-----
From: redc1c4
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:48 PM
To: Caires, Greg A }
Subject: a quick question


i am participating in the newsgroup rec.aviation.military where the
discussion centers around the existence or lack thereof of "strakes"
or "air dams" in and around the vertical stabilizers of the F22.

the general consensus is that there were some affixed temporarily
after a problem was discovered, but that an engineering fix has made
them unnecessary, and for obvious reasons relating to stealth
characteristics, they have not been retained.

the quote in question is:
"The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
occurring 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."

so, does the F-22 have such an attachment?
(assuming, of course, that this information is not classified.)

thanks in advance for your organization's time in this small matter.

<reply portion follows>

The discussion you've included is a bit mixed. There were two issues
that I think have become confused.

The first was a "tail crack" issue with the HORIZONTAL stabilators.
The composite skins were delaminating (pulling off the internal
structure). We redesigned the stabilator to include more titanium and
its working.

The fin buffet or tail flutter issue involved the VERTICAL stabilizers,
which was fixed by stiffening the internal structure with additional
titanium.

There are no air dams or strakes or anything else. Here is a recent
photo -- you should be able to see how smooth the jets external mold
lines are.

Thanks for asking,

Greg

i can forward the e-mail, should anyone feel the need.

the picture in question will be posted to ABPM.

i expect my apology from Tarver to be posted here in RAM.

redc1c4,
(but i won't be holding my breath %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[redc1c4]

Admin wrote:

(sorry 'bout the "Admin" thing.... that's a usDOTsplat joke %-)

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

Army Officer's Guide

[Tarver Engineering]

So what I wrote in the first place is correct.

Of course I would not necessarily believe lockmart that the titanium "is
working" as the program has a history of hiding deficiencies. Those
deficiencies covered up include these same tail cracks, which wa a story
broken by Reuters 6 months after the delamination was discovered.

The only way to know if the third attempt to fix the F-22's tail is to fly
the airplane 500 hours.

[Tarver Engineering]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Admin wrote:
>
> (sorry 'bout the "Admin" thing.... that's a usDOTsplat joke %-)

That's ok, it is just another sock where you are more of a prick; as I have
seen your admin posts.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:55:16 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>So what I wrote in the first place is correct.

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

Uh that would be N-O. Thanks for playing P-O-S-E-R.



>
>Of course I would not necessarily believe lockmart that the titanium "is
>working" as the program has a history of hiding deficiencies. Those
>deficiencies covered up include these same tail cracks, which wa a story
>broken by Reuters 6 months after the delamination was discovered.

\

Yeah and we didn't land on the moon and we have aliens locked up in
hangar 18 right next to the
do-take-photos-of-them-or-you'll-go-to-jail F-22s with the strakes.



>
>The only way to know if the third attempt to fix the F-22's tail is to fly
>the airplane 500 hours.


Sans strakes. Just like every other solution they've implemented.

[redc1c4]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> So what I wrote in the first place is correct.
>
> Of course I would not necessarily believe lockmart that the titanium "is
> working" as the program has a history of hiding deficiencies. Those
> deficiencies covered up include these same tail cracks, which wa a story
> broken by Reuters 6 months after the delamination was discovered.
>
> The only way to know if the third attempt to fix the F-22's tail is to fly
> the airplane 500 hours.

what you wrote in the first place in the thread is:
>

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

how that squares with Lockheed's reply, and the picture provided,
is something i'll leave to you to explain.

redc1c4,
it's sure to be entertaining, but unlikely to be educational.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:55:16 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >So what I wrote in the first place is correct.
>
> "You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings? :)"

That is what Lockmart said publicly about their airplane.

Now we have Lockmart are claiming the titanium will not be strike three on
the F-22's tail issues, but the history of the program indicates there is no
reason to believe them.

[redc1c4]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Admin wrote:
> >
> > (sorry 'bout the "Admin" thing.... that's a usDOTsplat joke %-)
>
> That's ok, it is just another sock where you are more of a prick; as I have
> seen your admin posts.

hardly a "sock", since i make no effort to disguise my identity....
you should stick to aeronautical engineering as a field of expertise,
since Usenet terminology is evidently NOT your strong suit.
that way you'll cut down on the number of occasions you're made to look
like a complete ass.

redc1c4,
as for being a prick, that gives us something in common:
in my case, an accident of birth. but you sir, are a self made man.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Tarver Engineering]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > So what I wrote in the first place is correct.
> >
> > Of course I would not necessarily believe lockmart that the titanium "is
> > working" as the program has a history of hiding deficiencies. Those
> > deficiencies covered up include these same tail cracks, which wa a story
> > broken by Reuters 6 months after the delamination was discovered.
> >
> > The only way to know if the third attempt to fix the F-22's tail is to
fly
> > the airplane 500 hours.
>
> what you wrote in the first place in the thread is:
> >
>
> "You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings? :)"
>
> how that squares with Lockheed's reply, and the picture provided,
> is something i'll leave to you to explain.

Lockmart is trying to peddle strike three in their series of tail fixes as
one that has already worked, but it is going to take 500 hours of flight to
know that.

[Tarver Engineering]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Admin wrote:
> > >
> > > (sorry 'bout the "Admin" thing.... that's a usDOTsplat joke %-)
> >
> > That's ok, it is just another sock where you are more of a prick; as I
have
> > seen your admin posts.
>
> hardly a "sock", since i make no effort to disguise my identity....
> you should stick to aeronautical engineering as a field of expertise,
> since Usenet terminology is evidently NOT your strong suit.

Sock, hose, same thing to me.

> that way you'll cut down on the number of occasions you're made to look
> like a complete ass.

Dude, you're a sock, being a complete ass is part of your jacket.

[redc1c4]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:55:16 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >So what I wrote in the first place is correct.
> >
> > "You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings? :)"
>
> That is what Lockmart said publicly about their airplane.

cite please.

redc1c4,
you lack the credibility to make unsupported statements of fact.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Tarver Engineering]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:55:16 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >So what I wrote in the first place is correct.
> > >
> > > "You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings? :)"
> >
> > That is what Lockmart said publicly about their airplane.
>
> cite please.

No.

I don't have any need, or desire, to convence clueless socks of anything.
Although your quote from lockmart is interesting, it is very far from being
anything difinitive, as lockmart has already been caught lying several times
WRT the F-22.

[Chad Irby]

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...

--
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:
>
> > 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.

[Chad Irby]

"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.

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

--
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...
> "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.

[WaltBJ]

As far as 'air dams' or strakes are concerned, they do not have to be
made of radar-reflecting material. The wing fences on the F102 were a
case in point. They were known to 'lie down' due to excessive spanwise
flow - the Deuce got a little edgy in yaw in low level turbulence at
high speed - 600+ - and every now and then after an air show one would
come back with the fences flat against the wing. They had no metal in
them AFIK, and were mostly some sort of honeycomb.
Walt BJ

[Kevin Brooks]

Admin > wrote in message >...
> being a Cav Scout, i went and collected information......
>
> i e-mailed "Lockmart" and received this reply today:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: redc1c4
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:48 PM
> To: Caires, Greg A }
> Subject: a quick question
>
>
> i am participating in the newsgroup rec.aviation.military where the
> discussion centers around the existence or lack thereof of "strakes"
> or "air dams" in and around the vertical stabilizers of the F22.
>
> the general consensus is that there were some affixed temporarily
> after a problem was discovered, but that an engineering fix has made
> them unnecessary, and for obvious reasons relating to stealth
> characteristics, they have not been retained.
>
> the quote in question is:
> "The wing parts were added to correct the wash across the tail
> occurring 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."
>
> so, does the F-22 have such an attachment?
> (assuming, of course, that this information is not classified.)
>
> thanks in advance for your organization's time in this small matter.
>
> <reply portion follows>
>
> The discussion you've included is a bit mixed. There were two issues
> that I think have become confused.
>
> The first was a "tail crack" issue with the HORIZONTAL stabilators.
> The composite skins were delaminating (pulling off the internal
> structure). We redesigned the stabilator to include more titanium and
> its working.
>
> The fin buffet or tail flutter issue involved the VERTICAL stabilizers,
> which was fixed by stiffening the internal structure with additional
> titanium.
>
> There are no air dams or strakes or anything else. Here is a recent
> photo -- you should be able to see how smooth the jets external mold
> lines are.
>
> Thanks for asking,
>
> Greg
>
> i can forward the e-mail, should anyone feel the need.
>
> the picture in question will be posted to ABPM.
>
> i expect my apology from Tarver to be posted here in RAM.
>
> redc1c4,
> (but i won't be holding my breath %-)

That would be wise of you!

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> As far as 'air dams' or strakes are concerned, they do not have to be
> made of radar-reflecting material. The wing fences on the F102 were a
> case in point. They were known to 'lie down' due to excessive spanwise
> flow - the Deuce got a little edgy in yaw in low level turbulence at
> high speed - 600+ - and every now and then after an air show one would
> come back with the fences flat against the wing. They had no metal in
> them AFIK, and were mostly some sort of honeycomb.

Hopefully lockmart is flying the crap out of AV19 and the F-22's structural
issues can be put behind them. That would leave the avionics and weapons
integration problems to work.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:29:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
>> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> >
>> > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:55:16 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >So what I wrote in the first place is correct.
>> > >
>> > > "You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings? :)"
>> >
>> > That is what Lockmart said publicly about their airplane.
>>
>> cite please.
>
>No.
>
>I don't have any need, or desire, to convence clueless socks of anything.
>Although your quote from lockmart is interesting, it is very far from being
>anything difinitive, as lockmart has already been caught lying several times
>WRT the F-22.

Yeah we already knew you couldn't prove anything you've said about
this. I'd have thought you'd at least have had the balls to admit it
since it's obvious you don't know your head from your ass on this one
but no, typically Tarver: a no nads, know nothing, poser.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:21:04 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
>> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> >
>> > So what I wrote in the first place is correct.
>> >
>> > Of course I would not necessarily believe lockmart that the titanium "is
>> > working" as the program has a history of hiding deficiencies. Those
>> > deficiencies covered up include these same tail cracks, which wa a story
>> > broken by Reuters 6 months after the delamination was discovered.
>> >
>> > The only way to know if the third attempt to fix the F-22's tail is to
>fly
>> > the airplane 500 hours.
>>
>> what you wrote in the first place in the thread is:
>> >
>>
>> "You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings? :)"
>>
>> how that squares with Lockheed's reply, and the picture provided,
>> is something i'll leave to you to explain.
>
>Lockmart is trying to peddle strike three in their series of tail fixes as
>one that has already worked, but it is going to take 500 hours of flight to
>know that.
>


Show us a picture of those strakes poser. (I'd have flushed your ass
to the kill file long ago but this is just too damn entertaining.
You're good for laughs if nothing else.)

[Scott Ferrin]

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!

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:54:44 -0800, "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.


Since there aren't any and never were.

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

Just another clueless statement by a broom pusher.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:10:48 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
>> As far as 'air dams' or strakes are concerned, they do not have to be
>> made of radar-reflecting material. The wing fences on the F102 were a
>> case in point. They were known to 'lie down' due to excessive spanwise
>> flow - the Deuce got a little edgy in yaw in low level turbulence at
>> high speed - 600+ - and every now and then after an air show one would
>> come back with the fences flat against the wing. They had no metal in
>> them AFIK, and were mostly some sort of honeycomb.
>
>Hopefully lockmart is flying the crap out of AV19 and the F-22's structural
>issues can be put behind them.


ROTFLMAO!!! But Tarver you said that they had them before nineteen
rolled out (which they didn't) . Come on, pictures, pictures baby
LOL.

[Scott Ferrin]

>Sock, hose, same thing to me.

"strake, rudder, same thing to me"

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

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

Not enough room after you put in both feet, eh?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[redc1c4]

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?

redc1c4,
you're probably only an engineer in a Dilbert cartoon. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >
> > > "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:55:16 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >So what I wrote in the first place is correct.
> > > >
> > > > "You men like the 8 inchers added to the F-22 wings? :)"
> > >
> > > That is what Lockmart said publicly about their airplane.
> >
> > cite please.
>
> No.
>
> I don't have any need, or desire, to convence clueless socks of anything.
> Although your quote from lockmart is interesting, it is very far from being
> anything difinitive, as lockmart has already been caught lying several times
> WRT the F-22.

For those unfamiliar with the more esoteric meanings of Tarverese,
this translates as, "I got caught in a lie again, but I'll be damned
if I'll ever admit it." It is located in the Tarverise-English
Translation dictionary, along with "optical nuke", "splaps",
"recoiless guns in AC-130's", etc.

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Trying to put words in my mouth is not going to work, Irby.
>
> Not enough room after you put in both feet, eh?

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

And Irby lied. Perhaps some trolls will give you comfort, Chad.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

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

[redc1c4]

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

[Chad Irby]

"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.

[Denyav]

>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.

[Ed Rasimus]

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.

[John R Weiss]

"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.

[Ed Rasimus]

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.

[Paul F Austin]

"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".

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[John R Weiss]

"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!).

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.
>

[Scott Ferrin]

>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?

[Scott Ferrin]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Gerdeus]

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.

[Gerdeus]

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> 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.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 16 Nov 2003 08:56:07 -0800, (Gerdeus) wrote:

>Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
>> 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.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Gerdeus) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> > 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?

Not a thing in the world. When you're building new planes, things go
wrong in new ways, and you have to fix them. Like the problems the F-22
had with the tail. Or the Osprey's hydraulic issues. Or the wing hinge
on the F-111. Or the landing gear on the C-5.

Some folks, however, have been taking the tack that since the F-22 had
some typical problems, the program is doomed.

> Europe needs are much different than the U.S. Unimproved runways, for
> example, necessitate good braking systems.

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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 16 Nov 2003 08:56:07 -0800, (Gerdeus) wrote:
>
> >Chad Irby > wrote in message
>...
> >> 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.
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gerdeus" > wrote in message
om...
> 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.

This newsgroup has an entire multi-year archive of the Shafer "kook troll",
only now is there any meaningful discussion on this newsgroup. With of
course, the requisite number of "clueless trolls", to add to the noise
level. Then add in the company partisan and you have ram. In the F-22's
case the company man has always served the purpose obfuscation at ram;
raising the noise level still further.

I think Ed is onto something in changing the subject, but it amounts to just
more noise to burry the signal.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> 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.

Chad, you have posted to three distinct different threads at ram in the past
couple of weeks where you pretend the F-22 has no prolems and either the
Eurofighter has problems, or French airplanes are crap. Perhaps Lockheed
Martin pays you to troll here, like they did Ken Garlington. If so,
Lockmart has made a good decision in replacing their spam bot with someone
less a maniac.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> 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.

It's not that far out compared to what you can find in automobile
antilock/traction control systems now. Differential wheel braking,
pulsed according to the speed/weight of the car, temp sensors, chassis
angle sensors, et cetera.

--
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, you have posted to three distinct different threads at ram in the past
> couple of weeks where you pretend the F-22 has no prolems

Then you could easily come up with examples, then.

Unless you're lying about it to deflect people making fun of you for
being a complete fool.

Which you usually do, when you completely lose an argument about
something stupid you said.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gerdeus" > wrote in message
om...

>
> What is so unusual about that? Europe needs are much different than
> the U.S. Unimproved runways, for example, necessitate good braking
systems.
>

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

[Keith Willshaw]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> (Gerdeus) 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 , 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.

Keith

[B2431]

>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.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Mary Shafer]

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.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Chad Irby]

"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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Peter Stickney]

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

[John R Weiss]

"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...

[Keith Willshaw]

"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

[Tarver Engineering]

"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

[B2431]

>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
>

[Scott Ferrin]

>> 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.

[John Mullen]

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

[Peter Kemp]

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

[Matthew G. Saroff]

John Mullen > wrote:

>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.
I know that it was demonstrated with NATO Jaguars.

I remember an ad in AV Week with one taking off from the
autobahn.
--
Matthew Saroff

Does anyone else out there strongly feel that the folks at the TV
Networks who have censored out Daffy's beak getting blown off (Shoot
Me NOW!) deserve to be stripped naked, tied face down over a chair,
covered with moose musk, and set in the migratory path of a large
moose herd?
Comments to (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

[Chad Irby]

Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:

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

....but they're developing a whole new wing of semi-submersible airplanes
for just such an occasion...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[John Penta]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 04:14:14 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:
>
>> Singapore also periodically practices operating from roads, although
>> there's only do far they can go :-)
>
>...but they're developing a whole new wing of semi-submersible airplanes
>for just such an occasion...

Huh? Elaborate, pleaaaaaaase. This intrigues me greatly, just on the
"coolness" factor alone.

Subplanes.:-)

John

[Thomas Schoene]

John Penta wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 04:14:14 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>> Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:
>>
>>> Singapore also periodically practices operating from roads, although
>>> there's only do far they can go :-)
>>
>> ...but they're developing a whole new wing of semi-submersible
>> airplanes for just such an occasion...
>
> Huh? Elaborate, pleaaaaaaase. This intrigues me greatly, just on the
> "coolness" factor alone.

Singapore is an island nation, and a small one at that, so there aren';t a
lot of long roads. The rest is just humor.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[John Penta]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:53:06 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>John Penta wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 04:14:14 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Singapore also periodically practices operating from roads, although
>>>> there's only do far they can go :-)
>>>
>>> ...but they're developing a whole new wing of semi-submersible
>>> airplanes for just such an occasion...
>>
>> Huh? Elaborate, pleaaaaaaase. This intrigues me greatly, just on the
>> "coolness" factor alone.
>
>Singapore is an island nation, and a small one at that, so there aren';t a
>lot of long roads. The rest is just humor.

Dammit, the idea seemed so cool.