I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining the most common problems in
predicting drag, and, hence, range. The prediction can range from
small to large and no one has provided any meaningful information
about what the situation is. It's all speculation. You're the one
who is arguing, with what appears to be very little information but a
great deal of emotion.

I do think it's a little dishonest to compare aircraft with internal
stores to aircraft with external stores, as some of the comparisons
I've seen elsewhere do, but that's not an issue here. That's about
the only thing I'd argue about.

What's to argue about, anyway? If you know the drag, you know the
thrust you need. If you know the required thrust and you know the
engine, you know the fuel consumption. If you know that, you know the
range. What you do in flight test is find the drag and refine the
engine model. Then you hope the difference isn't so great between
what was predicted, which was enough to meet the specs, and what you
got that you can't come close enough to get a waiver. It's pretty
simple, really.

The F-35 is a nice, if odd-looking, little airplane. I have no reason
to believe it has any major problems. I hope it doesn't. If it does,
I hope they're easily fixable.

Mary


Do they EVER get a *pleasant* surprise? As in "wow this sucker has
300 miles more range than we thought"? It always seems like it's
heavier than they thought or less range or lower speed or weird
aerodynamics. Seems like nothing positive ever pops up.