If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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 $35 million fly away cost (totally missed.) At this point, the aircraft is awfully close to what's needed and the real concern is whether the program gets gutted by those who would rather extend 25 year old Eagles indefinitely into the future, arguing until the next Pearl Harbor, that there's no threat that the old technology can't defeat...and besides, if we don't suffer major casualties in our wars, we aren't fighting fairly and morally. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:OCutb.156437$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". |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:OCutb.156437$mZ5.1066327@attbi_s54... "Ed Rasimus" wrote... In the ever-waning hope that some semblance of meaningful dialog might be restored to this newsgroup, let me suggest that "range criteria" is a nebulous concept at best. Certainly the basic concept requirement for "supercruise" means exceptional range and the goals might be optimistic. One would than have to address the question of missions--how deep must the aircraft go? what profile? is this an attack or a/a profile? if a/a is endurance or range predominant? There aren't going to be simple answers. Actually, in the military aircraft development process the technical specifications and operational test criteria are VERY clear when it comes to things like range and endurance. The various mission configurations and profiles are described in enough detail so there is no question as to what is expected. In the case of the F-22, there was supposed to be a cost savings by skipping the full scale development step in the normal aircraft development process. OTOH, the willingness of the procurement agencies to adhere to those specifications and criteria is often politically motivated and VERY nebulous. Perhaps. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul F Austin" wrote in message ... "John R Weiss" wrote in message news:OCutb.156437$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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"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!). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Answer on CEF ILS RWY 23 questions | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 21 | October 17th 04 04:18 PM |
Dennis Fetters Mini 500 | EmailMe | Home Built | 70 | June 21st 04 09:36 PM |
The answer to the gasoline problem | Veeduber | Home Built | 4 | May 22nd 04 08:58 PM |