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

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

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

Still wrong.

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

Beginning of what?

The decision was made before AV-1 ever flew that the next 5 airframes would
be converted to production. I know this because my wife took delivery of
the first three at Palmdale. She, having bought south base at Edwards as a
Captain, was then instrumentation FTE and instrumenter for AV-3, as a civil
servant.

I don't need to argue the pount becaue I was there when
the decision was made.

You know what you were instructed at the point where you needed to know.
Outside that criterion, you knew nada.

You are free to believe whatever you want. In truth
they are not production configuration to this day. They are opeational
but are
in varying degress of difference from the rest of the fleet, AV- being the
most
different.

Sure, they were full scale the development vehicles, as planned from the
beginning.

Mainly structural differences. Therefore they are not the final
approved (meaning accepted at the milestone called the Critical Design
Review)
"prduction configuration". Ditto with the early LRIP/test models of most
planes, including the B-1, F-117, and F-22, several of which are now at
the AF
Museum because thier configuration isn't easily supported. We had planned
to
either use AV-1 as a part task trainer at Whiteman or turn it over to the
AF
Museum. Theother planes were made operational because of cost - too
expensive
to use strictly as test assets.

The museum was the best place to go, as it would have been cheaper to
assemble another ship from the already delivered parts.

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

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

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

Let me say it for you once more, Lt. Col Couch rejected the 5 tube EFIS
Hughes delivered with AV-1 after first flight. There was no possibility for
Northrop, or Hughes, to have know that information in advance. The four and
four configuration is something we discussed after Couch made a presentation
to Reserve Officers at a dinner at Edwards. You may have found out what the
deal was the next day, but you cold not have known what Couch was going to
do, until after he did it. Deliver the package sinerios invalidated Hughes'
airliner type system.

"Smartace11" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

I would suggest you bypass that level of contols and leave it to EEs and
MEs. Aeros generally lack a proper education in physics and mathematics to
understand nonlinear feedback control systems.

I think after the "law of the wall", while regulatory, turned out to be
dimensionally an equation with no basis in physical reality, we all lowered
our expectaions as to Aeros to less than what the rest of Engineering would
expect a college freshman to know.

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

I suspect that has been your tactic from the beginning, Mr. sock.

So far you have talked about stress testing of the iron bird and of AV-1,
neither of which happened.

So far your reading and comprehension skills have been stressed beyond their
capacity, Mr. sock.

What does this have to do with anything, especially
with the configuration of the 21 operational B-2s and the evolution of the
fleet which I thought was the subject at hand?

You ran off in this direction to dazzle us with your brilliance, but your
story turned out to be bull****. I am just responding to you with the level
of respect you are giving me.

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

Glad to educate you.

I would suggest you bypass that level of contols and leave it to EEs and
MEs. Aeros generally lack a proper education in physics and mathematics to
understand nonlinear feedback control systems.

I think after the "law of the wall", while regulatory, turned out to be
dimensionally an equation with no basis in physical reality, we all lowered
our expectaions as to Aeros to less than what the rest of Engineering would
expect a college freshman to know.

Brilliant, John, You've probably just written something not even you can
understand. I can hardly wait to share with my ME and EE friends and
especially my lawyer friends who will no doubt want to quote you in their
future endeavors. You sir would be the perfect expert witness as no one would
understand a thing you say. I won't hesitate to recommend you, especially for
contractor vs government litigation where it is no one's best interests to deal
with the real issues.

The decision was made before AV-1 ever flew that the next 5 airframes would
be converted to production. I know this because my wife took delivery of
the first three at Palmdale. She, having bought south base at Edwards as a
Captain, was then instrumentation FTE and instrumenter for AV-3, as a civil
servant.

Then how come they never were? They were upgraded to full operational
capability but not full production configuration. AV-1 flew in 87when SAC was
planning a 132 plane fleet and 2 - 6 were to be assigned to EDW.

Don't recall ever meeting your wife on my trips to the CTF for test readiness
not at Plant 42 at the DPRO when the planes were accepted. I guess her
signature wold be on file in SPO records though, sonething that I could check
if I knew her name. Kind of unusual because the other planes were bought off
by MG Ralph Torino, the program director.

Lets quit. You have twisted my pea brain around enough. Interesting to see
how far you will go though.

Thanks for the laughs...

Stealth aircraft have a need for protection from the weather. It's got
nada to do with security from photos. And, many military bases don't
allow flight line pictures, even

Right,the passive stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" technology.Any
trained eye could figure out threat and non threat zones if he or she gets a
glimpse of the platform.
That was the reason why even the security personel were not allowed to look at
f117 during tests three decades ago.
But have you any idea why every US passive stealth platform is on display now
almost on daily basis?
Because you dont even need to know the shape of stealth platform in order to
effectively counter it now.
Technology did not stop thirty years ago.

The B-1 came "online" about twenty years ago. The "A" aspect of F/A-22
doesn't require "stretch" and quiet clearly there is a huge difference
in payload between a strategic heavy bomber like B-1 or B-2 and a
tactical asset like F/A-22. Whether

The "super maneuverarability" criteria is the reason why the jurassicfighter
cannot and will not meet its original range criteria and its derivatives.
A solution,which offers a face saving solution to range problem will have a
better cruise L/D ratio,but less maneuverability.period.

"Smartace11" wrote in message
...


The decision was made before AV-1 ever flew that the next 5 airframes
would
be converted to production. I know this because my wife took delivery of
the first three at Palmdale. She, having bought south base at Edwards as
a
Captain, was then instrumentation FTE and instrumenter for AV-3, as a
civil
servant.

Then how come they never were? They were upgraded to full operational
capability but not full production configuration. AV-1 flew in 87when SAC
was
planning a 132 plane fleet and 2 - 6 were to be assigned to EDW.

Money.

Don't recall ever meeting your wife on my trips to the CTF for test
readiness
not at Plant 42 at the DPRO when the planes were accepted. I guess her
signature wold be on file in SPO records though, sonething that I could
check
if I knew her name. Kind of unusual because the other planes were bought
off
by MG Ralph Torino, the program director.

Those 6 were bought off by instrumentation, long before Torino stamped off
on them.

Lets quit. You have twisted my pea brain around enough.

Odd that you would not know, unless you are one of those pico coffee bean
chewers.

"Smartace11" wrote in message
...
I would suggest you bypass that level of contols and leave it to EEs and
MEs. Aeros generally lack a proper education in physics and mathematics
to
understand nonlinear feedback control systems.

I think after the "law of the wall", while regulatory, turned out to be
dimensionally an equation with no basis in physical reality, we all
lowered
our expectaions as to Aeros to less than what the rest of Engineering
would
expect a college freshman to know.

Brilliant, John, You've probably just written something not even you can
understand.

A freshman physics student can do a dimensional analysis of an equation.
The question becomes, why couldn't an Aero? After all, it was silly to call
the equation a law in the first place and doubly humiliating for it to be
Regulatory.

Thanks to rec.aviation.misc, the law of the wall is dead. All it took was
some old physics professor selling his "reports" on usenet, while being
attacked by the areo mafia. Did you know Boeing reads there? I mean,
within days the "sonic cruiser" became a possibility.

I can hardly wait to share with my ME and EE friends and
especially my lawyer friends who will no doubt want to quote you in their
future endeavors.

You might want to just look up some young physics studet and save yourself
the humiliation.

You sir would be the perfect expert witness as no one would
understand a thing you say.

I am pre-qualified as an expert witness, in California and Washington, WRT
electrical engineering matters.

I won't hesitate to recommend you, especially for
contractor vs government litigation where it is no one's best interests to
deal
with the real issues.

I make plenty of money now, co-operating with the government.

The government didn't have to take the blame for Aero engineering's
deficiencies in basic math and physics.

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

Stealth aircraft have a need for protection from the weather. It's got
nada to do with security from photos. And, many military bases don't
allow flight line pictures, even

Right,the passive stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" technology.

Not exactly. Sure, someone with a lot of training could figure out one
or two angles that the plane could theoretically be detected from, but
if someone could defets stealth by just looking at it, then why is the
F-117 still flying over heavily defended airspace basically unchallenged
(except for one close-range lucky shot by *one* Russian-made missile a
few years back)? Thousands of sorties over heavily-defended airspace,
and for some reason, people can't seem to get a good lock on it. And
the F-117 is 30 year old tech...

Any trained eye could figure out threat and non threat zones if he or
she gets a glimpse of the platform.

Not really useful, though, unless you know not only the best angles for
a return, but also the exact flight plan the plane's going to take past
your radar. And "threat zones" are relative.

That was the reason why even the security personel were not allowed to look at
f117 during tests three decades ago.

The reason they weren't allowed to see the plane is that nobody was
supposed to know it even *existed*.

But have you any idea why every US passive stealth platform is on display now
almost on daily basis?

Because stealth works so well, and because everyone knows we *have*
stealth planes now. And because there's not a damned thing anyone can
do about them.

Because you dont even need to know the shape of stealth platform in order to
effectively counter it now.

No, you need to know its shape, its composition, and then you have to
figure out how to detect it.

Technology did not stop thirty years ago.

Yep, stealth technology didn't stop evolving. It got even better.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Hobo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Smartace11) wrote:

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

True, and he brings the Nyquist-tail thing up every week. Official word
is that they put heavier, stronger materials in the tails and the
problem is fixed,

It is the third fix for the problem and there is no possible way anyone can
know that the titanium tail spar works yet. To claim a fix is at best
speculation.