Chesty asked: Area rule isn't restricted to the waist area of the fuselage. It can be applied to various specific and local areas pretty much anywhere.

Absolutely correct. And why I asked the question. The F-105's and F-106's area rule implementation are obvious with casual observation. The F-22's is much less obvious, as is the F-14's, the Su-27's, the F-18's, the Tornado's, the Typhoon, and many others.. Channel 2 has set himself up as an expert on area rule. Can this "expert" state how area rule is implemented on the F-22? Or will he continue to ignore the question?

KenV, I suspect you're just asking for another angry lecture on some loosely relevant topic and a further explanation of where we're all so stupid here and have no clue about military aviation. I admire your persistence in trying to get a reasoned discussion or even an answer - I lost interest long before you. Bon chance, mom ami!

There were three 'area rules' that applied to the F-105.

1) It took an inordinate amount of 'geographic area' to turn it around (7.33 corner was somewhere around 500 with reasonably negative SEP))

2) It was able to leave a 'geographic area' straight-ahead at an inordinately high speed in its early days (later on not so much)

3) It took quite a large 'geographic area' to build a runway long enough for it to get airborne (even with its water injection system)

back to topic

If they do restart the F-22 line, will ANG pilots still go on '60 Minutes' to complain about and refuse to fly it?

:D:D:D

Excellent, but only if they're Sprey's boys and from Burlington Airport. Good to see the USAF are now telling them what they are going to fly, not the other way around.

I do not claim to be an expert on area ruling. But these two (2) concepts are fairly straight-forward.

1) The F-22 is 62-foot long. The F-35A is 50.5-foot long. The F-22 is 11.5 foot longer. The F-22 has a 44.5-foot wide wing span. The F-35C has a 43-foot wide wing span. So which aircraft most closely conforms to the Sears-Haack body? The answer mostly explains why the F-35C struggles to accelerate in the transonic region. As for the F-35A, its wingspan is 35-foot. But the Sears--Haack equation utilizes radius, not diameter so the 9.5-foot difference is actually 4.75-foot. The F-22 is 11.5 foot longer with only a 4.75-foot R differential.

And here is the devastating part. Negate the wings on both aircraft and redo the equation. One of them ends up looking almost identical to a Greyhound bus. Guess which one?

2) Internal volume is a rusty double-edged sword when it comes to area ruling. Remember how the F-35 fanboys love to brag about, "all that enormous internal volume?" Well...as it turns out...it's impossible to area rule a 50.5-foot long aircraft with that kind of volume.

Here is the bottom line. The F-35A and C both carry the same internal cross sectional volume of the F-35B. The 'B' needed a lift fan, but from the cross section distribution point of view, it was a tragic mistake for the F-35A and C to have space for a ghost fan that is nearly as big as an Embraer 190 engine right behind the cockpit.

All My Best, Gents!

I really don't know what the relevance of your posts are any more Channel 2.

I'm looking forward to your next thinly-disguised rant-fest where you compare the F-35 to a pine cone and deduce that it's a better subterranean mining platform than a goldfish.

Channel 2,

You are very good at looking stuff up on the Internet and then regurgitating it here as if you knew it all along and as if it is even vaguely relevant to the topic. Sadly, the inconsistencies in your posts betray your lack of understanding of aviation and theory of flight. As long as you think it makes you look clever, then that's fine. Just don't expect all the aviators here to be impressed.

It is quite clear what you are and why you have suddenly appeared here. I suspect your audience will rapidly shrink; maybe then you will go away.

Perhaps you will regale us, Mach Two, with your knowledge on this matter. Jump in and expound upon the subject. I am prepared to be dazzled.

Come to think of it, the same goes for MSOCS. Instead of the ad hominem assaults, perhaps you have a better answer to this question?

Well I hope you're also prepared for a long wait. I have no intention whatsoever of playing along with your game and I feel no need to "regale" anyone.

It's not ad hominem. It's called banter. But you wouldn't have a clue because you're not military.

MT, if you still have your paper on the dawn of the F-22, any chance of posting a link or sending me a copy?

Jesus this is boring. Can somebody post some more pics or something. Something with guns and rockets preferably.......

I suspect Mach Two is correct about you vomiting quickly-ingested internet material. Had you bothered to read whatever source you selected for Sears-Haack before copying and pasting it here, you should have seen that it isn't relevant to transonic flight.

I have to agree with the popular opinion here, Cannel 2. You are either attempting deliberately to disrupt this and other threads or you are trying to set yourself up as some kind of aviation expert for some reason best know to yourself.

Either way, you are only succeeding in displaying your lack of familiarity with the terms you are using and the conclusion that your purpose here is clearly neither to debate nor inform.

As others have already said, I will not engage with your rather sad attempts to create mischief here.

P.S. This is neither banter nor an ad hominem (how many times have you used that expression in your few posts here already?) attack. If it has a name, I would think "distain".

At the risk of bringing this back on-topic :rolleyes: :mad:

While I have minimal first hand knowledge of the F-22 avionics, I deal with avionics parts obsolescence on a semi-regular basis (granted, on the commercial side, not military).
IMHO, the avionics parts obsolescence shouldn't be a major issue -as others have noted there are manufacturers out there that are happy to produce new versions of old chips - at a price. Even if it means upgrading to newer technology devices, so long as the computer language doesn't change it's not all that hard (or expensive) to do. Been there, done that :E.

Where it could get messy is if they decide to start upgrading the avionics and software to take advantage of the latest technology - that could quickly turn into a new multibillion dollar development program :ugh:

Tdr,

Porting to newer processors shouldn't be a show stopper, especially as instruction sets enjoy considerable commonality. Comparered, sadly, to the problems of resurrecting the production line I suspect CPUs would be a fairly minor problem.

To echo earlier sentiments, it is tragic that this closed down so early. And sad when one considers why.

tonker,

Since you asked:


http://i61.fastpic.ru/big/2014/0511/...a2cfbb5092.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...apons-2006.gif

You are all aware of the recent deployment over here to our sunny shores (my photos of the last lot which arrived last weekend below) en masse

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psymksus3j.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psybk0qiwc.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pshmoxmpef.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psu1vgbj21.jpg



If they can re open the production line, after several years, how much would it cost to say for avionics, airframe, materials / tooling inc. bare basics of the then manufacturing to be up to speed today and for tomorrow.

I have understanding of airframe maufatcure a (limited experience of working with aerospace composites / tooling mainly in support of the Sikorsky S-76 production line for S-76A/C/C+ plus carried out quality audit I.AW Part 21G/J) so can see the complexities of the manufacturing process even on the small scale we were.

If it happens, then great, but being mindful of a change of government after the elections so will the next politicians in power go for F-22 production line opening?

Cheers

F-22 - Aviation Nation 2014 - Nellis AFB
 

Pictures + Noise !

Aviation Nation 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0myH5LjC7c8