Sex, drugs, gifts uncovered in government oil probe

[Platapus]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/oiil.scandal/index.html

"U.S. government employees received improper gifts from energy industry representatives, and engaged with them in illegal drug use and inappropriate sexual relations, according to a report issued Wednesday."

Sigh, how come I was never on those projects when I was a govie? :cry:

[Sailor Steve]

A friend of mine who has worked off and on as an aerodynamics consultant for the Air Force told me once got to talk to a designer from Northrop. When he asked him how come the Air Force went with the F-16 when Northrop's F-17 Cobra was arguably the better design, the designer replied "It's simple, really: they're better at getting generals laid than we are."

True or not, it's a great quote.

[bookworm_020]

I wish they would do these things for library contracts!:cry: I don't even get a postcard!:stare:

[kiwi_2005]

I wish they would do these things for library contracts!:cry: I don't even get a postcard!:stare:

Dont worry Bookworm I'll send ya a sheep :)

[bookworm_020]

I wish they would do these things for library contracts!:cry: I don't even get a postcard!:stare:
Dont worry Bookworm I'll send ya a sheep :)
Could I have it roasted???:hmm:

You have little chance of getting it past customs!

[Koondawg]

The squeeky wheel always gets the grease....

[Jimbuna]

I woner how much Herr Speer must have benefitted during the war :o

[SteamWake]

The squeeky wheel always gets the grease....

Or in this case the lube :rotfl:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I wish they would do these things for library contracts!:cry: I don't even get a postcard!:stare:

That's outrageous! I'll get to work lobbying Palin right away.:D

[SUBMAN1]

A friend of mine who has worked off and on as an aerodynamics consultant for the Air Force told me once got to talk to a designer from Northrop. When he asked him how come the Air Force went with the F-16 when Northrop's F-17 Cobra was arguably the better design, the designer replied "It's simple, really: they're better at getting generals laid than we are."

True or not, it's a great quote.The YF-17 was actually was inferior from a maneuverability standpoint (The top priority was dogfighting for the competition), under-powered, and more expensive. Everything else was neck and neck. This quote comes from a disgruntled Northrup employee is all. The Navy took it due to its wants of dual engines for carrier ops, redesigned it to have a better powerplant, and redesignated it the F/A-18. Still to this day, the F-16 is the better dogfighter.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

Hmm...let's see.

[The YF-17 was actually was inferior from a maneuverability standpoint (The top priority was dogfighting for the competition)
F-16: 26,500 lb loaded, Wing Area 300 sq ft = 98 lb/sq ft.
F-17: 23,000 lb loaded, Wing Area 350 sq ft = 68 lb/sq ft.

Lower wing loading = tighter turn radius.

under-powered
F-16: 26,500 lb loaded, Thrust with AB 28,600 lbf = Thrust/Weight 1.079 Declared T/W 1.095
F-17: 23,000 lb loaded, Thrust with AB 28,800 lbf = T/W 1.25 Declared T/W 1.25

Higher T/W = more power for F-17 either way you look at it.

and more expensive.
Can't argue that.

This quote comes from a disgruntled Northrup employee is all.
Or one with a sense of humor about the situation. Or there is a bit of truth involved. I'm glad you know him so much better to make that statement with confidence. I was just sharing a joke.

The Navy took it due to its wants of dual engines for carrier ops, redesigned it to have a better powerplant, and redesignated it the F/A-18. Still to this day, the F-16 is the better dogfighter.
They also increased the size and the loaded weight to 37,000 pounds! I don't question the F-16's ability to out-turn, out-climb and out-dogfight that.

[DeepIron]

Thank God "Rock n Roll" wasn't included... :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

Hmm...let's see.

[The YF-17 was actually was inferior from a maneuverability standpoint (The top priority was dogfighting for the competition) F-16: 26,500 lb loaded, Wing Area 300 sq ft = 98 lb/sq ft.
F-17: 23,000 lb loaded, Wing Area 350 sq ft = 68 lb/sq ft.

Lower wing loading = tighter turn radius.

under-powered F-16: 26,500 lb loaded, Thrust with AB 28,600 lbf = Thrust/Weight 1.079 Declared T/W 1.095
F-17: 23,000 lb loaded, Thrust with AB 28,800 lbf = T/W 1.25 Declared T/W 1.25

Higher T/W = more power for F-17 either way you look at it.

and more expensive. Can't argue that.

This quote comes from a disgruntled Northrup employee is all. Or one with a sense of humor about the situation. Or there is a bit of truth involved. I'm glad you know him so much better to make that statement with confidence. I was just sharing a joke.

The Navy took it due to its wants of dual engines for carrier ops, redesigned it to have a better powerplant, and redesignated it the F/A-18. Still to this day, the F-16 is the better dogfighter. They also increased the size and the loaded weight to 37,000 pounds! I don't question the F-16's ability to out-turn, out-climb and out-dogfight that.

You need to redo this entire thing. Turn radius is not also the sole provider of manuverability. Degrees per second if much more important. Also, where did you come up with 1.25:1 thrust ratio? That is pretty funny! As i understand it, both competitors had less than 1:1 thrust ratio. Only an F-15 at the time had a greater than 1:1 in those days.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Some futher details:

The chief reasons given by the Secretary for the decision were the YF-16’s lower operating costs; greater range; and maneuver performance that was “significantly better” than that of the YF-17, especially at near-supersonic and supersonic speeds. The flight test program revealed that the YF-16 had superior acceleration, climb rates, endurance, and (except around Mach 0.7) turn rates. Another advantage was the fact that the YF-16 – unlike the YF-17 – employed the Pratt & Whitney F100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F100) turbofan engine, which was the same powerplant used by the F-15; such commonality would lower the unit costs of the engines for both programs

[SUBMAN1]

Where are the details on the YF-17 / YF-16?

Wikipedia is worthless. An example - says the YF-17 has a 1.25:1 thrust ratio, yet if you get out a calculator, the weights and all work out to nearly 1.7:1. Hello? This is about as reliable as your local con artist.

-S

[Platapus]

Where are the details on the YF-17 / YF-16?

Wikipedia is worthless. An example - says the YF-17 has a 1.25:1 thrust ratio, yet if you get out a calculator, the weights and all work out to nearly 1.7:1. Hello? This is about as reliable as your local con artist.

-S


Make the change on Wikipedia then! :up:

[SUBMAN1]

Where are the details on the YF-17 / YF-16?

Wikipedia is worthless. An example - says the YF-17 has a 1.25:1 thrust ratio, yet if you get out a calculator, the weights and all work out to nearly 1.7:1. Hello? This is about as reliable as your local con artist.

-S

Make the change on Wikipedia then! :up:Like I have any better data over here! I'm the one trying to find it! :D I have no hard data to replace it with.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18

As far as the reasons given by the Air Force, they also included better visibility (the same reason given for selecting the Seversky P-35 over the Curtiss P-36), and that the F-17's engines were new whereas the F-16's engine was tried and proven.

I'm not saying they were wrong, I'm just saying they aren't always honest about it. This was a thread about people getting results by wining and dining government officials. I also implied the story might not even be true, just that it was a great story.