SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Sex, drugs, gifts uncovered in government oil probe

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Sex, drugs, gifts uncovered in government oil probe (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=141952)

Sex, drugs, gifts uncovered in government oil probe

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...dal/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:

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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!

The squeeky wheel always gets the grease....

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koondawg

The squeeky wheel always gets the grease....

Or in this case the lube :rotfl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

Hmm...let's see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

[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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

and more expensive.

Can't argue that.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Hmm...let's see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

[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.

Quote:

under-powered

Quote:

and more expensive.

Can't argue that.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Some futher details:

Quote:

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 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

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