F-22 Raptor speed

[Raptor_One]

Jay Miller is one of the most connected aviation writers alive. Jay was selected by Lockheed to write the official history of the SkunkWorks. He even had access to Kelly Johnson's personal diaries. Jay knows is stuff. Only once in over twenty years have I been able to tell him something about aviation/aircraft that he did not already know.

I have that book by Miller on the history of the Skunk Works. You're talking about Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, right? It's sitting two feet from me. So what? I don't automatically believe statements by people simply because they're "well connected" and have published books. I believe what I read if the author's sources are documented and reputable, among other things. You can't believe everything you read... even from reputable authors and reporters. You should take claims that aren't backed up by credible sources with a grain of salt, no matter who makes them. To not do so amounts to worship. You people don't worship Jay Miller, do you? I know I don't. Do I have at least one of his books? Yes. So what?

[Raptor_One]

Is that the best you can do? While that is not precisely what I meant, I wasn't that far off

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.

Although specialized procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

I guess that's close enough. So you know what the scientific method is. Why do you think your calculations are scientific? Because you're using some math?

[idesof]

Jay Miller is one of the most connected aviation writers alive. Jay was selected by Lockheed to write the official history of the SkunkWorks. He even had access to Kelly Johnson's personal diaries. Jay knows is stuff. Only once in over twenty years have I been able to tell him something about aviation/aircraft that he did not already know.

I have that book by Miller on the history of the Skunk Works. You're talking about Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, right? It's sitting two feet from me. So what? I don't automatically believe statements by people simply because they're "well connected" and have published books. I believe what I read if the author's sources are documented and reputable, among other things. You can't believe everything you read... even from reputable authors and reporters. You should take claims that aren't backed up by credible sources with a grain of salt, no matter who makes them. To not do so amounts to worship. You people don't worship Jay Miller, do you? I know I don't. Do I have at least one of his books? Yes. So what?

Have you ever heard of "Deep Throat"? A U.S. president was brought down by an anonymous source. The reporters followed up and, although they backed up their story with their own research, never did reveal said source until he revealed himself.

Regarding the YF-22 vs. YF-23, there is a whole body of circumstantial evidence, backed up by statements from sources who obviously have an interest in not revealing themselves, that has lead many to conclude that the YF-23 was the superior aircraft in most respects. Same is true regarding the F119 and F120, the latter also being judged superior.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread. I call for boycot of this by-now VERY dead horse. Who's with me?

[bf-fly]

Hey Raptor one, why don't you refute my post rather than playing games with definitions? So far I'm completely unimpressed and frankly I find your approach quite childish.

[bf-fly]

By the way Raptor One, this was my actual statement, "if we use a scientific method" I simply was opening the door for a scientific method to be applied by all, not just me. (lots of we's in there)

"5)If we use a scientific method, rather than conjecture, we can arrive an airspeed that is accurate. If we take the average speed of all available information, and convert that to a consistent altitude, we can arrive at a reasonably accurate number. (temperature would likely be unknown adding a variable)
6)Metz, the test pilot provided some insight, Dozer, this General, and some others that maybe you guys can provide, can be blended to provide a good picture"

[Raptor_One]

Have you ever heard of "Deep Throat"? A U.S. president was brought down by an anonymous source. The reporters followed up and, although they backed up their story with their own research, never did reveal said source until he revealed himself.

Regarding the YF-22 vs. YF-23, there is a whole body of circumstantial evidence, backed up by statements from sources who obviously have an interest in not revealing themselves, that has lead many to conclude that the YF-23 was the superior aircraft in most respects. Same is true regarding the F119 and F120, the latter also being judged superior.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread. I call for boycot of this by-now VERY dead horse. Who's with me?

You're proving my point for me. Nixon didn't go down based on unnamed sources. He was proven to have done wrong. The rest of the stuff you say about the YF-23 vs. YF-22 is just what you say it is... rumor and inuendo... or as you like to call it, "a whole body of circumstantial evidence." You haven't even listed the circumstantial evidence. By the way, Jay Miller's book is not circumstantial evidence. How bout some first hand, named sources? Do you have any? No? You are too easily swayed by rumor and inuendo.

[Raptor_One]

By the way Raptor One, this was my actual statement, "if we use a scientific method" I simply was opening the door for a scientific method to be applied by all, not just me. (lots of we's in there)

"5)If we use a scientific method, rather than conjecture, we can arrive an airspeed that is accurate. If we take the average speed of all available information, and convert that to a consistent altitude, we can arrive at a reasonably accurate number. (temperature would likely be unknown adding a variable)
6)Metz, the test pilot provided some insight, Dozer, this General, and some others that maybe you guys can provide, can be blended to provide a good picture"

You guys were already warned by an actual pilot not to make engineering calculations based on pilot statements like the ones you're mentioning. Yet you still persist at doing just that? Why?

[bf-fly]

I am an actual pilot as well, my friend. I wouldn't put it under the heading of a warning, just advice. I did address that in my post (you did actually read my post didn't you?).

[Raptor_One]

I am an actual pilot as well, my friend. I wouldn't put it under the heading of a warning, just advice. I did address that in my post (you did actually read my post didn't you?).

So you're a fighter pilot? What do you fly? An F-16 pilot came in here and warned people about making engineering calculations based on fighter pilot stories and the like.

[bf-fly]

I didn't say I was a fighter pilot. Once again, it wasn't a warning, it was advice, secondly it wasn't a fighter pilot story, third, it was prepared remarks.

[Raptor_One]

I didn't say I was a fighter pilot. Once again, it wasn't a warning, it was advice, secondly it wasn't a fighter pilot story, third, it was prepared remarks.

Warning, advice... whatever. What is your point? Why don't you take his advice?

[sferrin]

I didn't say I was a fighter pilot. Once again, it wasn't a warning, it was advice, secondly it wasn't a fighter pilot story, third, it was prepared remarks.

Warning, advice... whatever. What is your point? Why don't you take his advice?

He's right, you're a real piece of work. Why don't you go back to the very first post in this thread and read what it says.

[idesof]

I didn't say I was a fighter pilot. Once again, it wasn't a warning, it was advice, secondly it wasn't a fighter pilot story, third, it was prepared remarks.

Warning, advice... whatever. What is your point? Why don't you take his advice?

He's right, you're a real piece of work. Why don't you go back to the very first post in this thread and read what it says.

Yep, the can has spilled and the worms are all over the place...

[bf-fly]

Since you are so fond of definitions, I would think you would know the difference between advice and a warning. Once again, I don't think you read my post, you just jumped on "scientific method" as a quick way to score some points (at least in your mind)

Here's the article. Not a fighter pilot jumping out of a plane boasting, or at a bar drinking, a US Airforce general using prepared remarks. Further, I did not suggest that this is the Holy Grail of F-22 info, just a good starting point to blend with other credible sources, such as Paul Metz the test pilot, and some of Dozer's written comments (not verbal)

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Nov2005/1105paths.asp

[bf-fly]

Here is the relevant text from my post

"My point is, not that this is the perfect example, but it is more precise than an off the cuff "25 or 30 minutes"."