Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!gatech!purdue!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!cadnetix.COM!cadnetix!eriks
From: eriks@cadnetix.COM (Eriks Ziemelis)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Is it for real?
Summary: More dribble that doesn't deal with the shuttle
Keywords: stealth
Message-ID: <5171@cadnetix.COM>
Date: 11 Nov 88 19:01:35 GMT
References: <696@sas.UUCP> <749@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Sender: news@cadnetix.COM
Reply-To: eriks@cadnetix.COM (Eriks Ziemelis)
Organization: Cadnetix Corp.,  Boulder, CO
Lines: 29

In article <749@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> pcp2g@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Philip C. Plait) writes:
>Anyway, the real one is slightly larger than an F-16, and costs three times as 
>much to make, about $60M. This is all according to the newscast.
>


I have a hard time believing that the Stealth bomber is slightly larger
than an F-16. The F-16 is a **tiny** plane. The stealth's central region
(what do you call it, it doesn't have a fuselage) might be the same
length as an F-16, but wing span is definitely greater. The beat must
be larger to be able to carry a significant nuke load.

More stuff about tough planes: any one know anything about the anti-tank
plane (A10?) and how during testing, they virtually shot off most of
its wings and tail and the sucker stayed up.

Sorry for continuing this non-shuttle stuff =:^)



Eriks A. Ziemelis


Internet:  eriks@cadnetix.com
UUCP:  ...!{uunet,boulder}!cadnetix!eriks
U.S. Snail: Cadnetix Corp.
	    5775 Flatiron Pkwy
	    Boulder, CO 80301
Baby Bell: (303) 444-8075 X221