OT F-117 retired

Mary Pegg wrote:

What about longest? The English Electric Canberra has to be a candidate;
it first flew in 1949 and was operational with the RAF until this year.
(And NASA apparently still have a couple of US-built versions flying).



Comradess! MiG-15! First flight 1948! China and North Korea still use
the trainer version.
The T-33 dates from the same year, and apparently some of those are
still in use around the world also.
Of course, if we are letting in trainers, we might as well let in cargo
planes, and in that case you know what's going to be at the top of the
list...there's bound to be a C-47 or two flying in some third world air
force still.

Pat

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:04:39 GMT, Cruithne3753
wrote:

I remember seeing lots of artist's impressions showing very curvy
looking craft, quite different to the angular real thing. Deliberate
misinformation?

....There's been a lot of debate about that one. The general concensus
is that the expected designator of "F-19" was skipped for any number
of reasons not specifically limited to, or even intended towards
security concerns. The "F-117" designator was reportedly an
"unofficial" one that was listed on all the early training manuals
that ended up sticking, unlike the Air Farce's original desire to
simply call it the "Black Jet" instead of the "Nighthawk" as the
pilots and the support crews preferred.

....As for the design, when all the information in the links below are
digested in Mentat mode, even without the Melange it's obvious that
Testors' designers looked at everything that Jane's and AvLeak - and
PopMech & PopSci, obviously - had guessed at, and then synthesized the
most attractive result of mixing the apparent best together. This
explains the similarities of the tailfins to Have Blue, the accuracy
of the coloration of the skin, and some of the other minor detailing.
They got a lot more right than they're given credit for, alas.

....On the other hand, the Have Blue accuracy and the cross-section
shape may have been the result of some "grapevine" leaks. The tailfin
design is pretty dead-on for Have Blue, and some of the leaks going
around at that time were hinting at two fins pointing inward at the
same rough angle. As for the curved edges, there's been speculation
over the years that the same leaks that resulted in the "TR-3" myths -
some AvLeak reporter misoverheard a reference to "Tier-3", and some of
the curvature data was leaked not long afterwards - were picked up by
the Testors' guys, and this may have helped influence their decision
to go all curvy with their kit design.

....One other thing to consider is this: the Lockheed "Specter" concept
- which Monogram copied as-is and issued a competitor kit that didn't
sell 1/10th as well as the Testors version - was floating around at
about the same time, and some of those reports were pre-assigning the
concept with the "F-19" designator. And since Testors was pulling
together all the stealth concepts being tossed around in the info
rags, it's not a far stretch for this one to have influenced the kit's
design. To stretch it a bit further, if you take a wad of Silly Putty,
shape it into the Testors concept, it doesn't take too many pulls to
get the Lockheed concept save for the bubble canopy.

....On a side note, Testors has claimed for years that the kit outsold
the AMT/Ertl TOS Enterprise to become the best selling kit of all
time, and reportedly did so within a year of release even though the
"E" had almost two decades a head start. However, since sales of the
"F-19" dropped sharply through the Moho Layer within *days* after the
Nighthawk was officially confirmed, whether that record stands today
has not been confirmed or denied.

And no, the actual F-117 kit that Testors released as a follow-up sold
nowhere near as well as the F-19. Probably due to the fact that it was
a nowhere-near accurate kit of a real plane, where as the kit of the
unreal one was far more accurate...:-)

Reference Links:

Joe Baugher's Usenet Post on the F-19 Designation:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo...r_us/f019.html

Wikpedia Article on the F-19 designation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-19

Have Blue Prototype:
http://www.f-117a.com/images/Have/HBBlueprints.GIF
http://www.f-117a.com/Have.html

Lockheed Concept Drawing:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/att...chmentid=47014

Grumman Concept Drawing:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/att...chmentid=47389
(Pat, if you've got anything more on this one, feel free to add it in)

Actual Testors Kit:
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/TES...LTH%20PAGE.htm
http://www.f-117a.com/images/FAQ/w61.jpg
http://www.inpayne.com/models/f19testors.html

Italieri Reissue:
http://www.roboterkampf.com/roboterh...ir/f19test.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpo.../f-19_48-i.htm

Futura's Mini-Model:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=230051898286

Microprose's Flight Sim*)
http://www.mobygames.com/game/f-19-stealth-fighter
http://vetusware.com/download/F19%20...ighter/?id=121 (**)
http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/DBA1/F192.html
http://www.ironclad.net/download/pub...th_Fighter.exe
(**)
http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=2229 (**)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-19_Stealth_Fighter


(*) On a side note, I worked briefly on a local project to build a
plane editor for this sim shortly after Microprose released the F-117
patch. The idea was to reveng the data file so that we had a clue what
records controlled what appearance, then give the player the chance to
add new plane designs to replace the one in the sim. The project got
along fairly well - we'd had a bathtub, a recliner, and a rather
faceted black version of the Silver Surfer all working - when we
contacted Microprose about whether they were interested in offering
the editor gratis on their BBS - this was before the Web, kids! - with
only bragging rights being the payment sought. Although two of their
software design team - neither of which were Sid Meier, alas - were
enthusiastic about it, some snotty PR bimbo and one of their lawyers
raised a major stink about it and threatened to sue our asses. While I
had no fears - I was working at a TV station at the time, and they'd
have loved to cover the story and make Microprose look like idiots - I
also was working with four guys who were long-time users of my BBS who
also happened to be aged 17-21, who were still scared of things like
lawyers and the SPA. So we wiped the files and that was the end of
that.

Oh, the reason the bimbo and the snark wanted the editor killed?
Wasn't really legal reasons at all - they were just afraid that it
would cause an increase in calls to their help desk when the game gets
screwed up because of an improperly edited plane. Go figure...

(**) Hey, it's apparently Orphanware now! Be advised that it tends to
choke on fast P4 systems using Nvidia cards.

Monogram's Competitor Attempt:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/att...chmentid=47468
http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~kasatosi/F-19.html - note: page in Japanese!
http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/m.../eggersf19.htm
http://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/f19/f19.html
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/MON...LTH%20PAGE.htm

F-29 Retaliator:
http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=1441

....I included the last one for gits and shiggles, because I actually
enjoyed this one more than F-19, even though landing either the F-29
or the X-29 was damn near impossible with a keyboard. Wish I still had
the cheat app for this one :-(


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:49:21 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Comradess! MiG-15! First flight 1948! China and North Korea still use
the trainer version.

....Ditto for the MiG-17, IIRC. In fact, the FSU still sells surplus
Frescos to private owners as well as spare parts. One guy down in San
Marcos owned and flew one for years back in the 90's and used to scare
the hell out of people until the See-BS affiliate I worked for ran a
fluff piece on him and the jet.

Of course, had he not kept the original Soviet markings, he wouldn't
have gotten the reaction he did...:-P

The T-33 dates from the same year, and apparently some of those are
still in use around the world also.

....IIRC, some of the Naval and Marine Air Stations are still using a
small number of these for Reserve and Guard trainers. They were using
a lot more of them back in '81 when I flew down to Beevill in that
CH-50, that much I know.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:21:57 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

After Testors model company made their curvy "F-19 stealth fighter"
model, they came out with one of the "Mig-37B Ferret" which used
flat-plate stealth:
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/TES...ETT%20PAGE.htm

....One of the message bases from the old WWIVnet-FiDOPEnet Gateway
days was dedicated to Model Aircraft Building, and according to one of
the regular posters the reason that the "Ferret" was so drastically
different from their "F-19" was based on the cold, hard fact that the
Soviets did everything the hard way. Rivets instead of welds, and raw
power behind flat plates to overcome the inability to manufacture
streamlined curves. He argued that if anything was "inaccurate" about
the "Ferret", it was that it needed more rivets in the details.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:15:44 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

...This begs the question: what military aircraft that entered active

Grrrr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

....Oh, byte me. When that article overcomes its contradictions, I'll
*consider* it's validity. Until then...phttt!

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:


The F-19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-19?
Not just artists' impressions but a model kit and an appearance in
"Red Storm Rising".


Notice the problem with the "Red Storm Rising" one?
It has afterburners...that's odd for a stealth aircraft.
Ideally, you'd have very high bypass turbofans to keep the exhaust IR
signature low.
That article mentions its use for reconnaissance missions, and the
aircraft would be a natural for that mission.
Stick more fuel and cameras in the bomb bays, take off the doors and
have the cameras peer out of metallic coated and radar reflective
windows flush with its bottom, or for IR film work using the mesh like
the nose and belly IR view/laser illumination units use (come to think
of it, how does the target illumination laser get through that mesh
without getting screwed up?
Is the beam pretty wide at the emitter?).
I'd be very surprised if some of them didn't get modified like this, as
they would make superb tactical reconnaissance aircraft.

* Like the cockpit view panels.

Pat

In article ,
Damon Hill wrote:
...Weird factor was exceeded only by the side
views of a B-2, which really did seem to almost vanish into thin air...

I still remember (reading of) the delightful official public debut of the
B-2, where the USAF had carefully arranged that the press would see it
only from the side, as it was briefly rolled out of the hangar to be
admired and puzzled over... But they'd forgotten to close the airspace
above the ceremony, so just as the carefully-limited revelation was
occurring, overhead comes a Cessna with an Aviation Week photographer...

Just to add insult to injury, AvLeak didn't merely put that forbidden view
on the cover -- they made the cover a two-page foldout to print it even
larger. Betcha whoever was in charge of staging that ceremony found
himself reassigned as the on-site USAF liaison to the Antarctic Penguin
Census. :-)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

In article ,
OM wrote:
...what military aircraft that entered active
service had the shortest shelf life? I'm guessing one of the Century
Series, or one of the F-86 P-Series predecessors, but no doubt Henry
has this one on the top of his head.

No, that would take some research... If you're willing to stipulate that
it has to be, say, post-1940, just to exclude real antiquities, then my
first guess would be that it would be one of the victims of the infamous
Westinghouse jet engines, but that's not a certainty.

There have been a number of aircraft that were such embarrassments, for
one reason or another, that although service politics dictated that they
be formally accepted, their operational careers were *very* short. It
would probably be one of them. The one borderline example of this in the
Century Series was the F-104, which saw only brief USAF service, but
considering the later triumph of marketing skill over common sense in the
history of *that* aircraft, I don't think it qualifies.

(F-100, -101, -102, -105, -106, -110 [= F-4], -111: long careers. F-107:
flown but not bought for production. F-103, -108, -109: never flew.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

OM wrote:

...One other thing to consider is this: the Lockheed "Specter" concept
- which Monogram copied as-is and issued a competitor kit that didn't
sell 1/10th as well as the Testors version - was floating around at
about the same time, and some of those reports were pre-assigning the
concept with the "F-19" designator.


The Monogram one was based on an ad that a electronics company ran in AW&ST.

Pat

OM wrote:


...IIRC, some of the Naval and Marine Air Stations are still using a
small number of these for Reserve and Guard trainers. They were using
a lot more of them back in '81 when I flew down to Beevill in that
CH-50, that much I know.



That had to be one of the top ten most successful planes ever made.
They had one up at Grand Forks a few years back where somebody managed
to stand on top of the wheel, screw around with the relays in the
nacelle, retract the landing gear, and crush himself.

Pat