'F-117 Companion' data

a reply to: seagull

Yes, it is perfect proof of the so-called F-117 "retirement". But it is not what we are looking for. Let's try to find "Companion" pics

a reply to: SpeedFanatic

I realized that as soon as I posted...oops.

Been looking...

They're out there somewhere, if they're out there.

originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
a reply to: mightmight


If I had to guess I would say that below drawing is pretty close to 'F-117 Companion' appearance.

That doesnt look representative of best of breed stealth engineering in the required time frame....given the actual example is the very faceted F-117 and its very faceted design heritage brethren.

a reply to: Crumbles

It wasn't. It's being upgraded to the C-130J airframe.

a reply to: SpeedFanatic

I just wish the TR-3 designation would go away… its phony, everybody knows where it came from and there is nothing to it at all. It just obscures actually existing secret programs with all the bs attached to its name. Pretty much the same is true for Aurora.

But other than that, the article is a real treasure trove and raises some excellent points.
Just take the entire Avenger saga… Its a no brainer that Sneak Pete or some similar demonstrator actually flew, but the part about rumored Avengers at China Lake? Never read about this anywhere else. He might be right on the funding though, the Navy actually ‚excerised the Lot 1 option for six aircraft at $1,19 billion‘.
They actually got paid, i came across this DoD audit report some time ago in which the DCAA listed overpayments of some sort on the Lot 1 contract.
www.dodig.mil... (Page 8 in the document)
I tried to find out what happened to the money after the project got cancelled but no luck. I suppose it was part of the lawsuit the finally settled some time ago.
So who knows, maybe Rogoway is right on this and they got their act together after all. Wouldnt be the first time.

I doubt the Avenger and its predecessors have any links to the companion though. The project was a mess; ‚yeah we blew it for the Navy but the Air Force is happily flying the escort variant‘ doesnt compute.

a reply to: seagull

Our best guess is that they have at least four they're flying for testing purposes. The lead aircraft had a different antenna mounted that the trail aircraft didn't. The rest are in flyable storage, but can take six months plus to return to flying status.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Maxatoria

They're in type 1000 storage. Technically that means they can be restored to flight quickly, but the recent return of Ghost Rider to the fleet proved that quick is relative. There are several that are flying doing undisclosed things, but the majority of the fleet would need time to return to service.

I just thought that there would be a need for certain pilot time as if you do need them its not much use if you don't have anyone under 65 and retired who even knows where to turn the engines on etc.

a reply to: seagull

No the companion. I've seen that one quite a few times when revisiting the thread.

a reply to: Maxatoria

That's the other purpose for keeping a few flying. Their primary purpose is testing whatever, but double as proficiency aircraft.

Would the Companion be designed and built alongside the Nighthawk?

a reply to: Blackfinger

I'm not sure when it was built but as far as I know it was designed on drawing boards before 1982 and flew along with F-117 while Nighthawk's were still black.

a reply to: Blackfinger

The nighthawk was one of the most and first used platforms

I'm sure the disgners knew of certain limitations of the early stealth platforms needing a stealth knock on the door and someone to shut it

So I think it would be a natural idea to make a stealth brother for EW, target designation and BDA on the tail end of the flight.


On a side note, I think the nighthawk killed more bats then people....lol

There is this thing.



Might that be something to consider? This observation was done in 1979.

F-19 Revealed?

Maybe the companion grew from this? Or might it be it?

Be nice, I am not an Aircraft buff...

BT

a reply to: beetee

Nice. Never seen this before. I once saw only handmade drawing of this drawing. But the handmade drawing was made by reliable source. I didn't know back then what is he referring to..

Anyway, great link

originally posted by: beetee
There is this thing.

Might that be something to consider? This observation was done in 1979.

F-19 Revealed?

Maybe the companion grew from this? Or might it be it?

Be nice, I am not an Aircraft buff...

BT

BT,
Lose the ventral stabilizer and spread the tail fins apart a little, and make the the whole plan form a little more planar and angular and that sketch is pretty close to what was in the mag article, the op is referencing.
More importantly it is almost exactly, minus tails, what I saw shrunk wrapped and on a trailer leaving Edwards north, 1-2am?, several years ago.
Zaph and other members in the know were sure that i had seen the navy's uav with its wings off as it was being moved to the east coast, and I repspectfully deferred to there knowledge. But now that you posted that sketch, I going to say I absolutely did not see the x47 with its wings off.
I was almost close enough to touch the thing, and what was under the plastic was not a craft without wings.

a reply to: punkinworks10

While that design is cool as hell, it doesn't fly. They put it in the wind tunnel and all kinds of neat things happened.

They put it in the wind tunnel and all kinds of neat things happened.

They said that about the X29 Time for a bigger flight computer.

a reply to: Blackfinger

Yeah, but the X-29 actually flew and was fairly stable in the wind tunnel. This thing....not so much.

a reply to: punkinworks10

The design you just described sounds suspiciously similar to the OG Testors "F-19" módel from the 80s.

Hell, even the drawing that beetee posted is also pretty similar, the only major difference between it and the Testors design are the vertical stabilizers. The cockpit, fuselage profile, and engine placement are all pretty similar otherwise.

Probably just a coincidence, as I always thought it was pretty clear that the Testors guy reached his design conclusion by taking an SR-71, fattening it up, and stuffing the engines inside it (which that drawing also feels a lot like, minus the B-17 tails), but it's some food for thought.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Hey punkin, thanks for your involvment

Look at it:


Is it as far as I can get to a pics from a magazine?
Ventral stabilizer was lost and two inward canted tails appeared. Is it what you saw as a three pics taken during the first Gulf War?