Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

F-19A Specter Stealth Fighter

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
The sillyness may not be unfounded. The whole point that a plane could be given the number seeing as if they really did skip it and go to the 20 as i believe. Why not go backwards and screw everyone up.
there is nothing saying that the next fighter could be the 19 though i agree that it wouldn't make sence hence why it would work as a black project.




posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
This seems to be the immortal Black Project, like a boomerang, it keeps coming back time and again. The F-19 has Visited ATS atleast 8 to 10 times that I can think of. Either they created one of the greatest disinformation projects of all times, or there is really something behind the F-19 story.

Let's assume for a moment, the F-19 is real! We now have some questions to look at:
If you want to know what the F-19A is bound to look like Get on these sites IMMEDIATLY!!!!!!!.

www.fantastic-plastic.com...
m2reviews.cnsi.net...
www.h4.dion.ne.jp...
www.whatifmodelers.com...

OK ignore the stuff about 'Dark Skies' but some of the lines in the story could be some ideas.

I think the most likley evidence would be the PROJECT SPECTER story although it is on a 'What If' model site.
The site also claims that some F-19A remains are buried under the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas!!!!!!!.

Mod Edit: Please watch the big quotes

[edit on 11/12/05 by FredT]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Pleasae explain to me why you are so hung up on the 'Monogram' F-19 in particular? Not only is it no less a work of pure fiction than the 'Testors' version but when you really look at it the design is actually garbage.

Here are three reasons why this design is nothing but fantasy;



Furthermore, at anything resembling any sort of 'angle of attack' the air intakes are totally blanked out by the underside of the aircraft and the engine would flame out, the supposed fins are also slap bang in the middle of the area of least pressure and thus totally ineffective even if they weren't too small in the first place!

Finally, look at the position of the main gear in relation to the planes length and ground clearance and imagine this thing rotating at the end of its take off run, OUCH! this thing is a joke, but hey, it looks cool




Well boyz If there is an F-19 its deffo this one.


Whatever you say dude




[edit on 5-11-2005 by waynos]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 04:00 AM
link   


Slightly better canards on this version but the the fins and intakes are just as useless and this one would have an even harder time of trying to take off than the other would!

Not knocking these guys modelling skills by the way, they are very good models anbd I'm into that sort of thing myself but there is no way this F-19 can be anything like accurate. Even if an F-19 DOES exist it cannot look like this, unless its designers wasted all their time and money.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
[Not knocking these guys modelling skills by the way, they are very good models anbd I'm into that sort of thing myself but there is no way this F-19 can be anything like accurate. Even if an F-19 DOES exist it cannot look like this, unless its designers wasted all their time and money.


If this F-19A Specter does not exist at all , The whole F-19 thing would be the biggest ongoing lie ever. Even if this plane wasnt a 'stealth' aircraft , it could at least just be a jet fighter. Ive always loved this F-19A airframe becouse it looks pure evil and if it was going to be just an interceptor or fighter , it could be beefed up , with vulcan gun installed on it ,drop tanks and so on. There could be a two seater one and also a naval variant that would be the perfect tomcat replacement. OK it wont go MACH 5 ,it would have normal engines installed in it

If this is not the F-19 , what is?

[edit on 5-11-2005 by Browno]

[edit on 5-11-2005 by Browno]

[edit on 11/12/05 by FredT]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
You know browno, that airframe doesn't really go along with the schematics, that plane does not look mach 5-6 capable.

I'm sorry, but the F-19(a?) is based purely on fantasy, so are those airframes, it's just based on what some nerd wants them to be, and you can't go by some guy's fantasy. There is not enough hard evidence supporting the existence of the aircraft.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Just to add as a footnote to an earlier F-19 discussion involving Tim, amongst others, I have just noticed today that the USAF Fighter museum website lists the following among its links; "F-19 CSIRS-see F-117A".

Is this some sort of official admission?

I also never realised that the designation F-13 is the only one acknowledged here as 'not issued' while until 1962 the USAF called its F-4 Phantoms the 'F-110 Spectre'. Very interesting.


USAF fighter museum



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   
This has come up quite a few times before, as I wrote in this thread:

No amazing conspiracies as such I'm afraid, just the usual Press imaginations going wild! I had the model and was looking for the aircraft for years. Kinda upset me that it didn't exist, looked so cool.


From "Designed for the Kill", Mike Spick, Airlife Publishing 1995

Page 141

[On the F117A] "Design work began on the full scale development aircraft in Decmber 1978, and it first flew from Groom Lake, piloted by Hal Farley, in June 1981. For added security, the radio call sign of 117 was allotted, and it was the widespread use of this that finally led to the designation F-117 A, rather than any of the fanciful theories later advanced. The press had a lovely time. They knew something Top-Secret was around, gave it the obvious (and erroneous) designation of F-19, and even published three-views of it which had foundation only in their overheated imaginations. Not until November 1988 was the existance of the F-117 A revealed, and even then the heavily retouched photo released gave a totally wrong impression of it's outline."


See here

Really is an amazing book, I thoroughly recommend it, details the history of modern fighting aircraft.

[edit on 6/11/2005 by Slashpepper] (to correct spelling)

[edit on 6/11/2005 by Slashpepper]



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
You know browno, that airframe doesn't really go along with the schematics, that plane does not look mach 5-6 capable.

I'm sorry, but the F-19(a?) is based purely on fantasy, so are those airframes, it's just based on what some nerd wants them to be, and you can't go by some guy's fantasy. There is not enough hard evidence supporting the existence of the aircraft.

Shattered OUT...
I think it wont be capable of that speed too, the F-16 canopy would shatter into the pilot and cut him to shreds and the wafer thin airframe would crack. The mach 5 capability should be left to real state of the art, heavy duty,serious buisness aircraft like the AURORA BLACK TRIANGLE that LIVES FOR THAT S++T.

I suppose you are right ,it was some nobody nerd who designed the MONOGRAM F-19A Specter, even though it is not real, it still looks like some mean evil thing coming at you. The Revell F-19 would be more likley to take off then the testors one(If they were built) but out of all 4 model companies Testors/Italeri,Revell,Kasatosi,and Monogram
I thought the Monogram one looked the most accurate.
Anyway it is the best thing to be REAL and get a LIFE instead of living in some blagg fantasy world that wont come true.

I sort of still like the design though but if it really was built, it could have been just an ordinary 'Fighter'.

As Mike Tyson says , BE REAL!.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Pleasae explain to me why you are so hung up on the 'Monogram' F-19 in particular? Not only is it no less a work of pure fiction than the 'Testors' version but when you really look at it the design is actually garbage.

Here are three reasons why this design is nothing but fantasy;



Furthermore, at anything resembling any sort of 'angle of attack' the air intakes are totally blanked out by the underside of the aircraft and the engine would flame out, the supposed fins are also slap bang in the middle of the area of least pressure and thus totally ineffective even if they weren't too small in the first place!

Finally, look at the position of the main gear in relation to the planes length and ground clearance and imagine this thing rotating at the end of its take off run, OUCH! this thing is a joke, but hey, it looks cool




Well boyz If there is an F-19 its deffo this one.


Whatever you say dude




[edit on 5-11-2005 by waynos]
But wait there! LOOK again at the front canards on the other F-19A site , they are outlined so they must move but not on the model , even if they didnt, they could just be just to stabilise or for the pilot to crawl up into the cockpit.

I hate to say this aircraft does not exist but even so it does not , I wanted to ressurect this forgotten plane becouse i had a small toy of this when i was a kid and i always wanted to know 'what the hell is this one?'.
It is also from my favourate decades too 1985-1995 so this plane would be 'old skool' and information about it is VERY EXTREMELY HARD TO FIND.


[edit on 6-5-2006 by Browno]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 03:16 AM
link   
There is a degree of desperation in the comment that the canards 'might be there for the pilot to crawl up' that really made me smile
Thanks for that.

As to why information on this aircraft is hard to find, do you know why that is? Its because there is no info because there is no plane. From about 1981 just about everyone (who was interested in planes) knew that the 'stealth fighter' existed but nobody could find out what it was called or looked like. This led to a desperate NEED to know these things among enthusiasts and the realisation that th4e next new fighter after the F-18 Hornet was the F-20 Tigershark suddenly gave us a name. Whether it was right or wrong hardly mattered. We were now looking not for the 'Stealth Fighter' as before, but for the F-19 which seemed to make it all official.

This also created a market that modelmakers Testors and Monogram were only too happy to fill with completely fictional shapes based on whatfew facts were thought to be known.

The fact that the stealth fighter was the F-117 and that it looked nothing like any of the guesses (not just the models, there were loads of guesses) just seems to have led to people somehow convincing themselves that tthis is another stealth fighter, a different, still secret one. Its almost as sad as the 'grassy knoll' believers who cannot accept the truth either, I guess some people always trhink there is 'something else' even when shown that there really isn't.

I do wonder if its because the F-117, when you really look at it, is quite feeble as warplanes go, and the search for the F-19 is borne out of disappointment?

After all nobody is looking for the 'real super secret' ATB are they? Yet the B-2 looks nothing like it was supposed to look according to the model makers. But then again the B-2 is actually very impressive and much better than was guessed at. By George I think I've just figured out the F-19 Mystery because I typed all that as it came into my head


[edit on 8-11-2005 by waynos]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
There is a degree of desperation in the comment that the canards 'might be there for the pilot to crawl up' that really made me smile
Thanks for that.

As to why information on this aircraft is hard to find, do you know why that is? Its because there is no info because there is no plane. From about 1981 just about everyone (who was interested in planes) knew that the 'stealth fighter' existed but nobody could find out what it was called or looked like. [edit on 8-11-2005 by waynos]

I understand now that everyone knew there was a stealth fighter but they didnt knew what it looked like so the two model companies Monogram and Testors got some nobody nerds who were wannabe aerospace/defence engineers who didnt have a clue about aircraft engineering so they mixed up some aircraft designs, put them together and called it an 'F-19 Stealth Fighter'.

I can tell now becouse the designs were sort of plane parts just stuck together(The F-16 Cockpit, Mini SR-71). As explained above , the designs would sort of not be 'Airworthy' and if they did fly they would deffo be detected by radar due to the droopy curved edges and exhaust heat signatures, all that time it was the squared off edges and flat surfaces on the F-117 Nighthawk that done the trick!.

Waynos , I like the way you pinpointed out the images and the way you explained the F-19 Specter out.
Well in for that!!!!!!!!!!!(Thanks!)



Mod Edit: Please watch the big quotes..... Thanks

[edit on 11/12/05 by FredT]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Browno

I can tell now becouse the designs were sort of plane parts just stuck together(The F-16 Cockpit, Mini SR-71). As explained above , the designs would sort of not be 'Airworthy' and if they did fly they would deffo be detected by radar due to the droopy curved edges and exhaust heat signatures, all that time it was the squared off edges and flat surfaces on the F-117 Nighthawk that done the trick!.

Waynos , I like the way you pinpointed out the images and the way you explained the F-19 Specter out.
Well in for that!!!!!!!!!!!(Thanks!)


Browno,

The curved design can be just as steathy or even stealthier that the
Facits of the F-117. The reason the F-117 used the flat facits was because the computer technology that Lockheed had in the late 1970's and earily 1980's was very primitive. The computers didn't have the speed and capacity to hand the math needed to design a stealth with curved surfaces and make it fly.
Northrop has more advanced technology than Lockheed, that is why they could make the B-2 so stealthy useing smooth, flowing curves.

Tim



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
You're welcome Browno. I'm happy that you found it useful.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
You're welcome Browno. I'm happy that you found it useful.


The F-19 designation was just a cover up for the F-117 becouse everyone knew about a 'Stealth Fighter' but they had no idea what it looked like so i suppose someone informed the two model companies Testors and Monogram to produce 'F-19' model kits to distract the public and communist spy rings from the F-117 which was the real aircraft under construction at the time. The 'F-19' was also in books and news articles. There was also a news article sometime in 1986 about a pilot being killed crashing an 'F-19 Stealth Fighter'. I believe they scattered F-101 Voodoo parts all over Groom Lake?/Edwards AFB? to mock up a crash scene.

There is no F-19 whatsoever, it was just a Cold War 'Roumour' just to distract people from the truth.

Also if Northrop Grumman have more advanced technology then Lockheed Martin then why does Northrop get turned down all the time?.

Maybe TOO advanced things are TOO hard to repair or maintain? or could be just ahead of our time.

[edit on 12-11-2005 by Browno]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Browno wrote:

"There was also a news article sometime in 1986 about a pilot being killed crashing an 'F-19 Stealth Fighter'. I believe they scattered F-101 Voodoo parts all over Groom Lake?/Edwards AFB? to mock up a crash scene."


Here are the facts:
An F-117A crashed near Bakersfield, California, on 11 July 1986 and Maj. Ross E. Mulhare was killed. This was almost two and a half years before the F-117A was unveiled in a Department of Defense press conference. At the time of the accident, Air Force spokesmen refused to identify the aircraft type. Reporters speculated that it was the rumored "F-19 Stealth Fighter."

The crash site was declared a National Defense Area (a temporary restriction granting the military control over public and private land) and Air Force crews conducted a clean-up and investigation for several weeks. After they departed and restrictions were lifted, a news crew visited the site and collected pieces of debris that were later shown on television and in newspaper articles.

In 1988, the "stealth fighter" was declassified by the DoD and they acknowledged that the airplane that crashed at Bakersfield was an F-117A. A year later, in an interview with a well-known aviation author, an Air Force NCO spun a tale about how the crash site was sanitized and the debris replaced with parts of an old F-101 that had crashed at Groom Lake about 20 years earlier. This fairytale had no basis in truth, but it has been republished many times as gospel by people who didn't bother to field check the story.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I just have to say:

Waynos, thank you for bringing some much needed reason to this thread.


The example(s) being discussed "look cool" to people that don't have to fly them.

When looking at an aircraft, you really need to consider what everything does, because frankly, you don't design a military aircraft to look cool. Every single thing has a function, and every single aspect of a military aircraft is a set of compromise.

Yes, aircraft such as the Raptor, Blackwidow, and S-47 look awsome, but every little "cool" part of these aircraft play an important tangible role.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Yes, aircraft such as the Raptor, Blackwidow, and S-47 look awsome, but every little "cool" part of these aircraft play an important tangible role.

O, comeon Seekrof, Blackwidow? You mean the WWII fighter designed purely for night time missions?


Lets try Blackwidow II.


Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Browno,

The curved design can be just as steathy or even stealthier that the
Facits of the F-117. The reason the F-117 used the flat facits was because the computer technology that Lockheed had in the late 1970's and earily 1980's was very primitive. The computers didn't have the speed and capacity to hand the math needed to design a stealth with curved surfaces and make it fly.
Northrop has more advanced technology than Lockheed, that is why they could make the B-2 so stealthy useing smooth, flowing curves.

Tim


Yeah, this is one of the reasons I find it hard to believe a TR-3A exists, as it 'apparently has' curved features, and surely it would have been designed in a similar time-period to the F-117 (??) Unless it was the trial for the new design process?



*Oh, and I assume you mean Northrop had more powerful computers at their disposal, and not 'more advanced technology than Lockheed', it kinda could read as a slight on Lockheed.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
O, comeon Seekrof, Blackwidow? You mean the WWII fighter designed purely for night time missions?


Lets try Blackwidow II.



Though I may often agree with the man, I am not Seekerof


And yes, I was refering to the BWII





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join