Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

F-19A Specter Stealth Fighter

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Originally posted by zeerox


John,
How old is that Loral ad? 10 years?


I am thinking it has to be older than that because it came out at the height of the stealth fighter interest. I am thinking 89, 90.

I will try and get a copy today and post it.




posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Would be wonderful :-).



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
John, sorry for asking again but... how is going with that image?



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Well, I found LORAL. It appears their Missiles & Space Division at least is still in existence. Put in a request to their PR department though these days if there isn't a lawyer hiding under every proprietary image, it's because they've already sold the rights to someone else' legal department...

Having said that, this is what Clancy actually SAID about his F-19A-

>>
Colonel Douglas Ellington's fingertips caressed the control stick of his F-19A Ghostrider attack fighter....

Lockheed called her the Ghostrider. The pilots called her the Frisbee, the F-19A, the secretly developed Stealth attack fighter. She had no corners, no box shapes to allow radar signals to bounce cleanly off her. Her high-bypass turbofans were designed to emit a blurry infrared signature at most. From above, her wings appeared to mimic the shape of a cathedral bell. From in front, they curved oddly toward the ground, earning her the affectionate nickname of Frisbee. Though she was a masterpiece of electronic technology inside, she usually didn't use her active systems....
>>

findarticles.com...

Note that what he talks about as a 'frisbee' shape is only apparent from the FRONT of the jet.

Now look at the Testors kit-

www.features02.kitparade.com...

And the B-2-

www.aviationexplorer.com...

www.bugimus.com...

www.worth1000.com...

And finally a 'Real Frisbee'-

www.fi.edu...

From this, it becomes clear that Testors interpretation of whatever 'expert source' suggested a frisbee effect inherent to negative airfoil displacement (and it's in their instructions I believe) led them to design a configuration with huge anhedral, like an F-104.

IMO, this ruined any hope of realism for the airframe because the resulting jet looks more like a lifting body than anything with useful approach speeds or sustained lift at AOA sufficient for TFR or A2A work.

OTOH, look at that discontiguous cambered curve on that B-2. Now _I Ask You_, which one looks more like a 'Frisbee'?

And what does this buy you? Well, obviously it gets you a lot of lift on a nominally thin, straight-section leading edge (almost supercritical profile) with optimal spanwise presure distribution for a steady pitch and roll-at-yaw behavior without coupling or the superstall 'flip' effect typical of flying wings.

Equally, it may allow a LO airframe '2 swings' at surface or travelling waves which would otherwise couple at the back and come forward again to scatter at some fractional variable of initial impingence angle, due to sawtooth interactions.

Particularly at longer wavelengths, this is also probably why the curves are not constant to avoid predictable dipole resonance behaviors that can be 'rung' with unique waveforms.

Now, even given that Clancy never said his jet was exactly a 'flying wing' ala Sneaky Pete-

www.habu2.net...

IMO, it makes a whole LOT more sense to see the F-19 as something like this-

s87.photobucket.com...

Rather than something akin to a droop winged X-24.

Of course there are problems, even with Testors style inlets underwing and/or baffles ala the A-12, there will be some signature penalty to lower hemisphere radars. Further, the trunking run will be somewhat short and compressed, even with a serpentine. Probably too much so to be even mildly supersonic as Clancy suggested.

Similarly, Clancy made all his weapons and even a hypothetical Pave Tack pod external as a matter of course because he rendered the aircraft somewhat small (the Testors F-19 weapons bays are ludicrously tiny as well).

None of which would have been practical for what we now know of early VLO engineering (though encapsulation has been studied for a long time and is now quite the rage for upping the payload of stealth jets).

Having said this, I much prefer the notion of an airframe with a Vulcan style 'nosed' flying wing approach (clears a midbody weapons bay and adjusts some critical CofG vs. aspect ratio issues) along with a deep conventional centerbody over that of say the A-12 design.

Aerodynamic efficiencies go WAY up when you don't present a 3ft thick leading edge to the airflow and particularly if you push the stealth ribbon around the aft edge (moving to forward chord spoilers or spoiler slot deflectors as well as the beaver tail for primary pitch and roll) during 'go to war' mission evolutions; you basically get an all round deep-RAM LO coverage with only small wingtip and nose strobelines.

Obviously, there is also room for a nose radar which I consider _critical_ for anything flying below or shooting thru weather.


KPl.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
www.fantastic-plastic.com...

sorry peeps for coming late to this discussion, but i hope the above link gives a good glimpse at the monogram box and model.

It was one of my favorites sat on my shelf in its L/O deep grey / light grey scheme... but sadly got destroyed in a house move...


any how, heres the pics.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
The reason that the F-19 is such a secret is that the funding was hidden so that even top Senators and Reps. didn't know about it. The F-19 was not funded as an airplane. If the truth of the F-19 were to emerge it would compromise a lot of other hidden projects and would invite unwelcome questions about black budget funding. .....The F-19 was not supersonic. The F-19 did have some major stability problems that were eventually worked out.



John,
What role did/does the F-19 play if, as you state it is sub sonic? Doesn't seem to be an interceptor or fighter given the speed profile. You describe technology that would compromise other projects. Without giving too much away, was it in avionics, stealth aspects, weapons? Was it a great leap forward in technology or just another incremental increase? Is there something to it that the Navy is the only branch to have it? You seem to know more than you say on it, could you elaborate?



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Johnlear, I'm jumping right into the conversation late... but how exactly do you know what the F-19 is if high ranking government officials don't?

This is all very interesting because when I researched it, the only conclusive evidence I found was saying that the designation F-19 was a mistaken designation and never really used.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
If anyone has ever bothered to look they'd know that back in the days before the "F" for fighter designation we used "P" for pursiut. There were quite a few Ps that never went past assignation to a proposed project. Many never had metal cut if they went to the design stage at all.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
If anyone has ever bothered to look they'd know that back in the days before the "F" for fighter designation we used "P" for pursiut. There were quite a few Ps that never went past assignation to a proposed project. Many never had metal cut if they went to the design stage at all.

So what's the point?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Shattered Skies,

I think he's suggesting that sometimes projects are allocated a designation but never acctually leave the blueprint stage. Therefore, a project, such as the F-19, may infact not be a real aircraft because it was canclled before any hardware was ever completed. The Navy's A-12 Avenger is a good example. According to everything we know, no A-12's were ever completed. So for all intents and purposes, the Avenger II only existed on paper and in mockup's.

Tim



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Exactly, the F-19 doesn't HAVE to exist. The precident is that since we've called fighters, fighters there have been stillborn designs. Let's see, uh, the XP-33 was a concept degignation only and never built. Nothing sinister going on at all.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Originally posted by ShatteredSkies



Johnlear, I'm jumping right into the conversation late... but how exactly do you know what the F-19 is if high ranking government officials don't?

This is all very interesting because when I researched it, the only conclusive evidence I found was saying that the designation F-19 was a mistaken designation and never really used.

Shattered OUT...



For about 25 years now many newly developed aircraft have been placed under different government agencies or organizations for the purpose of deniability and operational use. For instance several have been placed under and operated by NORAD. Some are operated by the very companies that have built them. Most all new, highly classified aircraft are hidden so that even the Secretary of the Air Force can say, "I have no knowledge about an aircraft that can travel M 16 at 300,000 feet." And he doesn't.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Originally posted by pavil




John,
What role did/does the F-19 play if, as you state it is sub sonic? Doesn't seem to be an interceptor or fighter given the speed profile. You describe technology that would compromise other projects. Without giving too much away, was it in avionics, stealth aspects, weapons? Was it a great leap forward in technology or just another incremental increase? Is there something to it that the Navy is the only branch to have it? You seem to know more than you say on it, could you elaborate?



First, I don't know any more than I am telling you. And as far as "Without giving anything away..." I do not have anything to give away. I do not know what role it played other than it was carrier based. I am not privy to any secret about the F-19 other than the F-19 exists, it is operated by the Navy, Lockheed built 62 of them, it did not have any super classified stealth aspects and it was funded so that very, very few people knew about it. I speculate that several or more went to Israel. I know that Gen. Bond was killed flying one and that his accident was probably not an accident.

I have read all the comments on all the reasons why there is no F-19 and all I can say is those reports are from people who would not have access to the kind of information I do or, actually, did. And also that those people who are assuring you that there is no F-19 are disinformation artists or are uninformed.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Thanks for the reply back. Seems strange that they went and still are going through steps to keep it secret. There has got to be something special about it in order for them to maintain the shroud of secrecy around it.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Originally posted by pavil


[quote[Thanks for the reply back. Seems strange that they went and still are going through steps to keep it secret. There has got to be something special about it in order for them to maintain the shroud of secrecy around it.


Let me suggest it is the funding. Because there are several other planes out there, in use, operational, that very few have any idea about.

It is all about secrecy.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
If the F-19 exists that's fine and dandy but please note that every F designation does NOT end up in a viable, in-service aircraft. Where are the F-21, F-24, F-25, F-26?......you get the idea.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Originally posted by Cruizer



If the F-19 exists that's fine and dandy but please note that every F designation does NOT end up in a viable, in-service aircraft. Where are the F-21, F-24, F-25, F-26?......you get the idea.



Its possible that you have not read my evidence for the existence of the F-19. Just briefly I have a friend that worked on the production line at Burbank and then on final assembly at the test site. (not Groom Lake) I have another friend (Lockheed test pilot) who knew about the program but did not fly the F-19. He knew that Gen. Bond was killed in the F-19 not the Mig 23 (that was the cover story for any incident involving the F-19). I have another friend, a Navy SEAL, who saw it operational aboard an aircraft carrier.

The fact that there is no F-21, F-24, F-25 should give you a clue. Perhaps not.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I have another friend, a Navy SEAL, who saw it operational aboard an aircraft carrier.


John,

While I find much of what you have to offer intriguing and often entertaining, I'm having a hard time swallowing this one. I think your friend was probably pullling your leg, or maybe feeling the effect of one-too-many cold beers.

As someone who has spent time on more than a few USN carriers, I can assure you that the presence of a super-secret tactical aircraft on any carrier would be instant news around the fleet. Something of that magnitude could not possibly be contained or explained away with a cover story. There are simply too many people involved with flight operations, security, maintenance, fuel, armaments, etc. to be able to effectively "hide" an unacknowledged aircraft abord a US carrier. Nor could you swear that many people to secrecy, considering that probably only 1/2 the crew even has a security clearance, nevermid TS or beyond.

And how exactly does this aircraft come aboard? Secret night landings where no one can see? That must have been tough on the pilot, don't you think? Have you ever seen what it takes to qualify any aircraft for carrier landings and take offs, nevermind a specialized test bed or prototype? Or maybe it came aboard in a crate - but then who unpacks it and re-assembles it? And then who is the brave pilot who is going to ride that airframe off a steam catapult.....at night?!?

Methinks this is just a well-worn sea story............Y'argh!



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by Pyros



John,

While I find much of what you have to offer intriguing and often entertaining, I'm having a hard time swallowing this one. I think your friend was probably pullling your leg, or maybe feeling the effect of one-too-many cold beers.

As someone who has spent time on more than a few USN carriers, I can assure you that the presence of a super-secret tactical aircraft on any carrier would be instant news around the fleet. Something of that magnitude could not possibly be contained or explained away with a cover story. There are simply too many people involved with flight operations, security, maintenance, fuel, armaments, etc. to be able to effectively "hide" an unacknowledged aircraft abord a US carrier. Nor could you swear that many people to secrecy, considering that probably only 1/2 the crew even has a security clearance, nevermid TS or beyond.

And how exactly does this aircraft come aboard? Secret night landings where no one can see? That must have been tough on the pilot, don't you think? Have you ever seen what it takes to qualify any aircraft for carrier landings and take offs, nevermind a specialized test bed or prototype? Or maybe it came aboard in a crate - but then who unpacks it and re-assembles it? And then who is the brave pilot who is going to ride that airframe off a steam catapult.....at night?!?

Methinks this is just a well-worn sea story............Y'argh!



Thanks for your comments Pyros. You brought up some good points. I did not ask my SEAL friend about which carrier and where he was. As you were on board carriers you will know what I mean. I stick to my story. My friend was not pulling my leg. We did not have one too many beers and this is not a well worn sea story. We flew many hours together and discussed the F-19 program at length and also did a documentary for Channel 3 here in Las Vegas about the F-19 and Sandia (Pahute Mesa Sandia or "Station 12"? Or whatever the heck they call that place these days.) The old 'too many people would have to know' is the comment that is well worm and also false.

As to all of your other comments they all have merit but the fact remains that you are truly uninformed. But not to worry, so is the Secretary of the Air Force, Secretary of the Navy etc. etc. Thanks for your comments.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
John, until I have seen for my very own eyes hard, conclusive evidence of this aircraft, I will always be skeptical, it's not to say it isn't out there, I'm just saying that to my knowledge it isn't.

It was nice of you to share your story and to share what you had to say and it's also good that you don't push the subject on us or try to force what you take as fact because everyone believes differently because they have experienced differently or lack the necessary experiences to help them understand or believe. Some people are more fortunate than others, such as you, you happened to come across sources that shared this wealth of information with you, but I cannot take this as fact because I have not seen with my own eyes the truth yet. And if it does exist, then maybe one day I'll see and believe in it because I've found some hard conclusive evidence about it, but if I don't, doesn't really bother me, because it's just one thing in the US inventory that's far advanced than anything our enemies have, and to me, that edge is more important than knowing about it.

Shattered OUT...





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join