Ok fine, but that still doesnt justify a replacement when all its roles are filled

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Ok fine, but that still doesnt justify a replacement when all its roles are filled

If that were true, I'd agree with you! However Not all of the SR-71's roles have been filled.

We currently don't have a Known long range, supersonic Reconnassance platform with any kind of penetration capibility to it. The UAV's are too slow and basically Sitting ducks in high threat areas. Sattelites on the other hand don't have the flexability to be tasked at moment's notice and sent anywhere in the world.

Tim

Suppose the F-19 could be a secret variant of the SR-71, Well the testors 'Ghostrider' looks like a mini blackbird.

About the Airbase image, What are the two planes at the very top row?, One looks like a 'Black Manta', The other looks like an F-7 Cutlass.

That's a good Paint image, did you do it yourself?(Not being sarcatic, I really want to know)

Shattered OUT...

Browno,

That last picture you posted looks like a fuzzy photo of a model, is it?

Also, looking back over the pictures, I relised they all show a pilot in a semi-reclined position in the cockpit. I was wondering has anyone ever built a real aircraft with the pilot seated in such a configuration?

I've looked, but never seen a real combat aircraft use that seating configuration. Has anyyone ever seen it used?

Tim

Yes tim, the pilot in the F-16 is semi reclined, this is in order to make him better able to withstand high g manoevers. This is however considered undesirable by some air forces, hence the Typhoon is designed to have its own specialised flight suit to make it, and the sidestick controller it demands, unnecessary.

If there is any foundation in this 'F-19' design being real then I am curious how the undercarriage geometry works because it sure as hell cannot be the same as is depicted on the model or the plane would never get off the ground.

Originally posted by waynos
Yes tim, the pilot in the F-16 is semi reclined, this is in order to make him better able to withstand high g manoevers. This is however considered undesirable by some air forces, hence the Typhoon is designed to have its own specialised flight suit to make it, and the sidestick controller it demands, unnecessary.

I've heard about the F-16's seat!

Perhaps I should rephrase my question: Can it be reclined as far as it is in the F-19 model. The pilot looks like he laying in the plane instead of sitting. I've seen an F-16 and the seat is not reclined That much!

Tim

Well, you did ask my friend, no need to bite my head off

Also, looking back over the pictures, I relised they all show a pilot in a semi-reclined position in the cockpit. I was wondering has anyone ever built a real aircraft with the pilot seated in such a configuration?

But then you say;

The pilot looks like he laying in the plane instead of sitting. I've seen an F-16 and the seat is not reclined That much!

That would be why the F-16 seat position is called 'semi reclined' (which is what you asked about) what you are now describing is just plain 'reclined'. See?

Only trying to help.

Thanks Waynos,

You did a great job explaining it! For the record, I wasn't biteing anyone's head off, only trying to clarify something!

Tim

No worries Tim, and the smiley was in there for a reason, so theres no need to explain yourself

Hooyah splitting hairs.

Okay - just to bring everyone up to speed and maybe lift the fog for some poor lost individual reading this:

The "F-19" was a theorized 'black' aircraft because of the inexplicable gap in the production line (F-14,F-15,F-16,Y/F-17,F-18,F-20....). The 'real' 'F-19' turned out to be the F-117 Nighthawk. But, two of the largest model companies made their own varriants of the F-19. Testors made the 'ugly' looking one (in my opinion) - with the widder body and more compressed geometry - where Monogram (before it was bought out) made the more bat-winged looking aircraft we are currently discussing.

I happen to have purchased the Monogram version off of e-bay a while back and am looking for methods to replicate the model so that I will not have to damage the original (and I can have a whole squadron of F-19s!!) - as it is no longer produced. I beleive some of those fancy 3d scanners and rapid prototype machines are in order....

The general airframe concept and role of such an airframe is what is being debated. Not necessarily the existance of the F-19 or the model - but similar airframe designs.

now for my evaluation.

Such an airframe is more than likely a fighter or strike aircraft. The wings would most likely be rather intolerant of high speeds because they are very broad and straight.... great for high lift and maneuverability (in most cases) .... but she'd probably shake herself to pieces when going supersonic. I could be off on that one.... but I'd say that she'd make a rather interesting strike platform - and possibly a good dogfighting aircraft.

A pretty looking plane, though - whether or not she'd be adept at combat.

I don't agree that such a wing design would have a problem going supersonically, in planform for example it isn't all that far removed from what is called on here the 'eurocanard' shape, and they reach mach 2 pretty effectively.

BUT;

I have a problem with the air intake being on top like that, in any high agility manouvres wouldn't the engine suffocate?

Then there are the fins, being the size they are, being sited where they are, and considering the airflow over the top of the aircraft, they are utterly ineffectual and therefore completely useless.

Finally, I'm sorry if this sounds trivial but I really can't get past it, how does the thing take off? *IF* the shape is accurate the plane cannot rotate, at all, and therefore cannot take off Even if rotation was possible you have the problem again of airflow being defelcted *away* from the air intake just when the greatest power is needed

I don't think there is any basis for this design to be real at all, other than wishful thinking.



[edit on 12-12-2006 by waynos]

Hmm... Maybe if you use the nose/fuselage of the aircraft to stabilize the wing.... because I was kind of ommitting that when I was 'feeling' it.

Not sure what the canards are there for - probably for aesthetics for the model, as with most of the plane. The goal of placing the intakes on top and "just there" could be just to keep them from ground search radars (although you just lit yourself up on an AWACS unless you're flying above it.... hmm....).

I don't know if the engines would starve, assuming you kept a forward motion........ they might even play a role in keeping the plane under control ........ MAYBE..... I'm still working that one.... it'd be beneficial in some cases, and a design blunder in others....

Although, if I were making the plane, I'd blend the control surfaces, and then use electroactive polymers and a semi-flexible material to actually warp the airframe of the aircraft - possibly twisting and bending the whole wing. That'd be one HELL of a maneuverable aircraft............ but seeing as EAPs are still under R&D in the civie world - I can't hope to use them in any of my designs any time soon......... I'd also need to figure out how to make a 'flexible' skin that won't ripple and shred under the force of mach 2+ forces......

I think Monogram was just trying to make a more aesthetically pleasing F-19 model.

Although maybe they figured the thing would generate enough lift to just climb right off the runway without having to pitch.

Although I'd like a little more clearance between the tip of my wings and the ground.... I'd be one nervous test pilot for that thing....

Originally posted by Aim64C
Such an airframe is more than likely a fighter or strike aircraft. The wings would most likely be rather intolerant of high speeds because they are very broad and straight.... great for high lift and maneuverability (in most cases) .... but she'd probably shake herself to pieces when going supersonic. I could be off on that one.... but I'd say that she'd make a rather interesting strike platform - and possibly a good dogfighting aircraft.

A pretty looking plane, though - whether or not she'd be adept at combat.

I would have to Disagree with you about the wings being unsuitable for high speeds. Look closely at the wing in plan veiw (top down), it's a delta shape not that different from an SR-71 Blackbird. The Blackbird was the Fastest operational military aircraft ever known, and was the fastest jet powered airplane ever built until the X-43 with its scramjet.

I think that would suggest that the wing shape is in fact Ideal for high supersonic speeds!

Tim

[edit on 12-12-2006 by Ghost01]

So with the rear landing gear like that, The tail would scrape the runway floor. They could be moved back and the wingtips could be more straight so it wont scrape the floor.

If i was going to have the F-19 built, I would use basic Hawker Hunter/F-4 Phantom type technology inside such as bombsights, range finders, fire control panels etc but modded so it could lock on multiple targets with one shot. This would also make the F-19 cheaper to produce/run/export and make it a decent fighter.

I wouldnt use fly-by-wire, Becouse complexed computer stuff always ends up going wrong.

Here is the specs for the F-19 Specter, Its from an old thread.

Northrop Grumman F-19 Specter Specifications:

Length……………………………………………53ft 6in

Wingspan…………………………………………36ft 8in

Height………………………….…………………..8ft 4in

Max T/O Weight……………………………….34,200lbs

Combat Weight………………………………...26,625lbs

Max Speed……………………….………………..1,550 mph

Cruising Speed…………………….…………..950 mph

Service Ceiling…………………………………235,000ft

Max Ferry Range…………………………………6400nm

Combat Radius…………………………………...1870nm

Armament………………………....4 x AIM-120-W93-SP, 2 x GBU-15, M61 Vulcan, Also capable of carrying Exocet/Sidewinder/Sparrow/Skyflash Missiles.

Fire Control System...................... AN/APQ-125C with
cryogenically cooled infra-red and temporal/magnetic search
and track fire control functions.

Engines…2 x Pratt and Whitney F100 with 27,000 lb thrust each, or 2 x SNECMA M53-P2.

Landing Gear…………………………………F/A-18 Hornet/SEPECAT Jaguar.

Construction…………Cyano-acrylically bonded graphite/
epoxy fuselage and wing, titanium
engine nacelles, Lumispex-coated
canopy, all sheathed by classified
proprietary RAM

Crew……………..1 in D model, 2 in E model.





Waynos, Did you say once the 'Kasatosi' F-19 would be more airworthy?







[edit on 13-12-2006 by Browno]

So with the rear landing gear like that, The tail would scrape the runway floor. They could be moved back and the wingtips could be more straight so it wont scrape the floor.

Yes, you'd think so wouldn't you. But look again at that picture. If you move the main gear back to a more sensible position, it is directly under the engines and has nowhere to retract. Or are you advocating a 1920's style fixed gear in your quest for technical simplicity?

Incidentally, if we are now rearranging the ancillaries to make it flyable, aren't we admitting that the design is nonsense?

I wouldnt use fly-by-wire, Becouse complexed computer stuff always ends up going wrong.

Can you tell me of any crashes caused by FBW software failing? The F-22 prototype was well publicised but the clue there is in the word 'prototype' where the software was immature. Of all the planes today that completely rely on FBW to stay airborne, how many have crashed as a direct result?

I am intrigued by the made up specs, especially this one;

Service Ceiling…………………………………235,000ft

And, why on earth would the 'F-19' use a Snecma engine from a Mirage 2000 and the undercarriage from a Jaguar?

Answer; because its all bollocks

[edit on 13-12-2006 by waynos]