Hellcat V, naming scheme question.

I *think* the 12 and 13 were the YF-12/YF-13, which later became the SR-71.
As for the others...
Your guess is as good as mine. The number scheme got a little weird around Vietnam. Part of the problem was two different number schemes. The Air Force planes went clear up to F-106 (the Air Force's new 'F' series, used for every jet fighter except for the original P-80). Meanwhile, the Navy, had always used the 'F' designator for its planes. The original F-4, for example, was a prop plane which was used in the Battle of Midway.
At some point during Vietnam, somebody evidently decided to start over again and enforce a uniform numbering system. I'm not sure what came between F-4 (the Phantom II) and YF-12 (mentioned above), however.
 
I believe that the YF-12 was an interceptor version prototype of the SR-71 not positive.And thanks for clearing up the confusion Phoenix , it was a noce model kit though:)
 
So the F-19 in the flight simulator is absolutely invented or what? I find that hard ot believe, especially since there even was a plastic model of the F-19. Yes, I know there can be models of spaceships too but this F-19 model was in a series of real modern jetplanes.
 
I had the model, and iirc, even the instructions for the model stated that everything in it was pretty much conjecture (made by the same people who made the YF-12 kit). There were all sorts of interesting pieces of information with it that stated what the different parts of the model would do in real life, though.
What I find amusing is the fact that calling it the F-117 as opposed to the F-19 did absolutely nothing to convince people that it might not exist. They should have named another plane (maybe the Northrop fighter or the Isreali Kfirs) F-19 instead, just to prove that there was nothing there.
 
Maybe I should have added that the F-19 I mean looks nothing like the F-117. She's indeed very flat and round, the quite opposite of the F-117.
 
I know this is a late reply.

But here goes.

For the ATF program, Northrop had also acquired Grumman(Northrop Grumman now) or at least had advanced flight data and experience gained by the F-14 design team.

And a financial reason seems rather unlikely.

The government reportedly chose the X-35 over the X-32 for the JSF project(in addition to the better thermal characteristics and more enventual expandability) due to Lockheed's financial problems and the fact that Boeing would then end up controlling 70% of the aircraft market if it won.

The F-19 btw would've been impossible to design at the time. The F-117 is a very angular craft because of computer simulation and CAD limitations of the time period.

As the "19" designator would indicate an aircraft at least dating from the same period, a round low visibility airframe would simply have been impossible.
 
Mekt: the F-19 never existed, but everybody assumed that the secret stealth fighter was the F-19 - hence MicroProse did too :). All things considered, they did amazingly well in their prediction of the shape of the craft (which, I personally think, is very similar to the F117) and its properties, though the armament was a trifle overdone.

Nob: The F-117 was angular not because of CAD limitations, but because it was designed to bounce radar rays (waves?) in a few particular directions, to prevent them from returning to the owner. Making the bottom flat (against ground radar) and then making the rest rounded (thus allowing airborne fighters to detect it like any conventional craft) simply wouldn't have been an option.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
The F-117 was angular not because of CAD limitations, but because it was designed to bounce radar rays (waves?) in a few particular directions, to prevent them from returning to the owner. Making the bottom flat (against ground radar) and then making the rest rounded (thus allowing airborne fighters to detect it like any conventional craft) simply wouldn't have been an option.
Click to expand...

Radar waves... I'm doing a work on french onboard radars for my studies... angular shape serves to avoid waves to return to the owner, indeed, but the black color too...
 
Originally posted by Quarto

Nob: The F-117 was angular not because of CAD limitations, but because it was designed to bounce radar rays (waves?) in a few particular directions, to prevent them from returning to the owner. Making the bottom flat (against ground radar) and then making the rest rounded (thus allowing airborne fighters to detect it like any conventional craft) simply wouldn't have been an option.
Click to expand...

Actually, he's got that correct. The actual equations on how the craft should look are rather old, but with the computing power available when they were designing it meant that they had to use flat surfaces to complete the design.

Nowadays, the computers are much more powerful and we can design them using rounded surfaces, just look at the B-2.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Mekt: the F-19 never existed, but everybody assumed that the secret stealth fighter was the F-19 - hence MicroProse did too :). All things considered, they did amazingly well in their prediction of the shape of the craft (which, I personally think, is very similar to the F117) and its properties, though the armament was a trifle overdone.

Nob: The F-117 was angular not because of CAD limitations, but because it was designed to bounce radar rays (waves?) in a few particular directions, to prevent them from returning to the owner. Making the bottom flat (against ground radar) and then making the rest rounded (thus allowing airborne fighters to detect it like any conventional craft) simply wouldn't have been an option.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up. But who did invent the shape of the F-19? And you really think seh looks similar to the F-117? Nah...
 
F-19

F-19 later reclassified X-214
Tactical Air to air guided nuclear missile
experimental
project scrapped due to budget cuts
compromise: Genie unguided nuclear tipped air to air rocket
Genie Nuclear tipped Air to Air rocket
discontinued
 
Originally posted by Quarto
All things considered, they did amazingly well in their prediction of the shape of the craft (which, I personally think, is very similar to the F117)
Click to expand...

Um...it's black and stealth-fighter?
 
Originally posted by Bob McDob
Um...it's black and stealth-fighter?
Click to expand...
Shouldn't that be enough for anyone? :) No, seriously, they both have flat bottoms, and even if the F-19 is rounded, the basic shape is quite similar. I think... I haven't played F-19 for many, many years.

Loren says
Actually, he's got that correct. The actual equations on how the craft should look are rather old, but with the computing power available when they were designing it meant that they had to use flat surfaces to complete the design.
Nowadays, the computers are much more powerful and we can design them using rounded surfaces, just look at the B-2.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Hmm, ok - didn't know that :). But still, wouldn't rounded surfaces spoil the whole concept of bouncing radar waves in the wrong direction?
 
Um...the F-19 is curved and bell-shaped. The CF-117 is angular and triangular. There's a whole section in the strat guid dedicated to that.

And it doesn't sound right when you say "flat-bottomed" :)
 
Me thinks you're confusing the Rapier II with the Stealth Fighter... <G>

Hey, no Strike Commander references! What's wrong with you people? That had an F-22 and an F-23 in it! And they fought eachother! And if had F-117s! And they were white! With green spots!
 
Originally posted by Bob McDob
Um...the F-19 is curved and bell-shaped. The CF-117 is angular and triangular. There's a whole section in the strat guid dedicated to that.
Click to expand...

Angular *and* triangular? NO WAY!
 
dacis2: IIRC all nuclear tipped air to air missiles were retired by the 1970s. Well before the proper stealth projects began.

Quarto: Angular surfaces bounce radar waves away from the original transmitter. Rounded surfaces guide radar waves along the aircraft surface and past it. Therefore, either way, the radar waves do not return to the transmitter, defeating the radar.

Bob McDob: The F-117 does have a flat bottom, or if you prefer, undercarriage.

Bandit LOAF: Well SC doesn't really simulate stealth IIRC. But it is the only simulator I know of that simulates the YF-23. One of the many unique things about SC ;)
 
Originally posted by Penguin
Quarto: Angular surfaces bounce radar waves away from the original transmitter. Rounded surfaces guide radar waves along the aircraft surface and past it. Therefore, either way, the radar waves do not return to the transmitter, defeating the radar.

Bandit LOAF: Well SC doesn't really simulate stealth IIRC. But it is the only simulator I know of that simulates the YF-23. One of the many unique things about SC ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out. I was looking up the theory just before.

There is another flight sim out there that simulates the YF-23, infact it even simulates a naval version of it. It's called JetFighter II and it's so old I remember trying to choose between it and WC2 (I picked WC2 and then saw this one in a bargain bin).
 
A naval version of the YF-23? They're being a bit premature aren't they? I remember reading an article which said the big navy aircraft projects in the 1980s were the F-14D, A-6F and the A-12 Avenger stealth bomber. But then Congress whined about budgetry concerns so the A-6F and the A-12 were canned and the F-14D received only limited production.

Not that I doubt your authenticity since I also read about proposed navalizations of the F-117 and the F-22. It even said a navalized F-22 (should it become reality) would have swing wings, instead of trapezoidal ones. Instead of the above the USN is getting F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.
 
Originally posted by Penguin
A naval version of the YF-23? They're being a bit premature aren't they? I remember reading an article which said the big navy aircraft projects in the 1980s were the F-14D, A-6F and the A-12 Avenger stealth bomber. But then Congress whined about budgetry concerns so the A-6F and the A-12 were canned and the F-14D received only limited production.

Not that I doubt your authenticity since I also read about proposed navalizations of the F-117 and the F-22. It even said a navalized F-22 (should it become reality) would have swing wings, instead of trapezoidal ones. Instead of the above the USN is getting F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.
Click to expand...

Close, actually the great and wise now Vice President Cheney killed said projects partly because the Navy pissed him off and partly of budgetary run offs.

It was also proposed that they cancel the F-14D delivery in favour of the Swing-Wing Naval ATF.(It's basically a hybrid F-22/F-14.)

Overall the A-6F/F-14D Combo would've been significantly superior and flexible in their respective roles over the F/A-18E/F's.

The fact that the Navy is only using the F-24C(Carrier borne version of the X-35 JSF) to supplant the Super Hornets in role shows the superiority of the F-14 as a carrier borne interceptor. In fact it's been suggested that they update the F-14D to newer standards(roughly F-22 level avionics, and super-cruise) and simply use that alongside the JSF.(The 21 refit of the Tomcat, but it seems unlikely it'll come to pass.)

The only real reason that the F/A-18's in major service at all is of course budget concerns, and the fact that the N-ATF failed to materialise so the newer airframes were simply picked to fill more roles than intended.(The E/F versions of the Hornet were never really meant for full service but more as a stop gap till the N-ATF's and AX projects came to fruitation.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top