Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Not sure about any references to the matter now, but at the time (early 1980s) model magazines and aviation magazines covered the news that Revell had been questioned by US security agencies asking them where they had received the information that allowed them to make the model.
When the actual F-117 was revealed, it became obvious that the fuss raised over the model F-19 was a form of double bluff by US agencies to throw any potential enemies (chiefly the USSR) off the scent regarding what a true stealth aircraft really looked like.
Thanks...When the actual F-117 was revealed, it became obvious that the fuss raised over the model F-19 was a form of double bluff by US agencies to throw any potential enemies (chiefly the USSR) off the scent regarding what a true stealth aircraft really looked like.
I suppose the other reason could have been it looked like another aircraft type (demonstrator) of the time.
As I said above, that layout isn't very practical for a fighter.
Not aware that such a layout was ever seriously considered.
And of course, even though the F-117 was given the "F" for "fighter" designation, it was never a fighter. It was a bomber and should really have been given a "B" for "bomber" designation. Another example of the misinformation surrounding the programme.
Indeed, even the F designation was strange. By the time the "Stealth Fighter" was being designed, the USAF had reset their "F" for fighter designations. The last operational aircraft that received a number in the old numbering sequence was the F-111 (also a bomber, not a fighter). By the mid 1970s, the new numbering sequence was up to F-15, F-16, F-17 and F-18. That is why Revell chose "F-19" for their imagined stealth aeroplane.
The F-117 should really have been given the F-19 designation to stay within the proper number sequence.
And of course, even though the F-117 was given the "F" for "fighter" designation, it was never a fighter. It was a bomber and should really have been given a "B" for "bomber" designation. Another example of the misinformation surrounding the programme.
Indeed, even the F designation was strange. By the time the "Stealth Fighter" was being designed, the USAF had reset their "F" for fighter designations. The last operational aircraft that received a number in the old numbering sequence was the F-111 (also a bomber, not a fighter). By the mid 1970s, the new numbering sequence was up to F-15, F-16, F-17 and F-18. That is why Revell chose "F-19" for their imagined stealth aeroplane.
The F-117 should really have been given the F-19 designation to stay within the proper number sequence.
Eric Mc said:
Not aware that such a layout was ever seriously considered.
And of course, even though the F-117 was given the "F" for "fighter" designation, it was never a fighter. It was a bomber and should really have been given a "B" for "bomber" designation. Another example of the misinformation surrounding the programme.
Indeed, even the F designation was strange. By the time the "Stealth Fighter" was being designed, the USAF had reset their "F" for fighter designations. The last operational aircraft that received a number in the old numbering sequence was the F-111 (also a bomber, not a fighter). By the mid 1970s, the new numbering sequence was up to F-15, F-16, F-17 and F-18. That is why Revell chose "F-19" for their imagined stealth aeroplane.
The F-117 should really have been given the F-19 designation to stay within the proper number sequence.
This lead me ponder why the f22 skipped a number... I didn't realise LM had designed an F21. And of course, even though the F-117 was given the "F" for "fighter" designation, it was never a fighter. It was a bomber and should really have been given a "B" for "bomber" designation. Another example of the misinformation surrounding the programme.
Indeed, even the F designation was strange. By the time the "Stealth Fighter" was being designed, the USAF had reset their "F" for fighter designations. The last operational aircraft that received a number in the old numbering sequence was the F-111 (also a bomber, not a fighter). By the mid 1970s, the new numbering sequence was up to F-15, F-16, F-17 and F-18. That is why Revell chose "F-19" for their imagined stealth aeroplane.
The F-117 should really have been given the F-19 designation to stay within the proper number sequence.
Over the decades, many numbers have been "skipped", either because the project was specified and then abandoned or because a number of different designs competed for an order but only one was selected.
The "F" for fighter designation began as the US Army's "P for Pursuit" designation which they created just after World War 1. That is why all the classic fighters of the 1920s right through to 1947 had a "P" designation.
The P changed to F with the creation of the US Air Force in 1947. Aircraft that had originally been designated P, and were still in service in 1947, such as the P-51 Mustang, were redesignated "F-XX"after 1947.The P-51 therefore became the F-51.
The numbers continued in more or less a straight line from the original series right until 1962. In that year, the US Air Force and the US Navy merged their designation systems and the numbers were reset back to F1. Aircraft already in service MOSTLY had their numbers reset. For instance, the US Air Force intended to designate their versions of the Phantom as the F-110 but instead, because of the renumbering, it became the F4. Despite that, at least two designs retained old style designations, the F-111 and the F-117.
The "F" for fighter designation began as the US Army's "P for Pursuit" designation which they created just after World War 1. That is why all the classic fighters of the 1920s right through to 1947 had a "P" designation.
The P changed to F with the creation of the US Air Force in 1947. Aircraft that had originally been designated P, and were still in service in 1947, such as the P-51 Mustang, were redesignated "F-XX"after 1947.The P-51 therefore became the F-51.
The numbers continued in more or less a straight line from the original series right until 1962. In that year, the US Air Force and the US Navy merged their designation systems and the numbers were reset back to F1. Aircraft already in service MOSTLY had their numbers reset. For instance, the US Air Force intended to designate their versions of the Phantom as the F-110 but instead, because of the renumbering, it became the F4. Despite that, at least two designs retained old style designations, the F-111 and the F-117.
It's lovely to see you in the Science! UFO thread Eric. But perhaps Boats, Planes & Trains is a more suitable place to discuss conventional aeroplanes.
If we're talking about advanced, black project stealth technology, then perhaps the ubiquitous huge, hovering, silent, black triangles that have been around for decades are more relevant in here.
Here's an article from space.com 17 years ago. They are still around.
https://www.space.com/302-silent-running-black-tri...
A key National Institute for Discovery Science conclusion is that the actions of these triangular craft do not conform to previous patterns of covert deployment of unacknowledged aircraft. Furthermore, "neither the agenda nor the origin of the Flying Triangles are currently known."
Here's another article from 2020
https://www.history.com/news/black-triangle-ufos-f...
If we're talking about advanced, black project stealth technology, then perhaps the ubiquitous huge, hovering, silent, black triangles that have been around for decades are more relevant in here.
Here's an article from space.com 17 years ago. They are still around.
https://www.space.com/302-silent-running-black-tri...
A key National Institute for Discovery Science conclusion is that the actions of these triangular craft do not conform to previous patterns of covert deployment of unacknowledged aircraft. Furthermore, "neither the agenda nor the origin of the Flying Triangles are currently known."
Here's another article from 2020
https://www.history.com/news/black-triangle-ufos-f...
Edited by RegMolehusband on Friday 5th November 15:49
RegMolehusband said:
It's lovely to see you in the Science! UFO thread Eric. But perhaps Boats, Planes & Trains is a more suitable place to discuss conventional aeroplanes.
If we're talking about advanced, black project stealth technology, then perhaps the ubiquitous huge, hovering, silent, black triangles that have been around for decades are more relevant in here.
Here's an article from space.com 17 years ago. They are still around.
https://www.space.com/302-silent-running-black-tri...
Here's another article from 2020
https://www.history.com/news/black-triangle-ufos-f...
Those are designated HT (Hovering Triangles)If we're talking about advanced, black project stealth technology, then perhaps the ubiquitous huge, hovering, silent, black triangles that have been around for decades are more relevant in here.
Here's an article from space.com 17 years ago. They are still around.
https://www.space.com/302-silent-running-black-tri...
Here's another article from 2020
https://www.history.com/news/black-triangle-ufos-f...
RegMolehusband said:
It's lovely to see you in the Science! UFO thread Eric. But perhaps Boats, Planes & Trains is a more suitable place to discuss conventional aeroplanes.
If we're talking about advanced, black project stealth technology, then perhaps the ubiquitous huge, hovering, silent, black triangles that have been around for decades are more relevant in here.
Here's an article from space.com 17 years ago. They are still around.
https://www.space.com/302-silent-running-black-tri...
Here's another article from 2020
https://www.history.com/news/black-triangle-ufos-f...
Nice.If we're talking about advanced, black project stealth technology, then perhaps the ubiquitous huge, hovering, silent, black triangles that have been around for decades are more relevant in here.
Here's an article from space.com 17 years ago. They are still around.
https://www.space.com/302-silent-running-black-tri...
Here's another article from 2020
https://www.history.com/news/black-triangle-ufos-f...
Former Intelligence Secretary Christopher Mellon's Fascination with UFO's
RegMolehusband said:
It's lovely to see you in the Science! UFO thread Eric. But perhaps Boats, Planes & Trains is a more suitable place to discuss conventional aeroplanes.
If we're talking about advanced, black project stealth technology, then perhaps the ubiquitous huge, hovering, silent, black triangles that have been around for decades are more relevant in here.
Here's an article from space.com 17 years ago. They are still around.
https://www.space.com/302-silent-running-black-tri...
Here's another article from 2020
https://www.history.com/news/black-triangle-ufos-f...
I just respond to the sensible points and questions on here. Once people start into idle, mad and silly speculation, I drop out of the discussion. Life is too short to engage in too much nonsense.If we're talking about advanced, black project stealth technology, then perhaps the ubiquitous huge, hovering, silent, black triangles that have been around for decades are more relevant in here.
Here's an article from space.com 17 years ago. They are still around.
https://www.space.com/302-silent-running-black-tri...
Here's another article from 2020
https://www.history.com/news/black-triangle-ufos-f...
11th of November at the Our Future in Space event.
USA National Intelligence Director Avril Haines admits possibility of aliens.
"Always, there's also the question of, ‘Is there something else that we simply do not understand, which might come extraterrestrially?'"
https://gazette.com/news/national-intelligence-dir...
USA National Intelligence Director Avril Haines admits possibility of aliens.
"Always, there's also the question of, ‘Is there something else that we simply do not understand, which might come extraterrestrially?'"
https://gazette.com/news/national-intelligence-dir...
And meanwhile, in France two days ago
UFO spotted repeatedly.
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/UFO-sp...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1520844/UFO-s...
https://technotrenz.com/entertainment/in-france-gl...
UFO spotted repeatedly.
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/UFO-sp...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1520844/UFO-s...
https://technotrenz.com/entertainment/in-france-gl...
RegMolehusband said:
And meanwhile, in France two days ago
UFO spotted repeatedly.
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/UFO-sp...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1520844/UFO-s...
https://technotrenz.com/entertainment/in-france-gl...
Prank by a well known French youtube prankster: https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/qt6fg7/frenc...UFO spotted repeatedly.
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/UFO-sp...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1520844/UFO-s...
https://technotrenz.com/entertainment/in-france-gl...
RegMolehusband said:
It's lovely to see you in the Science! UFO thread Eric
You do come across as rather gleeful that this topic is in the science forum (I have no idea why, it should be in The Lounge). The problem is, it's not science in the slightest. As much as you want it to be true it's all complete conjecture, and even in 2021, all the videos, faked or otherwise, are in a very low resolution. Why's that, I wonder?
Reg, you may find this interesting, it's about the glowing light phenomena, like the Foo Fighters from the second world war.
SC EP:723 The Strange Light Phenomena
SC EP:723 The Strange Light Phenomena
Oh, I agree, the discussion about the possibility of there being other life in the vastness of the Universe is worthy of valid debate.
However, that 'aliens' would travel (if possible) vast distances and then just appear to a few, in the middle of rural America, or occasionally Suffolk, (and other such backwaters), is a little hard to stretch to.
Do they use Waze for the main part of the journey and then switch to Google maps for the closeup stuff?
However, that 'aliens' would travel (if possible) vast distances and then just appear to a few, in the middle of rural America, or occasionally Suffolk, (and other such backwaters), is a little hard to stretch to.
Do they use Waze for the main part of the journey and then switch to Google maps for the closeup stuff?
Luis Elizondo on unidentified aerial phenomena, extraterrestrials and the Pentagon's UFO programme.
https://youtu.be/4yX6ETCKyPo
https://youtu.be/4yX6ETCKyPo
dukeboy749r said:
Oh, I agree, the discussion about the possibility of there being other life in the vastness of the Universe is worthy of valid debate.
However, that 'aliens' would travel (if possible) vast distances and then just appear to a few, in the middle of rural America, or occasionally Suffolk, (and other such backwaters), is a little hard to stretch to.
Do they use Waze for the main part of the journey and then switch to Google maps for the closeup stuff?
More likely Apple Maps. That would explain a lot.However, that 'aliens' would travel (if possible) vast distances and then just appear to a few, in the middle of rural America, or occasionally Suffolk, (and other such backwaters), is a little hard to stretch to.
Do they use Waze for the main part of the journey and then switch to Google maps for the closeup stuff?
Flooble said:
dukeboy749r said:
Oh, I agree, the discussion about the possibility of there being other life in the vastness of the Universe is worthy of valid debate.
However, that 'aliens' would travel (if possible) vast distances and then just appear to a few, in the middle of rural America, or occasionally Suffolk, (and other such backwaters), is a little hard to stretch to.
Do they use Waze for the main part of the journey and then switch to Google maps for the closeup stuff?
More likely Apple Maps. That would explain a lot.However, that 'aliens' would travel (if possible) vast distances and then just appear to a few, in the middle of rural America, or occasionally Suffolk, (and other such backwaters), is a little hard to stretch to.
Do they use Waze for the main part of the journey and then switch to Google maps for the closeup stuff?
Yes, that would explain it!
Psychology Today
Extrapolating known science to try to understand the performance of UFOs (UAPs)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/long-fuse-...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/contributors/er...
Extrapolating known science to try to understand the performance of UFOs (UAPs)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/long-fuse-...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/contributors/er...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff