Register here

Author Topic: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter  (Read 94660 times)

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #180 on: March 19, 2016, 12:52:58 am »
Doesn't seem like this has ever been posted here, surprisingly.

Testors F-19 Patent drawings.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2016, 01:10:50 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Ian33

  • Guest
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #181 on: March 19, 2016, 06:32:42 pm »
That's a beauty, even if she is just a model.

Offline Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2269
  • Aviation History Writer
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #182 on: March 19, 2016, 06:48:33 pm »
Doesn't seem like this has ever been posted here, surprisingly.

Testors F-19 Patent drawings.
Do you have the link to that patent - I googled it and came up with nothing. Thanks -SP
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10307
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2269
  • Aviation History Writer
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #184 on: March 19, 2016, 07:02:41 pm »
Thanks so much, Paul. Now if we could just get the same re the LORAL F-19 concept. -SP
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Offline LEG

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #185 on: November 26, 2016, 11:59:25 pm »
Cutaway,

Very Nice buildup of the 72nd snaptite.  It's too bad that Monogram had to butcher the beautiful LORAL concept artwork with the chintzy F/A-18 MLG and misproportioned belly (effectively turning the jet from a low wing monoplane to a midwing design, like turning an F-20 into an F-16) but from the top, the jet is still very impressive, as your beautiful replica shows.

The real issue here is that the LORAL design is for a very high altitude wave rider with elements of XB-70 theory in it whereas the nominal 'F-19' was part of a fictional (?) COSIRS or Covert Survivable In-Weather Reconnaissance Strike system capability which simply never would have looked like the jet shown.

You don't build a huge wing area to fly 'In Weather' but /over it/ (turbulence etc.) and once you develop that concept and marry it to the ideals of stealth for which a blended wing:body theory, similar to the B-2, is applied, the nature of the design becomes one of a flat belly with a sculpted upper deck where the real depth of the structural volume (sufficient for OUTBOARD positioning of tall landing gear for instance) is inherent to a delta wing with F-4 rather than F/A-18 influence MLG.

The Monogram kits (they also did one in 48th with the full gear) diverge from this by attempting to navalize the aircraft with folding wings and other nonsense at a time when the SOA in VLO design was the F-117 with 'vinyl tile' appliques and lots of 'butter' edge seal putty that would simply never stand up to such articulation.

As such, rather than use what we now know to be a standard of design with the perfect skin envelope built first and the structural body integrated into it as a separately trimmed design, Monogram used a component approach with discrete fuselage and wing elements that could not and did not have the blended depth needed to achieve true VLO within a believable packaging constraint for such a broad-but-shallow design.

Part of this may well have been LORALs fault in putting what is essentially an F-16 scaled cockpit on what would have been something closer in size to an SR-71 but it is equally important to note that the LORAL concept artwork was only ever released once, as a (high) in-flight shot and thus you never really see the belly or landing gear.

As Kelly Johnson once said of the 'RS-71' performance regime:  "We don't really give the Russians enough to think about in the high fast envelope."  The analogy being made of an AGM-69 SRAM having 10-15nm of range in the TF mode, 20-30nm from a B-1B at 30,000ft and 70+nm in the B-52 at 50,000ft when compared to a strike configured blackbird releasing one at Mach 3 and 80,000ft to fly perhaps 200nm downrange.

Of course, the bar always raises and today the 'F-19' would be hypersonic with a wedge as much as traditional wing design.  It would probably use a weapons tunnel like the A-5A Vigilante with positive release EML shunt of multiple trained or stacked weapons behind a habitation module and the performance numbers would reflect the capacities of the 40N6 missile of the S-400/500 with defensive coverage in excess of 600km equating to a need to adopt minimum 500nm standoffs from a Mach 10 and 200,000ft, hypercruising, airframe.  Skipping the weapons across-track like stones over a millpond before tipover reacceleration under blip motor (and possible MARVing) to slam into high value infrastructure and industrial targets in economic warfare.

Such a weapons system might very well have the planform of the 'F-19' but it would likely have the deep spine of something like a Bird of Prey or even an M2 lifting body

http://new--tomorrows.tumblr.com/post/25109308262/scanzen-northrop-loral-f-19a-specter-stealth

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ff/b0/47/ffb0470b41267b6b6aa8d694ec70db4f.jpg

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/9b552809394c49a2aea908a2f6df3bc5/m2-f3-lifting-body-research-aircraft-begins-its-rocket-powered-flight-c0krbf.jpg

Ironically, it might even be navalized.  If you want to retain cheap, fast, manned strike without the cost and fuel issues of feeding (and upgrading) an entire airwing constellation of support missions, into an A2AD/ICD biased threat environment, you almost have to go high-fast to allow for tangential drive-by attacks and 'here to there' shuttle bombing from say the East China Sea to the South China Sea before rinse-and-repeat return missions, more than 1,000nm offshore from the threat BASM/ROTHR coverage.

It is not Midway anymore and if you are going to beat 1,500km DF-21 or 2,500km DF-26 with BASM capabilities, you have to make the jet behave like the missile does in terms of speed of transit, depth of reach as SOI and multiplicity of strikes per day on valuable targets.  The fact that Megawatt class SSLs are going to come to dominate close-in defenses must also be considered.

Online hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20703
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #186 on: July 28, 2017, 11:04:01 am »
From JAWA 1985.

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 587
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #187 on: October 19, 2017, 06:46:58 pm »
A couple more videos of the F-19 in action via VSKYLABS X-Plane. The details of the X-Plane model is based on the Testor/Italeri design.



« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 07:14:50 pm by Dynoman »

Offline Dynoman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 587
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #188 on: October 19, 2017, 07:25:31 pm »
Scale of Testor's F-19 compared to Lockheed F-117A, and Have Blue compared to F-117A. The smaller F-19 model looks more like a demonstrator in size than an operational concept with two F404s and two AGMs buried inside its airframe with fuel, cockpit and equipment. The F-19 is similar in dimensions to an F-16 Fighting Falcon.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2017, 07:54:26 am by Dynoman »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8210
Re: F-19: artists impressions of the Stealth Fighter
« Reply #189 on: October 29, 2017, 03:19:12 pm »
...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works