F-117 slipping quietly into history

[elanaiba]

What was it like for you older guys in the US to hear of the F-117 the first time (in the 80s IIRC) ?

Were you impressed/proud? Did you care?

[sonar732]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

What was it like for you older guys in the US to hear of the F-117 the first time (in the 80s IIRC) ?

Were you impressed/proud? Did you care?

I remember seeing an article in Popular Mechanics and thinking wow...that's beautiful.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

What was it like for you older guys in the US to hear of the F-117 the first time (in the 80s IIRC) ?

Were you impressed/proud? Did you care?

Yes, I remember it like it was yesterday ... :p

Lets see 27 years ago I was 35 riding high on selling time-share staterooms on a little cruise ship out of Plainview Long Island, New York.

I had a sweet little 20 year old girlfriend for a secretary who insisted on taking showers with me every morning to help save water.

I can remember just about everything about that time frame, except that darn plane ... but I do remember seeing the first B-2 fly over
for a football game down in Southern California.

Wow! That was some sight ... I still think they copied a crashed UFO to build that thing ...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

What was it like for you older guys in the US to hear of the F-117 the first time (in the 80s IIRC) ?

Were you impressed/proud? Did you care?

Well, let's see...the 117 designation doesn't fit in with any known category; the 'F' is bogus because it in no way could every be called a fighter; it's ugly as sin (sorry guys, but that's the way I feel); and it can't even fly without the onboard computer stabilizing it every second of the way (just watch it in flight - that's why they call it the 'Wobbly Goblin').

So, to sum up: what's not to love?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

...and it can't even fly without the onboard computer stabilizing it every second of the way (just watch it in flight - that's why they call it the 'Wobbly Goblin')....

Nor can you fly an F-16 without an onboard computer stabalizing it every second of the way, which is exactly the length of time it was estimated a real pilot would maintain control of an F-16 without its onboard computers - 1 to 3 seconds. Welcome to the most ever unstable platforms ever to grace the sky - F-22 and F-35 also fall in this catagory.

I think the F-15 and MiG-29 were the last of the 'stable' platforms. Stable platforms don't jink as well due to their stability.

-S

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Nor can you fly an F-16 without an onboard computer stabalizing it every second of the way, which is exactly the length of time it was estimated a real pilot would maintain control of an F-16 without its onboard computers - 1 to 3 seconds. Welcome to the most ever unstable platforms ever to grace the sky - F-22 and F-35 also fall in this catagory.

I think the F-15 and MiG-29 were the last of the 'stable' platforms. Stable platforms don't jink as well due to their stability.

-S

Yes but what happens if the computer goes caput on unstable aircrafts ?
Can the pilot still bring the plane down safely ? :hmm:

[AntEater]

The Su 27 is inherently stable as well, but later versions for export do have a fly by wire system.
Unstable are AFAIK F-16, F-117, F/A-18, F-22, B-2, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen and maybe the Chinese J-10 and the indian LCA.

But I remember too well the first speculations about the shape of the Stealth and I even bought a Revell "F-19 Stealth" kit. I didnt buy the "MiG-35 Ferret", though

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Yes but what happens if the computer goes caput on unstable aircrafts ?
Can the pilot still bring the plane down safely ? :hmm:

No. You are going down. If this happened anyway, the plane is probably full of bullet holes and can't fly worth a damn anyway.

That is also why there are 3 computers. Its a majority rules situation too, so if two agree and one doesn't, majority rules and the plane flies with the data from the two only. If all 3 disagree, then the lead computer is chosen, and you better damn well hope its right! You can fly with only one computer by the way in case 2 get shot out.

-S

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

No. You are going down. If this happened anyway, the plane is probably full of bullet holes and can't fly worth a damn anyway.

That is also why there are 3 computers. Its a majority rules situation too, so if two agree and one doesn't, majority rules and the plane flies with the data from the two only. If all 3 disagree, then the lead computer is chosen, and you better damn well hope its right! You can fly with only one computer by the way in case 2 get shot out.

-S

Actually as far as I know, not only would the pilot lose control over the aircraft, but the airframe would disintegrate within moments of this happening unless it happened at very low speed. I think the consequences of this sort of (theoretical?) failure are supposed to be very violent for the F-16.

Hey, do you know if said failure ever actually happened? I don't think it has... I've heard rumors here and there that a couple of F-16 accidents were related to this, but I never saw any official confirmation that the system ever failed.

And think of the hundreds of thousands of flight hours that all the F-16s have between them! Unstable planes are a very very good thing, performance wise, in my view :hmm:

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Hey, do you know if said failure ever actually happened? I don't think it has... I've heard rumors here and there that a couple of F-16 accidents were related to this, but I never saw any official confirmation that the system ever failed.

See my post above. Not only not confirmed, but actively denied.

Unstable planes are a very very good thing, performance wise, in my view :hmm:

Also in the view of the Wright Brothers. They made their first flyer, if not actively unstable, at least without any dihedral at all, so it would be proven that they actually had to fly it the whole way instead of just riding.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Yes but what happens if the computer goes caput on unstable aircrafts ?
Can the pilot still bring the plane down safely ? :hmm:

The flight control computers are designed with redundant back up systems of course. But if that fails...something like this: .

[Sailor Steve]

Back in the early days of the '16, we had several crashes at the Stansbury Range here in Utah. If I remember correctly, three of them were fatal. Everybody involved denied it, but the commonly accepted version was that there were problems with the early onboard computers.

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

The flight control computers are designed with redundant back up systems of course. But if that fails...something like this: .

Hey listen to the sound at the very end of the clip. Sounds like a TIE fighter to me flying over.

[seafarer]

Originally Posted by elanaiba

What was it like for you older guys in the US to hear of the F-117 the first time (in the 80s IIRC) ?

Were you impressed/proud? Did you care?

If you had been reading the right magazines (including the Weekly World News starting in about 1981/82 or so ), the Area-51 watchers had been foretelling it's existance for a few years before it went operational in 1983 and long before the Pentagon officially owned up to its existance. I suppose technically the night-watchers out around Groom lake were really seeing YF-117 and Have-Blue "proof of concept" models before that, but still, they had it right all along (does that mean they're also right about the alien bodies in frozen storage too...:hmm.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

stealthy??? ( i wont even start :rotfl