Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!steve From: steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Steve DeJarnett) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Is it for real? Keywords: stealth Message-ID: <6335@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> Date: 1 Dec 88 07:10:17 GMT References: <696@sas.UUCP> <749@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> Reply-To: steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Steve DeJarnett) Organization: Lab Rat Rumpus Room -- Cal Poly SLO Lines: 54 In article <749@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> pcp2g@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Philip C. Plait) writes: >In article <696@sas.UUCP> sasbrb@sas.UUCP (Brendan Bailey) writes: >[stuff about a Honda commercial with Stealth bomber deleted] > >> Now is this real? I just can't believe that this could be the real >>thing. Is the government ever gonna release photos of this thing and >>if they were, would they let a car company use it for a ad? >> Could this be a fake prototype? Yup. Papier Mache, or some such substance, possibly. Definitely not the real thing (see Aviation Week for 11/28/88 for the real pictures (including some nice, not-so-official overhead shots showing the engine exhausts and the odd little contraption directly behind the cockpit (I forget what they called it, and I don't have my copy of AW&ST with me here) that is supposed to help smooth out the flight. Apparently, DoD didn't really want people seeing those parts of the plane. Also note that AW&ST said that it appears that Northrop still hasn't perfected the manufacturing (or assembly) techniques for the RAM that (apparently) goes on the leading edges -- they say that it appeared to have been simply covered with black plastic for the roll-out. >Funny you should ask. > >Not more than an hour ago as I write this, I saw a national newscast that said >the government has released an official picture of the Stealth bomber, shrouded >in secrecy these past few years. The picture shows the plane as black, seen at >an angle from above and to the side. It is the only such picture released, and >it's a little fuzzy (most likely deliberately). > >I vaguely remember seeing the Honda commercial, and I don't think that Stealth >looks anything like the real one, which hardly comes as a surprise. Um, I believe you're probably talking about the Stealth Fighter, not the Stealth Bomber (F-117A as opposed to the B-2). The one in the Honda commercial was supposed to resemble the B-2 (not the F-117, of which almost no one had any idea of its shape until the press conference announcing its existence and showing the picture of it). >Anyway, the real one is slightly larger than an F-16, and costs three times as >much to make, about $60M. This is all according to the newscast. This is DEFINITELY the F-117A. The B-2 is reported to roll in somewhere in the neighborhood of $450-$500 Million per copy. >* Phil Plait PCP2G@bessel.acc.virginia.EDU We should probably move this to rec.aviation, or some other more appropriate news group than sci.space.shuttle. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve DeJarnett | Smart Mailers -> steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | | Computer Systems Lab | Dumb Mailers -> ..!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!steve | | Cal Poly State Univ. |------------------------------------------------| | San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 | BITNET = Because Idiots Type NETwork | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------