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           |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------