Thread 63845669

Ok, so, I started looking at pictures of f-117s for shits and giggles. I noticed the tail of these things look fucking crazy now. They use to be rigid, right? Am I remembering this wrong or what?

>>63845669 (OP)
Seriously, look at this shit. How can they just replace your memories or did someone shopp all of this or something. Am I going crazy?

>>63845673
>>63845669 (OP)
You're remembering wrong. The tails were always canted like that for stealth and were always articulated so they could act as control surfaces in lieu of a conventional tail and elevators.

Or this bird. What the fuck even is this? Is this not the craziest shit you've ever seen?

>>63845679
There is just no fucking way. I had models of this thing growing up, I worshipped this bird. And now every picture I see it's like this.

>>63845686
You're schizo

>>63845681
Tell.me you haven't seen Star Wars.

>>63845686
Don't skip your meds

>>63845686
Models and toys would have the tails rigid. That may be where your misperception came from.

Stop imagining things

>>63845681
That's the Have Blue, the prototype that later became the F-117.

Op forgot his meds.

What really concerns me is the start on the red flag. It never existed. Reality has need edited retroactively, but not my memories.

>>63845686
They must've accidentally reduced the lithium in your water, anon.

The tails were always like that, and
>>63845681
Have Blue always looked like that.

The timelines only deviated in the 2010s.
Trust me, dude.

>>63845681
That's just Have Blue

>>63845742
Still the craziest shit I've ever seen. Why does it look 10x more advanced than the finished plane?
>>63845704
>.>
>>63845702
>>63845694
yes

>>63845679
Wow, I guess next you're gonna tell me that pic related doesn't real

>>63845708
that sapphire canopy. Like, how terrified are pilots of being blasted by lasers and being blinded forever?

>>63845669 (OP)
The F-117 is so underrated, and it is also (imo) the most gorgeous stealth plane ever built.

>>63845778
Shiiiieeeeetttt forgot my pic.

>>63845778
i like how they still use them as adversary stealth birds for training

>>63845785
>>63845778
hahah yeah "training"
Maybe a purpose built stealth plane that focused entirely on the most efficient stealth possible without worrying about maneuverability or anything else (like radar or data link) would still be pretty effective. Also being the earliest fly by wire craft, making it easy as fuck to upgrade the computers, would make for some pretty awesome loyal wingman.

>>63845796
>Also being the earliest fly by wire craft
Ehhh not quite. Fly by wire planes were flying in the 50s and 60s. The f117 definitely had the most advanced fly by wire system for its time, it couldn't be flown without it.

I like the new shiny version.

>>63845765
Even just the glare from windows on tall buildings can fuck them up without permanent blindness.

>>63845852
I still have NO IDEA what the mirror finish does other than make them look like they cost a billion dollars each. Like, are they just an aesthetic flex or what.
>>63845838
Compared to what though? Like, it beat all the other fighters and bombers to it. There might have been experimental craft but the f-117 NEEDED it, right? So it was the first of it's kind.

>>63845867
>Like, it beat all the other fighters and bombers to it.
Not quite, the have blue demonstrator used a fly by wire system from an f16, which was introduced in the late 70s

>>63845886
>f16
>70s

>>63845867
The F-117's FBW was practically ripped out of the F-16 AFAIK, Concorde also used fly-by-wire with stability augmentation. RA-5 technically was the first production aircraft with fly-by-wire though IDK if it had stability augmentation since I assume that's a requirement for your definition of fly-by-wire. The Shuttle, if we expand the definition of "production aircraft" had a FBW system far more advanced than any contemporary by a long shot

>>63845942
First flew in 1974, and required stability augmentation and flight envelope protection. F/A-18 also beat the F-117 to the punch by a few months actually.

>>63845942
Correct. Crazy how we were doing this stuff 50 years ago and everyone else is just now catching up lol.

I don't care what anyone says the F-117 is the coolest looking production aircraft since the P-38.

>>63845669 (OP)
Anon... Anon, I'm so sorry to break this to you, but did you seriously never once in your life ask yourself the question "wait, how DOES the F-117 pilot control the aircraft with ONLY AILERONS AND NO OTHER CONTROL SURFACES?"

>>63846179
Going to go on a limb and say that the f-15 was NOT a plane of the 50s and 60s. How does any of this make sense to anyone? What about the f-14?

>>63845960
maybe you guys are just testing me to see if I'm straight up retarded or if I paid attention to the documentary or not.

Also, I'm totally sure the sr-71 was suppose to be stealth too.

>>63846130
>ruddervator

>>63846206
>Going to go on a limb and say that the f-15 was NOT a plane of the 50s and 60s
Developed in the late 60s lol. Although that one's kind of a gimme, they changed it quite a bit because nobody could decide if they wanted it to be purely a fighter or an attack aircraft. So really it was mid 70s(ish).

>>63846206
>>63846179
ok ok ok
So the f-14 was built for the navy and the pheonix. The f-15 was built in the 70s, followed by the f-16 in the 80s for fighter/bomber roles. The f-117 was a bomber development started in the late 70s (like 77) and finished sometime in the 80s. The f-15 flew into the 90s, replaced by the f-18 for the navy. WHY THE FUCK would they be flying f-18s in independence day?

You guys have completely bogged my dates and planes in the last 6 years. Shit like the mig29 and 31 MAKE NO SENSE.

So no, the f-16 came way later. It's being built TODAY.

>>63845942
Digital FBW was being worked on even before that.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPfrk6Q5CXI

>>63845960
Concorde DIDN´T have fly by wire, it used a fuel transfer system to eliminate trim drag. It used digital computers to control the position of the engine intake ramps and prevent inlet unstarts like the ones that destroyed so many blackbirds and b-58's; The intake ramp control scheme was then adapted to make the FBW architecture for the A320 and following airbus aircraft.

>>63846213
ruddervator= rudder+elevator, elevon= elevator + aileron, spoileron = spoiler + aileron

>>63846238
>f-15
>navy
Yeah you are either trolling or on some meds. F-18 was a development of the Yf-17, which lost to the F-16 prototype btw.

>>63846238
>It's being built TODAY.
No. Old airframes are being upgraded for export purposes, but they aren't building them anymore.
>>63846258
Where are the spoilervators

>>63846258
Okay slight correction there, it had analog FBW that adjusted inputs depending on flight conditions, but it didn't have computers deciding if the pilot's inputs were aceptable or not; You could compare it to an airbus flying in direct law all the time.

>>63846130
This shit reminds me of the howtar and moritzer

>>63846295
And here's the moritzer.
Which is actually an autoloading rocket launcher.
A rifled autoloading rocket launcher.

>>63846281
closest thing to that would be the p-38's dive flaps, which a spoilers that shift the center of lift forwards to help the plane pitch up at high speed.

>>63846324
Ah, so those are the flapervators I read about

>>63845765
>that sapphire canopy. ...lasers?

It's not just about the laz0rs. Or not just about them. HIMARS also has the fancy glass on it, and its mainly for its structural value and not against lasers.

Or it could be beancounter shenanigans and they just had extra saphire panes lying around from an on-going production/procurement contract. I could be talking out of my ass, but I don't see it being put on a missile truck to stop the drivers from being blinded by civilian lasers.

>>63846405
iirc on the HIMARs that's to protect the driver canopy from the exhaust of the rockets

>>63846130
OP is questioning the F-117 having full flying stabilizers.

>>63845669 (OP)
>>63845673
>my memories are not consistent with reality.
>are my memories wrong?
>no, it is reality itself that is wrong.

>>63846258
>Concorde DIDN´T have fly by wire
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb034518
https://ark-raa.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/documents/5RH0oz7q4l_1698822342.pdf
Unless you think three axis stability augmentation on an aircraft that sends actuation commands via electrical signals doesn't count as fly-by-wire Concorde absolutely had fly-by-wire. If you do, then you're retarded.

>>63846130
Isnt this the plane that was given the nickname "Dentist Killer", LOL

>>63846319
>A rifled autoloading rocket launcher
That sounds awesome.
What happened to the concept?
It just became M277s?

>>63846628
>>63846294

>>63845669 (OP)
You're not the only one. I feel the same. Maybe we're just going crazy.

One of these flew super low over my parents' house back in the 2000s for a local airshow and I swear I saw the pilot look down at me as I stood awestruck in the middle of the backyard.

>>63845669 (OP)
i think its just that we rarely see them at an angle, with most pics of them being neutral

>>63846828
They weren't RIGHT over my head but I was in my backyard and they were literally right over the houses in town. God, you guys gotta ruin every little story. Yes, there were 2, not 4 or 5. but still, WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY DOING?

>>63846626
What if it turns out there were at least 3 different realities, and all 3 are converging for me?

>>63846130
That's not even REMOTELY close to what is shown in these pictures. The entire fucking tail is spinning on the f-117, not just the ailerons. How is that not the weirdest fucking thing you've ever seen? WHY ARE THEY DOING THAT NOW?

>>63845681
This is pure sex to me

>>63846892
>That's not even REMOTELY close to what is shown in these pictures.
Functionally, it's the same thing.

>>63846258
>Yeah you are either trolling or on some meds.
You're trolling, god damn. You all are but still. I was hoping you dumb fucks would give me something good. I know this shit has to either be memory holed just for me or these upgrades are brand new.

Just give me the good shit already. Why are my very first memories of an f-117 at area 51? I was two years old man. TWO YEARS OLD.

>>63846899
>Functionally
Then why aren't they, uh, the same thing? Realistically, they were never implemented, right?
>>63846895
Yes. WHY DOES THE j36 HAVE THE SAME FLAPPERS as a 70s prototype huh? WHY?

>>63846912
>WHY DOES THE j36 HAVE THE SAME FLAPPERS as a 70s prototype huh?
Anon, that's not a polite way to talk about Chinese women.

>>63846935
Tы paзбepёшьcя

>>63846885
Well, good thing you have your human memories, the one true constant in this churning chaos that tries to present itself as the world. No matter what happens, you can always trust your memories to be correct and infallible.

>>63846892
All moving tails is not a new thing. The f117 implementation isn't even the weirdest way to do it.

>>63847041
here's the deal with that one, I have no fucking idea. They can download new memories, then more memories of me remembering those memories so that they feel more genuine, but something still feels off about the implanted memories. Or maybe you guys do that part and you can actually alter all of them (which there would be an ungodly amount and you just don't have the time or resources to do it).

I'm 90% sure I didn't fuck cassie but the memory is still there. It's not like a real memory, but one that was distorted and buried so I can't say for certain whether it happened or not.

yay for the AI girl being confused as fuck.

>>63847066
>The f117 implementation isn't even the weirdest
It really, really is. Unless you're talking about the u bowl thing and swallow tails.

>>63847121
Nah, what we actually do is actually change the past so that all your new memories are formed naturally as time propagates.
There's no actual mechanism for you to remember the "previous" reality, it only happens because God preordained it would.

>>63845686
>I had models of this thing

>>63846130
>did you seriously never once in your life ask yourself the question
Not the same guy. I thought they were just split on the long axis like an airliner rudder. There's basically no old photos of the ruddervators out of central. Used to play this back in the day:

>>63846726
From what I can read it was fairly expensive to make and while completely functional, didn't offer enough to be worth it.
Also something about it's shells being heavy for explosive weight (rockets will do that) which negated the advantage of it being a lighter gun.
They wanted to make an SPG version if it took off which I think uses it's advantages more than a towed application but I'm not the ordinance board
Here's allegedly footage of it firing used as stock footage in some old tv show

https://youtu.be/6bJ-XNYux_M?feature=shared

>>63846700
Yes, along with the mooney m20 as well. Coincidentally they're my favorite kind of planes to fly in microshart flight simulator.

>>63845686
you're just not very bright

>>63847144
The only thing weird about the f117's all moving rudder is that the joint is placed halfway the rudder surface instead of the very root, and that's because the twin tails are placed too close to one another to allow any movement from the root like in the a-5 here, the axis of rotation is still perpendicular to the airflow like in a wright flier. The xb-70 put it in an oblique angle because apparently that would work better at supersonic speeds.

>>63847230
Thanks anon.

I can't find any pictures that show what your showing Op.

I had so many cute f35 pilots saved and now they are all gone. GONE.

>>63845669 (OP)

You're imagining things, my dear anon. The F-117's tail has always been that way. ALWAYS. Understood? Now go to bed, have some rest and don't think about it any more.

>>63845733
sexooooooo

Note that f-112 to f-116 were soviet aircraft that were captured for evaluation.

https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/coverdesignations.html

>>63845756
Different anon
The reason it looks advanced is because it's minimalist.
But the reason it's minimalist, despite so long ago, isn't because they figured out how to submerge all the facilities already.
It's minimalist because they were focusing on one thing at the expense of other things. Aka it's a tech demonstrator / proof of concept.
So that "We Can Haz Blu Plz?" probably serves an ideal RCS experiment, but lacks avionic or C3 facilities to the extent that it would be an unarmed coffin as a practical warbird.

>>63849674
>>63845756
Well that and the fact that both prototypes crashed. So i'm guessing they toned down the production version a little so that it doesn't immediatly destroy itself if the control system has some sort of failure.

>>63845749
Finally, somebody else who's noticed. I swear the star never existed and it was always just the hammer and sickle.

>>63846130
Hopeless Diamond did it.

>>63845756
It also flew like shit, which is in large part why they flipped vertical stabilizers in the production version.

>>63845781
>>63845708
>>63847488
Cute ahoge

>>63846281
>Old airframes are being upgraded for export purposes, but they aren't building them anymore
Source?

Senior peg looks fucking stupid.
Imagine if this thing won out instead of the B-2

>>63846238
>WHY THE FUCK would they be flying f-18s in independence day?
Because they already had access to USMC Hornets to film the earlier air combat scene, so they just kept using them. Just before the final battle, you can actually see several other types of fighters in the assembled air group, including Harriers and Tomcats. Also, they're firing Harpoons but calling Fox-3.

>>63845681
Have blue's camoflage is sex

>>63845681
Have blue's camoflage is sex

>>63845867
I too want to know what the shiny finnish does

>>63860800
It makes them look cool. If you're flying them as OPFOR and flex then they can look cool. It's also probably a lot cheaper than the original RAM to maintain.

>>63845669 (OP)
they were always articulated, the thing has the equivalent of 3 linked 3090tis running constantly making micro adjustments just to stay airborn

>>63860800
theories include better IR stealth, glazed ceramics, a new more durable//higher temp resistant RAM coating, or even DEW dispersal.

maybe all-in-one, or testing variations balanced toward different aircraft roles.

>>63846238
>followed by the f-16 in the 80s
It's literally the file name bro
>>63846179

>>63847215
I last played this game last year and it was incredible how it's still the same planes and mostly the same narratives as today

>>63845669 (OP)
the tails droop over time if you keep it in captivity

>>63845749
what the fuck
WHAT THE FUCK

>>63861101
>the equivalent of 3 linked 3090tis
There's no way that an 80s FC has that kind of processing power.

>>63847041
STOP. SOPTING. THAT FUCKING CATT!!

>>63854218
it came to me in a fugue state

>>63863675
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

>>63845796
But they're not the perfect purpose built stealth plane.
They're the best we could do at the time.
It just happened that the best we could do was pretty damn good

>>63846179
>(unplanned)
Huh
>Its actual first flight occurred accidentally during a high-speed taxi test on 20 January 1974. While gathering speed, a roll-control oscillation caused a fin of the port-side wingtip-mounted missile and then the starboard stabilator to scrape the ground, and the aircraft then began to veer off the runway. The test pilot, Phil Oestricher, decided to lift off to avoid a potential crash, safely landing six minutes later. The slight damage was quickly repaired and the official first flight occurred on time.
Heh

>>63846206
>Going to go on a limb and say that the f-15 was NOT a plane of the 50s and 60s
>he doesn't know about the A-5
Development started 1954, production in '56, first flight in '58

>>63867159
Especially if you look at the prototype that was supposed to have twin tails (and it's the design the soviets borrowed for the mig 25) until the navy demanded a single tail, that north american had to make foldable.

>>63869077
>until the navy demanded a single tail, that north american had to make foldable.
I kind of get the folding but why is a single tail important to the navy?

>>63869255
At the time the Navy was being conservative and thought twin tails would have handling issues, perhaps they were thinking that they would behave like V-tails, which couple pitch and yaw if the airplane gets too uncoordinated.

>>63865960
>But they're not the perfect purpose built stealth plane.
apparently this thing is >>63845681
But yeah man, it WAS purpose built though. Look at it. The thing flies on wishful thinking alone.

>>63869373
Thanks.
I guess that turned out not to matter.

>>63845838
Fly by wire has actually been around since the 1930s.

>>63869896
strapping a gryoscope onto a scuttlebug is not even remotely the same.

>>63845815
is it true what they say about air force girls

>>63846238
>WHY THE FUCK would they be flying f-18s in independence day?
Because it was the shiny new thing at the time, like how the F-35 was in every movie and game they could shove it in a decade later.

>>63845867
>>63860800

shiny has less drag than painted

>>63869668
Both are certainly purpose built, but not perfect. They're just the best that could be archived with the era's technology

>>63845673
floppy fin syndrome is an indication that they're kept in bays that are too small for them

>>63845681
you will never convince me that Have Blue was not meant to drop in from space

>>63845673
>tfw you're plane

>>63845681
>Have Blue
The only reason that sleek wing design was replaced in the later F-117 was due to congress

>>63870367
I don't think it's bare metal.
This is what a bare metal nighthawk looks like

>>63846130
>wait, how DOES the F-117 pilot control the aircraft with ONLY AILERONS AND NO OTHER CONTROL SURFACES?"
?

>>63878082
Split rudder is 100% ayyy tech. You cannot convince me otherwise

>>63878082
>>63879244
>Split rudder is 100% ayyy tech
I assume you mean the air brake style split rudder and not the typical segmented split rudder that lots of aircraft have for redundancy and fine control at high speed.

>>63846892
All moving tails are old as fuck. They wanted to put one on the B-52 back in the 1940s, but couldn't figure out how to fit the mechanical stuff in time for production.
>>63870163
Yes.
t. has worked in joint units and been posted to bases of all branches.

>>63880085
no they're talking about the horseshit that the B-2 uses to fly

>>63845669 (OP)
Probably just the result of 90% of the pictures of these things were head on moving straight with relatively low quality magazine print. Or toys you had as a kid not having any articulation there. Unironically believing the mandela effect stuff is probably a sign of some kind of paranoia disorder. You're just noticing something you were misremembering or misattributed. The Demiurge isn't kicking you between nearly identical parallel realities just to mess with you, I'm way too busy for that.

>>63846130
>>63846700
Doctor killer, not dentist killer

t. atc

>>63880733
>no they're talking about the horseshit that the B-2 uses to fly
That's basically just speed brakes used differentially, I don't see the space magic in that.
It's the same tech as the shuttle shown in >>63880085 but used for yaw.

>>63881259
oh, is that all it is
duh, okay that makes sense and explains why I never managed to make it happen in KSP

>>63870163
what do they say?
that they are all lesbians?

>>63881421
>okay that makes sense and explains why I never managed to make it happen in KSP
How did you think it worked?
What were you trying to do in KSP?

>>63882061
>think
overly optimistic assumption that I was thinking at all, anon
I simply removed the vertical stabilizer from the vehicle and went to see if it would fly
>what were you trying to do in KSP
fly without a vertical stabilizer

you can do some post-hoc rationalization with regards to maybe thrust vectoring being enough to replace it but I didn't do any of that, I just yeeted it
it was not enough, I put the stabilizer back on

>>63882073
Oh OK.
Yeah, you could use all sorts of techniques to stabilise the craft but you need constant adjustments and done differentially to yaw.
The B2 doesn't use the split rudder during combat btw, it breaks stealth.
It uses differential thrust instead, so a vectored thrust approach might not be out of the question. Though I'm not sure if you'd miss a pivot point.

>>63882475
differential thrust would work if I had a way to command it, but the KSP controller isn't that advanced
thrust vectoring almost worked but the required vertical stabilizers are really small so the mass penalty is acceptable

>>63882475
i doubt differential thrust is fast and precise enough for yaw damping corrections, instead it's probably used as rudder trim. Minor yaw corrections can be done by just moving the mid and outboard elevon in different directions, and the split rudder would only need to be used at slow speeds like takeoff and landing.

If we're talking about creative means of control I have to mention the a3j/ra5 vigilantes slaterons, which work in a similar way to spoilerons (and thus also allow full span flaps), but are more effective because they open a channel for air to flow through.

>>63880218
k

>>63882629
Open them in both directions at the same time and they also double as speedbrakes.

>>63882629
>i doubt differential thrust is fast and precise enough for yaw damping corrections
The B2 does that with the GLAS which is just a diamond shaped, fully articulated horizontal stabiliser. It's controlled by the flight computer and just eliminates deviations from the intended flight.
The computer also does constant tweaks of all control systems of course.

>>63882629
neat

>>63845669 (OP)
OP you're not crazy I'm right there with you. I would have bet my life the tail control surfaces were more conventional

Next they're gonna try to tell me onions don't grow on trees

>>63881421
>>63882073
Yeah it's super difficult to get right because you need a system to recognise that it's starting to yaw and use the airbrakes to steer with minute adjustments but normal ksp isn't advanced enough for that. Forget about using vectored thrust either. I just gave up and made senior peg instead.

>>63889822
There's an airbrakes mod. I think, that lets them respond like elevators / ailerons / rudders. Been a while since I played. But you can do it.

>>63889909
it's not a mod, it's vanilla, but they're too big and heavy for that when you're trying to SSTO from Kerbin's surface to the Mun

>>63845867
In WW2 and the Korean war the shiny finish was a cost cutting thing. If its a shiny paint it could be an anti flash coating, to protect from the flash generated by nuclear explosions. I don't know if the F-117 could carry nuclear weapons though.

>>63861223
VGH... ALVMINVM BVLLS, we are so back

>>63895264
>>63891375
That's not what a bare metal f-117 looks like

>>63891375
>I don't know if the F-117 could carry nuclear weapons though

That was it's prime mission profile when it was fielded.
>The F-117 was designed from the outset to be able to deploy B57 and B61 nuclear gravity bombs
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/how-america-planned-to-use-the-world-s-first-stealth-jets-for-nuclear-attacks-against-the-soviet-union

>>63845760
Nice b8. Also, great example of a pre-9/11 mentality movie plot. Now, that movie would be about 15 minutes long; just long enough to fly an F-16 out to intercept and blow it out of the sky.