sasbrb@sas.UUCP (Brendan Bailey) (11/11/88)
*** I know this isn't about the space shuttle or space, but there are
a lot of knowledgable people who read this newsgroup and I thought
someone might know the answer, so please don't bite my head off.
Thanks.
Has anyone seen a Honda commercial on television for their CRX si where
one is driving around a plane which they say (or infer) is the stealth
bomber. There is also an advertisement in Time Magazine (pg. 54-55)
that shows the whole plane and the Honda beside it. The copy on the
ad says "Shrouded in secrecy for years, the Stealth Bomber will soon be
introduced to the public. For the record, we introduced ours first.
The CRX Si."
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?
Just thought someone here might know.
Bren Baileypcp2g@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Philip C. Plait) (11/11/88)
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? > 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. Some of the folks out there may remember that a model company, Testor's, I think it was, came out with a plastic model of what was supposedly a Stealth plane. This caused quite a stink, but of course their plane didn't look much like the real one either (I think....hmmmm.) 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. As always, I remain, * Phil Plait PCP2G@bessel.acc.virginia.EDU * UVa Dept. of Astronomy Grad student (at large) * *"If all men were brothers, would you let one marry your sister?"
sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Kenneth Charles Sheppardson) (11/11/88)
Pictures of the stealth bomber, a mock up of which appears in the
recent Honda campaign, were released last spring. It's a large
black flying wing. I think ( don't quote me ) that first flight
was either over the summer or this fall.
Pictures of the stealth fighter were released yesterday. It's
also black, but aside from that, the appearance is totally
different from the B-2. It's a ( relatively ) small plane, just
a little larger than an F-16, and is supposed to cost ~4x as much
as an F-16 or about $60 million.
Secrecy on the stealth fighter was lifted to allow for daytime
flights. Until now most/all test flights were at night. You may
remember that two fighters have crashed during test flights, in
both cases killing the pilots.
I'de be interested in hearing how someone could get the fighter
and the bomber mixed up.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Sheppardson
Aerospace Engineering Dept
University of Michigantpmsph@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Thomas P. Morris) (11/11/88)
In article <696@sas.UUCP>, sasbrb@sas.UUCP (Brendan Bailey) writes: > Has anyone seen a Honda commercial on television for their CRX si where ... > ad says "Shrouded in secrecy for years, the Stealth Bomber will soon be > introduced to the public. For the record, we introduced ours first. > The CRX Si." ^^^^^^ The CRX Si is nicknamed the Bomber, as it is a fairly sporty grin-producing machine. (Does very well in SCCA Solo II Autocross, for example, and is a lot of fun to drive on twisty roads, I understand.) > Now is this real? I just can't believe that this could be the real One of the latest issues of one of the car magazines (Car and Driver or Road and Track or Automobile, I can't recall which), had a photo and sidebar about this. The "Stealth Bomber" featured in the ad is a fiberglass/plywood/? mockup that was done as a "design concept" model or something like that. I believe the sidebar said something about having shot the ad and commercial somewhere down near the Cape, for the cloud formations... -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Morris BITNET: TOM@UNCSPHVX UNC School of Public Health UUCP : ...!mcnc!ecsvax!tpmsph -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
pcp2g@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Philip C. Plait) (11/11/88)
In article <3f9a1368.124cb@dl124cb.engin.umich.edu> sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Kenneth Charles Sheppardson) writes: [stuff about the stealth fighter and bomber] >I'de be interested in hearing how someone could get the fighter >and the bomber mixed up. > Hmm. I wrote almost the same thing you did yesterday, but I said bomber, not fighter. I didn't realize there were two kinds of stealth. As to how I got them mixed up, well, not everyone can be as smart as people at the University of Michigan... (incidentally, since it's not in my .sig, I am BS Astronomy, University of Michigan, 1987) As always, I remain, * Phil Plait PCP2G@bessel.acc.virginia.EDU * UVa Dept. of Astronomy Grad student (at large) * *"If all men were brothers, would you let one marry your sister?"
jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) (11/12/88)
In article <749@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> pcp2g@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Philip C. Plait) writes: >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. That was the Stealth fighter. The Honda commercial shows the Stealth bomber, and their version is based on a DoD "artist's conception" released last spring. I don't know who is responsible for what is seen in the Honda commercial, but it certainly isn't THE Stealth bomber, due for public rollout November 22. This really doesn't belong in sci.space.shuttle, does it? There is rec.aviation.... -- "I don't suppose you have any idea what the damn thing is, huh?" --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay C. Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu
haque@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Samudra E. Haque) (11/12/88)
In article <749@hudson.acc.virginia.edu.. pcp2g@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Philip C. Plait) writes:
..
..Funny you should ask.
..
..
At this rate, Phil, you'll NEVER get out of school. ;-)
..much to make, about $60M. This is all according to the newscast.
The newscast specifically mentioned Stealth >>>Fighter<<< (one person job),
The U.S. airforce classification was F-117A (pretty sure about that).
You were right about the $60 Million and slightly larger than an
F-16.
..
..* Phil Plait PCP2G@bessel.acc.virginia.EDU
..* UVa Dept. of Astronomy Grad student (at large)
--
Samudra E. Haque
Computer Science Laboratories, Computer Science Department
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
(1)-(612)-625-0876 || haque@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu || haque@umn-cs.UUCPknudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) (11/12/88)
I find it hard to believe that the USAF would let Honda photograph a real Stealth aircraft before the official release date of official photos. [Also hard to believe that the new CRX is invisible to radar; if so, Honda should sell scads of 'em ;-)]. But -- in this morning's paper, was the first official photo of the F-117 Stealth *fighter*. Contrary to popular opinion and Revel Models, it is made up of flat plane surfaces, like a cheap computer graphics 3D job. It's a single-seater with rather poor cockpit visibility. The photo caption speculated quite a bit: Subsonic, not intended for dogfights; mission is probably to seek out and destroy enemy radar stations, thus clearing the path for conventional (but faster) fighters and bombers. The Air Force said they're releasing the picture because they're about to start flying daylight missions anyway. -- Mike Knudsen Bell Labs(AT&T) att!ihlpl!knudsen "Lawyers are like nuclear bombs and PClones. Nobody likes them, but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."
eriks@cadnetix.COM (Eriks Ziemelis) (11/12/88)
In article <749@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> pcp2g@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Philip C. Plait) writes: >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. > I have a hard time believing that the Stealth bomber is slightly larger than an F-16. The F-16 is a **tiny** plane. The stealth's central region (what do you call it, it doesn't have a fuselage) might be the same length as an F-16, but wing span is definitely greater. The beat must be larger to be able to carry a significant nuke load. More stuff about tough planes: any one know anything about the anti-tank plane (A10?) and how during testing, they virtually shot off most of its wings and tail and the sucker stayed up. Sorry for continuing this non-shuttle stuff =:^) Eriks A. Ziemelis Internet: eriks@cadnetix.com UUCP: ...!{uunet,boulder}!cadnetix!eriks U.S. Snail: Cadnetix Corp. 5775 Flatiron Pkwy Boulder, CO 80301 Baby Bell: (303) 444-8075 X221
rajiv@hpcllla.HP.COM (Rajiv Kumar) (11/12/88)
> [a Honda commercial with Stealth bomber deleted] > Could this be a fake prototype? You are right about it. It is a mockup of the stealth bomber. Honda went to great lenghts to make it. >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. You are confusing between the stealth bomber (B-2) and the stealth fighter (F-117A). USAF released the pictures of the fighter and not the bomber. They have promised to *show* the bomber to the press sometime soon. So stay tuned. >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. Actually, the plane in the honda commercial is pretty darn close to the "artists impression" of B-2 which USAF released some time ago. >Some of the folks out there may remember that a model company, >Testor's, I think it was, came out with a plastic model of what > was supposedly a Stealth plane. This caused quite a stink, I once assembled that kit and you are right - it wasn't anything like from what I can gather from today's picture in the NYT. > Phil Plait Rajiv Kumar rajiv%hpclrk@hplabs.hp.com
odlin@reed.UUCP (Iain Odlin) (11/13/88)
In article <696@sas.UUCP> sasbrb@sas.UUCP (Brendan Bailey) writes: > 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? If I am thinking of the same commercial, the "stealth bomber" in it is a mock- up of an SR-71 Blackbird. -Iain Odlin -- \ Iain Odlin / \ / \ Box 1014, Reed College, Portland OR 97202 / \ Earth: / / {backbone}!tektronix!reed!odlin \ / Mostly harmless. \ / odlin@reed \ / \
sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Kenneth Charles Sheppardson) (11/14/88)
In article <11015@reed.UUCP>, odlin@reed.UUCP (Iain Odlin) writes: > In article <696@sas.UUCP> sasbrb@sas.UUCP (Brendan Bailey) writes: > > > 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? > > If I am thinking of the same commercial, the "stealth bomber" in it is a mock- > up of an SR-71 Blackbird. > > -Iain Odlin WRONG I see now why we don't discuss aviation on sci.space.shuttle.... ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Sheppardson Aerospace Engin University of Michigan sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu
odlin@reed.UUCP (Iain Odlin) (11/15/88)
In a follow-up to a question, I wrote: >> If I am thinking of the same commercial, the "stealth bomber" in it is a >> mock-up of an SR-71 Blackbird. To which Ken Sheppardson responded: >WRONG >I see now why we don't discuss aviation on sci.space.shuttle.... To which I reply: Thanks for making my day a happy one. :-( I SPECIFICALLY STATED "If I am thinking of the same commercial..." I fail to see how mis-remembering a commercial is just cause for insulting my knowledge of aviation. Incidentally, there IS a car commercial which involves the car driving around an SR-71. As to what this has to do with the space shuttle: absolutely nothing. I figured that since Mr Sheppardson took the trouble to post his message (as opposed to informing me politely of my error via e-mail), I might as well respond in kind. In this I apologize to any I have inconvenienced. -Iain Odlin -- / / Iain Odlin \ \ "1914. England was at war..." / / / / odlin@reed \ \ "France was at war..." / / / / ...tektronix!reed!odlin \ \ "I was at lunch!" / /
pcp2g@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Philip C. Plait) (11/15/88)
In article <10020@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> haque@umn-cs.UUCP (Samudra E. Haque) writes: >At this rate, Phil, you'll NEVER get out of school. ;-) >The newscast specifically mentioned Stealth >>>Fighter<<< (one person job), >The U.S. airforce classification was F-117A (pretty sure about that). > Yeah, yeah, yeah. I should know better. As a scientist, I should have said "Stealth Plane", thus being sufficiently ambiguous. 8-) Anyway, I only confused a fighter with a bomber. I'm doing better than the US Navy ;-}. >You were right about the $60 Million and slightly larger than an >F-16. I'm glad I got something right. Anyway, we really should close this topic. It ain't shuttle. And I KNOW I'll never get out of school. Too much time spent at this damn terminal!!! * Phil Plait PCP2G@bessel.acc.virginia.EDU * UVa Dept. of Astronomy Grad student (at large) * *"If all men were brothers, would you let one marry your sister?"
steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Steve DeJarnett) (12/01/88)
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 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (12/06/88)
In article <6335@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Steve DeJarnett) writes: > 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 Steel tubing frame with sheetmetal/plywood skin. They didn't want the wings to sag and didn't have the budget to make more than one try.