Oh man thanks for the trip down memory lane! I remember my mom buying this for me. I don’t remember if I asked for it or not, or if it was a surprise for good grades or what. But she kept trying to get me into modeling and I just didn’t have the patience for it (I was 10 in 1986). I did love looking at this, though. I remember thinking that it felt so much more grown-up than the Snap-Tite models I already had. I think I even glued some of it together, and I think my mom helped me with some of the water slide decals. I also remember seeing that Microprose game demoed on some kind of PC down at the local Radio Shack. I wanted to play it so bad, but they never had joysticks attached. It just sat in attract mode. And later I also had some of those Ertl Force One diecast planes - the F-19, an A-10, and an F-14. I really loved those because they came with ordnance and had retractable landing gear. I also remember seeing that Northrop Loral ad, and there were a few GI Joe toys that kind of resembled something stealth-ish in the late 80s. Like you were saying it was a cultural phenomenon. In fact, when the real F-117 was revealed after that operation in Panama, I remember being somewhat disappointed because I thought it just looked so ungainly and weird. But even as a kid I recognized the “mission canopy” of this aircraft and its front end in general as being an obvious nod or direct copy of the SR-71. I figured the guys at Testors just really liked that aircraft. But I think they figured there would be some Lockheed DNA, so to speak, somewhere in there.
The Monogram kit is the closest to the original concept. What if I told you I 1st knew about that (Monogram) plane design in January 1981? I saw the concept art it, but not in any aviation magazine. The original design had the vertical stabilizers hinge from pointing inwards to near vertical. Also, the outer 1/3 of the wings could hinge up to parallel with the ground to facilitate landing. It was 1st a conceived by insider/expert _Richard Hallion_ sometime in 1980. The artist who realized Hallion's vision was _William S. Bond._ It was simply called "Stealth." Would you like to see for yourself? All you gotta do is look on page 102-103 of the January 1981 issue of National Geographic.
I assembled this stealth model kit when it first came out around 1985-1986! The stealth plane model did not require painting as the plastic parts were already black.
I built this kit when I was in junior high or so. Maybe 6th or 7th grade, in the late '90s. In recent years I bought the 72nd scale version by Italeri as well as the 48th scale Arii kit. I haven't built them.
So I remember seeing it and the Monogram kit at the Kaa Bee at the Walt Whitman Mall in Melville. I was not able to buy either as I was rather deep into the Testors M60 tank kit, probably a wee too advanced for how old I was.
I know you hate the term stealt as a former member of the military but I was a little kid and it was a part of the hype and the mania from back in the day as in a crazy amount of people believed United States military had achieved a technological coup d'etat a technological leap ahead that nobody else could match Grenade would have to wait until the F-22 to come into service about two decades later to achieve a low observable air to air capability but back then the fictional F-19 was what we believed was an actual low observable air superiority fighter and to little kids back in the day this was beyond awesome!!!!!!!!
You might be overstating how ineffective that giant paddle flap would be at vectoring thrust for pitch. It's true that most thrust vectoring nozzles do go all the way around, but the X-31 did thrust vectoring with just 3 little paddles that could be stuck into the fixed engine nozzle's exhaust. (Of course since they were spread out evenly around the nozzle cicumphrence the X-31 could still vector thrust in any direction - unlike this design. But it does show that sticking a deflector into the exhaust can vector thrust) Though, it still seems weird to vector thrust just for pitch up, but it could probably be made to work as long as the paddle angle didn't get too extreme.
I understand what you're saying, but the X-31 always three control surfaces working in conjunction to maneuver and vector thrust, not just get in it's way. I guess not having a real test bed, it's anyone's guess how well it may work. By the way, the F-22 only vectors in pitch. From you comment I can tell you understand what I'm about to say, but for others who may read this - when a plane rolls & turns the continued turn is then controlled by the surfaces that would normally control pitch. The pilot pulls back on the still, but instead of moving the nose up, it now pulls the nose tighter to continue the turn. So the F-22's engines were only. Built to vector thrust in that axis. It makes for a mechanically simpler, lighter, & and more reliable engine. Because the F-22 has a great roll rate it can get into the turn very quickly and maneuver without the need for thrust vector ing in the yaw axis like the Su-35s, and Su-57.
Brings back memories of playing the heck out of the f19 pc game. For maximum score, turn off crashes so you can become a tank and shoot ground targets...while on the ground. Hahahaha
Good old nastalgia. This was the first kit i got a heads-up about and put my name on a preorder list with a money deposit at a local hobby shop when I was 16. I'll agree with you on it being a bit too small to be a realistic low observable weapons delivery craft, but it is fairly close in size the the experimental Have Blue stealth test aircraft. The the twin "horizontal" stabilizers are canted inwards like the Have Blue. I think the designers were thinking towards them being ruddervators like V-tail aircraft and i also don't like how they don't blend very well with the fuselage. I think you're not totally correct with the "body flap" not being an effective exhaust vectoring control surface. Yes, it would block the exhaust if it angled up to the extreme as you showed, but it could be effective with vectoring in the -20° to +20° range if movement. The ruddervators could also contribute to the vectoring. The cockpit... Yes, very poor instrument panel and ejection seat. I think i remember having some interference issues with the pilot's helmet and the closed "mission" canopy? I also think the pilot was a bit undersized compared to other 1/48 scale pilots. The decals are too basic. I think they should've also had red lettering/symbols option. It was a good trip down memory lane. I think I'll dig my old kit out and see about rebuilding it with some improvements.
I had the Revell kit as a kid, both in 1/144 and 1/48; I loved it. For me, it was the OG Stealth Fighter, but as it was a ripoff basically of the Testors design, both Arii and Revell withdrew theirs. Which is why those are much rarer these days... And some RC guys made the F-19 design fly btw. So the aerodynamics actually work! There's a YT clip of it; go look for it 😁
Actually you may be a little bit wrong about the elevator control surface. It doesn't really need to be complete thrust vectoring device to be able to pitch aircraft up. As it is, when raised it would create area of high pressure on top of it, that pushes it down. Basically in the similar way rear spoilers on racing cars work. And actually in a same way conventional elevators do on airplanes. Except it would use airflow from engines. Which actually would make it more efficient. The only problem with this design is that it can't work with engines out. So losing or even stalling both engines would be instantly fatal for this incarnation of F-19. :) About flaps, you can't really have conventional flaps on tailless airframe. French Mirages and even Concorde had no flaps either. So this one they got correct actually. As to the low roll efficiency of the spoilers, I think, to some degree, it could be augmented by the rudders. The way they are tilted may allow them to have some effect on pitching and rolling when controlled by flight computers. So they probably could help both elevator and spoilers at least a little bit. And while F-117 did have all the legitimate flight control surfaces, it had no flaps either.
Thanks for the technical info! I don't know where I read that the F-117 had flaps. I thought it was something legit in the Air Force. I obviously could have been mistaken.
Oh sp 20 years later someone allegedly Nortrop copyd some of the details of this kit in the design of the EDI and F/A-37 Talon ( look at the engines ) Pulse Detonation/Scramjet engines for example
I know that feeling! I sold. Some. Older kits back in the day thinking I'll just buy them again later. But when the time came they were no where to be found. I feel for you!
Outstanding video! This provides the best context for what this plane was. I built one with my dad and now I want to build a Lego one.
Oh man thanks for the trip down memory lane! I remember my mom buying this for me. I don’t remember if I asked for it or not, or if it was a surprise for good grades or what. But she kept trying to get me into modeling and I just didn’t have the patience for it (I was 10 in 1986). I did love looking at this, though. I remember thinking that it felt so much more grown-up than the Snap-Tite models I already had. I think I even glued some of it together, and I think my mom helped me with some of the water slide decals.
I also remember seeing that Microprose game demoed on some kind of PC down at the local Radio Shack. I wanted to play it so bad, but they never had joysticks attached. It just sat in attract mode.
And later I also had some of those Ertl Force One diecast planes - the F-19, an A-10, and an F-14. I really loved those because they came with ordnance and had retractable landing gear.
I also remember seeing that Northrop Loral ad, and there were a few GI Joe toys that kind of resembled something stealth-ish in the late 80s.
Like you were saying it was a cultural phenomenon. In fact, when the real F-117 was revealed after that operation in Panama, I remember being somewhat disappointed because I thought it just looked so ungainly and weird.
But even as a kid I recognized the “mission canopy” of this aircraft and its front end in general as being an obvious nod or direct copy of the SR-71. I figured the guys at Testors just really liked that aircraft. But I think they figured there would be some Lockheed DNA, so to speak, somewhere in there.
The Monogram kit is the closest to the original concept. What if I told you I 1st knew about that (Monogram) plane design in January 1981? I saw the concept art it, but not in any aviation magazine.
The original design had the vertical stabilizers hinge from pointing inwards to near vertical. Also, the outer 1/3 of the wings could hinge up to parallel with the ground to facilitate landing.
It was 1st a conceived by insider/expert _Richard Hallion_ sometime in 1980. The artist who realized Hallion's vision was _William S. Bond._ It was simply called "Stealth."
Would you like to see for yourself?
All you gotta do is look on page 102-103 of the January 1981 issue of National Geographic.
I assembled this stealth model kit when it first came out around 1985-1986! The stealth plane model did not require painting as the plastic parts were already black.
I built this kit when I was in junior high or so. Maybe 6th or 7th grade, in the late '90s. In recent years I bought the 72nd scale version by Italeri as well as the 48th scale Arii kit. I haven't built them.
I Built the 1/72 one. I fell in love with the design after playing the pc game and the ring raiders cartoon.
So I remember seeing it and the Monogram kit at the Kaa Bee at the Walt Whitman Mall in Melville. I was not able to buy either as I was rather deep into the Testors M60 tank kit, probably a wee too advanced for how old I was.
I know you hate the term stealt as a former member of the military but I was a little kid and it was a part of the hype and the mania from back in the day as in a crazy amount of people believed United States military had achieved a technological coup d'etat a technological leap ahead that nobody else could match
Grenade would have to wait until the F-22 to come into service about two decades later to achieve a low observable air to air capability but back then the fictional F-19 was what we believed was an actual low observable air superiority fighter and to little kids back in the day this was beyond awesome!!!!!!!!
Thank you for another awesome video and I can't wait for the build up.
I had the new box art version. It was a great model. , the Microprose F19 stealth game was just so good
You might be overstating how ineffective that giant paddle flap would be at vectoring thrust for pitch. It's true that most thrust vectoring nozzles do go all the way around, but the X-31 did thrust vectoring with just 3 little paddles that could be stuck into the fixed engine nozzle's exhaust. (Of course since they were spread out evenly around the nozzle cicumphrence the X-31 could still vector thrust in any direction - unlike this design. But it does show that sticking a deflector into the exhaust can vector thrust) Though, it still seems weird to vector thrust just for pitch up, but it could probably be made to work as long as the paddle angle didn't get too extreme.
I understand what you're saying, but the X-31 always three control surfaces working in conjunction to maneuver and vector thrust, not just get in it's way.
I guess not having a real test bed, it's anyone's guess how well it may work.
By the way, the F-22 only vectors in pitch. From you comment I can tell you understand what I'm about to say, but for others who may read this - when a plane rolls & turns the continued turn is then controlled by the surfaces that would normally control pitch. The pilot pulls back on the still, but instead of moving the nose up, it now pulls the nose tighter to continue the turn. So the F-22's engines were only. Built to vector thrust in that axis. It makes for a mechanically simpler, lighter, & and more reliable engine. Because the F-22 has a great roll rate it can get into the turn very quickly and maneuver without the need for thrust vector ing in the yaw axis like the Su-35s, and Su-57.
Brings back memories of playing the heck out of the f19 pc game. For maximum score, turn off crashes so you can become a tank and shoot ground targets...while on the ground. Hahahaha
Good old nastalgia. This was the first kit i got a heads-up about and put my name on a preorder list with a money deposit at a local hobby shop when I was 16.
I'll agree with you on it being a bit too small to be a realistic low observable weapons delivery craft, but it is fairly close in size the the experimental Have Blue stealth test aircraft. The the twin "horizontal" stabilizers are canted inwards like the Have Blue. I think the designers were thinking towards them being ruddervators like V-tail aircraft and i also don't like how they don't blend very well with the fuselage.
I think you're not totally correct with the "body flap" not being an effective exhaust vectoring control surface. Yes, it would block the exhaust if it angled up to the extreme as you showed, but it could be effective with vectoring in the -20° to +20° range if movement. The ruddervators could also contribute to the vectoring.
The cockpit...
Yes, very poor instrument panel and ejection seat.
I think i remember having some interference issues with the pilot's helmet and the closed "mission" canopy?
I also think the pilot was a bit undersized compared to other 1/48 scale pilots.
The decals are too basic. I think they should've also had red lettering/symbols option.
It was a good trip down memory lane. I think I'll dig my old kit out and see about rebuilding it with some improvements.
I had the Revell kit as a kid, both in 1/144 and 1/48; I loved it. For me, it was the OG Stealth Fighter, but as it was a ripoff basically of the Testors design, both Arii and Revell withdrew theirs. Which is why those are much rarer these days...
And some RC guys made the F-19 design fly btw. So the aerodynamics actually work! There's a YT clip of it; go look for it 😁
I have 2 of that F19 model. I bought them when they were brand new back in the 1980's One opened, but not yet assembled and one unopened.
Everytime I find one sealed I swear I'm going to keep it sealed...
Actually you may be a little bit wrong about the elevator control surface. It doesn't really need to be complete thrust vectoring device to be able to pitch aircraft up. As it is, when raised it would create area of high pressure on top of it, that pushes it down. Basically in the similar way rear spoilers on racing cars work. And actually in a same way conventional elevators do on airplanes. Except it would use airflow from engines. Which actually would make it more efficient. The only problem with this design is that it can't work with engines out. So losing or even stalling both engines would be instantly fatal for this incarnation of F-19. :)
About flaps, you can't really have conventional flaps on tailless airframe. French Mirages and even Concorde had no flaps either. So this one they got correct actually.
As to the low roll efficiency of the spoilers, I think, to some degree, it could be augmented by the rudders. The way they are tilted may allow them to have some effect on pitching and rolling when controlled by flight computers. So they probably could help both elevator and spoilers at least a little bit.
And while F-117 did have all the legitimate flight control surfaces, it had no flaps either.
Thanks for the technical info! I don't know where I read that the F-117 had flaps. I thought it was something legit in the Air Force. I obviously could have been mistaken.
Oh sp 20 years later someone allegedly Nortrop copyd some of the details of this kit in the design of the EDI and F/A-37 Talon ( look at the engines ) Pulse Detonation/Scramjet engines for example
as a kid a build my fantasy version. a revell sr 71 paired with a revell f19 instead of the dm21 drohne.
I bet that looks awesome!
for my 9 year old self it was fantastic. 😅@@AirForceBuilder
found one of these at an antique store for $15...very cool looking plane...
That's a great deal!
I am jealous. I am hunting for this old kit for a reasonable price along with the RAH66 Comanche stealth copter
Just keep checking the evil bay. every few days you'll see a new one come up. If you keep looking you'll grab one for about $30 - $40.
The one you ve built is correct the other one you show isn't 😉
Doc you will make this one look as if it was a real plane taking off from area 51.
I was thinking about using that new set of what-if YF-23 decals.
I had the comanche, sold it for a pretty penny, now I kick myself for doing so no matter how much profit I made.😢
I know that feeling! I sold. Some. Older kits back in the day thinking I'll just buy them again later. But when the time came they were no where to be found. I feel for you!