Anybody have an idea of how big an F-117 actually is? I've never seen one in real life, but using visual clues from books etc... I always assumed it was a fairly small aircraft. But out of the 4 new 1:144 aircraft I just got, it's building up to be one of the largest. The F-15 and F-16 look good relative to each other but the F-117 looks like it's out of scale. It's building to be about the same size as the F-15 and significantly larger than the F-16. I thought it was a little smaller than the F-16 in real life. Am I crazy or is the kit out of scale?

Never have seen the two parked side by side but it should be about the size of the F-16. It looks bigger because of the shape, but it isn't. A Cranked Arrow F-16 would look larger also, but the illusion of the entire plane being a wing makes a difference.

Having recently built both the Italeri 1/72 scale M1 Abrams as well as the F-117A Stealth, I was quite surprised at the size difference between the two. The scale is identical (if I am to believe the box top) yet the fighter dwarfs the 60 ton tank. I don't know size comparison with other jets, but I do know the size of an M1 so this must be one huge fighter.

The F-117 is comparable in size to the F-15. Remember, despite its "F" designation, it is really more of a bomber since it carries no defensive or interceptor armorment. All it does is drop a couple bombs. Very accurately.

I have 1/72 scale models of The F-15, F-16 and F-117. The F-15 and F-117 are of similar size :-)
Mal

From photos and tv shots I've seen it does appear to be quite large, very tall too.

Here is a photo I found, The guy near the bomb is Dwarfed by the F117

Thanks guys, I knew it was tall I just had no idea it was as large overall as it is. WOW!! I really want to see a real one up close now.

Hope this helps

I got to stand next to one on the tarmac for display. By no stretch of the imagination is that one a "small" aircraft. Pretty interesting...

Gunnie

In HS I had a 1/35 M1 Abrams and a 1/72 F-117 They were pretty close in Length.........

REMF11M: Nice pics. That's about the size difference I see on the models.

AJLaFleche: I've always had a problem with the Nighthawk having the 'F' designation since it is obviously not a fighter/interceptor aircraft, but the Air Force didn't consult me. Since it's their plane I guess they can call it whatever they want. #:-)

Gunnie: Don't get me wrong. I wasn't trying to say it was a 'small' aircraft. But small relative to say an F-15 or an F-14, 2 large birds in my opinion. The F-16 is tiny compared to an F-14, but it's still not small.

Looks like I need to hit the books some more, though. Figure out how big some of these actually are.

You know, een small fighters seem hughe when you are standing next to them !
Recent fighters like the F15, F14, SU 27 are HUGHE !

I think that had to do with the development having been a "black project". The desination should have been A-19, maybe B-19, F/B-19 or even, as Testors suggested, F-19, since the current numbering system had "19" as next in line. F-117 implies it was accepted as part of the so-called "Ceutury Series" which culminated with the F/B-111. With aircraft like the F/A-18 well under consideration, had the designation X or YF-117 leaked, it could have been refered to as a design that had not gone beyond develpement stages in the early 1960's.

Check out this link http://www.f-117a.com/Have.html " TARGET="_blank"> http://www.f-117a.com/Have.html for some pics of the Have Blue, and you'll you'll see the development aircraft that led to the F-117. It's about a third the size and at least one example as you'll see was painted an almost gaudy #:-) gray, tan, black disruptive wraparound pattern.

I have never seen one and rumour has it neither have the crew........WOW stealthy!!!!

I head somewhere that the reason for "F" designation was so that the Airforce could get the money from congress

I've heard that, too. That's the best reason I've heard for it too. With the B-2 Spirit around, it may have been difficult justifying money for a second stealth bomber.

Actually, I believe it was more along the lines of a miscommunication. Lockheed used the designation "117" for many of it's un-named test a/c, and when the flight manuals were all printed up with the "F-117" on them the Air Force was a bit reluctant to spend millions to change the error and just accepted it.

Same thing happened with the SR-71, it was originally the RS-71 but the President who un-veiled it refered to it as the SR-71 and so the military changed it to back-up the President's statement, or something along that line.

#:-)