- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,451
- Reaction score
- 19,130
When asked if he'd posted this on secretprojects forum, "2495" replied:
Current mystery aircrafts/urban legends
- Thread starter Matej
- Start date
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,009
- Reaction score
- 2,296
overscan said:
2495 often posts on MP.net at the same time that very similar posts happen here. Not very good on OPSEC, apparently.
There is a lot of information in the post which is easily verified - or discounted. A welcome addition to this topic
- Joined
- 27 April 2008
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 126
quellish said:
This is true, and I recall Flateric noting the same on another topic some time back.
- Joined
- 27 April 2008
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 126
Tuomasn
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 5 January 2006
- Messages
- 456
- Reaction score
- 231
quellish said:2495 often posts on MP.net at the same time that very similar posts happen here. Not very good on OPSEC, apparently.
There is a lot of information in the post which is easily verified - or discounted. A welcome addition to this topic
Celebrating the fifth anniversary of Blackstar, it seems, though a few days early.
How convenient that the poster says he will be away for half a year now. (For a "writing project"? What kind of writing project keeps you offline for six months :
)geeshockbloke
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 18 July 2008
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 5
How convenient that the poster says he will be away for half a year now. (For a "writing project"? What kind of writing project keeps you offline for six months Roll Eyes )
Porridge?
Porridge?
quellish said:
Meteorit said:
Is there possibly some way you could make these statements as unambiguous as possible - "n00bsible", if you will - since I'm obviously pretty new here? "2495's" tales are of course pretty tall and I'm not one to take much anything on face value, but from your comments I get the sense there's something very specific I oughta know about this. Any previous trollish correlations between messages here and @MP.net, a site the existence of which didn't register with me before, would've obviously eluded me. "Blackstar" TSTO I remember being flouted in some publications, the general consensus remaining sceptical to outright dismissive. For the record I like to consider these "black projects" much in the same vein as scifi: It's not so much about the veracity of the original material but the impetus to learn, to go on an intellectual limb, to consider and to imagine - even do - things for yourself.
- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 13,770
- Reaction score
- 3,036
Just realized that there is one identified project that comes really close to these alleged sightings, and that's the McDonnell Douglas Commando Spirit concept (see attachment).
In case the sightings were real, we might be in the presence of the real Senior Citizen...
Attachments
Tuomasn
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 5 January 2006
- Messages
- 456
- Reaction score
- 231
UpForce said:
I hope quellish can answer for himself.
Regarding my post:
"Celebrating the fifth anniversary of Blackstar, it seems, though a few days early."
I just found it somewhat amusing this was posted almost exactly five years after the Aviation Week & Space Technology Blackstar article which appeared in the March 6, 2006 issue. I'm not saying this was intentional, though.
"How convenient that the poster says he will be away for half a year now. (For a "writing project"? What kind of writing project keeps you offline for six months?)"
By claiming to be unable to access the Internet, the poster can avoid answering any questions about his story. Also, I really can't think of any way of being completely blocked off the web for half a year, being in a prison maybe? So I don't believe he really is unable to continue the discussion.
While we're at it, I recommend the thread at the Dreamlandresort (DLR) discussion forum for anyone who hasn't read it yet: http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/35664.html
I have to say the story could have been improved with some more thought and effort. The top left and bottom right pictures damage his case far more than they improve it. As pointed out in the DLR thread, hypersonic vehicles don't usually have leading edge slats. The shape of the bottom right aircraft (SR-71?) isn't really good for the described role. A vehicle with the claimed capabilities would probably have to be the size of a B747. The described flight profile doesn't make very much sense. Etc, etc, etc...
@Meteorit: Oh! Thank you so much for taking the trouble to clarify, I appreciate it. Yes, the evasiveness in "2495's" behaviour is quite blatant and doesn't (didn't) exactly help - applying Occam's razor one can then allow for the possibility that the specific intention is not to help. I'm not really in the position to comment too much on the story ... about the collage of pictures he posted, yes my first thought about the bottom right image was that it's SR-71's profile. As search engines become more semantic (see Google Goggles for instance) it'll become harder to just grab and crop images off the net: The original can be found by using the image itself as a search term! About the top left one, I don't really know what I'm looking at. Is that a known craft or somehow an obvious photoshop or something?
Looking at all the pictures together (Thank you, Stargazer2006!) the compilation in the middle, not used by "2495", now seems most interesting to me. A very angular delta/lifting body arrangement, actually quite different from anything posted by "2495" ... having had a hobby-like interest in subsonic fluid dynamics (a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing) I foolishly thought I could draw conclusions based on looking through publicly available research on the defining shapes of the craft(s). "Not so much", as I quickly realized that super- and hypersonics are such massively different things, having scant idea on concepts like "waverider" to begin with. Not to mention that with my degraded physics and math(s) skills the theory part seemed pretty intractable, especially jumping in at the "deep end" of things. That's why your clarification is doubly appreciated, so as me not even risking some unfortunate wild goose chase based essentially on nothing of substance at all. Coming back to the angular ("stealth like") delta though, the raised leading edges made me curious as I thought that might add energy to the topside vorticity and thus "extend" lift, unconventional as it may look. A bit reminsicent of a NACA duct, really. I did find some research on "apex fences" indicating that. Also, if the thing - if it is a "thing" - isn't subsonic I also located an abstract to a paper called "Shock Wave Interference on a Fenced Wing at Hypersonic Speeds" (Golubkin, Mikhailov, 1992). As a separate note, there's also an engineering company, Jacobs Technology, that has apparently at some point done some consulting work on SOF Air Mobility Platform M-X, the requirements of which could optimistically be conceived as befitting of that form. Perhaps Stargazer's intuition is right!
I'll be sure to visit the dreamlandresort link as time and energy permit, thank you for that as well.
Looking at all the pictures together (Thank you, Stargazer2006!) the compilation in the middle, not used by "2495", now seems most interesting to me. A very angular delta/lifting body arrangement, actually quite different from anything posted by "2495" ... having had a hobby-like interest in subsonic fluid dynamics (a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing) I foolishly thought I could draw conclusions based on looking through publicly available research on the defining shapes of the craft(s). "Not so much", as I quickly realized that super- and hypersonics are such massively different things, having scant idea on concepts like "waverider" to begin with. Not to mention that with my degraded physics and math(s) skills the theory part seemed pretty intractable, especially jumping in at the "deep end" of things. That's why your clarification is doubly appreciated, so as me not even risking some unfortunate wild goose chase based essentially on nothing of substance at all. Coming back to the angular ("stealth like") delta though, the raised leading edges made me curious as I thought that might add energy to the topside vorticity and thus "extend" lift, unconventional as it may look. A bit reminsicent of a NACA duct, really. I did find some research on "apex fences" indicating that. Also, if the thing - if it is a "thing" - isn't subsonic I also located an abstract to a paper called "Shock Wave Interference on a Fenced Wing at Hypersonic Speeds" (Golubkin, Mikhailov, 1992). As a separate note, there's also an engineering company, Jacobs Technology, that has apparently at some point done some consulting work on SOF Air Mobility Platform M-X, the requirements of which could optimistically be conceived as befitting of that form. Perhaps Stargazer's intuition is right!
I'll be sure to visit the dreamlandresort link as time and energy permit, thank you for that as well.
quellish said:2495 often posts on MP.net at the same time that very similar posts happen here. Not very good on OPSEC, apparently. There is a lot of information in the post which is easily verified - or discounted. A welcome addition to this topic
quellish said:
@quellish: Sorry about the rambling. Your statement (top, above) appeared both cryptic and self-contradictory to me. I took this as a form of cautionary irony. If there's more to it I'd like to know. I'm just trying to decide whether to continue thinking about this topic based on anything provided by "2495", or leave it at this and move on.
@Meteorit: "Dreamlandresort" is, I think, another insofar unfamiliar site to me. A very 90's layout and a bit prone to romantic conspiratorialism, perhaps. I'm more inclined to err on the side of tangible. Someone there mentioned the top left image in the original collage possibly being a cropped Typhoon. Perhaps so. I believe there's ample talent here to provide a definite enough an answer. I'm not very interested in being drawn into protracted debates into or expending much energy in investigating the personal credibility of "2495" or anyone else, but concentrate on aircraft (and spacecraft!), be they at any stage of imagination or realization.
Again, thank you for your efforts.
Meteorit said:
My first impressions are hasty of course. To expand on the (subjective) semantics, I certainly didn't mean to belittle, to denigrate or harm by that choice of words. In my mind the dogged dedication to observe and report on, apparently many times in situ, severely restricted defense installations evokes an emotional dimension to the motivation. A love of the act, if you will. Hence, "romantic". This doesn't exclude the pursuit being rational or otherwise sound. "Conspiratorialism" may have been more off the cuff, I'll grant you that, since it's generally associated with something underhand or negative. Perhaps "uncovering" or something would've been more accurate, but that's not a very conventional conjugation to use in that context. Besides, in considering the connotations of "romantic uncovering" my mind goes to another kind of "Dreamland Resort" altogether ...
Anyway, digging ever deeper into these explanations has become kind of a "black project" in itself, off topic derailments are certainly not what I intended and not something I want to be excessively responsible for. If I manage to evoke any more un-aircrafty or non-spaceshippy concerns, I'm only too happy to try and resolve those via PM. Meanwhile, I'll make a serious effort to keep my public on topic expressions as unwittingly unloaded as possible. My curiosity isn't so much on the "secret" aspect, but the emphasis is on the "projects" part as I've got this fledgling design interest and I'm trying to reflect that the best I can.
- Joined
- 27 April 2008
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 126
UpForce said:
Let me put it this way: not *all* of 2495's information (in his previous posts at MP.net) was sourced from here. His previous postings show more knowledge than that [and no previous bent towards Hoaxing that I can recall].
So, keeping in mind that this is 'Theoretical and Speculative Projects/Current mystery aircrafts/urban legends', my interest centres on a few things:
The hint of mixed-mode propulsion, i.e a Rocket on top. Doesn't seem very Aurora-Project to me, but perhaps a bit more 'lower tech'. Late Eighties/early Nineties maybe... so why the throwback detail?
I've found past discussions in various places often skirting around High-Speed [but not Hypersonic] Airbreathing. Personally I'm not actually a believer in a Hypersonic Aurora type aircraft, but there's some interesting anecdotal (and even seismic) info from the past to suggest something 'High-Speed' (and possibly mixed-mode) was briefly flying. (The Aurora Thread here is a good repository for a lot of it actually).
If 2495 wanted to mock up a convincing photo for the kids, then why pick a shovel-nosed ugly with apparent flaps on the leading edges?
I guess it will have to wait until his alleged return...
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,009
- Reaction score
- 2,296
Meteorit said:
It would also need a lot of tanker support, and tankers are relatively easy to track. Are there tankers unaccounted for? Were some tanker crews recently disappearing for additional training? Were assets diverted from other theatres to support this vehicle?
Hypersonic aircraft don't usually have leading edge flaps, and don't usually get built
I'm sure the Flying Shovel is hangared right next to the Flaming Pumpkinseed. In all honesty, this was much more interesting:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4420.0/highlight,mystery.html
I'd love to think that the photos posted by 2495 where genuine, but it does feel a bit "odd"
I'm no expert but reading the two stories makes me think (if it were real) that we are looking at two different aircraft types, why? 2495's story sounds plausible for a recce aircraft, arriving in Scotland, in the dark with minimal fuss then disappearing again. When reading the ATS thread theres mention of a low level route frequented by fast jets, like i said i'm no expert but surely you don't fly a big heavy recon type a/c low level in the daylight? so would that lead to being something else?
Also with mention of the photo with slats looking like a typhoon, perhaps stargazer could work his magic and reverse engineer that photo to see if he can make it look like a Eurofighter? i would but am rubbish at stuff like that.
Once again thanks to all the "grown-ups" who post here and offer thoughts and advice, makes secret projects a daily stop over to see whats going on, keep up the great work!
I'm no expert but reading the two stories makes me think (if it were real) that we are looking at two different aircraft types, why? 2495's story sounds plausible for a recce aircraft, arriving in Scotland, in the dark with minimal fuss then disappearing again. When reading the ATS thread theres mention of a low level route frequented by fast jets, like i said i'm no expert but surely you don't fly a big heavy recon type a/c low level in the daylight? so would that lead to being something else?
Also with mention of the photo with slats looking like a typhoon, perhaps stargazer could work his magic and reverse engineer that photo to see if he can make it look like a Eurofighter? i would but am rubbish at stuff like that.
Once again thanks to all the "grown-ups" who post here and offer thoughts and advice, makes secret projects a daily stop over to see whats going on, keep up the great work!
- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 13,770
- Reaction score
- 3,036
Going through my many article clippings I came across this beautiful artist's concept by Lacroix in 1993 of the rumored Northrop TR-3A Black Manta, one of several images published in French news weekly L'Express to illustrate an article entitled "Les ovnis du Pentagone" ("The Pentagon's UFOs").
I do not know if Lacroix relied solely on the various testimonies of would-be sightings published here and there, or if he had access to sketches of XST/THAP proposals to help him as a basis, but I always thought it looked pretty interesting. Lacroix did another beautiful illustration of the TR-3A for the magazine Science & Vie, which I will attempt to retrieve and scan soon.
I do not know if Lacroix relied solely on the various testimonies of would-be sightings published here and there, or if he had access to sketches of XST/THAP proposals to help him as a basis, but I always thought it looked pretty interesting. Lacroix did another beautiful illustration of the TR-3A for the magazine Science & Vie, which I will attempt to retrieve and scan soon.
Attachments
- Joined
- 27 April 2008
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 126
mr_london_247 said:
Well, the things that turn up: a 'Hypersonic waverider variable leading edge flaps' patent from Kevin G. Bowcutt of Boeing Phantom Works fame:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6634594.pdf
shockonlip
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 January 2008
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 43
A little heads-up to the gang here.
I just noticed that the first edition (1982) of Rene Francillon's
"Lockheed Aircraft since 1913", seems to be 'available' again.
Namely, there seem to be copies floating around again. They
wee rather scarce for awhile some time ago.
To remind everyone of the significance of this edition, on page x
(the page before page 1), is the page on "Stealth projects", where
the rumor about what later became HAVE BLUE and F-117A were
first mentioned in print.
Also on the same page is a reference to "Hypersonic project". Which
we are still waiting on.
He was asked or it was suggested to Rene that this page be removed
from later editions of the book, which he did.
So only this 1982 edition has it, if you're interested.
So it's easy to check, only 10 pages into the book (ie: page x)
is the one I mentioned above.
Also the "Author's Notes" page has a little reference as well. This is
on page ix, the previous page to the one mentioned above.
I think there was another small reference I ran across later in the
book as well.
Anyway, a heads-up to those who weren't able to get a copy that
they seem to be around again.
To find out more info, I actually called Rene on the phone and talked
to him many years ago. He confirmed he was told about both these
projects by Lockheed people while researching the book. He also was
told he shouldn't have printed them and was asked to remove them in
later editions, which he did.
Anyway, the accuracy of the "Stealth projects" part alone makes this
a collectable to some people. Thus the heads up.
I just noticed that the first edition (1982) of Rene Francillon's
"Lockheed Aircraft since 1913", seems to be 'available' again.
Namely, there seem to be copies floating around again. They
wee rather scarce for awhile some time ago.
To remind everyone of the significance of this edition, on page x
(the page before page 1), is the page on "Stealth projects", where
the rumor about what later became HAVE BLUE and F-117A were
first mentioned in print.
Also on the same page is a reference to "Hypersonic project". Which
we are still waiting on.
He was asked or it was suggested to Rene that this page be removed
from later editions of the book, which he did.
So only this 1982 edition has it, if you're interested.
So it's easy to check, only 10 pages into the book (ie: page x)
is the one I mentioned above.
Also the "Author's Notes" page has a little reference as well. This is
on page ix, the previous page to the one mentioned above.
I think there was another small reference I ran across later in the
book as well.
Anyway, a heads-up to those who weren't able to get a copy that
they seem to be around again.
To find out more info, I actually called Rene on the phone and talked
to him many years ago. He confirmed he was told about both these
projects by Lockheed people while researching the book. He also was
told he shouldn't have printed them and was asked to remove them in
later editions, which he did.
Anyway, the accuracy of the "Stealth projects" part alone makes this
a collectable to some people. Thus the heads up.
S
sublight
Guest
What the hell???
http://www.49thparallel.bham.ac.uk/back/issue25/Graham-and-Alford.pdf
I still don't, and wont believe we've had alien encounters, but I would sure like for somebody in the Air Force to explain why they micromanaged the "ufo" related content on television over the years....
http://www.49thparallel.bham.ac.uk/back/issue25/Graham-and-Alford.pdf
I still don't, and wont believe we've had alien encounters, but I would sure like for somebody in the Air Force to explain why they micromanaged the "ufo" related content on television over the years....
- Joined
- 26 May 2011
- Messages
- 2,111
- Reaction score
- 2,692
"He also was told he shouldn't have printed them and was asked to remove them in later editions, which he did."
If it was such a serious disclosure, would the run not have been pulped or the offending page (and it is a page) merely sliced out of the copies?
Chris
If it was such a serious disclosure, would the run not have been pulped or the offending page (and it is a page) merely sliced out of the copies?
Chris
dannydale
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 May 2007
- Messages
- 547
- Reaction score
- 398
I think it's to provide a cover for black projects, give hobbyists like us something to chase other than said black projects (that didn't work out too well now, did it?), and a very very tiny sliver of making people comfortable with the existence of hypothetical extraterrestrial intelligence. However, I take Stephen Hawking's views on ETI. I strongly suspect that any space aliens who decide to fly over 9000 lightyears to park an Outside Context Problem over our nations' capitals will likely resemble the E.T. movie less than they do Independence Day.sublight said:
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,148
- Reaction score
- 6,518
dannydale said:
a excellent example is how USAF "circumscribes" some of there secrets project is Bluefly and MOONDUST
Bluefly was Data collection about "unidentified flying object" and transmit them to Project MOONDUST
They goes to "locate, recover and deliver descended foreign space vehicles"
Allot UFO researcher belief "foreign space vehicles" means "ALIEN SPACE CRAFT" = UFO
the reality is much battier, MOONDUST recover in obscurer ways, mostly Soviet Aircraft, Satellite and other Hardware
and transport form all over world to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base during 1950
until children call the base "Hey there fly Soviet Aircraft over you base !"
so they move to more privacy Base: Groom Lake Nevada aka Area-51 in 1960s
Aliens
and were Alien
and try to rebuild and copy the Technology, A program better know as "Have Doughnut"
IMHO UFO researcher got facts littel bit wrong...
quellish said:
Apologies if this is a bit of out left field, but is there any way the North Sea sighting could be connected with the General Dynamics Model 100, or is that rejected nowadays? Putting aside all the rumoured and speculated projects around that time, the only other one I can think of that (to the best of my knowledge) has any real credibility and may have flown, is Sneaky Pete. And Sneaky Pete, probably having a similar appearance to the cancelled Navy A-12, doesn't sound like a good match for the North Sea aircraft...
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,009
- Reaction score
- 2,296
Vulcan652 said:
Model 100/Sneaky Pete/HAVE KEY were all (as best anyone can tell right now) the same family of designs, if not the same design. A-12 was the final outcome of that family.
The North Sea object was much more highly swept, so it doesn't seem likely that it could have been one of those.
quellish said:
Thanks for the info quellish. I've read conflicting reports about Model 100/Sneaky Pete being the same or different aircraft, but as you say the planforms don't seem to match up for the North Sea objects.
Looking back over the Chris Gibson interview on YouTube, the plane also looked larger than I would anticipate Sneaky Pete/Model 100 to be, based on the A-12 at least (and depending to an extent on the accuracy of the drawing). The theory/explanation that it was actually another F-111 with wings all the way back certainly matches to highly swept delta appearance (http://www.redbubble.com/people/gjwhite/art/6307382-f-111-with-wings-swept), and far more than the Tornado does. But it just seems hard to believe CG would have made that mistake given his credentials. That said, I'm trying to keep wishful thinking at bay
- Joined
- 26 May 2011
- Messages
- 2,111
- Reaction score
- 2,692
What has always puzzled me was that the highly plausible swept F-111 explanation first appeared in Curtiss Peebles' "Dark Eagles" in 1995, a full three years after a USAF General stated that it was a Vulcan. The intriguing thing is: why did the USAF themselves not come up with that explanation?
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Chris
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Chris
Kelly Bushings said:
That's a really good question. It seems to be the case on several occasions. To the best of my knowledge, it was Ben Rich who first said the "Aurora" line item was the code name for B-2 competition funding. Even today, I'm unsure if this has ever been confirmed by the USAF on the record? I'm not saying Aurora was an aircraft (I'm absolutely certain it wasn't) and recognise Ben Rich's book came out around 1994 when details of the B-2 would have been more murky. But almost two decades on, this designation is still cause for debate (sorry if it's been cleared up and I missed it!).
I enjoyed Curtis Peebles' book, and the USAF must have been delighted when he came up with the swept F-111 theory because the Vulcan explanation was daft at best. The Vulcan would have been in the press around the time the sighting was made public (1992) since that was the same year the last flying display Vulcan completed its last airshow season (until a few years ago - happy days!). That's the only reason I can think of to explain it being put forward as a candidate for the North Sea sighting - but taking fuel from a KC-135 flanked by two F-111s???
As an enthusiastic but relatively uninformed observer, I can only speculate that the North Sea sighting was either:
---An F-111 with swept wings, which the USAF was deliberately vague about for whatever reason (turning attention away from real black projects?) - still, it may be telling that the USAF didn't come up with the better F-111 explanation.
---Some sort of technology demonstrator that is no longer active and was utterly eclipsed by the onslaught of Aurora fever and ballyhoo that followed for a couple of decades after.
I ran a FOIA request for air traffic control records around that time, but of course they have now all been routinely destroyed! Chris Gibson did say the only plane he could think of with such a planform was the experimental Handley Page HP.115, which proved successful at proving the delta design at low speeds. I wonder if the North Sea aircraft, far from being hypersonic, could have been along the same lines? I read that somewhere, but can't remember where...
- Joined
- 27 April 2008
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 126
No he hasn't, I've been watching the thread:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?194837-Hunting-the-Fast-Movers/page8&s=50dfd95d73ed603c79ef859b3d02fc45
According to his Avatar 'Be back Sept.10th'...
He made some big claims, so it looks like time to either put up... or shut up??
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?194837-Hunting-the-Fast-Movers/page8&s=50dfd95d73ed603c79ef859b3d02fc45
According to his Avatar 'Be back Sept.10th'...
He made some big claims, so it looks like time to either put up... or shut up??
aliensporebomb
If it flies, it's probably interesting...
Stargazer2006 said:I think I've said it before, but the original "Aurora" inflight refueling sighting is totally compatible with the design that once appeared in a Hughes advertisement among the many projects the company was subcontracting for at the time, and which has later been refered to by enthusiasts as the "F-121 Sentinel". I seem to recall that the "Sentinel" bit was in reference to a recording in which that codename appeared to designate an aircraft of similar configuration that was spotted taking off at night from a desert facility.
Might this be a mangled reference to "Centennial" / "Sentinel"? Sounds similar.
Kind of similar to how TR3/Tier III was very likely the same thing. If, of course it exists beyond line art in an advertisement.
aliensporebomb
If it flies, it's probably interesting...
Jockular said:
Seems like a real brute force solution to high speed cruise. Turbojets augmented by a rocket would use pre-existing technologies thus avoiding reinventing any wheel except for thermal protection.
But there are a number of questions.
The OP made it seem like this things engines made a J58 equal a Cessna Skymaster in comparison. If that's the case how does a craft that small get from the USA to the UK without needing giant fuel tanks?
Something like this would seem to use a heck of a lot of fuel, no sign of any tanker around and the whole "we will boost almost to orbit then glide to a landing for thousands of miles" seems rather space shuttle like and loses evasive capability on its long landing approach. But it worked for NASA so why not this?
Still the shovel nose (is that front end *really*aerodynamic?) and fact that one of the pics looks like an SR-71 in profile view and the rest like the shuttles' ugly sister and the fact that the strangely named OP has effectively disappeared has me file this one under "unlikely".
There was a picture of what appeared to be this thing at ATS but with a pointed nose. Maybe it jettisons the nose cone? Maybe that contains the rocket fuel? Seems too small though.
All the pics were blurry and indistinct and in this age of 1080p cellphone cameras I have to say "where's the beef?"
- Joined
- 27 April 2008
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 126
aliensporebomb said:
The Spatula nose was very well-researched during the time of the NASP (and it did have its advantages - thermally as I recall). I've also read recently that such a nose could effectively be used as part of the intake system for a high-speed airbreathing engine (the engine arrangement of which would match this alleged configuration).
I'm still interested in this one (of course whilst acknowledging the suspect story plus 2495's vanishing act) but that's because I've always privately believed that in the clear absence of a 'sophisticated' Hypersonic aircraft (eg: an 'Aurora'), the only way to actually get to affordable and operational 'High-Speed' (starting in the mid-to-late eighties/early nineties) would have been sheer brute force.
As an aside, I note that THIS looks like THIS, which is as also seen in the ANSER Paper.
It seems to me that I saw the images posted by "2495" debunked somewhere... But I can't remember exactly where
In specific, the largest image in that composite with the "shovel" nose was shown to be the bottom of an existing aircraft with the upper portion photoshopped out. If my memory serves me there was a comparison next to the picture - not just a picture but the picture - of the aircraft in question that the shop was based on. Also, it seems obvious that the profile silhouette is an SR-71 and the other smaller, grainier pics are either the products of photoshop or maybe a D21, although if they are legit pictures of a D21 in flight I would wonder how they came to be. The pictures of the contrails and the object could literally be any type of aircraft but in this context are apparently meant to add some additional credibility to the overall collage.
I may have seen the debunking on this very forum in another thread, but I couldn't find it.
edit: the main picture in the group is very clearly the underside of a Eurofighter modified to obscure detail. The leading edge flaps are a dead giveaway. I wasn't able to find the picture or source I remembered debunking the image but I am 100% certain it exists.
In specific, the largest image in that composite with the "shovel" nose was shown to be the bottom of an existing aircraft with the upper portion photoshopped out. If my memory serves me there was a comparison next to the picture - not just a picture but the picture - of the aircraft in question that the shop was based on. Also, it seems obvious that the profile silhouette is an SR-71 and the other smaller, grainier pics are either the products of photoshop or maybe a D21, although if they are legit pictures of a D21 in flight I would wonder how they came to be. The pictures of the contrails and the object could literally be any type of aircraft but in this context are apparently meant to add some additional credibility to the overall collage.
I may have seen the debunking on this very forum in another thread, but I couldn't find it.
edit: the main picture in the group is very clearly the underside of a Eurofighter modified to obscure detail. The leading edge flaps are a dead giveaway. I wasn't able to find the picture or source I remembered debunking the image but I am 100% certain it exists.
Similar threads
-
-
SAAB, Svenska Aeroplanaktiebolaget, Svenska Aeroplan AB, Saab AB aircraft list.- Started by blockhaj
- Replies: 39
-