quellish said:
totoro said:
That could almost be a polite way of saying: "come on, bloomberg, cnn, msnbc, whoever - give me a ring and present a "donation" offer"


The donation I meant was to keep this site running. When I see paid sites very obviously sourcing material from here, but not contributing to the operation of the site, I find that distasteful.


And I thought you guys would be more interested in the wings.

I'm sure a bunch of us will donate if you accept my dare and are proven correct.
 
It has wings? Totally not what I expected. I thought they weren't really needed at Mach 5?
 
quellish said:
totoro said:
That could almost be a polite way of saying: "come on, bloomberg, cnn, msnbc, whoever - give me a ring and present a "donation" offer"


The donation I meant was to keep this site running. When I see paid sites very obviously sourcing material from here, but not contributing to the operation of the site, I find that distasteful.


And I thought you guys would be more interested in the wings.

Swing wings....
 
quellish said:
totoro said:
That could almost be a polite way of saying: "come on, bloomberg, cnn, msnbc, whoever - give me a ring and present a "donation" offer"


The donation I meant was to keep this site running. When I see paid sites very obviously sourcing material from here, but not contributing to the operation of the site, I find that distasteful.


And I thought you guys would be more interested in the wings.

It has weird wings!
 
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
weavty1 said:
I found out a few minutes ago, but can't say a word.. Have to wait and talk about it after 5:15, like everyone else. Bleh

That qualifies as "cruel and unusual punishment". :p :D

Seriously, he has TWO posts and you believe that?
What does that have to do with anything? I've been a registered member here now for over two years. Just because one doesn't post, doesn't mean they aren't privy to information.
 
md5sum: 1534F154C9D40B68CE6B3E2ABE58347E

(from http://onlinemd5.com/)

random sentence from: http://watchout4snakes.com/wo4snakes/Random/RandomSentence

and source file attached. ~5 minutes now

See. It's super easy...

And the stream is up...podium is visible
 

Attachments

  • random.txt
    60 bytes · Views: 26
Feed is live, boys.

I know the link has been posted already, but here it is again:
www.defense.gov/live1
 
Tread closed now with the decision being announced !
 
Back in 2012, Boeing in cooperation with Stratasys and using their FDM (fused deposition modeling) machines have produced some interesting test articles...
 

Attachments

  • Boeing - Stratsys FDM inlet duct.jpg
    Boeing - Stratsys FDM inlet duct.jpg
    64.4 KB · Views: 755
flateric said:
Back in 2012, Boeing in cooperation with Stratasys and using their FDM (fused deposition modeling) machines have produced some interesting test articles...

Are you sure that inlet is for a bomber and not something like the MQ-25? The diameter for the powerplant fan looks to be around three feet, which is the right size for the MQ-25. I say that, assuming the inlet shown being assembled is on the benches upside down for construction purposes.
 
It looks a bit bigger than 3ft in diameter; remember that what we're seeing is just half of the intakec(at least where it attaches to the engine); it looks like it'd fit a fan Inlet diameter closer to 4 or maybe 5ft (assuming the guy next to it is close to 6ft tall).
 
Sundog said:
Are you sure that inlet is for a bomber and not something like the MQ-25?
Well. I'm pretty sure that this is NOT MQ-25 inlet. May be SesnorCraft. May be generic test specimen. But for something BIG.
 

Attachments

  • MQ-25 inlet.jpg
    MQ-25 inlet.jpg
    293.2 KB · Views: 633
Dragon029 said:
It looks a bit bigger than 3ft in diameter; remember that what we're seeing is just half of the intakec(at least where it attaches to the engine); it looks like it'd fit a fan Inlet diameter closer to 4 or maybe 5ft (assuming the guy next to it is close to 6ft tall).

Yeah, I see that now. Looks like it's sized for an F-135 class engine.
 
flateric said:
Back in 2012, Boeing in cooperation with Stratasys and using their FDM (fused deposition modeling) machines have produced some interesting test articles...

I wonder if this is related:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2230.msg86398.html#msg86398

Not the same inlet or exhaust, but maybe related work.
 
flateric said:
this is apparently an inlet

I think he's referring to the part of the article where they were testing the entire propulsion system, which would have apparently included a low cost to manufacture inlet. However, it states that system used an F-404 and I think that's too small of a diameter to fit this inlet, since half the radius of the fan appears to be near three feet.
 
Hi! Lockheed Martin called VS-07 NGB LRS-B 2006 Concept Model. Deino-san already posted this model.
Supersonic VG stealth bomber? Engine exhaust gas speed is not so high?

 

Attachments

  • Lockheed Martin called VS-07 NGB LRS-B 2006 Concept Model.jpg
    Lockheed Martin called VS-07 NGB LRS-B 2006 Concept Model.jpg
    106.9 KB · Views: 380
Last edited:
Yes, need to get this goin. Where is the B-1B replacement program?
see STAV/ESAV studies as a basis for a possible future supersonic strike platform if it will ever be funded
 
A
but lately I've caught more than a few whiffs that there's a pretty wide gulf opening between the Boeing folks in Chicago and the Boeing folks everywhere else.
Didn't that prove to be the truth, and then some!
All so the Boeing CEO could walk to see some opera...
 
AW&ST September 27, 1999 pg 57 "B-2 Follow-on Designs Revealed" by David A. Fulghum

Boeing has developed several different concepts to challenge Northrop-Grumman in case a 2015 low-cost bomber program is launched eliminating futuristic tech such as hypersonics:

1) The most unorthodox thinking has gone into developing a commercially derived bomber. One concept is based on Boeing's 767. To meet low-observability, engines are moved into the aft portion of the fuselage with the inlet on top. The vertical tail would be replaced with V-tail. RAM would be applied to the outer fuselage to achieve stealth performance


I wonder if these concepts were starting points for Boeing's "stealthy" 767 concept. Have illustrations of the 2000 concept ever been publicly released? I'm really intrigued as to how exactly a 767 would be made stealthy.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing strategic bomber2.jpg
    Boeing strategic bomber2.jpg
    125.2 KB · Views: 90
  • img0055A.jpg
    img0055A.jpg
    131.9 KB · Views: 71
  • Boeing_bomber_1.jpg
    Boeing_bomber_1.jpg
    19.7 KB · Views: 77
AW&ST September 27, 1999 pg 57 "B-2 Follow-on Designs Revealed" by David A. Fulghum

Boeing has developed several different concepts to challenge Northrop-Grumman in case a 2015 low-cost bomber program is launched eliminating futuristic tech such as hypersonics:

1) The most unorthodox thinking has gone into developing a commercially derived bomber. One concept is based on Boeing's 767. To meet low-observability, engines are moved into the aft portion of the fuselage with the inlet on top. The vertical tail would be replaced with V-tail. RAM would be applied to the outer fuselage to achieve stealth performance


I wonder if these concepts were starting points for Boeing's "stealthy" 767 concept. Have illustrations of the 2000 concept ever been publicly released? I'm really intrigued as to how exactly a 767 would be made stealthy.
IIRC, the second image used 737 wings, engines and tail.
 
Here's a question, what is the next gen bomber after the B-21 going to look like?

56687_arsenal-plane_66042.jpg

Seriously. This is the Air Force's pretty half-assed mockup of an "arsenal plane" from 2016 (B-52 engines mated to a C-130 fuselage, more or less). But I figure it makes sense, in general terms. If the Air Force ends up with 100+ B-21s, they'll have the penetrating bomber mission sorted for a while, and just need to look for a bomb truck.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom