- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,280
- Reaction score
- 3,242
What purpose would a single engine manned wing serve? Surely something that small would be an unmanned drone?
Why would the shadow be hot?
What purpose would a single engine manned wing serve? Surely something that small would be an unmanned drone?
What?Why would the shadow be hot?
Firstly, I never made any claim that it was a crewed craft, because I clearly had/have no way of making any observation/assertion one way or another, but I also stated that in my best estimation, in comparison to the trailing airliner, it was roughly about between 80 to 90 percent of the airliner wingspan of a general A220/A320/B737 type class and configuration, which is certainly anything but "small" and more than large enough to support a crew of at least one. Also, assuming the forward pointing spike to be a fuselage, it most definitely was *not* a flying wing. As to the purpose, all bets/speculations are off - I can only report what I visually observed. I'll try to mock up a visual representation of my sighting, but the pictures you posted have no similarity or relation whatsoever to what I watched fly directly above me, so please don't try to gaslight/troll me.What purpose would a single engine manned wing serve? Surely something that small would be an unmanned drone?
Maybe so. Although the MiG-37 somewhat resembles a very real MiG-1.44. Although probably the MiG-37 is something like the MiG-28 from the movie "Top Gun".The MiG-37 was a model kit. I don't think many people thought it was a model of an actual aircraft, and I believe the box and instructions made it clear that it was hypothetical.
What?
Maybe so. Although the MiG-37 somewhat resembles a very real MiG-1.44. Although probably the MiG-37 is something like the MiG-28 from the movie "Top Gun".
this is a separate technology
Are you nuts?Maybe so. Although the MiG-37 somewhat resembles a very real MiG-1.44.
I have seen several different versions of the MiG-37.Are you nuts?
I concur.These threads are looking more and more like they belong to ATS or Reddit, not SPF.
If I could delete every useless post that contributes nothing in here, this thread would be 5 pages long at max, rather than 14.
And this is something that's going on everywhere, not just in this section...
Still no relevance/similarity to what I saw.
Actually, it was @Bounce's image at #521. I just processed it for further discussion. To the extent that this discussion moved off of @martinbayer's topic, I apologize. Managing this topic would be rather like herding cats, eh wot?Looking at aim9xray's picture,
Agree - but the forum needs to strike a balance between consistently high quality posts and allowing young members and people with newly developing interests to participate or ultimately it dies as we age out.I concur.
Chris
I'm pretty sure he's thinking of the General Dynamics "MiG-2000", which is broadly similar to the MFI in configuration. This was never described as MiG-37 though.Are you nuts?
What purpose would a single engine manned wing serve? Surely something that small would be an unmanned drone?
Attached is a rough sketch representation of my observation as it appeared when passing overhead at fairly high altitude.Firstly, I never made any claim that it was a crewed craft, because I clearly had/have no way of making any observation/assertion one way or another, but I also stated that in my best estimation, in comparison to the trailing airliner, it was roughly about between 80 to 90 percent of the airliner wingspan of a general A220/A320/B737 type class and configuration, which is certainly anything but "small" and more than large enough to support a crew of at least one. Also, assuming the forward pointing spike to be a fuselage, it most definitely was *not* a flying wing. As to the purpose, all bets/speculations are off - I can only report what I visually observed. I'll try to mock up a visual representation of my sighting, but the pictures you posted have no similarity or relation whatsoever to what I watched fly directly above me, so please don't try to gaslight/troll me.
COBRA!!!!A Covert Light Aerial Weapon. Definitely a twin-engine application, though.
Did the same thing - also tried to make a small hot air balloon model (small inflatable toy) look real by flying a kite with a thin string (sewing thread) leading to the top of the balloon and then photographing it from farther away to make the string "vanish". I think we were 8 or 9 years old when we did this. We also had a kid stand on a hill with their hands held flat and had two other kids stand way behind him to look like they were standing on his hands in a fight pose like they were about to attack each other.I don't know the source of the pictures, however, the aircraft in the pictures has the same lines and proportions to the Testor's XR-7 Thunder Dart with the engine pods removed. The model came out in 1993 and the photos surfaced in circa 2005. It is not difficult to fake an aircraft model in flight. When I was a kid I used to build models, place them on the middle of a large pane of glass with a dark sheet on the ground to eliminate ground reflections, and photograph the models from the ground looking up. I was amazed at how real the aircraft looked flying. I imagine a fishing line or some other technique was used to photograph the 'Aurora' model.
So the world's best UFO photo was actually taken by an RAF Press Photographer (either retired or then active, David Clarke doesn't say)... rather coincidental is it not?
The MoD UFO desk guy involved had no idea who the two walkers were, even musing they might have been poachers and yet it was actually an RAF Press man who might have had sufficient MoD contacts (even if he was retired) to send them the photos directly but instead sent them to a tabloid newspaper. You would have thought that having served and signed the Official Secrets Act he might have thought twice about that?
Also, the David Clarke implies six colour photos were taken, the photo above looks black and white to me... (even allowing for low light at 9pm on an early August day and low cloud behind the aircraft).
Just a crazy thought; I wonder if the 'airliner' was actually the NT-43A Radar Test Bed . . .Attached is a rough sketch representation of my observation as it appeared when passing overhead at fairly high altitude.
I don't think so - just like the "tristar", I could clearly make out the airliner silhouette, and it definitely did not have the prominent front and rear radomes of the NT-43A. Based on the airliner maneuvers I observed, it really seemed to me like the airliner crew was checking out a highly unusual aircraft that they came across on a routine flight. Once again, based on its flight path, I believe this craft was intended to be noticed.Just a crazy thought; I wonder if the 'airliner' was actually the NT-43A Radar Test Bed . . .
cheers,
Robin.
I'm concerned that an ordinary commercial flight would be allowed to get so close to another aircraft, although, of course we don't know the vertical separation, purely on safety grounds, hence my suggestion of the NT-43A . . .Once again, based on its flight path, I believe this craft was intended to be noticed.
Hello Robin, you are absolutely correct that I had no way whatsoever to ascertain whatever vertical separation both objects might have had, even though they appeared to progress on near identical flight paths at the same airspeed and both produced contrails, which I understand depend on certain atmospheric conditions dictated by altitude. I wondered as well about what information, if any, local ATC might have had about the tristar object, but given the angular "stealth" appearance of the tristar shape it might not even have registered on any ATC radar. The best way to get more information would be to try to identify the particular commercial flight at that time and location and and track down the flight crew.I'm concerned that an ordinary commercial flight would be allowed to get so close to another aircraft, although, of course we don't know the vertical separation, purely on safety grounds, hence my suggestion of the NT-43A . . .
cheers,
Robin.
Bad CGI, BS statements I'd sayNice CGI, but IMHO no more new information.
Now to me, that's not only highly irresponsible, but probably bordering on the criminal . . .I wondered as well about what information, if any, local ATC might have had about the tristar object, but given the angular "stealth" appearance of the tristar shape it might not even have registered on any ATC radar.
If operating in positively controlled airspace (i.e. Class A, B, C Airspace or above 10,000 feet), you must have a transponder for ATC to know where you are. This is to provide separation between traffic. Otherwise, its see and avoid (under Visual Flight Rules). The F-117A's used to have a retractable antenna and radar reflectors that were explicitly for the purpose of being seen.Don't stealthy aircraft have to be fitted with Luneberg lenses / radar reflectors when operating in commercial airspace
Then it's definitely BS! I have no special access, just opinions.But they quote @Rhinocrates !
For clarification, ATC awareness of the craft was obviously pure speculation on my part, and I did not know of the radar reflector requirement. I apologize for any confusion.Now to me, that's not only highly irresponsible, but probably bordering on the criminal . . .
Don't stealthy aircraft have to be fitted with Luneberg lenses / radar reflectors when operating in commercial airspace under peacetime conditions ?
cheers,
Robin.
Air traffic controllers aim for 1,000 feet vertical separation between IFR flights. For example, a west-bound flight might be assigned 4,000’ but an east-bound flight will be assigned 3,000’I'm concerned that an ordinary commercial flight would be allowed to get so close to another aircraft, although, of course we don't know the vertical separation, purely on safety grounds, hence my suggestion of the NT-43A . . .
cheers,
Robin.
Ninja, could you provide some URL links to the YF-45D metion and Col. Dan Javorsek's bio? If possible, many thanks.Was this year a good year for black aircraft? You be the judge. Here is everything that happened.
-Lockheed teased a high-speed aircraft on Twitter
-YF-45D came to light. Originally popped up on Raymond Marshall's LinkedIn Page
-Rumors of a new drone developed by Lockheed started in the start of November
-The YF-220 and X-273 we're removed from Col. Dan Javorsek's biography
-AF Secretary Frank Kendall acknowledged an precursor program to NGAD that produced prototypes
Happy new year everyone.
YF-45D: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...0QFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3alRzeOWj_vG3K6gNDaRpvNinja, could you provide some URL links to the YF-45D metion and Col. Dan Javorsek's bio? If possible, many thanks.