Johnbr ACCESS: Top Secret Joined 6 May 2007 Messages 752 Reaction score 283 30 August 2012 #1 http://www.space.com/17393-supersonic-flying-wing-nasa.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceheadlines+%28SPACE.com+Headline+Feed%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo Got this on my site today. Attachments supersonic-flying-wing-02.jpg 46.3 KB · Views: 675
http://www.space.com/17393-supersonic-flying-wing-nasa.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceheadlines+%28SPACE.com+Headline+Feed%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo Got this on my site today.
blackkite Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but..... Joined 31 May 2007 Messages 8,286 Reaction score 5,840 30 August 2012 #2 Hmmm...., Mach 3 class? Tokyo locate far east. Best target for such a aircraft. ;D Ninja(忍者) Shuriken(手裏剣)! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEEugNfefAA Attachments ninja and shuriken.jpg 36 KB · Views: 582
Hmmm...., Mach 3 class? Tokyo locate far east. Best target for such a aircraft. ;D Ninja(忍者) Shuriken(手裏剣)! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEEugNfefAA
Kryptid ACCESS: Secret Joined 12 March 2009 Messages 276 Reaction score 33 31 August 2012 #3 That is bizarre. It must be more than just a crazy idea if NASA is giving it funding, though. I'm wondering how pitch and yaw are to be controlled.
That is bizarre. It must be more than just a crazy idea if NASA is giving it funding, though. I'm wondering how pitch and yaw are to be controlled.
O ouroboros ACCESS: Secret Joined 1 February 2008 Messages 353 Reaction score 20 1 September 2012 #4 This would be kinda interesting as a UCAV instead, like that Northrop design. It's one branch of the oblique flying wing development tree certainly.
This would be kinda interesting as a UCAV instead, like that Northrop design. It's one branch of the oblique flying wing development tree certainly.
blackkite Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but..... Joined 31 May 2007 Messages 8,286 Reaction score 5,840 1 September 2012 #5 Engine seems to be very small. Wing is very thick and draggy. Really mach3 class transport? I think B2707-300 and L2000-7 had more powerful engine. Attachments l20007a.jpg 1 MB · Views: 451
Engine seems to be very small. Wing is very thick and draggy. Really mach3 class transport? I think B2707-300 and L2000-7 had more powerful engine.
Orionblamblam ACCESS: USAP Top Contributor Senior Member Joined 5 April 2006 Messages 11,795 Reaction score 9,314 Website www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com 1 September 2012 #6 blackkite said: Engine seems to be very small. Click to expand... It may be that there are additional engines fixed into the underside optimized for high speed flight. Keep in mind, this is basically a student design.
blackkite said: Engine seems to be very small. Click to expand... It may be that there are additional engines fixed into the underside optimized for high speed flight. Keep in mind, this is basically a student design.
XP67_Moonbat ACCESS: Top Secret Joined 16 January 2008 Messages 2,246 Reaction score 375 1 September 2012 #7 Be funny if they thought up design that looked like a Cylon Basestar. Now that would actually be pretty cool.
Be funny if they thought up design that looked like a Cylon Basestar. Now that would actually be pretty cool.
blackkite Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but..... Joined 31 May 2007 Messages 8,286 Reaction score 5,840 1 September 2012 #8 Hi! You mean this one? Cool!! Attachments Basestar_cylon.jpg 46.3 KB · Views: 324
XP67_Moonbat ACCESS: Top Secret Joined 16 January 2008 Messages 2,246 Reaction score 375 2 September 2012 #9 That's the one.