West Texas Spanloader

page: 14
9
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: weavty1

From Figure 1.4, we learn that the 'flying dorito' (mostly completely triangular) shape was considered optimal for the air to ground task. The 'high-agility/moderate-observables' air-to-air proposal looks quite a bit like a Eurofighter, which is exactly what the Eurofighter is.

There must be some fundamental engineering principles governing the shape. Hence my proposal that the flying dorito is designed to take on the missions of the retired F-111, F-117, A-6 (if land-based), and current F-15SE.




posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: weavty1

From Figure 1.4, we learn that the 'flying dorito' (mostly completely triangular) shape was considered optimal for the air to ground task. The 'high-agility/moderate-observables' air-to-air proposal looks quite a bit like a Eurofighter, which is exactly what the Eurofighter is.

There must be some fundamental engineering principles governing the shape. Hence my proposal that the flying dorito is designed to take on the missions of the retired F-111, F-117, A-6 (if land-based), and current F-15SE.


I think you are spot on in that assessment, apparently we'll know in a few months.

I would like to add a few aircraft types to your list: EA-6B and EF-111..
edit on 4/23/2014 by clay2 baraka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Hey I'm just throwing this out there. A little while a go someone made a thread about the Northrop commercial that was recently released. There are some interesting images of aircraft that they put into the commercial. Could it be northrop testing a new bit of kit ?


Although that Boeing looks good



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TAGBOARD

Doesn't anyone else think it's odd how Zaphod58 has been here silent since this post?

Not saying there's a connection, but I'm not saying there isn't either.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Sadly, nothing to do with that post. Truck finally got fixed so I'm back on the road.

And just watching where you guys go with this.
edit on 4/23/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Being that I live kinda close to an active AF base,
I'll keep an eye peeled for overhead crazy flying things.


(jeez, I somehow de-flagged this. Opinion of new layout is, meh.)

I'll just wander off now.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Nice backtracking.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
Check this out:

deepbluehorizon.blogspot.com...


Lol and they expect us to believe that. This statement makes me a little confused
“Given the resolution of this photo, we can’t even tell if it is a military
aircraft, much less an Air Force one,” Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy told USNI News on April 21.

So they can't tell if it's military yet they can say it was a b2 ... Or am I reading that wrong

And if it was a b2 why has it taken them so long to say so



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

They had to wait and make sure to fly some B-2s over the area so they weren't lying.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, right? It only took them 1 1/2 months to come out and say they are B2's after they said they weren't. Total Air Force BS.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

I've seen worse, just not recently. You should have heard them with the Nighthawk. Now THAT was funny.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I guess this is just the Air Force's modus operandi when going white with something.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Pretty much. After all, can't admit it's flying already. They will release things on their schedule, regardless of what's seen.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Would they not be better off just saying they can't comment at this time instead of spinning off a few lines of BS.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

It's the culture of secrecy that's ingrained into them. They think it's better to cover than say no comment.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

I'm just wondering if the press conference took place in Malaysia? (sarcasm)

Secondly (And I know it's a deflecting statement), but if it's NOT military and the Air Force doesn't know.... well that worries me more than any other scenario!

Not really. Just in a funny way.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: emsed1
Secondly (And I know it's a deflecting statement), but if it's NOT military and the Air Force doesn't know.... well that worries me more than any other scenario!


If it's a test aircraft owned by a contractor, then no, it's not military.

If it's an aircraft operated by CIA, then no it's not military.

If it's an aircraft operated by Navy, then Air Force says they don't know about it either.

You will find that non-political unelected employees official US government rarely outright lie in public, but they don't have problems with people jumping to erroneous conclusions and failing to correct them.


originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

It's the culture of secrecy that's ingrained into them. They think it's better to cover than say no comment.


But they did say "no comment" aka "oh the resolution is too low for us to make any comment"

edit on 3-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join