It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pictures Of Mystery Plane Over Wichita

page: 33
134
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazen

originally posted by: weavty1
Refer here for the explanation...



www.abovetopsecret.com...





It's pretty damn cut and dry. No conspiracy here dude.


Well, yeah. I DID see the explanation by those who removed the post. If what was removed WERE something sensitive, wouldn't you expect them to do exactly as they did?

Also, the "DO NOT TALK ABOUT THIS" addendum doesn't exactly clear up the question.

I don't want to talk about the "banned member", just wondering what it was that was posted - you know, as part of the attempted "hoax".

Pretty cut and dry question, dude.

Go back and read the last couple of pages dude... Apparently he posted a [faked] picture, name, or specs of said aircraft that was being discussed over the last few pages.

That's it. Back to the topic of the aircraft seen over Kansas.




posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   


Always loved this picture. Always.

Same time span as the F-117 too. Pity. That could of been a beauty to see - I could see this doing an EF-111 Raven style work up.

What an amazing project for a 'what if' - and if it was pure recon? well, maybe a differing designation?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Astr0

Nice Wikipedia style write up of it here:

www.infomercantile.com...



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Astr0
Lol, that's a classic for sure! Nice link btw, Sammamishman!



So, I have an idea about the aircraft seen over Kansas... Is there anyway that it or the one seen over Amarillo, was also spotted in the 90's over the same areas?

I stumbled upon a thread talking about a similar sighting, in the exact area, nearly 20yrs prior... Let me go find it and I'll post it into this comment in an edit.



*edit*

Link to the thread, mentioned above, as promised

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 5/17/2014 by weavty1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/17/2014 by weavty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
yeah - I'd go with the F-117 style numbering too. Decent 'what if', but you can see the advances in LO down the years.

What a fleet the USAF could of had huh? Now? now its 182 F22sand 18 B2B's out in the white. Sad days.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Astr0
Wait .. What. Is that a real photo .. What is that ?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

No it's not a real photo..its not designated as an f-19 and even the boneyard pics were proven to be faked.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

No it's not a real photo..its not designated as an f-19 and even the boneyard pics were proven to be faked.


This why I have clearly stated 'what if' upon it.

Sorry for any and all misunderstanding. It is a montage, a make believe image. I do love it though as it has a certain panache to the flow and swirl of the airframes lines.







edit on 17-5-2014 by Astr0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Astr0

Yeah sorry astr0 I was just answering the other guys question!!



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Astr0

I remember that plane...

I had a Testor's model of it when I was a little kiddo. I believe it was called a "stealth fighter". Interesting design, certainly ahead of it's time. In fact, it still looks "futuristic" 20+ odd years later!



posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Astr0

I remember that plane...

I had a Testor's model of it when I was a little kiddo. I believe it was called a "stealth fighter". Interesting design, certainly ahead of it's time. In fact, it still looks "futuristic" 20+ odd years later!


Yeah, too bad the physics is wrong.

As you can see by visiting any aiport today, the wingtips need to be turned upwards to ameliorate the wingtip vortex.

And down is bad for rough landings too, one bounce and you'll scrape all that expensive paint off the tips and then Dad will be steaming mad.

More seriously, it sure looks like delta wings and triangles are what engineering says works.

Also I noticed that Hollywood "Aircraft" have canards on the same plane or lower as the main wing, but in actual aircraft, they're significantly higher and in uglier locations (e.g. typhoon, J-20



edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Astr0

Very decent what if right there lol



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Astr0

I remember that plane...

I had a Testor's model of it when I was a little kiddo. I believe it was called a "stealth fighter". Interesting design, certainly ahead of it's time. In fact, it still looks "futuristic" 20+ odd years later!


Yeah, too bad the physics is wrong.

As you can see by visiting any aiport today, the wingtips need to be turned upwards to ameliorate the wingtip vortex.

And down is bad for rough landings too, one bounce and you'll scrape all that expensive paint off the tips and then Dad will be steaming mad.

More seriously, it sure looks like delta wings and triangles are what engineering says works.

Also I noticed that Hollywood "Aircraft" have canards on the same plane or lower as the main wing, but in actual aircraft, they're significantly higher and in uglier locations (e.g. typhoon, J-20


Boeing [YF-118G] Bird of Prey


North American Aviation [XB-70] Valkyrie



(you can see how eerie things could get with these type of experimental wing configurations, on landing! Holy cow!)

The reason behind their dynamic adjusting wing tips:

North American Aviation (NAA) improved on the [plane's] basic concept by adding a set of drooping wing tip panels that were lowered at high speed. This helped trap the shock wave under the wing between the down-turned wing tips, and also added more vertical surface to the aircraft to improve directional stability at high speeds. NAA's solution had an additional advantage, as it decreased the surface area of the rear of the wing when the panels were moved into their high-speed position. This helped offset the rearward shift of the center of pressure, or "average lift point", with increasing speeds. Under normal conditions this caused an increasing nose-down trim, which had to be offset by moving the control surfaces, increasing drag. When the wing tips were drooped the surface area at the rear of the wings was lowered, moving the lift forward and counteracting this effect, reducing the need for control inputs.
Source


Interesting read on that, actually.


Anywho, sorry to temporarily derail the thread... lol


BACK on topic!

edit on 5/20/2014 by weavty1 because: fixed source link

edit on 5/20/2014 by weavty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ATBspirit

Hey welcome to the aviation world!



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
What I can't figure out is if these are still being tested, or are these mysterious craft actually being used and just a very well kept secret.

What is the point of testing a plane for 10+ years and then revealing it, only to retire it a couple more years later?

And if some of these planes are being used, why haven't more people in contested areas (Afghanistan/Pakistan) seen them?

Sometimes I think our black budget is nothing more than a slush fund for the egg heads to play around with



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

These, at least some of them are not for low threat environments. You don't want to bring them out for something like Afghanistan or Iraq.

There are however several more UAVs that are perfect for that kind of environment.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Thanks mate, long time reader first time poster



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I think they probably test it for a while and then if it goes operational and the technology is still pretty cutting edge then there's no point in declassifying it.

The trick is to catch it in testing or just before, because it's funny how some technology will do great during testing then all of a sudden lose funding.

There's been plenty of articles on left handed metamaterials bending light around an object making it invisible, you could make an aircraft skin out of it and you'd have an invisible aircraft. PhantomWorks got a contract to do a working model of it although you won't find that on the internet anymore.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I never would have thought that Iraq or Afghanistan counted as low threat environments. Is that just because there is no threat of air combat and only of ground to air ordnance? So those are fighter jets or spy planes/ewar? Sorry for probably using wrong terminology I don't really know the subject that well.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ATBspirit

That's interesting stuff. When ya'll talk about making a skin for aircraft is that a technical term for paint or with these new technologies are they applied differently like how you wrap cars or something similar?







 
134
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join