Pictures Of Mystery Plane Over Wichita

a reply to: MystikMushroom

That reminds me of the Navy's new UAV, the one they were doing carrier tests with recently.

Totally agreed on that one. It's a little uncanny considering it's from 1994.

I think I missed something. Where did all this flying to Maui talk come from? The flight time from Los Angeles to Hawaii is a little over five hours in a commercial airliner. So why would it need supersonic? Not to mention any fighter flying from the US to Hawaii is gonna have a tanker with it and the tanker can't go supersonic...yet.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
How about something like this:

Pic

That looks like what those guys in 1999 described seeing taking off out of groom lake. They had all kinds of cameras though and not one pic. What are the odds...

a reply to: boomer135

Is Bill Sweetman's Black Manta too triangular.

*sorry double post.

a reply to: boomer135

I was referring to a different platform. MM loves going to Hawaii, but hates the flight time to get there. So he was asking if it could get him there faster. A 737 out of Anchorage isn't the most comfortable flight.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ah. I see. And no triangles...

I m not an expert in aero so is it realy difficult to push a triangle shape beyond the speed of sound ?

a reply to: darksidius

It can be done.

originally posted by: darksidius
I m not an expert in aero so is it realy difficult to push a triangle shape beyond the speed of sound ?

From what I understand, a lot more energy is needed to push something with a long leading edge past the bow shock. Better to have something shaped like a needle.

Now, it would be interesting to have a triangle shape rotate 90 degrees as it approaches supersonic, so the smallest acute angle becomes the leading edge, rather than the largest. Be quite a trick to keep is stable, but that's what computers are for, right?

a reply to: boomer135


Yeah bass screwed the pooch on his post there and thought they were saying the f117 companion could fly quicker then a jet liner to Hawaii and got all excited.

Here's my question though. If you're allowed to say. Can the f117 companion make it to Hawaii from the continental USA in less than 5 hours if it didn't need to refuel ?

Best question. The thing I saw. ( zaph knows what I'm talking about) I already know it can make it to Hawaii on far, far, faaaaar less then 5 hours. That was obvious. My question is can it make it from Los Angeles to bali on one tank if gas. Cause if so I then wonder what are my odds in tricking the air force into believing that I know everything about it and will come clean about it if they don't meet my demands to take me to bali immediately. They won't have to worry about picking me up for return trip.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

up-ship.com...

For all I know, these are just drawings done for art and fun though.

Those are all real projects.


Kingfish was a very old project from the same program that ended up being won by the Blackbird family. I don't think a 60 yr old paper design was seen over Wichita recently

a reply to: BASSPLYR

If it didn't need to refuel I think any fighter type aircraft can make it in under five hours. When we dragged fighters across the pond we were scheduled to fly about .80 mach. Now usually they talked us into flying about .89 mach the whole way. Lol. I've been .94 in a tanker before and at that speed some parts of the plane are past mach 1 depending on the altitude. Like where the wings and the body meet. No sonic boom is created, just that is what we were taught. Every hour and a half or so we would refuel them and then the boom would go back to sleep...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yea but the silent part and the contrails don't jive to me. Been rumors of new tech propulsion for a while now. But these contrails look like same old same old to me and does not look silent. Those are serious contrails and simple physics would imply they had noise involved in their creation.

The Bot

P. S. Cool pics, not sure about that flat back though.

a reply to: dlbott

Contrails are formed from either, a decrease in pressure created at the trailing edge of a wing or wingtip, or from the large difference in temperature and/or pressure of the jet engines operating in those lower pressures and colder temps at altitude, which creates water vapor that ultimately results in the long contrails often seen in the skies... Of course, all dependent on the aircraft's altitude and ambient conditions.

Imagine if the jet engines used on these recently spotted flying Doritos, were hydrogen-powered... You'd get similar contrails to that of a typical jet engine, but they would operate more efficiently and most importantly in this case, a lot quieter.

a reply to: dlbott

Contrails have nothing to do with noise, and they form regardless of engine type. It has to do with atmospheric conditions at the altitude they're at.

a reply to: boomer135

Oh boy, I am confused. Why would parts if the plane be going faster than Mach when flying at .94 Mach? Would the whole aircraft be traveling at the same speed? If the fuselage is going .94 Mach and the wings are going .94 Mach why would the part where the wings meet the fuselage be going past Mach 1? There's something im missing.

Also if the plane is traveling say .99 Mach and you sprinted from the aft to the nose if the cockpit would you be traveling faster than Mach ?

I remember Edwards used to do the coolest thing at their airshows back when they still had them. They'd have a b1 do its flight demonstration and then disappear over the horizon. Everyone who had been to the shows before knew what was coming and had their hands over their ears. The joke was on all those that didn't and were looking around bewildered. The b1 would circle back around and do a .90 Mach flyby from the rear over the main hangers at like 500 feet. Was amazing to feel. Just this bassy roar and these deep thumping sounds like mini sonic booms. In fact almost all of Edwards air show was packed with awesomeness. To bad they have to stop the airshows do to all the projects they have going there. Although they claim its due to the economy but I don't believe it.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Because of the way lift works. The air over the top of the wings is already moving faster than the air around the rest of the plane, because of the shape of the wings. So when the rest of the plane is at 0.94, the air going over the wings is going faster, to provide lift, so some of it will be going supersonic. Some of it won't be because of drag on that portion of the wing slows it down.

a reply to: BASSPLYR


It all has to do with air flow, the jet could be flying just under Mach 1 but some of the air racing around the aircraft would be going Mach 1.

If you ran from the boom pod to the cockpit you would be traveling at Mach 0.99 relative to the ground but relative to the aircraft you wouldn't be moving very fast at all.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR

Also if the plane is traveling say .99 Mach and you sprinted from the aft to the nose if the cockpit would you be traveling faster than Mach ?

I think if you ran from the boom to the nose someone would yell at you.