The secret program to hide a secret program, as told by an F-14 RIO.

a reply to: StargateSG7

I stand my word.

It's the Horten XIIIa, and yes, it was a glider indeed. Look here

Pic on the ground:
www.nurflugel.com...

Pic in flight:
www.nurflugel.com...

And schematics:
www.nurflugel.com...

However that countryside in the photos looks a lot more like 1950's USA than 1940's bombed up Germany...

The fact that the Horten XIIIa was built and tested in 1943 should answer that...

a reply to: StargateSG7

I SHOULD NOTE HOWEVER....that this type of design CAN FLY
as the Horten Brothers of the 1940's seem to have PROVED!

This means the First image I have shows MIGHT be real
and might actually BE ABLE TO FLY! ... with enough
fly-by-wire computer horsepower though....

Even a "Lawnmower" can fly these days...

See video of flying "Lawnmover":
www.youtube.com...

...or...

RC Star Wars Tie Fighter Interceptor!
www.youtube.com...

and my FAVORITE:

The Flying Christmas Tree!
www.youtube.com...

Is the first image real?...it looks real ENOUGH to me!

Could it Fly? Based upon the Youtube Videos....HECK YEAH!
probably pretty well too !!!!

a reply to: StargateSG7

I knew about the Horten brothers but after seeing their
OTHER aircraft on that website you have linked to, I had
NO IDEA how advanced they were when it came to their
Bat-Wing such as the HO XVIII (HO-18 design) craft or the
SEVENTY TON flying wing transport! ...or even their
HO PARABEL (flying parabola) which seems to NOW make
more sense to me as to the WEIRD aircraft and "UFO" sightings
I kept hearing about for the last few decades...the witnesses
that I've read about in the last 20 years NOW SEEM to be
describing Horten Bat-Wing and Parabolic aircraft designs
in new forms that are probably built by Lockheed and Northrup!

The connections are building up ... and it DEFINITELY SEEMS
some pretty advanced aircraft designs ORIGINALLY create in
1940's Germany are JUST ONLY NOW being made operational
and/or flyable!

Below is a list of all aircraft shapes that as of 1995
were being considered for full production or at least
testing phases:

The 1995 study is called:

Investigation into the Impact of Agility
in Conceptual Fighter Design
by R.M. Engelbeck (Boeing Defense & Space Group in Seattle WA)


Proposed Agile Aircraft Shapes:
Icon size Link:



Full Size Image for
Proposed Agile Aircraft Shapes
files.abovetopsecret.com...

There's other report versions created by Northrup and Lockheed employees
for OTHER bomber and agile aircraft designs which I remember seeing a copy
of their reports in my files somewhere...I'll have to find them. Those designs
are far more radical than Boeing's evaluation of the 1995-era and before designs.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Glad you said it before me. Now I don't have to keep that promise to an old friend.

Thanks Big Z!

originally posted by: gfad
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Yeah that's true.

I guess the reason I was asking in the first place is to get a handle on whether there is a precedent for black aircraft to be making overflights of foreign territory whilst still in the black. The F117 was considered too secret to use before Panama so I assume it wasn't flying transatlantic before then either. Now people did report seeing it over Nevada but that's different. We've now had several plausible sightings recently either over the southern/eastern US, and speculation they're flying transatlantic for operations. Based on the lack of precedent I'd conclude they're all ISR platforms...

Well, in the fall of 1987, I saw three F-117's flying in echelon formation over central Massachusetts (heading east in the VERY early morning hours, silhouetted against a moonlit layer of thin clouds above. It wasn't until I saw my first view of it on the news that I stood and shouted (at the TV), "...now THAT IS WHAT I SAW!!!" At the time I saw them, they were still in the black. This was why I could not ID them at the time, and neither could any of my friends...except one (which I discovered later).

The only way this is a real photo is if its a picture taken of an artists drawing somewhere. Its not a real photo of an actual aircraft. somebody drew it on a piece of paper, then used a 35 mm camera to take a pic of the drawing.

originally posted by: boomer135

The only way this is a real photo is if its a picture taken of an artists drawing somewhere. Its not a real photo of an actual aircraft. somebody drew it on a piece of paper, then used a 35 mm camera to take a pic of the drawing.

---

I was told in a later message from my German friend
that this is INDEED the case. In fact, it was specified
to me VERY CLEARLY that the craft above was taken as
a 35mm still photo of a final plan-form artist's rendering
done for a final evaluation in 1989 in an OHIO test facility
(is it Wright Patterson?).

It was clearly stated to me that the 35mm photo was
taken in the YEAR 1989 and that on the original plan
form document are blueprint-like borders with names
of engineering personal KNOWN to be working at
Lockheed at that time (i'll try to get the actual names!)

I suspect the "rendering" I received is probably
a cut-out copy of the blue print likely edited
to remove names, part/plan numbers or program data
which could identify the original photographer.

PLEASE DO NOTE AND REMEMBER that the rendering
I got was the craft on a solid white back ground.
(a version was posted earlier!)

I personally ADDED the groom lake background for fun!

The EXIF data in the White background JPEG photo indicates
it's a Corel Draw/Photopaint JPEG-saved document (which I also use
and of course is much more popular in Europe than in North America
which tends to use Adobe Photoshop!), so again I believe a cut-out
was made to remove the original background and other identifying data.

It was ALSO made clear to me a voice recording of a chase plane operator
was also made AROUND that time 1989 communicating with a secretive
plane with the code word/call sign "Blue Diamond". No specification on
the PLACE of the recording was made.

The later images sent by other users and further research by me indicates
IDENTICAL aircraft designs and shapes which means the U.S. likely
got the Horton XIII plans and have been TRYING FOR DECADES to get
them to fly! With modern flight control computers I see no reason
why the first image couldn't fly! To prove my theory I could probably
build a model of the craft out of foam and see what it does in the
real world...probably would take me less than 3 days to do because
the shape seems so simple!

a reply to: StargateSG7

Please ALSO NOTE I believe the Windows were
added LATER since there is NO film grain in that
area and the edging looks all wrong.

I made a copy of the photo and added what I believe
are the TRUE window shapes which NOW LOOK RIGHT TO ME!
(See earlier posts for MY version with proper and stealthier window shapes!)

I suspect this was done to HIDE the true window shape so as
to prevent identification of the photographer due to a likely
design change which might place the photo in a particular
place and time.

a reply to: StargateSG7

----

As a Proof-of-Concept, I have attempted to duplicate the aircraft design
as illustrated in my first aircraft post. In fact, it was TRIVIALLY EASY to do
and based upon certain elements within the wing design, my concept drawings
have enhancements to the original craft. These additions are what I think is a
MORE REAL visualization of an operational or test RECON or ECM platform.
These enhancements are illustrated below.

AND...based upon certain issues with the non-uniformity of the original
drawing, I am lead to believe it MAY BE FROM as early as 1989 as was
originally outlined to me by my German contact.

I simply made a screen capture of the craft, pasted it into Corel Draw
and copied the outline turning the BITMAP artwork into VECTOR OUTLINES.
This transformation made one large issue come to the forefront on an
immediate basis. The original artwork is NON-UNIFORM where the left sides
and right sides of the craft DO NOT MATCH when compared to a uniform grid
(i.e. Snap to Grid function). This means the original artist did NOT have
a snap to grid function when DRAWING the craft which WOULD MEAN a
very early piece of 2D vector software such as Adobe illustrator which
first appeared in 1987 on a Macintosh platform...OR...it means that
the aircraft drawing IS INDEED a photograph of a planform blueprint
in which the camera taking the photo is NOT ON AN EVEN PLANE
which means it was a HANDHELD-taken photo which give FURTHER
credence that the image could be a photograph of an artists concept
rendering.

I ALSO BELIEVE that due to the non-uniformity of the left-and-right
side of the drawing BUT that the curves on the rear trailing edges
of wing are fairly symmetrical, it means COMPUTER SOFTWARE was
used rather than hand drawing. I also believe that the non-uniformity
is due to the unavailable of a "snap-to-grid" function which indicates
to me REALLY EARLY vector drawing software like late 80's era
Adobe Illustrator or the late 80's/early 1990's Deneba Canvas
2D vector drawing products. Based on the stair-stepping
i see in the lines (i.e. line aliasing) i'm guessing a dot-matrix
print-out which means pre-cheap laser printer 1990's and before era!

When I increase the contrast and increase saturation on the
original image, it becomes evident that a FILM GRAIN is present
which gives even MORE credence that the image is a PHOTOGRAPH!
and the type of film grain present is from something like 35mm film.

Most people I know, gave up film cameras by the late 1990's
or early 2000's ...AND...since the grain present is so LARGE,
I think it was from a time period where precision-fine-grain
consumer film was NOT AVAILABLE...which means the 1980's
or earlier!

As a test, I pasted some rough-cut paper together
to match the paper design. And while nose heavy
the design FLIES...pretty well too if you curve the
trailing edges DOWN or UP. If the UNDERBODY was
in some way sculpted or faceted it might help final
stability.

In terms of real-world stability on a continuous basis,
a pretty high-end flight control computer would be
needed...BUT as based my paper version, I believe
this image is a WORKABLE FLIGHT BODY DESIGN!


See My ENHANCED CHARACTERISTICS version
of this "Blue Diamond" aircraft. Done in Coreldraw
where I removed the rear "engine nozzle/landing gear fairing"
and added some stealthier slotted turbo-fan outlets and some
extra flight control surfaces on trailing edges and better windows.
I also did what I THINK are the front and side views.

Small Size Image Link:


Full Size Image Link
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Have a look and give me your opinions on what should be
added or taken away. I can make changes and show the updates here!

On a final note, I think its a pretty SWEET-LOOKING AIRCRAFT
which looks lean'n'mean and ready for action!

If I was the USAF, I'd buy it!

a reply to: StargateSG7

I'm afraid you're ascribing properties to this design that simply aren't there.

Your aircraft isn't a Lockheed stealth drone, it's a a Horten MANNED glider., the Ho XIII. The area you highlight as being a thrust vectoring nozzle is in fact the rear of the cockpit on this aircraft. It's suspended beneath the centre of gravity to balance the arrowhead shaped glider, Which is why it's not apparent in the photograph. Here is a diagram;



I believe the original picture you received was photoshopped from a series of photographs taken from directly above it, like the one below.



You don't have a secret stealth drone here, you have an experimental wartime glider and in it, you have seen what you wanted to see.

The aim of Hortens work in developing these pure form flying wings (plus the work of Lippisch, Northrop, Hill etc) was not to make "advanced" aircraft in the srnse that you seem to be implying, it was a search for the most efficient and low drag form of aircraft. The Pterodactyl series of tailless swept wing aircraft designed by G.T.R. Hill were powered aircraft ranging from tourers to fighters built and flown in the 1930's, so there would be no reason at all for the US to spend decades getting this thing to fly, it already works. The reason it was a glider was because it was for aerodynamic research, not a secret warplane. it's purpose was to validate the theories behind those other designs you've now seen, but of course time ran out before they could be built.

Also, did you know that Northrop built and flew two B-2 sized flying wing strategic bombers before 1950? The piston engined XB-35 and jet powered YB-49 were essentially the same design as each other. It's not about stealth, it's just aerodynamics. The tailless swept flying wing concept has existed since the Wright brothers, see;

1949 Northrop YB-49



[b1910 Dunne biplane



The principles behind these and the Hortens are the same. Naturally our ability to build smooth cantilevered designs was lacking in 1910. The stealth drone characteristics you ascribe to the Horten design are purely borne of hindsight and our recent knowledge of such aircraft due to their visual similarity, so yes, you can make it fit when you try, but it wasn't a feature of the original design.

This tailless "Pterodactyl" four seat light cabin aircraft was flying in 1935;

a reply to: waynos

I have had your summations pointed out to
Me by other posters...and...i have known about
The YB-49 for some time now...I AGREE with much of your post, however there is some considerable evidence of the first image that was sent to me being a 35 mm photograph of a blueprint-like drawing and that the photograph was TRULY taken during the year 1989.
.
I suspect the Horton glider was a KNOWN item back then and the Horten design was extended from those diagrams into a workable aircraft.
.
I have already acknowledged in previous posts that YES it is a Horten-like design...BUT...that still raises the question of WHY is there a photograph of an artist rendering that can be reliably said to be from the year 1989 even around?...not to mention that there seems to be a "proof", which i am currently trying to verify, of a plan-form document with the names of 1980's era Lockheed engineers attached to it? WHY would Lockheed want to even request that an artist rendering be done for those engineers in question. (note: I do not have those names yet! --- Will share when I do get them!)
.
Final artist renders sent out as blueprint-like documents INDICATE a viable working design and are not just made for fun....they are made for final approval puposes at a high level. ERGO, a full size or scale mockup was actually approved and built for testing purposes....OR...a final artist render was done for sending to a high level design lock-in and manufacturing approval committee
for building an operational platform!

a reply to: StargateSG7

To suggest that a 1940's glider was used as a basis for a 1990's stealth drone is actually a huge disservice to modern designers. There may well be an unknown aircraft that resembles the platform of the Ho XIII, but that doesn't mean it would be based on it.

Can you show the evidence of which you speak? Having not seen it, of course I remain to be convinced but, obvious possibilities include that it was just mocked up for a bit of fun (you say not, but why not?) and also that, even if it can be absolutely verified that the photograph was, indeed shot in 1989, it's says nothing about when the subject of the photograph was drawn. I could take a photo with my modern DSLR of my 1902 FPK camera that would be dated at 2015 by the exif data, it won't make my FPK a modern fake, if you follow my drift.

a reply to: waynos

Northrop built the Horton flying wing as an RCS model to see what it would have looked like if it flew in the Battle of Britain. I can see them building it as an experiment.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm sure they did, in an investigative way. There may well have been things they could learn and apply in their own work, mathematical things like the bell shaped lift principle for example. To me, an aircraft being based on another means you take the original aircraft, including its structure, and adapt it. Starting out with the same goals and ending up with a similar looking machine is not the same thing. IMO.

Example, the Martin RB-57F is based on the BAC Canberra, being an adapted conversion of the same design, but the Mirage 2000 is not based on the Mirage III, as it was a clean sheet of paper design with a visual resemblance to its predecessor, but containing nothing materially from it.

Anyhow, I think this drone as proposed here was just a case of someone using their imagination on an interesting looking design.

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: waynos

however there is some considerable evidence of the first image ... was TRULY taken during the year 1989.

that still raises the question of WHY is there a photograph of an artist rendering that can be reliably said to be from the year 1989 even around?

Based on these statements I have to question what you consider reliable evidence. Seriously .... the only evidence you have that the photo was taken in 89 is the fact that the lines aren't symmetrical and your estimation of the film grain.

This is not a Lockheed drone from the 80's, it is a German glider from the 40s.

And we haven't even got onto the fact that the engine doesn't have an intake...

originally posted by: gfad

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: waynos

however there is some considerable evidence of the first image ... was TRULY taken during the year 1989.

that still raises the question of WHY is there a photograph of an artist rendering that can be reliably said to be from the year 1989 even around?

Based on these statements I have to question what you consider reliable evidence. Seriously .... the only evidence you have that the photo was taken in 89 is the fact that the lines aren't symmetrical and your estimation of the film grain.

This is not a Lockheed drone from the 80's, it is a German glider from the 40s.

And we haven't even got onto the fact that the engine doesn't have an intake...

----

I do understand the DESIGN is from the 1940's...IT IS A PRETTY GOOD
DESIGN TOO! ...AND.... I do understand it is a GLIDER...that DOES NOT
rule out LATER design studies and/or flyable TEST systems used to verify
the integrity of the original Horten designs. Based upon the imagery
I have seen, the Horten design has been modified to a testable system
either at a scale model stage or a full mockup. The EXTREME LEVEL
of faceting and the sharp-hard chines (edges) indicates to me a
1980's era Lockheed aircraft design.

While Waynos has pointed out the OTHER possibilities of WHY
such an artists rendering would be done, I should also note
that as a videographer who has had the unusual experience
of video recording at least 2500 HOURS of legal proceedings
and thus have not only LEARNED some of the RULES OF EVIDENCE,
but I have also learned about HOW someone tries to verify
evidence. It is TRUE that someone could have taken a
photograph with any old camera of any old artists rendering,
but from what I "understand" (i.e. as being told but NOT YET
having seen the negatives personally!) the evidence suggests
it is identifiable film and there are evidential markings on the
negative used to make a supposition of it's likely manufacture
date AND other evidence to support a supposition and narrowing
down of the FILM PROCESSING date to somewhere in 1989!
.
On a technical basis, I can RULE OUT the year 1995 and above
because of the SIZE OF THE GRAIN which is very coarse!
This indicates poor lighting conditions with a lack of full exposure
(i.e. a noisy image) AND/OR a type of consumer-level 35mm film
that was available only EARLIER than 1995 or when FINER-GRAIN
35mm film become the norm and before the digital revolution
made film obsolete. Because the LINES are mostly crisp, I can
rule out lack of exposure and thus have to PERSONALLY CONCLUDE
that the film grain is see is due to the AGE of the film rather than
an exposure (noisy image) problem.

And some of the reasons WHY i mention film grain is because
I have PERSONALLY transferred a heck of a lot of it to video!
(at least 1.5 MILLION FEET OF FILM!) 35mm, 16mm, 8mm and
other specialty formats). I can tell the grain style differences
between Fuji, Kodak, AGFA, 3M, etc. I am very familiar how
grain changes when scanned in at various resolutions using
Telecine, Flat-Bed and Drum Scanners at resolutions from
75 dots per inch all the way to 9600 DPI. I have also seen
the effects of EXPOSURE (i.e. F-and-T-stops) and exposure
TIME (1/10,000/sec per frame to 10 minutes per frame)
and its effects on grain presentation under various
lighting conditions.
.
And with my video, graphics arts and programming background,
I can tell the first image has a type of badly blended greyscale
fountain fill used to give depth on the facets that is CONSISTENT
with EARLY vector drawing programs PREVIOUS to 1995.

The FILM GRAIN pattern is also consistent with an analogue
non-linear process and NOT the usual Adobe Photoshop
or Corel Photopaint or MacPaint add-noise functions
which tend to have ALGORITHMICALLY placed grain
placement and algorithmic luminance/chroma valuation
which is EASILY identifiable under forensic-quality analysis.
This is how you can figure out whether film grain was added
AFTER an exposure and even find out WHICH program made the
fake film grain...YOU CHECK...the film grain placement pattern
and pixels shapes against KNOWN drawing and paint programs
to see if they match! The film grain I see is non-linear and
truly randomized in placement AND luminance (i.e. not a Gaussian
or linear luminance/chroma value increase or decrease)
.
When I "edit out" the fountain film blend pattern,
"Behind That Blend Pattern" is film grain and a skewed
image...this give LOW-LEVEL credence to it being
a photograph of a computer artist-rendered 2D-vector
drawn representation.
.
I took some construction paper and made a copy of the design.
It flew. Especially if you turn the trailing edges UPWARDS!
Yes it was nose heavy...BUT IT STILL FLEW!
.
SOMEBODY has an interest in this design and MAKING IT WORK!
WHO, WHY, WHERE and WHEN?

a reply to: StargateSG7

The EXTREME LEVEL of faceting and the sharp-hard chines (edges) indicates to me a 1980's era Lockheed aircraft design.

You claimed it had a Northrop influence before, now it's Lockheed?

the Horten design has been modified to a testable system either at a scale model stage or a full mockup

As pointed by Waynos before, this is a disservice to modern day designers. It's like saying a Rolls Royce and a Toyota have a similar design based on the fact that they both have 4 wheels, 4 doors and an engine.

I can tell the first image has a type of badly blended greyscale fountain fill used to give depth on the facets that is CONSISTENT with EARLY vector drawing programs PREVIOUS to 1995.

As far as i know, vector drawing programs have no use in the aviation industry, apart from rendering for marketing purposes. And, before they were common enough, artist impressions and what not were hand drawn pretty much the same way you can see in page 6 in a post by SpeedFanatic.

I took some construction paper and made a copy of the design. It flew. Especially if you turn the trailing edges UPWARDS! Yes it was nose heavy...BUT IT STILL FLEW!

Right...ok...why the skies aren't full of aircrafts with this shape then?



Again, as someone pointed you out before, calm down man. Because you just want to see a real secret aircraft project where there really isn't any proof of one, and you're just making claims that fit with your own assumptions. You don't have sightnings.
You don't have technical papers.
There's nothing. Really.
And i don't want to hurt your feelings but you just have a drawing that even a child could do.

And that's nothing close enough to start speculating from.

I give you the benefit of doubt that you're not trying to troll us, but if you really are so oblivious about it then i suspect the one that sent you this picture is just pulling your legs without you realizing it.

originally posted by: CiTrus90
a reply to: StargateSG7

The EXTREME LEVEL of faceting and the sharp-hard chines (edges) indicates to me a 1980's era Lockheed aircraft design.

=====

the Horten design has been modified to a testable system either at a scale model stage or a full mockup

As pointed by Waynos before, this is a disservice to modern day designers. It's like saying a Rolls Royce and a Toyota have a similar design based on the fact that they both have 4 wheels, 4 doors and an engine.

I can tell the first image has a type of badly blended greyscale fountain fill used to give depth on the facets that is CONSISTENT with EARLY vector drawing programs PREVIOUS to 1995.

As far as i know, vector drawing programs have no use in the aviation industry, apart from rendering for marketing purposes. And, before they were common enough, artist impressions and what not were hand drawn pretty much the same way you can see in page 6 in a post by SpeedFanatic.

I took some construction paper and made a copy of the design. It flew. Especially if you turn the trailing edges UPWARDS! Yes it was nose heavy...BUT IT STILL FLEW!

Right...ok...why the skies aren't full of aircrafts with this shape then?

Again, as someone pointed you out before, calm down man. Because you just want to see a real secret aircraft project where there really isn't any proof of one, and you're just making claims that fit with your own assumptions. You don't have sightnings.
You don't have technical papers.
There's nothing. Really.
And i don't want to hurt your feelings but you just have a drawing that even a child could do.

And that's nothing close enough to start speculating from.

I give you the benefit of doubt that you're not trying to troll us, but if you really are so oblivious about it then i suspect the one that sent you this picture is just pulling your legs without you realizing it.

=====

You claimed it had a Northrop influence before, now it's Lockheed?

=====

The ORIGINAL HORTEN design to me LOOKS very Northrup-y because of it's
smooth wing curvature and soft chines. You haven't read my post fully!
I am saying the white coloured chevron-shaped craft I ASSUMED was a
Northrup design because it looked so "Modern" and smooth. That is the
2nd IMAGE which I found during a web search which another poster
pointed out was actually a Horten brothers design form the 1940's.
In later years from 1948 to 1990 Northrup became quite focused
on smooth-shaped blended wing body aircraft which culminated
in the B2 Spirit Bomber and some recent drones.

Lockheed in recent decades has TENDED to do hard faceted
or hard-chined aircraft that make for their design team signature
(i.e. F35, F22, F117a, drones etc) It actually kinda makes it easy
to tell if a new craft is designed by Northrup OR Lockheed OR Boeing!

Hard Chines and Facets = Lockheed (F117a/F22/F35)
Smooth Curves and Blended Wing = Northrup (B2)
Plain Ugly Bird = Boeing PhantomWorks (X-32/Scan Eagle)

The FIRST image i presented, is OBVIOUSLY a derivative of that
original Horten design and in fact when one does an ortho-rectification
of the photographs presented to me, it is OBVIOUS the Horten designs
were LITERALLY traced over using a vector program.
.
And again, I indicate that the FIRST image is LIKELY an artist
rendering using computers and is NOT hand-drawn! Based on
the greyscale blend pattern I see, I'm saying it was done using
late 1980's version of Deneba's Canvas!

It is TRUE that Plan form artist renderings tended to be hand-drawn
BUT I do remember the MACINTOSH was starting to get popular in-house
at LMCO/Northrup. It wasn't an approved platform, but I do remember
seeing a few around at least in the early 1990's days which means
they were there even earlier than that!

And regarding Vector drawing programs, almost EVERYONE I KNOW
uses CATIA or NX Unigraphics which are CAD/CAM/CAE programs
and expensive as all h^^^ but I see Corel Draw, Adobe Illustrator
and Autodesk Inventor all the time at Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier/Canadair,
Embraer, LMCO, Northrup and others but they are usually used for initial
and INFORMAL design proposal meetings or for marketing material
purposes! In the mid stages it goes all CATIA or NX Unigraphics CAD-CAM-CAE!

---

A child could do this?

That's the Point! It's an INCREDIBLY SIMPLE DESIGN!

Those Horten Brothers were on to something!

Sometimes the best designs are child-like simple!

It works! It's a GOOD initial design...it just needs some
tweaks and a decently FAST flight control computer
to make it truly stable.

I do must agree that without me SEEING IN PERSON
any negatives or what is purported to be engineers names
attached to a blue-print like drawing, I can make no
claim as to authenticity, but I CAN SAY that somebody
went to an awful lot of trouble to make me believe
the image is from a specific time period! Why?
What's the point? I haven't seen the image
in Aviation Leak or in of Jane's publications
or in any other grapevine.

And finally I should note the design actually FLIES pretty well
when you put curved up or down winglets on the trailing
part of the wings. This type of chevron design is INHERENTLY
unstable and if you have any sort of flight experience, in a
military craft you WANT instability for maneuverability purposes.
A decent flight control computer can almost make a BRICK fly!
The ONLY issues nowadays is to maximize stealth, range,
speed and ordinance capacity. Based on the faceting,
and the simplistic nature it's not just stealth that seems
to be an overriding concern but also an upward facing
LARGE SURFACE AREA SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar-like)
and/or microwave panel surface for ECM (Electronic Counter-Measures)
or MAYBE communications relay to higher-flying craft.
This would indicate LOW-LEVEL (treetop?) flying
which needs INSTABILITY (i.e. is more maneuverable)
as a primary design goal!

One problem with my missives here is that I am coming at
the issues with much Intelligence Apparatus (SIGINT/HUMINT)
experience asking WHY someone would need a platform like this?

You are seeing this purely from a flyability stand-point where
I am seeing a system that MIGHT be usable for ECM and
Communications in a High Threat environment!
(i.e. needs low-level flying maneuverability!)

There is no point in doing a back-and-forth argument
because we are coming at this from variable backgrounds
and using an analogy, I as a plumber see a wrench and you
as a House Framer see a hammer. They're both tools
but just different kinds used for different purposes!
I see what I want to see and that's all right!
You see what you see and that's ALSO all right!

NEITHER of us can be TRULY proved wrong or right
until corroborating evidence says nay or yay.

I WILL GIVE YOU THE POINT that as of yet
i cannot truly wave the flag for the YAY side
of whether this an active craft because there is
NO REAL EVIDENCE OF A MODERN CRAFT being based
on this design! No Witness Sightings! No Video!
Maybe a Voice Recording of a Call Sign!
Maybe a Drawing made by a high schooler!
But no Aviation Leak article or Janes update!
Nothing yet! But I'm willing to wait and see!
.
Unfortunately, all I ever read about is
mildly-credible witnesses to UFO sightings
talking about chevron shaped aircraft
flying silently above them!

originally posted by: gfad

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: waynos

however there is some considerable evidence of the first image ... was TRULY taken during the year 1989.

that still raises the question of WHY is there a photograph of an artist rendering that can be reliably said to be from the year 1989 even around?

Based on these statements I have to question what you consider reliable evidence. Seriously .... the only evidence you have that the photo was taken in 89 is the fact that the lines aren't symmetrical and your estimation of the film grain.

This is not a Lockheed drone from the 80's, it is a German glider from the 40s.

And we haven't even got onto the fact that the engine doesn't have an intake...

====

Interesting about the engine intake...didn't notice that
until you pointed that out. However, it could be that the
intakes could be in the underbody which would reduce
stealth but may make for more interior room AND possibly
make the upper facets available for use in Synthetic Aperture Radar,
Anti-Air-to-Ground ECM or low-level flight to high-flying
aircraft Microwave Communications relay applications!

He's not gonna concede so let's just move on