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.

 

has anybody heard of the X-44 MANTA?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   


a conceptual drawing of the X-44 is said to resemble a tailess F-22, and is said to be based on the F-22 airframe, engines and systems. MANTA stands for multi-axis no-tail aircraft, the X-44 thrust vectoring test aircraft would have pitch/yaw vectoring nozzlea and would not only be tailessbut would have no aerodynamic surfaces.


Pretty cool aircraft from what there saying it's suppose to test thrust vectoring nozzles for the F-22. Thrust- vectoring is the ability to turn the jet exhaust, it also allows an aircraft to create forces with its motors similiar to the forces created by aerodynamic such as flaps, rudders & stabilizers. The result would be structurally simple, light airframe with increased fuel capacity and fewer gaps to cause stealth problems.





this links has a video that has a visulation of what the X44 looks like.
other cool link





this has info on the X-44 and it is where I got my info.
cool link




posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   
This seems to be the same aricraft refered to as the F/B-22. Which basically has more wing surface (for more internal bombs), then the F/A-22.

What is Multi-Axis?



not only be tailessbut would have no aerodynamic surfaces.




posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
multi axis means that thrust can be vectored up and down as well as to both sides. The idea is that multi-axis thrust vectoring can replace the need for control surfaces cutting down on both cost and weight.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Looks like the FB-22 alright...

Seems like there is no link between that an the Black Manta which is completely different....



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Looks like the FB-22 alright...

Seems like there is no link between that an the Black Manta which is completely different....



Yeah the TR-3A Black Manta is supposedly meant to be a reconnasiance aircraft.
here is a link I found about the Black Manta.
link



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I remember a thread a while back , i think at the end they believed it was the aurora , cause of its shape.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   
What are the main differences between the TR-3A and TR-3B?

Definitly a pretty aircraft, just has Northrop written all over it...



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
here is a website about the TR-3B cool link



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 09:27 AM
link   
TR-3 is not a real plane. It was only a design before B-2 was born. You should search at net for terms "Pave Mover" program and THAP "Tactical High Altitude Penetrator or simply go to the page:
"www.hitechweb.szm.sk...



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Wasn't "TR-3" merely a misunderstanding of a spoken reference to "Tier 3"?

I can't remember where I picked that up from but it always sounded plausible considering the way conspiracy theorists and the like leap on any tiny reference and blow it out of proportion.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
TR probably means Strategic Reconnaisance.

I honestly think this is the next gen spy-plane...it's been sighted in Russia too...



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
TR probably means Strategic Reconnaisance.



TR means Tactical Reconnaisance.

SR means Strategic Reconnaisance.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by matej
TR-3 is not a real plane. It was only a design before B-2 was born. You should search at net for terms "Pave Mover" program and THAP "Tactical High Altitude Penetrator or simply go to the page:
"www.hitechweb.szm.sk...

Not only are you wrong, but you are almost ill prepared. The TR-3 series is real.

It is part of the Aurora Project.

The X-44 MANTA is basically the F/B-22.

The TR-3B is real. The TR-3A, not so sure, but I did do research into both.

All I can say at this point is that the TR-3B is real. You may chose not to believe me, that is ok. But I can not provide any proof of this. So believe me if you wish, but the TR-3B is real.

The TR-3A is believed to be real for the main reason that it was used along side the F-117 NightHawk. The target job of the TR-3A was to relay information on the natural and artificial surroundings of the enemy, so that the F-117 can come in and bomb the enemy to hell. Do you all honestly think that the F-117 was really capable of seeking out all of what the Government claims it seeked out?

Shattered OUT...

P.S. I wouldn't trust that link for anything, why? Because it's not in english. And also it shows multiple pictures of invented aircraft and aircraft that are in fact real. So really it is hard to decipher what is going on in that site. Try giving us an english link for those of use who don't speak more than English or a simple second language.(Which is probably the majority of ATS).

[edit on 27-12-2004 by ShatteredSkies]



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I shall also point out the massive size of the TR-3B. It is quite hard to imagine it, but it is 3 quaters the size of the Hindenburg. The Hindenburg is about 800 ft long if I remember correctly.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Actually, not one of the planes on that link is real, unless you count the faint representation of a F-117 on one of the drawings.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   


TR means Tactical Reconnaisance.


Yeah I know, I was sleepy so I thoughted Strategic rather than Tactical...my bad...



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
If an aircraft was "Tactical" would that not mean that the aircraft is capable of fighting? So Tactical Reconaissance would mean that the spy planes can fight back.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Not at all. In simple terms (for my benefit, not yours
) you could say a strategic recce plane flies high to gain coverage of a wide area while a tactical recce one flies in low level taking close in pictures of a specific target. Pretty much like the difference between a strategic bomber and a tactical bomber. 'Tactical' doesn't imply combat in any way.

For example the RAF Tornado fleet is tasked with the role of tactical recconaissence and tactical ground attack, separate roles in the same sphere of operations. After all a strategic transport is just a very big transport which operates over great disatnces, isn't it, not a bomber and a transport. You see?



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Kinda looks like the X-36 NASA has out at Dryden



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
If an aircraft was "Tactical" would that not mean that the aircraft is capable of fighting? So Tactical Reconaissance would mean that the spy planes can fight back.

Shattered OUT...


No, it means that it has the ability to provide information for the tactical or local battlefield.

A TR series aircraft is not equipped with weapons, it relies on its escorts to protect it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join