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.

 

New Long Range Bomber/Attack Aircraft With Shape Shifting Hull and Wings

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: stratsys-sws
And....I would very closely question the sources of some of this information. The following quote is total and utter rubbish, perhaps the design engineer was designing the toilets, he certainly wasn't designing wings!




a Boeing designer engineer stated that the 747 was initially design-tested at MACH 1.2 in early aerodynamic flight studies in the 1980's


The aerofoil of the 747 was, until the -8, a non supercritical foil, anyone who knows anything about "aerodynamics" would understand that a foil of that shape would not permit stable flight at high transonic and supersonic flight. You need to look in to the principles of Critical Mach Numbers, Mach Tuck and drag divergence numbers. I'm sure your software will do that for you. No way was the 747 ever designed to achieve supersonic flight and no "design engineer" would have ever claimed that.

So yes a 747 could go supersonic if it had a new aerofoil, new control surfaces, new construction material, new fuselage design, new after burning engines with supersonic nacelles, new horizontal stabiliser, new nose design, a new longer, thinner body and massive fuel tanks. Sounds like Concorde to me.

Cheers
Robbie



====

Don't blame ME for that quote...I sure ain't no aerodynamicist!

It's from "The Learning Channel" aka TLC which is sort of a
technical nerds version of Discovery Channel...but since
they also broadcast things like "Sasquatch Has Human DNA!"
you might have to take it with a grain of salt!

AND YES I was aware of Critical Mach Numbers which is
why I agree with Zaphod58 and do understand the B747
wouldn't survive FOR LONG at supersonic...BUT....it could
STILL go there with engine upgrades and then completely
bust apart after 3 minutes, if that!

BUT...as a design study, let's just take a PURELY HYPOTHETICAL
scenario where EVERY structural part: Skin, Cross beams,
wings, load bearing structures, etc. was REPLACED with
ultra-high strength carbon fibre or Kevlar composite materials
of aerospace quality!

I ASK YOU --- WOULD A B747 of the same shape and wing sweep
as today SURVIVE at supersonic speeds if it was built of composite materials?

I'm curious what the result would be of just such a scenario!




posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jukiodone
Sorry folks but I gotta know:

Go on then SG7- what happened with the supersonic brick?
And where do you find the time?


===
The Supersonic Brick:

It was an experiment to make a rail gun and
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS of time and money
was expended.

The key part was a simple firebrick being
encased by a number of conductive materials
ranging from aluminum to copper to steel to
see if it could be accelerated from 0 to Mach X
within a span of less than 50 metres by a coil-based
linear induction system.

The results I can tell you were spectacular!

The final experiment was sending a long
conductive steel-encased rod to 60,000 KPH
(36,000 MPH) but that took over 150 metres
and much higher power than the brick experiment!

We WERE able to send a simple firebrick
to more than Mach 1.5 (sea level) in a
conductive box within 50 metres!

So I would say we CAN send a brick supersonic!

I work for a number of entities doing technical
research, systems programming, Standalone/UAV
Drone Systems with high-speed digital video
recording/production, so I get to
see some really FUN STUFF !!!

Big Boys With Expensive Toys!

edit on 2016/4/11 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Here's what I don't understand why would you want to make a supersonic heavy transport. You would think if we needed something like that, if it even made any sense logistically, would would have already done that.

Besides I'm not going to argue the illogic of the proposition. There's are reason we don't have supersonic heavy transports. And it's not cause we can't build one, but because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Besides we don't need supersonic transports we have (looks around to make sure nobodies eavesdropping) the TR-3B! Thats like 389,711.43 cubic feet and she can break light speed!


supersonic 747's pffft



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: stratsys-sws



Just because you have a degree doesn't really mean that the B747 hull and wing shape cannot do Supersonic. It kinda depends upon the ability of the aluminum in the current design to WITHSTAND torsion, compression, tension and shear stresses in the hull and wing structures. Until that design is TESTED under an Aerodynamics Analysis, Finite Element Analysis, Materials and Hull Stress Analysis and about only 20 other simulations I can run on this ridiculously expensive computing system I have access to, so I think I will take your advice in obeyance BUT WILL VERIFY YOUR SUPPOSITION with an aerodynamics simulation and trust the output of that data stream.


Yeah, I mean who needs engineers if you can just build and test every idea that pops in to one's head no matter how flippin ridiculous it is and without the need to do 6 years at Uni. I'll be sure to tell the other 3,000 aerospace/mechanical engineers and physicists here that we're all redundant.

I give up

Cheers
Robbie


===

You can rest assured that your line of work is STILL VALUABLE
and won't be delegated to the proles anytime soon.

BUT as a technical systems researcher it is MY JOB
to question EVERYTHING YOU DO and ask for clarification
and/or mathematical proof, computer simulation proof
AND/OR practical model proof of ANY AND ALL assertions
you make!

It's not that I don't believe you...BUT IT'S THAT I JUST DON'T BELIEVE YOU!!!

UNTIL you PROVE TO ME what you say! This I do on a daily basis because
I will relay to you a story about how a certain flight system I was familiar
with was soon to go online and be able to have X amount of range
and X amount of video downlink capability and everyone assured
me that all was well until I had a letter from higher ups ordering
a design review and fuel range test in both simulation and
practical examples.....take a guess what happended!
The proof posite real-world tests showed everything
was off by X-percent amount. I just wanted real-world
proof of all assertions!

My OTHER job is to IGNORE what the engineers say
and aks them to expand a concept FURTHER and
show me PROOF WHY something WILL work!
I challenge those engineers to PROVE TO ME
that something IS EXTENDABLE and RE-ENGINEERABLE
past the original design specs.

or to put it mildly....I make'em put a V8 in a Vega
to see what happens! Or in some cases ask what happens
if we bump up the power from Kilowatts to Megawatts?


edit on 2016/4/11 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: StargateSG7

Here's what I don't understand why would you want to make a supersonic heavy transport. You would think if we needed something like that, if it even made any sense logistically, would would have already done that.

Besides I'm not going to argue the illogic of the proposition. There's are reason we don't have supersonic heavy transports. And it's not cause we can't build one, but because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Besides we don't need supersonic transports we have (looks around to make sure nobodies eavesdropping) the TR-3B! Thats like 389,711.43 cubic feet and she can break light speed!


supersonic 747's pffft


===

As per my request sent to the USAF in an FOIA package,
HOPEFULLY, we will get an answer to the very questions
you are asking!

To me as someone who is more into the artistic "Form Is Function"
rather than an engineer's "Form Follows Function" motto, I say
I just happen to like the shape of the B747 and am simply curious
as to whether or not ANYONE ELSE (in the USAF or elsewhere!)
has the same appreciation for the design of that Boeing aircraft
as I do in terms of it POSSIBLY being able to become a high-speed
white-world cargo/passenger supersonic transport!

And with today's technology, I ask what IF we just changed the parts
over to carbon fibre composites to increase strength and save weight?
Would the B747 be able to lift more? Would it survive supersonic flight?
How big could we make it? I want those questions answered!

AND I HIGHLY SUSPECT that someone in the USAF has already
had my questions in mind LONG BEFORE I EVER DID!
So I have asked the USAF via a Freedom Of Information Act request (FOIA)
if my suspicions have a real-world basis of factual support!


edit on 2016/4/11 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

"...Besides we don't need supersonic transports we have
(looks around to make sure nobodies eavesdropping) the
TR-3B! Thats like 389,711.43 cubic feet and she can break light speed!..."

---

At this point in time, I am personally only aware
of the Stealth Blimp which is/was a 500 ton to 1000 ton
carrying VTOL heavy lift craft which could have had
something like 389,711.43 cubic feet of cargo space!

It's a pity that some local yokel with a 12 gauge shotgun
had to take potshots at it during a night test thus causing
an executive-level systems and financial review which caused
the program to be reduced and ultimately cancelled
in favor of more white-world heavy lift systems.

That was a nice craft! I liked the look of it!
Unstable and Unwieldy but still nice looking!

Now the TR3B is a whole'nother ball of wax
because Tier-III test craft are all over the map
when it comes to size and capability.

Tier-III is a designation for any time of application-specific
test program not necessarily for a particular craft. I was told
at one time that Tier-III (i.e. TR label) is used for indicating
a working prototype of technical gear and larger systems to
be applied to and sent to ANY DOD service branch not just
the USAF!

I've heard everything about TR3 labels for black triangular
aircraft/spacecraft to full visual stealth items to specialty
amoured astronaut suits to N-space exploration systems/teams!

It's all over the map and I cannot verify anything like the
TR3b craft with any given certainty --- only rumors and
more conjecture!


edit on 2016/4/11 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7




Don't blame ME for that quote...I sure ain't no aerodynamicist!


Well, you re-quoted it in your post, so therefore I shall blame you for it. You say your role is to question things, well perhaps you should question your sources before posting them. As for the latter point above, finally we have something to agree on!

Your whole postulate is completely and utterly pointless, I'm sorry. Asking for an answer to a pointless question is infuriating, and to be honest I couldn't give a toss if you "don't believe me until I prove it". And it seems, no matter how many reasonable and correct points are put forward you would still say that you don't believe a qualified person until someone builds a completely composite 747 and attempts to break the sound barrier.....infuriating and delusional. I'm glad that no one in our world has your role.

Despite this, for some unknown reason I'll give it one more try and attempt to answer your question directly - No, a completely composite 747 would not fly...it would be totally unstable, pitch down and enter a dive at high transonic speeds due to the lack of supercritical wings, and unsuitable horizontal stabilisers. The engines would stall too. But...go off and build one and let me know.

AND PLEASE STOP USING CAPS>>>>>LOOK AT HOW ANNOYING AND FRANKLY RUDE IT IS.

Cheers
Rob



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: stratsys-sws
a reply to: StargateSG7




Don't blame ME for that quote...I sure ain't no aerodynamicist!


Well, you re-quoted it in your post, so therefore I shall blame you for it. You say your role is to question things, well perhaps you should question your sources before posting them. As for the latter point above, finally we have something to agree on!

Your whole postulate is completely and utterly pointless, I'm sorry. Asking for an answer to a pointless question is infuriating, and to be honest I couldn't give a toss if you "don't believe me until I prove it". And it seems, no matter how many reasonable and correct points are put forward you would still say that you don't believe a qualified person until someone builds a completely composite 747 and attempts to break the sound barrier.....infuriating and delusional. I'm glad that no one in our world has your role.

Despite this, for some unknown reason I'll give it one more try and attempt to answer your question directly - No, a completely composite 747 would not fly...it would be totally unstable, pitch down and enter a dive at high transonic speeds due to the lack of supercritical wings, and unsuitable horizontal stabilisers. The engines would stall too. But...go off and build one and let me know.

AND PLEASE STOP USING CAPS>>>>>LOOK AT HOW ANNOYING AND FRANKLY RUDE IT IS.

Cheers
Rob


===

Infuriating and delusional IS MY JOB! in ALL-CAPS TOO !!!!

Then again the business partners I work for do actually have
the funds to give that sort of stunt a try --- I wouldn't recomend it
on a purely technical basis but I highly doubt that would stop them!

I have received no further word from the USAF on my FOIA request
but I was told requests take anywhere from two weeks to 6 months
depending upon the field of inquiry and available personnel to do
the research on my questions. So who knows what will turn up!

As I have posted earlier, even with the reservations coming
from aero-engineers, I am curious as to what the performance
envelope would be of a supersonic 747 built all-composite
WITH super-critical wings and a decent stabilizer for comfort.

I also wonder if GE has super-cruise engines (i.e. F-22 style)
that could be installed on a 747 in place of high bypass turbo-fans?
That would be an interesting twist!



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

What a load of utter rubbish and confirmation that you are totally BS'ing all of us.



Then again the business partners I work for do actually have the funds to give that sort of stunt a try --- I wouldn't recomend it on a purely technical basis but I highly doubt that would stop them!


I can absolutely assure you that no one smart enough to attain Billions of dollars to spend would spend it on replicating a 747 in composite purely to satisfy some teenagers wet dream, which is what this is.

Sweet dreams, nighty nighty.

Robbie






posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: stratsys-sws
a reply to: StargateSG7

What a load of utter rubbish and confirmation that you are totally BS'ing all of us.



Then again the business partners I work for do actually have the funds to give that sort of stunt a try --- I wouldn't recomend it on a purely technical basis but I highly doubt that would stop them!


I can absolutely assure you that no one smart enough to attain Billions of dollars to spend would spend it on replicating a 747 in composite purely to satisfy some teenagers wet dream, which is what this is.

Sweet dreams, nighty nighty.

Robbie



---

It actually DOES NOT COST that much money to create a 747 hull!

3 cnc machines to build the stamping molds for squishing layers
of carbon fibre together with specialty resin.

Try these guys:
www.rockwestcomposites.com...

Materials:
www.rockwestcomposites.com...

Good fibre sheet is between $5.00 to $20.00 per Square Metre

Knowledge Centre for Aerospace Composites:
www.compositesworld.com...

Then you get an Automated Fibre Laying machine
and some decent fibre alignment robots. ($200,000 each!)

And since the B747 square area is about 22,000 square feet (2044 square metres)
at $20.00 per square metre for the good aero-composites, your PER LAYER COST
is only about $41,000 ...BUT since you probably want a 20-layer composite at
0.5 inches thick compressed for most of the hull and a 1.5 inch thick compressed
wing stucture you're looking at about $1,800,000 (1.8 Million dollars) for the raw
carbon fibre composite materials cost.

The hydraulic fluid compression molds to compess the layers of carbon fibre
into hull structures is about 3 million dollars. 10 composite machine operators
and hull assembler at $7,000 per month each and my monthly personnel cost
is only $210,000 for the 3 months to build and assemble.

Then I need the X-rays machines to find any any bubbles or layer compression faults
in the composite structures so add $500,000 for two machines.

Then triple the base cost to take into account the usual delays and overruns
and I'm still ONLY looking at $15 million to build a B747 hull. I've got avionics
software AND hardware because HEY! I helped designed it myself with our powerful
grid-processing Midgrid flight-control software so that adds nothing to the costs!
Even landing gear we can do ourselves since I've got a bunch of HAAS CNC's and
Electron Beam Titanium metal powder 3D printers in the shop!

$15 million is a drop in the bucket for this company!

SO NO! It ain't bull-crappola and $15 million IS a drop in the bucket!

And yes I know about FAA/CAN-DOT airworthiness certificates
and hull design evaluation and registration costs but even then,
that is less than two million per agency (Canada/USA!)

So YUP this company CAN DO IT! a B747 Composite hull !!!!
All for less than 20 million total build and airworthiness eval costs!




edit on 2016/4/22 by StargateSG7 because: sp

edit on 2016/4/22 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Uh huh. And then there are the engines that will run around $20M each, the double redundancy wiring that runs in the hundreds of miles, the hydraulics to operate the systems, and so forth and so on. There's a reason that a new 747 costs what it does, and good luck making one to actually fly for what you're claiming.

And then when it destroys itself on its first flight, because you failed to take all sorts of things into consideration, you've just lost out on a huge amount of money. Also kind of curious how you plan to do it, considering the world's largest autoclave was built for the 787, which isn't even close to the same size as a 747, and it is in Japan.




edit on 4/22/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/22/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

Uh huh. And then there are the engines that will run around $20M each, the double redundancy wiring that runs in the hundreds of miles, the hydraulics to operate the systems, and so forth and so on. There's a reason that a new 747 costs what it does, and good luck making one to actually fly for what you're claiming.

And then when it destroys itself on its first flight, because you failed to take all sorts of things into consideration, you've just lost out on a huge amount of money. Also kind of curious how you plan to do it, considering the world's largest autoclave was built for the 787, which isn't even close to the same size as a 747, and it is in Japan.



Wiring was also an issue we actually had a discussion with our engineers
and the outside contractors on another project. We agreed to do a custom
multi-mode twin-thread plastic fibre system with a POWERED inner core to
take 48 volt at 83 amps (3984 watts) to power the internal avionics.

All wires (millions of feet) were to be replaced with a twin-cable
fibre backbone running under the centre-channel wiring tube of
the craft we were working on with cross-feeder wiring tubes
carrying custom TCP/IP6-packets with a GUARANTEED
hardware-interrupt enforced 4 millisecond latency.

ALL full-duplex communications for lighting, engine controls,
flaps, maintainance and OBD2-style diagnostics, avionics,
multi-processing, radar/lidar, vision recognition, fire-control,
and 50 otehr different functions ALL use a common IP6 packet
structure comm-link and all devices and computing boards are
48-volt devices ruggedized and heat-proofed powered off the
trunk lines built into the highly flexible multi-mode fibre strands.

Heavy motors for the landing gear, flaps, rudder, etc are fuel-cell
based COMPLETELY ISOLATED ELECTRICALLY with a TWO BACKUP
MOTORS for actuation redunancy. Device control Communications
again comes off of ONE trunk fibre line so we DO NOT HAVE MILES
of CABLE running underneath.

Computer Processing is Xilinx FPGA's and MC68040 32-bit microcontrollers
with multiple reduntant systems boxes that use a voting system. We were
going to use 64-bit ARMS, but we had to go with the MC68040 which were
the original processors used in the Macintosh Quadra 950's from the 1990's.

It was the only SPACE-RATED CPU unit I could find at 32-bits that was
truly rugged and radiation-hardened. The ARM-64's are NOT space rated
so I couldn't use them!

In terms of hydraulics, sheesh! I've got active presses here that do
500,000 lbs that we've designed in-house --- I think we can handle
landing gear just fine!

Autoclaves? 4 inch steel plate covering foamed concrete
should work just fine as the mold shells to be pressed together
using non-reactive hydraulic oils. You don't need dry steam autoclaves!
You just need to make sure your pressure fluid is truly hydrophobic
and non-reactive with the carbon-fibre and resin compounds at
high heat and pressure. You can press the carbon fibre resins
together in the same manner as automotive manufacturers
do with fluid compresssion molding of body panels.

We actually pioneered this hydrophobic hydraulic-fluid
fibre-press technique and a lot of people have come
to us for help on this! Boeing had HUGE problems with
bubbles in the hull-layers of their JSF-program entry
and our pressure-mold technique fixes that issue!

In terms of engines, you're right on that!
That is the HARDEST PART!

BUT....we do have potentional in-house designs
for using linear induction for the compressor stages
and super-cooling of fuel-vapour mixtures using
capillary-based fluid movement very similar
to what is used in Peltier-cooling systems
(i.e. Thermo-electric effects)

So engines will NOT be $20 million as we have
in-house High-Bypass Turbofan and Supercruise
engine designs that don't infringe on GE,
Pratt&Whitney or Roll-Royce designs.


edit on 2016/4/22 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Of course you do. And when are you planning to build your spaceship to take us all to the moon cheaply as well? You just seem to have everything everyone could ever possibly want to do every type of engineering project imaginable, don't you.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

Of course you do. And when are you planning to build your spaceship to take us all to the moon cheaply as well? You just seem to have everything everyone could ever possibly want to do every type of engineering project imaginable, don't you.


===

YUP! We do! HAAS CNC's, EBM's Machines, a 400 GPU
1.2 PetaFLOP AMD S1950 supercomputer, powerful
Midgrid grid-processing software systems, concrete
foaming systems, 500,000 LBS hydraulic presses,
two 7 nanometre Stepper and EUV Photolithographic
systems for CMOS chip production, 100 foot x 60 feet
diameter deep dive pressure tank for simulating deep
ocean pressures, Carl Zeiss glass everywhere and did
I mention multiple 8k CMOS (8192x4320) cameras at
10,000 FPS (1,415,577,600,000 Bytes per second
RAW 32-bit data rates)

AND ONE MORE THING....this is a beauty...
two custom-built Kuka Germany robotic
arms that can EACH lift 26,000 lbs that
are attached to data gloves for
precise hand-motor control.

I think that should about do it...I think
we have more in the other warehouse
in Port Coquitlam, but I don't usually
go there...I'm in one of the Vancouver offices.

So YUP we CAN actually build almost ANYTHING anyone wants!
I didn't make the company, I only work here...more on the computer
and digital video side of things...but I do dabble in some other areas of inquiry....... ;-) :-)
edit on 2016/4/22 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

Of course you do. And when are you planning to build your spaceship to take us all to the moon cheaply as well? You just seem to have everything everyone could ever possibly want to do every type of engineering project imaginable, don't you.


---

Technically, you've ordered enough stuff in the
eight figure range from us....you should know! ;-) :-)

edit on 2016/4/22 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

Of course you do. And when are you planning to build your spaceship to take us all to the moon cheaply as well? You just seem to have everything everyone could ever possibly want to do every type of engineering project imaginable, don't you.


I nearly fell off my chair laughing at this Zaph. I give up... he/she is clearly delusional and trolling. If only Boeing had known about Stargate's super duper wet dream workshop, it would have saved them $32 Billion developing the 787!

Robbie, over and out.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: stratsys-sws

I liked my methodology in dealing with him better. Fight fire with fire. At least I got a few laughs from the forum members.

Let me know if you folks needs some counter -trolling.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: stratsys-sws

I liked my methodology in dealing with him better. Fight fire with fire. At least I got a few laughs from the forum members.

Let me know if you folks needs some counter -trolling.


===

The irony of this is that Zaphod58 SHOULD KNOW
all about us left-way from Sunday!

So yes, while I AM BOMBASTIC in terms of my braggadoccio,
I can assure you that this is no mere toy store, we actually
CAN build the biggest planes and spaceships money can buy!

That swing wing baby sitting half constructed
in P42 was probably half-built by us! And that
Raytheon avionics package sitting there on
the tables by the plastic slab curtain
probably contains A LOT of my code!

...OR...

whatever I am saying is total BS and REALLY!
I am just a big dumb cat-guy typing away in
a warehouse in East Van just doing my boring
old job wrapping XXX VHS tapes for shipment
to India and the rest of South Asia.

....OR...

maybe I really do have a rather large collection
of Star Wars toys and fanatsize about being
a super-spy in Soviet-era Russia where I got
to shake hands with Gromyko in '83 just a few
minutes before I had to permanently whack one
of his Lt's because he was about to expose us for
implanting microcontroller virus code into oil and
gas piping control software which Casper Wienberger
ordered us to do right about that time! Then I got
to pretend seeing CW jumping for joy in 1987 in the
WH hallways after we saw the biggest, most beautiful
KH satellite photos of a H-U-G-E natural gas switching
station pipeline explosion in Siberia!

---

1, 2, 3 Which One is Not Blusteree!

.

P.S. My cats are all cute and fuzzy just like me!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join