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.

 

Can Somebody Explain

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

It's a little farther than that, but nowhere close to changing a flying wing into a Delta.




posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Changing the wing profile can making the plane faster no? like the F-111. If the LRS-B is abble of cruising at mach 0.98 so a speed near of 1100 km/h , yes its more faster than a B-2. A capacity to look is the altitude flight profile too, do you think it will be a very high altitude cruiser ?



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I get MAW can make the wing camber different effecting efficiency, even to be used as hingeless flaps. and yeah it's a big help.

but.... theres no way they can do the same trick and make a wing go from flat to anhedral or make little winglets on demand using the same technology?

I guess I'm overestimating MAW. But then again I guess so is Lockheed and DARPA with their MAS program. they've only been invested in it since circa 2006.

damn lockheed and DARPA spending 10 years or more blowing our taxpayer money on something they knew is a complete boondoggle! and, they probably do it just to milk the system and make profits.

The scoundrels.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Changing the wing shape doesn't make you faster. It makes you more efficient.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
" In an interesting response to a question from my college at FlightGlobal, James Drew, Selva pointed to the Long Range Strike Bomber‘s “system of systems.” They “are going to have to be capable of going into some of the most complex surface-to-air systems that humans have built.” Selva also “in development we tolerated some very early failures” in the LRSB program. He, of course, did not elaborate.

The most complex surface to air system ever built.... whooa I have a feeling there is more behind the LRS-B than a alone craft, surely another Platform helping the bomber ?
edit on 22-1-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

A tiny shift in wing shape makes a massive change in efficiency. The MAW could improve the efficiency of the F-111 wing by over 5%. Under MAS they're seeing double digit savings. Eventually they'll be able to do more but to create winglets or major shifts you need the mass to shift into the new shape. That means weight.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

zaphs right.

to go faster you need some sort of engine that can push you faster or use the air it recieves more efficiently. that would be something if they ever could improve turbine technology like that. other than advent, I guess turbines development is pretty stagnant for the last half century.


sadly i haven't got the energy to research that topic and bypass it for the most part. I prefere to use my energy elsewhere.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

aren't guys like boeing making some super duper light weight composite and materials these days?

I heard boeing is the beezness when it comes to that sorta stuff.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR
Its possible than for now we arrive at the limit of technology for the turbine engine , but there is still promising programs like the AETP for the futur 6th gen fighter, after that I don't see how we can go farther with the turbine engine ?



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

yeah, that's why with this medium, i find it just drains energy and tends to slow things down, hence I like to bypass it all together when it comes to turbines.

getting back to the subject,

Zaph, do you think one day there will be MAW on commercial aircraft to make them more efficient. like some variable compression engines or whatever those new efficient jets they are looking into for airliners combined with say mild maw. And how much more efficient you think it would make them? Id love to travel one day and id really appreciate airfare lowering so i can finally see the south pacific or afford a holiday.
edit on 22-1-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Putting adaptive flight controls will save anywhere up to 3-5% in fuel burn. That's huge for a commercial aircraft.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
For what we read Pratt seam to have great chance to be the contractor for the LRS-B engine, we don't read a lot about Pratt capacity to build an advent style engine.
edit on 22-1-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Pratt was selected to develop the AETD engine which uses Advent technology as part of the core.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Very impatient to see the roll out of the bird, I expect to be surprise when it will come in light, for your opinion if the protest take the end in February when we can expect to see the roll out ? 2018/2019 ?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Im more excited to see the losing bid go public



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Another way to look at it is I'd rather they spend too much, then not enough.

Not enough will kill as many kids, if not more, than too much.

But I quite see your point.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

What makes you think it will other than the drawings we've already seen?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'd add that going of Intelgurl's hints, this is a pretty killer image of the prospective Lockheed/Boeing design:


Now here's where it gets interesting: Zoom in on that image and notice the lack of a cockpit. Now, look at the size of the Lockheed-standard stealth IFR boom receptacle on top of the craft pictured, and compare it to the size of the same receptacle on top of an X-47B, and you'll see that this craft comes out at a little over twice as long as the X-47, or scarcely larger than an F-111 or an A-5 Vigilante.

This is an extremely important detail, knowing the rough size that the LRS-B itself will be (which is going to be closer to a medium strategic bomber like B-58 or an Avro Vulcan) and it drops a HUGE hint about what we might actually be seeing.

Now remember at the awarding press conference when the USAF generals stated that the bomber had yet to fly? They were somewhat true, in that the EMD has yet to fly, but we also know that there was a flyoff between prototypes of sorts.

My feeling now, again given Intelgurl's comment, is that what we're seeing in the image I just posted is, in fact, the Lockheed Martin/Boeing LRS-B demonstrator, an unmanned 2/3rds scale demonstrator about the size of an A-5 vigilante (or an SR-71, which makes the infrastructure needs to fly it out of Groom pretty much a non-issue), with a design that's basically a modern Skunkworks VLO design and the Sonic Cruiser thrown in a blender.

It even fits the descriptions that Zaph had dropped about it being a "jaw dropper", of a design that "looks like nothing we've seen before"



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Don't forget, there was also an eye witness in CA to a craft that had those lines a while back.
What I'd like to see is if the manned version had a side by side cockpit or a front and back orientation. This type of design seams to suggest the later with how narrow the nose is.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

I'm more interested in seeing if it has a virtual cockpit.




top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join