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.

 

NASA wants full scale demo craft....but which one?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Really? That's one of the designs that's been shown to work very well in wind tunnel tests.

The engines aren't specific to the type. They'll be whatever they eventually settle on for the design.




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The MD-80 unducted fan project?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

Yeah. That was a shock when they released the results of that one.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

BUT IT'S POINTY!
We need more pointy stuff,it looks much more cool.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Yeah and if there was a way to build a significantly boom mitigated plane they woulda built one by now.


So they haven't given any thought to the engines they would use for the C5/C17 replacement. When asked do they just say "I dunno really big engines, that's what we'll put on her."

I'm basing my new posting style off of Entrenar Grande's BTW. I'm thinking it will make me more popular in the aviation forum.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

And if they had the technology previously, they would have. They didn't.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR
The new writing style looks good on you, I noticed it a few days ago.

As for the first photo, I think it needs giant spoilers across the back, then it would be really cool.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Engines are item 7 of 10. What's the point of picking engines out if you don't even know if it will fly?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Badgermole42

I'd give her MAW. Bigger engines. A racing stripe. Not sure what color though. Maybe green.

But I say if they could they would. And we've never heard about it, so I don't think it's possible to build anything like that. Get it we've never heard...ok never mind, I'll be going now before I start living a real life version of that Speilberg Movie 'Duel' and end up being run down by a angry Big Rig.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
the 1st one is the most aesthetically pleasing!

I'm curious though why NASA's vision for future of flight involves a prop drive plane ? Where's our magnetic levitation ion drive aircraft ?



Max. speed at 25,000 ft 575 mph, at S/L 404 mph, nominal cruising speed 442 mph, ceiling 39,370 ft, combat radius with 25,000 lb payload 3,975 miles, with one in-flight refueling 5,155 miles.

It is rumored that Bear is known to be able to out accelerate contemporary western interceptors. This hard to believe fact can be accounted by use of variable-pitch propellers of NK-12M turboprops. Modern jets need to use afterburners to keep up with accelerating Bear. In fact, one of the photo showing Panavia Toronado using reheat on one of the engines while pursuing this remarkable bomber.

Presumably, Bear holds an unofficial speed record for a prop-driven aircraft...

www.airforceworld.com...

Turboprop technology is advancing as well..



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Badgermole42

Rofl



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   
The fat little BWB ones look cute. Pointy planes are always cool. Didn't Boeing fly a scale version of the third plane?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: SonofaSkunk

They've flown a 1/4th scale BWB, and had plans on a 1/2 scale.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Weren,t they wind tunnel testing various wing configs back in the 60,s and 70,s?



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Perhaps they can ask Lockheed for the full scale results..... o wait they never built it, I remember now



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Brilliant Buzzard



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Or something else...
QSP



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Kinda funny how that program disappeared completely until some rumblings of it from the NASA side started to leak back out. As a kid I wanted to work for NASA, but they get the secondhand junk apparently.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Finger pointing




Northrop Grumman worked with Raytheon Aircraft Company, Wichita, Kan., its principal subcontractor during Phase I, to explore synergies with the civil sector. To evaluare the dual relevance of these technologies, Raytheon Aircraft designed the variant for the civil business jet, while Northrop Grumman designed the military long-range strike variant. In addition, under a shaped sonic boom demonstration project of the QSP program, Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems has successfully completed a critical design review with DARPA, an important milestone in preparation for the first-ever flight demonstration of a sonic boom mitigated by airframe shaping. If the project continues, an X-plane could fly as early as 2006, and technology would be ready for a full-scale development program to start in 2008.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

And down ye olde rabbit hole we go again...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join