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.

 

'Fastmover' seen by Swiss guys from Tikaboo in 1999: discussion

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
This is the most interesting sighting reported during all these years of watching Groom Lake and surrounding areas. The sighting was confirmed by a few members here on the ATS forum in various discussions in various threads.

Here is a link to the sighting: FASTMOVER sighting Tikaboo 1999

Zaph, are we going to see declassification of the "Fastmover" that Swiss saw from Tikaboo in 1999 somewhere in the future?

What it might be? Lots solve the riddle

edit on 19-4-2017 by SpeedFanatic because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
This is the most interesting sighting reported during all these years of watching Groom Lake and surrounding areas. The sighting was confirmed by a few members here on the ATS forum in various discussions in various threads.

Here is a link to the sighting: FASTMOVER sighting Tikaboo 1999

Zaph, are we going to see declassification of the "Fastmover" that Swiss saw from Tikaboo in 1999 somewhere in the future?

What it might be? Lots solve the riddle


I have no idea, but I assumed it was the Green Lady and/or the thing which caused sonic booms every Thursday over Southern California in early 1990's.
(I heard/felt them).

Deep black color means it is intended for high altitude. Large size & power and highly swept wings implies supersonic. That's the SR-71 mission roughly.


edit on 19-4-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Oooohh grabs popcorn...F121?
edit on 19-4-2017 by Blackfinger because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Outward-canted tailfins aside, that aircraft, as-described, fits the shape and details of the Convair Kingfish design almost perfectly.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
@barnalby thats exactly where my mind went aswell. theres gotta be a reason why so much about it is still classified.
edit on 19-4-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Ever wonder where the J58's from all those retired Blackbirds went, or the JP7 in the still used KC-135Q's were used for, or why the Kingfish design originally chose the J58 before it was cancelled?
I do on occasion.

edit on 19-4-2017 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

I'm sure they had their lame excuses.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: Barnalby

Ever wonder where the J58's from all those retired Blackbirds went, or the JP7 in the still used KC-135Q's were used for, or why the Kingfish design originally chose the J58 before it was cancelled?
I do on occasion.


I assume Alot of them are in museums or rotting away at Davis Montham. But that being said there are no doubt many unaccounted for. (heck for that matter you don't see alot of the YJ93 used in the XB-70 anywhere either) . I looked at all my books and online but does anybody know how many of them were made?

That being said, it also looks a bit like the notational DYNASOAR



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

They were removed from the aircraft and almost all of them were placed in storage. I nosed around but couldn't find out if they still stored or not.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

I've often thought the exact same thing.

There's even a bunch of timeline stuff in the 60s that to me hints there was something going on that we're still probably in the dark on. Stuff like Gary Powers and the A-12's early retirement in 1968 right as Lockheed was taking some pretty major risks trying to make the M-21/D-21 work.

It's almost as if they were trying to keep the A-12 relevant as it was challenged by, uh, "something else". Sort of like Vought trying to keep the Crusader relevant against the F-4 with the Crusader III.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Did you poke your nose at Pratt&Whitney?
Do they have the ability to get those engines back?

Edit: Samm I can't give you enough stars for making that post.


edit on 19-4-2017 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)


And I want to point out that didn't Zaphod see an order for JP7 in the last couple of years?
edit on 19-4-2017 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FredT

They were removed from the aircraft and almost all of them were placed in storage. I nosed around but couldn't find out if they still stored or not.


It is an interesting little aviation mystery that I have never thought of. There are plenty of engines at Montham but its hard to tell even if you are on that tour, and most museums have ONE J-58 (very few have 2 at least on display)

Any idea of total production? The YJ-93 of the XB-70 also would be interesting (I know they produced alot less of them)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

NASA had between 40 and 50 in storage. Three were sent out for testing. They were supposed to be in flyable storage, and they were supposed to dispose of all their JP7 and TEB.
edit on 4/19/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Jp7 is a high flashpoint fuel. Yet you can throw a match in it and it will go out.
Pardon my simplton mind. But I can't get my head around a Fire Triangle... heat, fuel and oxygen.
At high altitudes you lose oxygen.

So what else was in the mix. whether it be the kerosene or the engine made this happen?

The Wave Raider came up in my searches, but why a big order of jp7?

Edit: A Scramjet maybe?
edit on 19-4-2017 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

Once JP7 is burning it keeps burning. It doesn't require much oxygen to keep burning. The problem is getting it burning, which is why they needed TEB.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ohhhhh... Triethylborane

Thank you 😊



edit on 19-4-2017 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Beat me to it. I'd also imagine TEB or something similar as an additive is also great for holding back flameouts under extreme/ low oxygen conditions.

Sort of like water or alcohol injection in a high performance gasoline engine to hold off detonation.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

And whompff! Spray the carburetor fliud into the carburetor.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

TEB was supposed to be one of the limiting factors on mission length. They carried something like 16 starts worth on board, but if they needed it in the air it took at least 2 bursts.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Barnalby

TEB was supposed to be one of the limiting factors on mission length. They carried something like 16 starts worth on board, but if they needed it in the air it took at least 2 bursts.


Reminds me of Flight of the Phoenix.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join