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: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I say although probably a fast mover definitly not the greenlady the swiss dude saw.

That aircraft he depicted is not capable of doing one of the greenladies hallmarks. Which i will not go into.




posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Lockheeds Archangel1 is most definately what has been seen at Dreamland as the Snow Bird/Bright Blizzard platform.
edit on 20-4-2017 by Blackfinger because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-4-2017 by Blackfinger because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Well, the Swiss guys 'Fastmover' was painted deep black so it is probably not Snow Bird/Bright Blizzard(I think you thought about Brilliant Buzzard).



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Yup long day....



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

In fact I believe Snow Bird is just Lockheed quiet boom testbed.

I believe this is sighting of the Lockheed quiet boom testbed: www.dreamlandresort.com...



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I really need more popcorn for these threads.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

No youre thinking of Big Bird. Thats the lockheed quiet boom demonstrator.

Little Bird is the special forces insertion aircraft.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Only things that are of Snow Birds plantform are Concord,Tu144 or Xb70.
Thing is its been photographed at Groom buuuuut why hasnt it been such a high WOO factor like Texas and Amarillo?
So Snow Bird isnt Lockheed?



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

You're saying a black project was photographed at groom lake and you've seen the photo?

Just curious I am so busy at my new office ever since moving late last year and with my 8 month old I haven't been keeping up with these threads S much lately...



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Geez doesnt anyone read links anymore?

Speedfanatics link has it on lhs page.
Snowbird AKA fuzzy pic



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Look at the old threads on this forum. Take back for 10-13 years. People thought that the SnowBird photo taken at Groom is just Aurora project. They were wrong with it but the SnowBird photo has been widely speculated too.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Are you describing "Snow Bird" as "Little Bird"? Then what would be Big Bird?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Here you go, few notes about so-called "Snow Bird"


1.
2.

Horizon to horizon in 10 sec... , makes me think..



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 04:12 AM
link   
According to 'FASTMOVER' sighted from Tikaboo in 1999.

We have this quote:


Blackswift was so called cancelled in 2008. I. E. it went blackworld in my opinion. There has been numerous sightings of it going back to 1995. Well at least something that looks like it. The best ones were from tikaboo peak in 1999 by the Swiss guys. You can find the audio and story at dreamland resort dot com.


Blackswift was a project for hypersonic flight. Can we suppose that "Fastmover" seen by Swiss guys from Tikaboo in 1999 was a manned demonstrator for the Blackswift project?

Blackswift is supposed to be so-called "SR-72" so maybe SR-72 isn't unmanned UAV but is just a cover for something different(manned)??



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

The 75 degree leading edge wing sweep is an important clue. The only reason for wing sweep is speed; a higher aspect ratio wing (i.e., less sweep) will always be more aerodynamically efficient, so you would never use an amount of wing sweep this radical unless you needed to go fast. Given that basic fact, the angle of the wing sweep is fairly closely related to the top speed you are designing for.

This aircraft is a pure delta planform, all-wing design. A wing sweep angle of around 45 degrees would mean the aircraft was designed for about Mach 1 (like the B-2, for example). A 75 degree angle wing sweep means the aircraft was designed for a top speed of around Mach 4 (Mach 3.8, to be more exact). So we can infer that this aircraft was designed to be about 20% faster than the SR-71.

It also appears to have been designed to have lower observables than the SR-71, particularly from the bottom. This is supported by the fact that the observers could not see any visible inlets on the underside and that the two large engine exhausts were located on the upper surface of the aft fuselage. Even though the observers reported not being able to see any inlets on the top or bottom, there had to be some somewhere. I note that the side view of the aircraft shows what seems to be a wedge shaped ramp on the underside; I would venture a guess that that could be a compression ramp—perhaps with a radar-defeating labyrinth and a hidden inlet to feed the turbojets.

A cruise speed around Mach 4 means that carrying external ordnance or sensors is out of the question. Whatever the payload is, is carried internally. This design does not seem to have as high a fraction of internal volume as the SR-71. This suggests to me that it carries a small payload and probably has to refuel more often (there does seem to be an air-to-air refueling door on the dorsal centerline behind the crew compartments). I doubt that it carries any ordnance, which means it’s an ISR platform. This is consistent with there being two seats—presumably a pilot and a systems operator.

Overall, it looks to me like an SR-71 successor—capable of filling the same role.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

You know yellow bird. Thats also big bird.

Part of project GROUCH. Which mostly covered something known for being finicky and green. But i heard they canned that particular program.
edit on 23-4-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: 1947boomer

Sounds like a good fit for kingfish.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bigburgh
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.



And I want to point out that didn't Zaphod see an order for JP7 in the last couple of years?


www.fbo.gov...



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: MAVERICKANDGOOSE

That's about 680,000 pounds to Edwards. A KC-135 fully loaded would take about 200,000, but can't take a full load of JP-7. So figure about 100,000 of JP-7, maybe a little more. So that's 6-7 -135s worth at Edwards. Not an insignificant amount.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: 1947boomer

I love such posts. Very good post. It matches with Kingfish very well. Do you think that "fastmover" seen by Swiss yous from Tikaboo in 1999 guzzled JP-7?

They described sound as a low rumbling - but not pulsating - noise.
Funny, Convair Kingfish was designed for JP-7, too.


a reply to: BASSPLYR

Are you suggesting that "fastmover" seen by Swiss guys from Tikaboo in 1999 was a part or project GROUCH or that Yellow bird was a part of project GROUCH?



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MAVERICKANDGOOSE

That's about 680,000 pounds to Edwards. A KC-135 fully loaded would take about 200,000, but can't take a full load of JP-7. So figure about 100,000 of JP-7, maybe a little more. So that's 6-7 -135s worth at Edwards. Not an insignificant amount.


Wtf is flying at Edwards that needs JP-7? Is it possible the order would be re delivered to 51 or TTR or stored at Edwards?



new topics




 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join