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: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Any thoughts?? Anyone??




posted on May, 3 2017 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
Any thoughts?? Anyone??
From what I've read here and in the companion thread I'm guessing it's one of these 2 that landed at Boscombe maybe??



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

What crashed at Boscombe wasn't Companion.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpeedFanatic
FASTMOVER!!!
Here is a radio transcript of the "fastmover" seen by Swiss guys from Tikaboo in 1999.
The tape was running from 5:50 to 8:45 AM that day(8 September 1999).



The "fastmover" used a callsign with "...745"-end. Then there is a communication starting with words "Four Five... I've got your numbers for Silverbow.." I wonder if it is a communication related to "fastmover" or not because "Four Five" is not the same as "...745". If it would be the same it means that "fastmover" headed to TTR.

What are you thinking about this radio communications? Any clues, ideas??
@mightmight



Posting about Swiss Mountain Bat is a waste of electrons, but here goes. First of all, "fast mover" is a generic term for any high performance aircraft. It could be one of the base F-16, which often fly in the daytime so the pilots can keep up their hours. What you hear on Groom Tower or Control is fast mover, small cargo, and large cargo. Cargo is for Janets. "Company traffic" means another Janet. This isn't to say I've never hear actual callsigns for non-Janet traffic.

Second, this crap about Swiss Mountain Bat having a great view of the plane though the telescope ia dubious at best. In the optical path is 26 miles of atmosphere. You simply can't keep increasing magnification and expect to see more detail. Any telescope you can haul up Tikaboo will be around 1.5 arc seconds. But the limiting factor will be the air between you can the base. Typical seeing for astronomical is about 3 arc seconds, and that is through 2.5 miles of atmosphere. This photo, taken through all APO optics, is about as good as it gets:

F-117 at Groom Lake

But my real problem with Swiss Mountain Bat is that he is the luckiest Groom watcher on the planet. Though only making a few documented trips to Tikaboo, he sees a secret plane on every trip. I probably have 20x the hours on Tikaboo, and the only thing I photographed that wasn't a Janet or F-16 is that F-117. I photographed a SU-27, but that was from free territory, not Tikaboo.

Regarding that transcript, it is pretty obvious they are scanning more than Groom Tower or Control.

Swiss Mountain Bat...nothing to see here folks.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Have you ever been to freedom ridge before Gariac?



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: gariac

Have you ever been to freedom ridge before Gariac?


No. That would have been nice since the view is similar to the TTR from Brainwash.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT

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)


There is a YJ-93 engine at March Reserve base down here in southern California. Took the tour last week and was boggled by it being there. I have pictures as well.
Pretty sure I saw one at Edwards restoration hangar, and possibly one at Wright-Patterson.

Update: After looking at the map(Map date: Sep-2016) of the outside exhibits at the Heritage airport located next to March, the YJ-93 display is
NOT mentioned at all.
It could have been a display inside the Hangar when the map was published...Or they just didn't feel like mentioning it

edit on 5112017 by HomeyKXTA because: new info



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Hey zaph hows the j58 compare to the j93



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

They were pretty comparable actually. The 58 produced more thrust, but the 93 had a higher compression ratio and better fuel burn.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BASSPLYR

They were pretty comparable actually. The 58 produced more thrust, but the 93 had a higher compression ratio and better fuel burn.

This is probably a super n00b question, but would there be any way to have both 58 and 93's in the same bird?



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: HomeyKXTA

No. The J93 was about 3 feet longer than the 58, and about half the weight (3800 pounds to 6000 pounds). So you'd have all kinds of fun issues to try to mix the two of them.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Also i think the j58 was intended to be used as a turboramjet. The j93 wasnt. And j58 used jp7. J93 used jp6.

The j58 beat the j93 hands down in raw power. But that doesnt impress me as much as the j93s compressors and fuel usage. She has characteristics i personally find ...interesting with then possible future applications. She ran on jp6 which is interesting. What the j93 turned into though was fascinating. The ge4. The ge4 is a monster. Crushes the j58 in power. But she still retained a lot of what makes th j93 so interesting to me. Plus she also ran on jp6.

If it were me id be more interested in developing things more in line with the j93/ge4 liniage for fast moving aircraft. Its more in line with what i imagine folks could do with that type of turbine in later years when considering other developments.
edit on 15-5-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey zaph how was the xb70 able to fly at 3.1 using jp6 with out running into the same issues as the sr71 at 3.2. Refering to jp7 high flash point?

Also jp6 doesnt use boron to ignite like the jp7. Wouldnt one want to eliminate using any boranes to preserve the wear and tear on the engine from the boron?

Id personally seek engines that use no boron what so ever and no jp7 at all.

edit on 15-5-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

JP-6 was basically JP-5, but with improvements to stabilize the thermal oxidation. It was denser than JP-5, and could handle the higher temperatures generated by the XB-70. The XB-70 was built of stainless steel honeycomb panels, with titanium to combat the temperatures generated by Mach 3 flight.

Supposedly at the end of the program, they flew a few flights on JP-5, because they were running out of JP-6.
edit on 5/15/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

A bank of 6 j93s for the win!

Gotta admit the rear of the xb70 was impressive.

My dream is to find a testors or revell plastic model kit of the xb70 and have at it one day. Such a beautuful bird she was. Had a hustler model as a kid growing up. Mom threw it out when i went off to college. Along with my a10 kit i put together and did a sweet camojob on. (Was my first time using an airbrush. Probably looked like crap but i was 12 and proud of her. ) So PO'd about them getting binned.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Yeah, good luck with that. Specialty places don't even have them.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Youre not joking. Plastic model hobbiests are facing a bleak future. I tried tracking down a revell kit star destroyer that i bought for 15 bucks as a kid. Its 200+ now.

Its a shame because its a hobby that ill have time for in the near futire that id love to get back into but it seems like the industries dropped right out and gone. I cant find any plastic models these days to get back into.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
enu.kz...

If you go to page 23 in the above link, there is a nice photo for comparison of J93 and GE4. Its also not a bad read about early development of SST engines



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

Wont let me open file. My phone sucks so that could be it.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I have sent you a pm good sir



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join