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.

 

Aicraft design I made last 2008 showed up with Lockheed Martin!

page: 4
64
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: av8r007

Really? No one does? I see it all the time that multiple Russian aircraft are supposedly copies of American aircraft. Aircraft, like cars and other things are going to look the same. Look at the U-2 and other high altitude aircraft. All have remarkably similar features. You're not going to have radically different features in the same design, it's that simple.

Both designs are for basically the same aircraft. Unless he can prove that Lockheed had a different design, and changed theirs after seeing his, which from reading this thread he can't even prove they saw it, then he has no case.




posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: av8r007

The tu160 looks a whole heck of a lot like a Bone.

When i was a kid i used to like to draw my own versions of cab forward transverse longitudinally mounted mid engine cars with low drag coefficients. Wouldnt you know it lamborghini came out with cars that look just like my wild childhood fantasy sketches. I should sue lamborghini....pininfarina too while im at it.
edit on 19-7-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

For starters, the F-15 was built as a reaction to the MiG-25, not the other way around. During the 70s they realized they need an air superiority fighter powerful enough to take on the new Russian interceptor, so the Eagle was built, so reaction does not equal copying.

The TU-160 for contrast was built as a reaction to the B-1, so it too followed similar design philosophies of aerodynamic principles required to build a supersonic bomber, however has more in common with a Russian commercial supersonic transport called the TU-144 in which it borrowed design characteristics. It would also appear that the TU-160 was actually designed long before the B-1, but was not spurred into development until the US started building its supersonic bomber. More details according to this thread here on ATS from 2006.

I think you could say the same for Boeing and Lockheeds. Then there is the Concorde.

This however is far different from heavy industry all going down a similar path, if proven to be true, this is taking someone's science project to make a ton of profit without permission of the OP. So like I said before this is apples to oranges.
edit on 19-7-2017 by av8r007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: av8r007

Whether they were a reaction or not, or which was first, isn't the point. The point is that a similar mission results in a similar airframe. And this is a case of the same basic airframe being similar.

It can't even be proven that Lockheed even SAW the design, let alone that they "stole" anything from it. This is a case of two designs that were for basically the same aircraft being remarkably similar, because they have to be.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

dey stold ur drawrings!



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: agenda51

Lockheed would have the best of the best lawyers, and many of them. They would have made the design slightly different, to keep a lawsuit from happening. Kind of like when you hear a song on a commercial that is obviously stolen from a popular song, but tweaked just enough to where they can say it was incidental. Take the WWE Wrestler (Carmella) for instance, her entrance song is obviously a rip off of Iggy Azaelea's song called "Fancy". If they can steal an idea, without having to pay someone millions for it, they are going to. It's unethical, but we are talking about n American company so ethics don't apply unfortunately. This guy deserves it, he should be a millionaire, I mean you have people out there inventing talking dildo's and raking in the cash, and yet someone who truly deserves it, gets nothing. Sad world we live in.
edit on 19-7-2017 by IlluminatiTechnician because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
hmm.. guess it's just me, but they honestly don't seem - that- similar. One has upturned tips, rounded front, vs. non-upward tips at the wings, a sharper-edged front, fuselage looks a bit different, etc. I mean.. planes are planes. You can probably line up 10 planes of different models that look neigh identical.

The engines are not even in the same place! How is that identical?



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

It's not identical or even close to identical... And even if it was an order of magnitude closer to being identical all that millions of dollars in profits the one poster is saying Lockheed made from it and owes a portion of to the thread author don't exist anyway!

AKA even if he could prove a case (he can't because he doesn't own the IP regardless of what some posters are saying, and even if he had properly secured the IP for his design extremely thoroughly it's still nowhere near close enough to the Lockheed design for him to successfully sue anyway... And even if it was, he'd have spent an order of magnitude more money playing patent troll level IP securement games than he could ever hope to win from Lockheed over a design which did not generate millions in profits like the one guy is trying to say it did anyway!)

There's absolutely nothing he could have possibly stood to gain contrary to the assertions of loudmouthed arrogant and tragically ignorant posters in this thread!



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: johndeere2020


Interesting

That is exactly your design....................time to ask a high profile attorney for a pro-bono. I would wager that something like this attorneys will be fighting for a chance to make some money, because Lockheed has deep pockets.



edit on 19-7-2017 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: johndeere2020

Send them a resume or portfolio or whatever it is you all use to present your work. The plane hasn't made any money so you can sue, but no money has actually been lost. Then you would also have to prove that they used your design. It also depends upon what the rules of the competition were. If you take them to court they'll tell you to prove it and unless someone with knowledge tells you they used your design all you can really do is keep working.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
It can't even be proven that Lockheed even SAW the design, let alone that they "stole" anything from it. This is a case of two designs that were for basically the same aircraft being remarkably similar, because they have to be.


The Boeing BWB was also guided by the same design goals but turned up differently.

They didn't even consider adding a tail to their BWB until 2009 (under a DARPA intiative), right after I published my design. This time I'm 100% sure that Boeing saw it because we actually have an active Boeing engineer member in that forum.

Contrary to common sense, adding a tail would enable several changes like control system, trim, airfoil, etc that would lead to over 10% improvement in performance using the same engines. Lockheed recorded a similar improvement in performance over conventional BWB designs.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: fleabit

It's not identical or even close to identical... And even if it was an order of magnitude closer to being identical all that millions of dollars in profits the one poster is saying Lockheed made from it and owes a portion of to the thread author don't exist anyway!

AKA even if he could prove a case (he can't because he doesn't own the IP regardless of what some posters are saying, and even if he had properly secured the IP for his design extremely thoroughly it's still nowhere near close enough to the Lockheed design for him to successfully sue anyway... And even if it was, he'd have spent an order of magnitude more money playing patent troll level IP securement games than he could ever hope to win from Lockheed over a design which did not generate millions in profits like the one guy is trying to say it did anyway!)

There's absolutely nothing he could have possibly stood to gain contrary to the assertions of loudmouthed arrogant and tragically ignorant posters in this thread!


I wouldn't even try. Best I could get out of it is possibly a job contract.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: av8r007

So are these all stolen designs?







There are only so many ways to design aircraft. Lockheed was working on a hybrid design from at least 2008, if not sooner. Yes, they might have borrowed aspects, but proving that they didn't come up with them on their own is going to be almost impossible.



If you're looking for variety, supersonic aircraft is not the best place to look at.

There's way more variety in subsonic aircraft, just look at the designs turned out by Scaled Composites, especially in General Aviation. And my design is subsonic btw.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Concept art is the Best way of Stealing !

Good Artist Copy
Great Artist Steal !
- Steve jobs

Bill Gates:
Steve, all cars have steering wheels,
but no one tries to claim that the steering wheel was their invention.



The Pirates of Skunkwork


They have alway's had done this type of Stuff the Government

here look at this ( RE Entry Vehicle ) concept Design from the 1940s
from a Pulp Magazine Cover


And here is The Reality and Similar Design


See the Similarities ?

The most noticeable is the Dolphin like Nose Piece and the Wing Design
Between the Amazing Stories Concept and The NASA Reentry Vehicle
The 1940s Concept Artist should got some Royalties at least Right ??

The Idealogical thinking of the the Government

if it works they are taking it and making it as there own !

to bad you didnt patent the Design , right off ..



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: johndeere2020

The principle is the same regardless.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I'm still trying to find out how they are identical. Do people know what identical even means?

I'll buy similar.. they are similar. But many planes are similar. Shape is kind of the same. Wings are sort of the same but.. not, because the Lockheed has upturned wingtips. Lockheed has a different tail.. engines in a completely different spot on the plane. Seems larger, too. There is a lot more to plane design than shape anyway. Did they steal plans for the actual flight characteristics / engine design / anything else? Or do people feel they just sort of stole the general shape of the plane?

Also I could be terribly wrong, but I don't think the assembled plane-building intelligence at Lockheed Martin need to resort to stealing ideas from plane-design competition. That would be amateur hour.. and they are anything but.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
Also I could be terribly wrong, but I don't think the assembled plane-building intelligence at Lockheed Martin need to resort to stealing ideas from plane-design competition. That would be amateur hour.. and they are anything but.



Yes, I don't think Lockheed Martin do such thing, nor encourage such practice.

But one of their staff could.

I actually brought this topic up in that forum and at that time, Lockheed hasn't made the concept yet but Boeing came very close in their 2009 concept. That thread was promptly closed they didn't even offer any explanation, just a stern warning.



There is a lot more to plane design than shape anyway. Did they steal plans for the actual flight characteristics / engine design / anything else? Or do people feel they just sort of stole the general shape of the plane?


Yes, I know. I've been at this hobby for many years, I even use software used by aeronautical engineers. So if you are quite well-verse in aircraft design I can answer any question you may have regarding the engineering aspect of the design.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wolfenz
The Idealogical thinking of the the Government

if it works they are taking it and making it as there own !

to bad you didnt patent the Design , right off ..



I have no idea about the patenting process and I live outside of USA.

I still have several advanced designs however. One prominent design I'm keeping atm is a reconnaisance drone with much higher performance than anything in existence, including those existing as concepts and can be adapted to carry weapons.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: johndeere2020

bearing in mind that lockheed probably have had engineers looking at these designs for a while and its not uncommon for humans to come up with similar designs given the specifics of the subject matter.

However I will say that my friend was tasked with designing a logo in highschool for a competition and he made a logo which was later then stolen by the general electric company . Their modern logo not the old one from 1850

the new brand one which is circular with the GE cursive type in the middle, he has his school project folder to prove it
but it would never fly in court because he is poor and they are rich



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

That picture means nothing.

It's about aerodynamics and feasibility, no matter what you do your going to end up with similar outcomes in design.

You want to invent something like a TV for instance, a triangle isn't practical, a circle is unstable, you then have the issue with compatibility with supporting technologies, like video recorders. A rectangle shape works, hence why TVs are generally staying the same in shape.

It's not that different with airframes, I could design a flying brick but it probably won't be feasible. It would either create too many Gs and be dangerous, stupidly expensive or we just don't have the power source (engine design) that could effectively lift it.

It's all about technology, as it stands an aeroplane typically needs wings, a fuselage, a tail wing and engines. I could go on but I'm not an aviation expert and frankly it's already been explained why planes (our re-entry vehicles) look remarkably similar when designed for a certain task.

Ever noticed how all hammers look remarkably similar?

Who invented the radio?

Fact is that plenty of people knew about radio frequencies, many worked on ways to utilise them and many people came to extremely similar conclusions.

Much of the design aspects in the OP's picture have been utilised before anyways... In nature.
edit on 20-7-2017 by RAY1990 because: To add



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join