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: 5
64
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Well kinda sorta looks like. Anyway,


yay, advanced bombers , be the first to on your block to have sorta like advanced bomber design sorta adopted by the worlds premiere factory for war corporation known as Lockheed.

You can sleep well at night with sugar plum bomb ferries dancing in your head.




posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
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




Sad truth. It's probably a GE staff stealing your friend's work or some very strange coincidence.

In my case, Lockheed didn't start with the same design that I have. Their design took an evolution. And even their initial design also looked similar to another earlier design of mine which I also entered in a competition in the same forum.

A few in that forum admitted to be engineers working for the largest aircraft companies in the USA. But normally, you'll never know unless someone asks and many would probably prefer to remain anonymous about the nature of their work.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: av8r007Blending wing or not, there should be enough of a difference to tell the two apart, even if this is so called "convergent evolution." The problem is the nose, fuselage, and empennage are more or less the same, except for some minor changes on the wing and placement of the powerplant.


I used a unique way of wing washout at the wing tips where the lift becomes negative to reduce induced drag.

It provides the same drag-reducing benefits of "upturned" wing tip used by Lockeed's design but the advantage of the method I used is that it also enhances stability during high alpha maneuvers which might be useful as a bomber.

The engine in my version is placed at the middle of the wing to reduce Infra-red signature, since in a bomber role, it is expected to fly in enemy airspace so reducing detection is a good thing.

As a strategic airlifter/transport like Lockheed's version, is much less likely to fly over enemy air so they can use engine placement that makes it easier and more economical to access the engines.

The less internal volume of my version is the fact it carries bombs which has higher density over normal cargo. Same thing why the B-52 bomber has proportionally narrower fuselage than the C-17. Bombs will reach the max payload with less volume used than normal cargo. This means reducing fuselage area as a bomber to maximize the "Wetted Aspect Ratio" which in turn, improves aerodynamic efficiency.

The unorthodox design is paramount to maximizing the range (combat radius of over 6,000 miles and Ferry range of over 15,000 miles) far higher than the current B-52 bomber while actually carrying less fuel which means greater payload that can be carried.
edit on 20-7-2017 by johndeere2020 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I can't believe my thread made it to top spot in the front page!

Never happened to any of my threads before, not even remotely close! Wasn't expecting this at all especially with this topic. This is so unbelievable, I mean damn! My deepest thanks to all!



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
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.




That Picture Mean Nothing ?? LOL!!

i FIGURED SOMEONE WOULD SAY THAT COMING OUT OF THE WORK..

so did i hit a Nerve?

no what that mean is

Art becomes Life!

that it!

your Arguing over NOTHING ! Meaning less of something I Already Know ..

That my dam point of what you said see my previous Post before that

instead of Jumping IN!

JC... FM.. People I Tell ya !

you want something to Argue about when you were talking about TVS

watch a movie called

Things To Come !

It shows a 16 x 9 = Flat Screen ( TRANSPARENT )!!! Very thin Crystal Glass TV or a Video Monitor
Concept Back in the 1930s! 1936 to be exact.

when TV's were mostly Rounded Screens in a Large Wooden Box!




www.youtube.com...



www.youtube.com...





Im talking about Designs from long ago showing what is now a reality

CONCEPTS CONCEPTS thats all folks ..




of what we now have today




as you said ,


Ever noticed how all hammers look remarkably similar?

Who invented the radio?



Well i went back to my first post

and this is what i placed in that Post !

Obviously you did NOT read it

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.






edit on 42017ThursdayfAmerica/Chicago7200 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I will have you know that I experienced the same thing with the SkyCat Hybrid Airship in my life. I should have never sent a diagram and technical patent illustrations to www.advancedhybridairshipdesigns.com in 1999 as a stupid 19 yr old kid.
That is my design for a hybrid airship completely. The hover engines/blimp/rotational turbine engines to steer and pivot the ships velocity and no need for ballast because the weight of the ship balances perfectly with buoyancy due to whatever gas hydrogen/helium/argon is being used.
I may have only been a conceptual designer but I also can draw up patents for technology systems to use with these airship designs. I have left a giant trail online of these designs and technology journals to many people before it was ripped from me completely by 2010. Also the Clinton's idea for Rad-Aid and use of Hybrid Airships in their Clinton Foundation also that program was stolen from me as well. Two things I have been freely handing out and for any IT that would like to compile and track me in the online digi-verse and verify these two things go ahead.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Did you happen to read all of the fine print for this competition? If you have it, I would go back and re-read all of it.

You would be surprised at what gems are hidden in there. You never know what you are giving away as a competitor in these competitions.

Xcav



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: johndeere2020

That does look like your design. I'd be calling my attorney. Theft of intellectual property is a crime.


That may depend on the actual fine print of the competition. It probably said all design elements become property of the event sponsor... perhaps Lockheed or some 3rd party affiliated with them was a sponsor.

Nicely done though, OP.

edit on 20-7-2017 by evc1shop because: fixing broken quote



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Not when you willingly upload it to a corporate owned web forum.


Um, where'd the quote go?

Yeah, research competition, data mining web forums. People giving away all their good ideas. Running checks to see if you've got patents or books in the works...
edit on 20-7-2017 by BigBangWasAnEcho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I believe your design looks very similar the the B2 Stealth. Or, what is known by the nickname the "Wobbly Goblin".
Maybe you could interest them in a more stable version, with your tail upgrade (along with a gig). Then they could save a gazillion dollars on the computers used to stabilize and fly that puppy.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: johndeere2020

Lockheed was likely observing this "competition" from the get go. I bet this happens all the time in this industry. You think you're entering an innocent contest when you're actually giving multi-billion dollar companies free blueprints and designs...



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   
You can sum this thread up with an old saying:

Imitation is the purest form of flattery

Enjoy



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: olaru12

Nope. Not if he didnt own the copyright back in that year...and maybe he should have copyrighted it? But...appears he did not.

Outta luck....


Wrong-O. You are not required to register a copyright. It's automatic (what is sometimes called 'statutory copyright.') The only thing registration does is prove it was yours on the registration date, so it establishes a precedent. But registering with the Library of Congress is not the only way you can establish precedent. Your design competition material is proof enough. This principle is well-established in case law. Of course, that begs the question of a direct connection.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: xcavscout
Did you happen to read all of the fine print for this competition? If you have it, I would go back and re-read all of it.

You would be surprised at what gems are hidden in there. You never know what you are giving away as a competitor in these competitions.

Xcav


I didn't think someone would take these competitions that seriously.

There were only few engineers among the contestants. Although I'm an engineer but in an unrelated field in manufacturing.

But the majority of the contestants weren't engineers, some were pilots, and many just doing it for the sake of the hobby.

Although the sim we used is a relatively serious piece of software and can be used as a virtual wind tunnel to a fairly accurate degree (if used with other engineering design tools) for subsonic designs.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth
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.




And this is precisely why taking Lockheed to court would be a futile effort. He could find 10 patent attorneys willing to do pro bono work and Lockheed would drip them all dry until they gave up. Most of the money would be spent right up to the trial. Lockheed would absolutely bury his attorneys. High profile corporate law firms have it down to a science.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: johndeere2020

not sure if this has been asked, but what is the benefit of engine location?

you placed yours near the front, Lockheed placed them near the rear, apart from that, it looks like your design,



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phatdamage
a reply to: johndeere2020

not sure if this has been asked, but what is the benefit of engine location?

you placed yours near the front, Lockheed placed them near the rear, apart from that, it looks like your design,


No worries, I'm happy to entertain the questions.

That's because my design is for Long Range Strategic Bomber which means the aircraft must fly in hostile airspace to fulfill its mission.

I have to place the engines along the middle of the wings so the wings can mask its Infrared (IR) emission, making it harder to detect by IR sensors or lock on with heat-seeking missiles from the ground. It is also less likely to stall the engines in that location during hard maneuvers.

Lockheed's version is for Strategic Airlifter, Airliner, and Private jet. Naturally, it is much less likely to fly into hostile airspace. It doesn't need to mask its IR emission due to much safer operating environments. Its engine placement clear of the wings at the rear is optimal for ease/economy of maintenance.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: HorizonFall
a reply to: johndeere2020

Lockheed was likely observing this "competition" from the get go. I bet this happens all the time in this industry. You think you're entering an innocent contest when you're actually giving multi-billion dollar companies free blueprints and designs...


I'm not sure it is a good idea to sponsor such competition to get design inspirations.

It also doesn't stop other companies from seeing these designs. For example, aircraft companies in Russia, China, Iran who could potentially field these designs at around the same time.

It doesn't give you any advantage if potential adversaries also have your design. It will only be a matter of who gets them into production first and we can see especially in China they can be quite capable and quite fast in fielding their own advanced designs.

I could also bait them to less optimal designs and keep a much more advanced design!


It already happened before with the Concorde Team to deceive their Russian spies to make the inferior Tupolev Tu-144!



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Given as similar set of goals and limitations, the optimizations required to achieve such often come from a common set of structures/materials/shapes that are available at that point in time to achieve the design.

Were there great variations among the other competitors designs? You yourself said it was adapted from an earlier design to fit the military nature of this contest.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChrisM101
Given as similar set of goals and limitations, the optimizations required to achieve such often come from a common set of structures/materials/shapes that are available at that point in time to achieve the design.


Oh, you read the rules, nice! We could only choose from pre-selected engines and some of the engines were turborprops. And also pre-selected airfoils too. There were many design limitations but the bottomline is that the design should be feasible/practical in real life, ie, a real aircraft can be made out of the design reaching the same simulated performance.



Were there great variations among the other competitors designs? You yourself said it was adapted from an earlier design to fit the military nature of this contest.


Yup, there's large variations in the design concepts, the other contestants commented my design looked so "alien". If you have the time to browse that forum, you can see the designs of other contestants. I already forgot which page it was posted on.

The earlier design I took it from was also my design, the BTL-3 which is a highly unorthodox design itself and also won an earlier competition. The BTL-3 is a high performance 737-800 sized STOL airliner and can land in small airfields and still achieve efficient high subsonic cruise at much lower fuel consumption than the B737 jet.
edit on 21-7-2017 by johndeere2020 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
64
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join