It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What really put the cat among the proverbial pigeons was a feature published in a March 1992 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, entitled "Black world engineers, scientists, encourage using highly classified technology for civil applications". For the first time in open literature, this article explained how the B-2's sharp leading edge is charged to "many millions of volts", while the corresponding negative charge is blown out in the jets from the four engines.
"Take-off thrust of the [B2 engine] F118- 100 at sea level is given as '19,000lb (84.5kN) class' by Northrop Grumman and as '17,300lb (77.0kN)' by the USAF. These are startlingly low figures for an aircraft whose take-off weight is said to be 336,5001b (152,635kg) and which was until recently said to weigh 376,0001b (170,550kg). Aircraft usually get heavier over the years, not 20 tones [sic] lighter. Even at the supposed reduced weight, the ratio of thrust to weight is a mere 0.2, an extraordinarily low value for a combat aircraft."
In other words, Gunston is implying that the B2 is seriously underpowered unless there is some means of reducing its mass or of increasing its lift beyond that provided by conventional aerodynamic means.
"Other writers have commented on the size of the B-2 wing and noted that its stealth depends on the huge black skin being made of RAM (radar-absorbent material). This, say the physicists, is 'a high-k, high-density dielectric ceramic, capable of generating an enormous electrogravitic lift force when charged'."
Originally posted by BigTrain
If what the above poster says is true, that would explain the low power engines, but again, the wing is extremely efficient and doesnt require the kind of power as say a B1
PS, the B2 is subsonic.
Originally posted by kilcoo316
Being subsonic doesn't stop a supersonic bubble forming on the upper surface (and as you can see below the lower surface too). Preventing a strong shock on the back end of this bubble is one way of reducing the possibility of shock induced boundary layer seperation, another would be polarising the flow and controlling its movement and ensuring the pressure gradient is minimised (which would be the case with the jet exhaust entrainment through both normal fluid viscosity and through magnetic effects).
Originally posted by sardion2000
Official ATS B2 Electrogravitic Research Thread
This item is going to sound like a bad reject from conspiracy publications like Nexus or New Dawn, or an X-Files fanzine. It isn't. The indisputable fact is that both the US and the UK are putting serious money into anti-gravity research with military aerospace applications. The only question is how far it is from operational status. There is informed speculation that it is already used in the American B2 bomber.
I believe that access to this potentially revolutionary and obviously highly secret technology, perhaps via the JSF/F35 fighter program, could be behind the otherwise (in my view) inexplicable level of support given Bush over Iraq by Howard and Blair.
For the record I am a mechanical engineer who spent over two years at a British Aerospace guided missile R&D site in the early 1980s and have continued to take a strong interest in aerospace technology. I am a member of ASRI (Australian Space Research Institute). I am not a crank.
WaynosNobody has yet given me a convincing explanation why a vehicle that is 100% wing would require anti gravity.
Originally posted by carcharodon
I a sort of parallel note, Boeing is using some of the B-2 technology in its new aircraft the B 787 Dreamliner. Maybe there are some explanations there about how the B2 is just an ultra efficient plane, much more than a regular aircraft
Seattle Times Article
On the new 787 program, Boeing is taking composites technology much further than it did on the 777. The whole 787 airframe, like that of the B-2, will be made from plasticized carbon-fiber composites rather than the conventional aluminum.
. . .
Regardless of how the technology was developed, Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, agreed with Gillette that the 20-year-old material design of the B-2 is no longer state-of-the-art. He dismissed the idea that any composites technology on the 787 could still be militarily sensitive.
"Knowing how to work with composites, by itself, would not greatly aid an enemy," Thompson said.
Last March, a lead engineer working on the procedure for fastening the 787 wings to the fuselage e-mailed colleagues with B-2 experience.
He wanted to know if they recalled the specifications used on the military plane for aligning and drilling holes in multiple layers of titanium and composite materials.
A Boeing engineer now working in Seattle on the F/A-22 fighter jet program quickly supplied the answer — specific numerical guidance for the drilling machine — from a B-2 manual dated 1991.