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.

 

Aurora Found?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Funny how this super duper secret plane looks exactly like a kite I could buy down at the nearest toys r us.

Fakity fake fake.




posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I was looking at the Runway, and was thinking "That's a small arse runway for a supposed Hypersonic aircraft with pulse detonating engines
."

Yeah, not big at all, certainly not the biggest in Europe. Sorry Browno, nice try though.

Shattered OUT...


i dont i dont want to create the impression i am supporting the "AURORA " myth , but -- before chucking out the claim that a given runway is " too small " , i would like to address the following questions :

how much reverse thrust can a " hypersonic pulse detonation engine " generate

how many drogue chutes does the " AURORA " have ? and of what diameter ?

what braking force can its [ " AURORA " ] landing gear brakes generate ?

what is the stall speed of the airframe [ and thus touchdown velocity ] ?

those are just the 4 very obvious questions -- an aircraft expert can probally think of several more of relevance -- but that is not the point , as they were firmly tongue in check rhetorical questions .

you are falling into the trap of assuming a new top secret airframe with " hypersonic pulse detonation engines " actually exists based soley on the hupe suroningd the aurora myth .

when the real question should be -- show me evidence that this airframe actually exists -- and then review its characteristics -- at the moment preformance parameteres are being fantasised for this " aurora craft " to fit anomyloys sightings

a classic example is the deltod shape -- people see or think they see a " flyting black triangle " -- and for what ever reason -- assume it is aurora , and then leap to the unevidended " conclusion " that aurora is a black delta wing .

when in fact there is no actual evidence that aurora actually exists .

aurora iis a myth that has taken on a life of its own , if there is a new hypersonic aircraft flying today . its highly unlikely it is called aurora -- quite the oppsite , the hype surounding that name would be a prime reason to change it

what is true is that claimants who trot out the longest runway falacy and claim that a top secret aircraft was using Machrihanish in 2002 , are obviously shooting them self in the foot , but exposing shoddy research and poor fact checking

APE OUT



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Pulse Detonation engines have reverse thrust? How do they properly install the buckets without ripping the inside of the engine off?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
Funny how this super duper secret plane looks exactly like a kite I could buy down at the nearest toys r us.

Fakity fake fake.


Here's a better look:


I'd swear, though, that it looked a little clearer a few months ago.

I'm not up enough on late-model super-heroes to know who has a green outfit with red gloves (hands? flames? energy fists?), but maybe another reader could enlighten us.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Pulse Detonation engines have reverse thrust?


to be brutally honest i have no idea -- but as no one else has actually built an operational PDE powerplant -- or at least that they admit to

i gues the " bridge " of whether reverse thrust is possible / practical will be explored then .

this wikki site is prety easy to folow : wikki_PDE_article


How do they properly install the buckets without ripping the inside of the engine off?


again , i have no idea -- to be honest -- that didnt occur to me

i guess this is my mea culpa moment -- i should have thought my questions [ even rhetorical ] out a bit more carefully in a post decrying others shoddy research


but to salvage my postion a little -- the wikki article implies that PDE powerplants would require some sort of a low speed deflagration >>> detonation warm up cycle to start from cold and accelerate to hypersonic speeds

otherwise the engine would need to be catapult launched , or carried aloft on a carrier and resleased

that low speed mode COULD include a reverse thrust system

APE OUT


ISJ

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
what is true is that claimants who trot out the longest runway falacy and claim that a top secret aircraft was using Machrihanish in 2002 , are obviously shooting them self in the foot , but exposing shoddy research and poor fact checking

APE OUT




How rude are you? One simple fact that I posted has seemed to get you riled. Leading you to do alot of airport runway length analysis.

Until i read this article (4th paragraph) i did not know of the aforementioned RAF Machrihanish and simply remembered a statement from that article. If the author of that article is factually incorrect then you should not be attacking other ATS members for providing incorrect facts.

In the future ape, i suggest just setting the facts right without putting people down and going off the major topic of the thread.






posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
PDE engine designs are quite secret, because the tech involved is still fairly new. There are a lot of generic descriptions of how they work, but nothing really going into detail about them. I posted this in another thread, but it fits here too.


The exact details on many of the PDE designs currently being developed are rather sketchy -- mainly because they have the potential to be extremely valuable so most of companies researching in this field are not about to tell us what they're doing.

However, from the information that has been published, it appears as if most designs are using a two-stage ignition process to achieve detonation.

Once a fresh air-fuel charge has been drawn into the pipe, a much smaller amount of a very volatile fuel (such as hydrogen) and an oxidizer (such as oxygen) are injected into a trigger chamber at the closed end of the pipe. This mixture is then ignited by an intensely powerful electrical discharge and made to detonate by forcing it through some carefully designed passages which create high levels of turbulence in the burning mixture.

This tube is sometimes referred to as a DDT (Deflagration to Detonation Transition) tube and its job is to force the trigger charge to burn at a rate that creates a supersonic shockwave.

Once it detonates, the small charge in the trigger chamber creates a very powerful shockwave that then hits the main air/fuel charge in the engine's secondary combustion chamber.

It may sound odd that it is possible to compress the gas in a tube which has an open end -- but the incredible speed of the detonation shockwave means that the air/fuel simply doesn't have a chance to be pushed out of the tube before it is compressed.

As, or because it is highly compressed, the air-fuel is also detonated by the intense heat of the shockwave.

Now while this all sounds pretty simple in theory, there are clearly quite a number of practical problems to be overcome before a working PDE can be built.

www.aardvark.co.nz...



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ISJ

How rude are you? One simple fact that I posted has seemed to get you riled. Leading you to do alot of airport runway length analysis.


at the risk of sounding rude , dont flatter yourself -- i was not even adressing you -- it was a general comment decrying poor research and repeated mistruth

and i was certainly not riled , you woukd know if i was , trust me . so please do not second guess my state of mind


Until i read this article (4th paragraph) i did not know of the aforementioned RAF Machrihanish and simply remembered a statement from that article. If the author of that article is factually incorrect then you should not be attacking other ATS members for providing incorrect facts.


that article from the register was the soirt of garbage that does get me riled , i find it hard to believe that any one who made any contribuition to that article has ever seen a real airbase , of any stripe

the notion of painting the runways was pure farce -- i neally fell out of my chair at that



In the future ape, i suggest just setting the facts right without putting people down and going off the major topic of the thread.


i did just set the facts , and did not attack any members ,

as for " off topic " the information i included struck to the heart of the credibility of the claims , and further highlighted the unreliability of random internet sources

how is that off topic ???

i suspect you will detest my next reply to this thread , which should be edited up and ready to post in the morning

as i have dug up some more " dangerously off topic " info on machrihanish / campbeltown -- including hi res map scans -- etc

its called dienying ignorance [ or at least my interpretation of it ]

unless people dont actually want reliable information - i which case screw them


ISJ

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

at the risk of sounding rude , dont flatter yourself -- i was not even adressing you -- it was a general comment decrying poor research and repeated mistruth



Well as I was the first (and only?) person to mention the longest runway then it certainly seemed to be aimed (soley) at me.


Originally posted by ignorant_ape

i suspect you will detest my next reply to this thread , which should be edited up and ready to post in the morning

as i have dug up some more " dangerously off topic " info on machrihanish / campbeltown -- including hi res map scans -- etc

its called dienying ignorance [ or at least my interpretation of it ]


Dont take the piss, if you see incorrect facts, i for one would rather you just set the facts straight without snipes/sarcasim



Originally posted by ignorant_ape
unless people dont actually want reliable information - i which case screw them


Yes we/i do, but how do i know your post tomorrow is more credile than that of the register, painting runways sound pure fantasy, but unless you have undiluted inside info then how do i now? how does anybody know ?



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Pulse Detonation engines have reverse thrust? How do they properly install the buckets without ripping the inside of the engine off?

Shattered OUT...


It wouldn't work! First of all, Pulse Detonation Engines use mini explosions to create thrust. As you speculated, the exposions would tare the engine apart if you used the thrust reversers. Second, a thrust reverser needs continious thrust to be effective.

Tim


ISJ

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Anyway, enough of that malarky, why would it just have PDE engines, surely a combination of types of engines (hopefully utilising the same fuel source) would be best, regular type engines (with reverse thrust
) fro take off and landing, then PDE engine either used as say afterburners are or a separate engine to be turned on and off for high speed activity.

Or am i just talking rubbish?



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
i have seen something in one evening in 2004,there is a loud bangs just behind the kledang mountain in ipoh area,perak states. My country is malaysia of coursed
the time if i m not mistaken at 3:43pm. what make me curious until to this times is
that aircraft which produces loudbang left behind like a circles along a rope. something like most contrail but this one have a circle on it.At that time i cant see the aircraft clearly becaused it is to high.Just from one horizon to another horizon
it just take 15sec to 25 sec i guess.it fly too fast cant even see it.
1)The point here is,i want to know what kind of aircraft engined that produced a loudbang sounds like nonstop firing cannon.


myself i think it might be the aurora......



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
And how easy would it be to make a fake picture...?? it's just a triangle... I can do one of those on paint...


it very much in my eyes looks like a stationary moth that either sits on a window or has been pasted into the image.. so much compression artifacts and black background so its hard to tell..

doubtful that you can do it on ms paint wich is utter crap.. maybe you mean corel painter or photopaint



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
ISJ -- no mate , you making perfect sense . PDE , scramjet [ supersonic ram jet ] or ano other advanced propulsion system ONLY works at hi speed -- you CANNOT light up a PDE sitting stationary on an apron .

which leaves 3 options to " get i going "

1 -- carrier launch - a converted bomber / transport carries the craft to hi altutude and releases it @ 500kt or so -- if the PDE needs higer airspeed to " ignite " you just dive - to build up velocity

the drawbacks are the size and weight are limited

2 - launch ramp / catapult - like the V-1 used -- again the bigger / heavier the plane -- the more massive the ramp / launcher

3 - dual / hybrid engines -- have the disadvantage that @ PDE operating speeds , a turbojet is just ballast -- it cannot do anything usefull -- and worse will probally have to be sheilded from the hi speed air intakes too --

conventional engines simply cannot withstand the temperature / intake velocity of hypersonic flight



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Hate to point this out, but why is the aircraft in the first photo banking so steeply? Not to mention so low to a major urban area? So far, I've never heard any reports of Aurora having 'fighter-like' handling, which is what that picture suggests. And from various reports, Aurora is a very LOUD aircraft, so such a showboat manuverue would clearly get the locals up in arms. I'm thinking that picture is not genuine, at least in the sense of it being of Aurora.


And on the comment that there is no proof Aurora exists... Let's not forget the name Aurora would not be here had it not shown up by accident on a budget report. There is a reality to Aurora, it's just that the exact form and concept are in question.

There is NO proof Auora DOES NOT exist. Only when we find out what these mystery aircraft are will we know for certain if Aurora was a myth. Looking at the history of black projects it would only be fair to say the U-2 and the Black Bird never existed before they were revealed. Aurora is no exception. Only when we are presented with all the facts will the question of myth aor reality be answered.

[edit on 1-7-2006 by TSR2005]



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I don't think it's a moth just cuz it's too sharp at the corners. That being said I can say why I think it's fake. It's flying with lights on? I think not for a Skunkworks Project. And if you didn't wanna break the Sound Barrier at that speed (which everyone would notice) you wouldn't need afterburners. That pretty much takes care of the lights. I also have to think-If it's going slow enough so he could take a picture (judging by the shape and what we know of the Aurora) I don't think it's really generating boatloads of lift without high speed. So the 90 degree turn shown in the photo is probably a bad idea, especially at such low altitude. I think its fake.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
Came across dis site, The Image below was taken? in Glasgow, Scotland which is just north from RAF Machrihanish



2002-Glascow, Scotland. The photographer or hoaxer said he took the picture at about 10:00 P.M. in Glasgow, Ayrshire, Scotland. He said: "At around 10pm 2 months ago I was looking out my window (I was actually looking for my cat that had ran out the door) when I saw this strange thing in the sky as soon as I seen it I just grabbed my digital camera and took a picture... after I took the picture I turned round to give the camera to my girlfriend... Looked back and it was gone... There was no noise just total silence. P.S. the pic isn't great my hands were a bit shaky."

Some more stuff here!
www.ufocasebook.com...

www.ufocasebook.com...



www.ufocasebook.com...

www.ufocasebook.com...

www.ufocasebook.com...

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 15/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]


The first website link you gave us cannot be real. I have been able to make a UFO in like 5 seconds with microsoft paint which has almost no usefull features at all if you want to actually make a real pretty artwork. Its very simple to make. First of all, use the zoom function on the mag. glass and go to the smallest or second smallest X zoom. Then take the smallest type of size to paint either using the paintbrush or the pencil in black. Then make two white/grey dots using the same size and there you go, an UFO. I have shown it to a couple people but not alot and they all think its real.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
Funny how this super duper secret plane looks exactly like a kite I could buy down at the nearest toys r us.

Fakity fake fake.


Yeah i thought the same, the angle of the plane and everything just look wrong, looks like someones just slapped a triangle on a night sky photo with no idea of angles or anthing.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
So, Aurora is a giant moth? I'm sorry, but I think we can rightfully say...
HOAX!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join