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.

 

Roswell Proof: Where is it?

page: 17
0
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
"and size of the wing is directly related to the speed and performance of the engines" == lost shaman

That is an interesting statement for this aircraft. I would guess that is not the case. Most standard
aircraft designs are not based upon a "glide-capable" design. For example, note the "T-2" photos in either of
these links. Seems to me that the ol' B-35 design has re-appeared as the current state of the art hang-glider.
Which, of course, has NO relationship to engine capability since there is NO engine.

(The wing shape as a glider.)

www.willswing.com...
www.hanglide.com...

OK, take your "good eyes" and examine the last two photos in the link-set by Access Denied. What do you make
of those, particularly the last one ?




posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
"and size of the wing is directly related to the speed and performance of the engines" == lost shaman

That is an interesting statement for this aircraft. I would guess that is not the case. Most standard
aircraft designs are not based upon a "glide-capable" design. For example, note the "T-2" photos in either of
these links. Seems to me that the ol' B-35 design has re-appeared as the current state of the art hang-glider.
Which, of course, has NO relationship to engine capability since there is NO engine.

(The wing shape as a glider.)

www.willswing.com...
www.hanglide.com...



Note that more advanced aircraft like the F-14 Tomcat actually change the shape

and profile of the wings in flight with the wing shape and profile dictated directly

by the speed and preformance of the Air craft.

In the photo's we can see the Wings are being reconfigured with new Flaps and

Slats. The reason for that IMO would be because of the difference in preformance

and speed expected by replacing the B-35's props with Jets.

Also note that Hangliders would have a drastically different lower center of Gravity

than the B-35's would have. i.e. I'm almost positive that B-35's were not "Glide-

capable" and had stablility issues.

Check out this picture of a F-14 Tomcat's wings.









[edit on 1-10-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing

OK, take your "good eyes" and examine the last two photos in the link-set by Access Denied. What do you make
of those, particularly the last one ?


I'd say that at least two air frames didn't make it. Most likely cannibalised to
re-tool the other 9 air frames. Or its simply a photo of one or two scraped Airframes.


home.att.net...

By the end of 1948, it was planned for five YB-35s and 4 YB-35As to be converted to six-jet configuration and fitted with
cameras and redesignated RB-35B (later to be redesignated YRB-49A). One YB-35 was earmarked for static testing, and
another jet-converted YB-35A was to be fitted out as a test-bed for the Turbodyne T-37 turboprop engine, which was then under
development. This test aircraft was to have been designated EB-35B (it was the last of the 13 prototypes) and would be
capable of carrying two T-37 engines, although only one of these engines would actually be fitted initially. The second XB-35
was to have been fitted with a flexible-mount gear box to try and cure the problems with the vibrations in the single-rotation
propellers.

In August of 1949, the two XB-35s and the first two YB-35s were scrapped. In November, the Air Staff cancelled plans for further
conversions of YB-35s and YB-35As to jet propulsion. Scrapping of the remaining YB-35 airframes started in December of
1949 and was completed by March of 1950. The disassembly of the EB-35B testbed began in March of 1950. None of the
series production B-35A were ever built.




[edit on 1-10-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   
"Note that more advanced aircraft like the F-14 Tomcat actually change the shape

and profile of the wings in flight with the wing shape and profile dictated directly

by the speed and preformance of the Air craft." == lost shaman

Thats not what I was focusing on. But even with the F-14, you have a flying structure
that is not terribly efficient. There are, to my knowledge, only two "efficient" flying
structures. Lifting bodies, and flying wings, both sharing the same characteristics.
The ENTIRE design provides lift, with almost no structure going to waste (not adding
to the efficiency). Thus if it is properly CG'ed, I fail to see how the design would be
other than "glide capable". Take the Me 163 Komet (1941 design) as an example.
Powered flight up to combat zone, then glide home. Note the wing as well. Same
shape but most likely too small for drag rudder application, hence the conventional rudder.

"The reason for that IMO would be because of the difference in preformance

and speed expected by replacing the B-35's props with Jets." == lost shaman

Or perhaps because of the difference in size and shape of the engines? The counter-rotating
prop design was supposedly a total dissappointment from what was expected. And what was
expected was pretty much what was obtained with the two YB-49 prototype jets. If so, why
re-design control surfaces for the same original design performance ?

(Note: Disclaimer. I claim NO expertise in aeronautical engineering. I am trying to apply
clear, logical thinking to what we are seeing. For Access Denied, I am in a bit of a fog
about where this B-49 idea is going. My original thought was an indirect relationship to Roswell,
via the Arnold sighting and your source, but due to coincidences of dates, there may be more here
than I was originally going to suggest.)



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing


(Note: Disclaimer. I claim NO expertise in aeronautical engineering. I am trying to apply
clear, logical thinking to what we are seeing. )


Your right, it's most likely that adapting 8 or 6 Jet engines to an Airframe designed for Four Props would be a reason for changing the Flaps or the configuration.

But you asked me what gave it away for me. I assumed the reconfiguration of the Flaps and Slats is logical because of the increased speed that comes from the Jet engines. Note that the top speed of the YB-49 is a hundred M/P/H faster than the XB-35 .

The Flaps and Slats control the way air foils over the wing , and a faster plane requires smaller Flaps and Slats than a slower flying plane. Just in the same way that faster aircraft require smaller wing surfaces than slower aircraft.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

The bottom line is the implication and relevance of all this to Roswell is that the military wasn’t taking UFO reports seriously yet so initially they were considered an acceptable unofficial de facto cover for anything classified reported in the press… that is until “one press officer decided to play up that angle several days later”.



I don't know how you can say the Military wasn't taking UFO reports seriously yet.

Lt. Gen. Twining initiated a UFO investigation on July 2nd.

Brig. Gen. Ramey and Col. Kalberer had been giving Press interviews as early as June 29th to downplay some of the very first publically reported sightings starting with Ken Arnold's.

Micheal Swords writes... " In fact, the first week of July 1947 had created considerable excitement within the offices of the Pentagon, with the Air Force Directorate of Intelligence scrambling to make sense of these mysterious overflights and enlisting the aid of their bases, other services, and the FBI (Fitch, 1947)."

PROJECT SIGN AND THE ESTIMATE OF THE SITUATION I - Swords



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

Right but as noted previously this apparently was in response to reporter Dave Johnson contacting him on or before the that date


It's really not important what it was in response to, the fact that on July 2nd Lt. Gen. Twining initiated his UFO investigation is what is important.


Originally posted by Access Denied

and don’t forget Twining’s Secret letter to General Schulgen re: AMC Opinion Concerning "Flying Discs" was dated 23 September 1947 which is over two months later after that and the Roswell “incident”…

www.project1947.com...



I haven't forgotten about it. Remember it was also almost the same word for word as Lt. Col. Garrett's preliminary study of UFO reports from July.




Right but what part of those early interviews suggest to you the military was taking UFO reports seriously? If there’s any doubt just look at these headlines…


Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 1, 1947, p. 1
'BUCK ROGERS STUFF,' ARMY MEN SAY
Flying Discs Reported From More Texas Areas


Roswell Morning Dispatch, July 1, 1947, p. 1
Everyone Sees Flying Disks,
Buck Rogers Stuff The Army Says


Austin American, July 1, 1947, p. 1
Army Scoffs 'Buck Rogers'
Lubbock Couple Reports Sighting Another Of
Those Mysterious, Super-Fast Flying Disks


Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 2, p. 6
'DISCS' BEFORE THEIR EYES!
Platter Planes Poohed by Flier and Astronomer


El Paso Times, July 2, 1947, p. 1
'Flying Disc' Reports Make Army Laugh

www.roswellproof.com...


Of course you'll also note that the negative press continues right through that week and into the next week, despite the fact that by the end of the first week in July the attitude in the Military had changed. The Negative Press reports and Interviews from Military did not change.

By July 7th Lt. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg , Army Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff , was meeting about a "flying Saucer incident" according to his personal papers held in the Library of Congress.

Also by July 7th 1947 , Air Defense Command orders all sightings to be reported.

Army Air Force Chief of Staff General Carl Spaatz wanted Hamilton Field to "open a file" , and by July 4th 1947 Lieutenant Colonel Donald L. Springer had orders to investigate.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Telos
 

This reporter too has met and was impressed with the man ,Corso at the Roswell
reunion in `97.His grandkids were with him and said to me;"Grampa has been telling
us this for a long time".Most of the media at the news conference were from other countries as ours isn't ready for an honest disclosure yet.
Jesse Marcel Jr. was also there and was a very credible 'matter of fact' witness to
debris brought home by his father Maj.Marcel.(Isn't it interesting that the media wants
to believe those who weren't there or even released a single balloon-(Gen.Ramey), as
opposed to those who recovered the wreakage and released balloons every week.-
(Maj.Marcel,Staff Sgt.Rickett,Gen.Exon,Col.Dubose,Lt.Col.Blanchard,Lt.Haut.et.al.)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join