Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Aurora Spyplane

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2003 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Having looked about the web for info on this there seems to be a lot of conflicting information about shape, speed and propulsion. I think there is one of these planes of some description, they say satalites can do the job but a superfast plane is far more flexible.

Does it exsist?

Anyone got any links or info?

gheers




posted on Oct, 25 2003 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Use the search facility and google, this has been covered over and over again. The bottom line is nobody has any solid proof, but it probably exists.



posted on Oct, 25 2003 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zzub
Use the search facility and google, this has been covered over and over again. The bottom line is nobody has any solid proof, but it probably exists.


Of that i am 100% sure.

Also the TR-3 (A/B) Black Manta aka Shamu is for real..

It is just that all online and 'sci-fi' info about those is quite #ed up..

(pics and 3 plan views dont look nothing like the real things..)

Btw i have seen TR-3 Black Manta REAL 3 PLAN VIEW in a military type indentification 'manual' while in service..

*edit / note*

It is triangle shaped.. but isnt nuclear powered..

It ha two 'inside tilted' tail planes..

And

It has two conventional jet engines (of F404 type) and has conventional landing gear..




posted on Oct, 25 2003 @ 06:32 PM
link   
FULCRUM, that sounds a little like this puppy I found a while back

pcgot.free.fr...



posted on Oct, 25 2003 @ 07:41 PM
link   
~I love the picture of the aurora that they have on the homepage link.



posted on Oct, 25 2003 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrRadicalEd
FULCRUM, that sounds a little like this puppy I found a while back

pcgot.free.fr...


Well,

That is because that is it.



But i have seen here on ATS a topic about TR-3.. that had it 'sold' as nuclear flying triangle..










posted on Oct, 26 2003 @ 06:13 PM
link   
~Cool avatar there Fulcrum. Where did ya get it?
By the way, I totally believe that the tr-3b exists. Too many eyewitness accounts of the craft have been made already and im easy when it comes to believing in x-craft.


Peace,
Jeff



posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 09:27 AM
link   
THAP was a notional design for an aircraft type that never made it off the drawing board.

During the late 1970's there were alot of notional designs for stealth aircraft for many different mission. The penetrator at high altitude concept was just one. The drawings submitted in this thread are very basic conceptual designs submitted by Northrup during the late 1970's to DARPA. They were never built.

They are not "TR-3A" drawings. The fact that the drawing shows provisions for a laser-guided bomb is proof enough of that. TR-3A is a designation dreamed up by people like Bill Sweetman and all those other desert rats.

I does seem likely, however, that the USAF probably operates a small, stealthy recce aircraft with the mission of target designation and battle-damage assessment. I would suspect, however, it is more likely a modified F-117 Nighthawk with a recce pallet and better comm gear....



posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 09:30 AM
link   
The word Aurora ended up on a military budget paper in Congress I believe. So yes, it exists. Though it is likely a name for a series of vehicles.



posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Interesting thread - It's easy to get caught up in speculation bordering on lunacy especially when researching this on the web.

In regard to Pyros' post, Bill Sweetman is a highly respected journalist employed by Jane's Defense Weekly. His journalistic work, as is any of the available public sector information on this craft, is speculation.

However, Mr. Sweetman's intimate knowledge of the military aviation industry and the USAF's R&D certainly qualifies him to knit together tidbits of information and come up with a hypothesis that reasons the existence of such a craft.



posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
Interesting thread - It's easy to get caught up in speculation bordering on lunacy especially when researching this on the web.

In regard to Pyros' post, Bill Sweetman is a highly respected journalist employed by Jane's Defense Weekly. His journalistic work, as is any of the available public sector information on this craft, is speculation.

However, Mr. Sweetman's intimate knowledge of the military aviation industry and the USAF's R&D certainly qualifies him to knit together tidbits of information and come up with a hypothesis that reasons the existence of such a craft.

dare i say? intelgurl believes your right about sweetnam?

nice sketches, the impractical shape explains why the project was abandoned in the first place.
anything on the existence of the s-37? it's the russian equialent of the american x29, onboard nuke capable



posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 01:48 PM
link   
What I'd like to know is how the Aurora goes about running its engines at Mach 6/7 without melting them in seconds... even using fuel as coolant, heat must be a nightmare.

BTW, it's most likely a waverider akin to the XB-70 Valkyirie because of the lift/drag ratio dropping at high Mach...

In my humble opinion.

Below is probably the most accurate concept of it.








posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 02:05 PM
link   
nice model Lampyridae that thing looks pretty daaammmmm cool


would that be bigger than a normal fighter coz from above it looks like what the british bloke on an oil reg saw trailing a refuling plane in the 80s

[Edited on 27-10-2003 by Kobyoshimaru]



posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 02:23 PM
link   

What I'd like to know is how the Aurora goes about running its engines at Mach 6/7 without melting them in seconds... even using fuel as coolant, heat must be a nightmare.


I've read in a couple different magazines that the Aurora uses "RamJet" engineering. Anyone have any info on this?



posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 02:26 PM
link   
here's the size of the F-121/Aurora according to Sweetman.



posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 03:20 PM
link   
On the Discovery and History channel talked about jet engines, including an episode of Modern Marvels from the History Channel.

Yes, at that speed and altitude you will need to utilize ramjets or scram jets for propulsion. Most likely a combination of ramjet/scramjet and PDE, or something more conventional. Turbojet engines cannot opperate at the high altitudes due to the air pressure and the alleged speeds at which the Aurora operates at, those turbojet engines would suffocate and stall.

The ramjet/scramjet is different than normal turbojet engines. The ramjet is the simplest in design, letting the aerodynamics of the engine inlet to compress the air with a fuel mixture. The compressed air mixed with fuel combusts in a chamber creating propulsion.

Scramjets are a little bit more complicated , but are somewhat similar to the ramjet. The scramjet relies on the high velocity of the craft to take in air, compressing it similar to the ramjet, but at such high velocities, the air and fuel mixture ignite creating the push.


Sources: Ramjet , Scramjet



posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I'm going to throw this out here and I know I'm going to get flamed for this but what the hell.

First I want to say that there is nobody who would like more then to wake up one morning, turn on CNN, and watch the DoD unveil the Aurora as well as these other aircraft. I have been following the Aurora since the donut on a ropes pictures first appeared in Aviation Week. I believe that we have some amazing technology and good reason to believe it.

Unfortunately the evidence for the existance of Aurora is almost nonexistent. There is the budget line item, sonic booms, contrails. There is the conincidence of the SR-71 going out of service at about the same time with no fight by the USAF. What I fail to see though is any proof that any of this ties together to make a spy plane that is not only flying but we have a fleet of. In another thread someone suggested that the aircraft that fueled the SR-71 are still in service distributing exotic fuels. How do you know this? The fuel used by the SR-71 isn't exotic compared to what we believe these planes use. There is the North Sea sighting which I believe without a doubt was one of our secret aircraft. But I think people are jumping to conclusions based upon what they want it to be instead of what is most practical.

I believe Aurora exists. I know Aurora exists. But my new view of Aurora is quite different then what is currently believed. My information indicates the Aurora was in fact a X-30 project being secretly carried out. It's the size of 727 and did fly and very fast at that. But the program was cancelled. I have not read a single thing on the internet indicating that this is in fact what the Aurora was, but I tell you why I believe it to be true. The Air Force had ambitions to be able to go into space, and doing so would accomplish man things. The would be able to launch satellites covertly. They could use it as a spy platform and be anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. They could deploy weapons. It was the next logical step for the Air Force.

Here is a link to some information and after reading it you will understand why I might feel this way. Cooper Canyon ran from 82 to 85, and then we see Aurora.

www.fas.org...



posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 05:02 PM
link   
In response to that exotic fuel the SR-71 used.. it was largely karosene based only to be ignited by a catalyst.



posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Lampyridae


What I'd like to know is how the Aurora goes about running its engines at Mach 6/7 without melting them in seconds... even using fuel as coolant, heat must be a nightmare


its actually inlet temperatures that you have to worry about. if you can control the temperature, then the engines will remain cool. aircraft engines can handle airspeeds up to 560mph on there own, above that the compressure face(the fan blades you see when standing infront of the engines) acts like a wall, because it can not process the air coming towards it, hence the reason why supersonic aircraft have long inlets to feed the engines. inside the inlets are ramps that fold up and down, slowing down the incoming air from whatever airspeed you are at down to the ideal 560mph. the problem is these ramps squeeze the air and create a #load of friction at high speed, thus creating alot of heat, which can burn out turbine core's extremly fast. DARPA has came up with the MIPCC engine(mass injection precompression cooled turbine) it injects water and liquid oxygen into the engine inlet, the water and LOX not only cools the inlet temps, but the LOX expands to regular oxygen allowing the engines to run in near space enviroments. perfect engines for a hypersonic aicraft. if the Aurora exists the MIPCC engines, are the ones most likely and most believeable to power it. PDE engines don't live up to there expectations yet. both P&W and GE engines have yet to achieve pulse detonation action, and untill they do those engines will suck more fuel and create more noise than a 50's turbojet,

BTW Lampyridae, did you pick that name because you like the Bug, or the project behind that name?



posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 03:42 AM
link   
The SR-71's engines ran subsonic, using clever shock traps as well (the distinctive inlet spike) and mainly ran on the suction generated by the engines at high Mach.

I think it's a pulse detonation engine on the Aurora (trust me on this, it's very reliable info), as your standard ramjets get bottled up with air and any more spills out the side at hypersonic speeds. PDEs might also allow the engine to cool in between pulses, and if they can pulse-detonate at hypersonic speeds in the chamber, it could solve the heat problem. Also, I was also told that its a two-stage pulse detonation - a compression wave and a detonation wave.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join