Mystery Plane Identified (theory)!

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Yes large bombers do low level bomb runs. There are many videos of B-52s and B-1s dropping at high speed from low level, even a few of the B-2.

Why do people insist that the B-2 is loud? It's the quietest plane I've ever seen. I've had them fly 200 feet over head, and not hear a damn thing from them until they were a second past me. And even then it wasn't "incredibly loud" as I've seen many people claim. The exhaust system uses different ways to cool and quiet the exhaust to make detection much harder.




posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
My parents house is fairly close to one of the flight patterns for TIA. Plenty of 737's come in nearly over the home, albeit several K' up. I know commercial planes are designed to operate within certain decible ranges, out of consideration for the public. That B-2 made you look up. It was the first one I had seen airborne. It looks massive, and so unlike what you typically see in the air, I can see people mistaking it for some sort of UFO. To my eye, it is a beautiful piece of machinery. Heck, I love all the noise it makes. The sound of Freedom!



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
If you want to hear loud, you should be out there when a B-1 or B-52 goes overhead. THAT is loud.
Or better yet, when a B-1 takes off.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If you want to hear loud, you should be out there when a B-1 or B-52 goes overhead. THAT is loud.
Or better yet, when a B-1 takes off.


Just like you Zap I've heard all 3 as well and I'd say the B-1 takes the cake for noise when its in full burn after a bombing run and gettin the heck out. Then the B-52 which you can hear coming sort of and loud but not as loud as the B-1 once it passes you. The B-2 though not a sound on it way up to me and then best way to describe it was a low rumble and I could feel it in my chest ever so slightly. Anyone who is judging this on take off sounds would be in the wrong boat as its all about the lead up and aftershock of the plane. My break down is as follows.

B-52 (just plain load over all)

B-1 (loudest after it passes but more effective then B-52 in the approach)

B-2 (fall asleep to it)



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I was standing in the grass next to 8R in Honolulu when three B-1s took off, 30 seconds apart one night. Talk about loud.
I couldn't even hear myself thinking until well after the third one was gone. But god it was great.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
John Lear,

I have tried a few times now to have a conversation with you sir. I thought that maybe it was not possible due to the fact that you are a very busy man, yet you seem to have the time to respond to the posts that interest you. I have been involved in aviation, mainly military, for a great while. I have supported you in many ways as far as your background and fantastic achievements. Some of your claims are understandable, some a bit more out there..but I have not really commented on that, they are your opinions and I respect that.

However, after trying again to reach and even u2u you, I feel let down. Again I had the hope that maybe we could talk and you could share some thoughts with me!?
I have been let down again and have come to a pinnacle as far as your posts go. I have watched and participated in this thread abit, and I have seen you blatantly offend other members..members that I am friends with.

Such people as Canada_EH, Gfad, Waynos, and myslef share the love of aviation as you do. It is the mottoe of ATS to "Deny Ignorance", and especially in the aircraft forums I would think and expect that this attribute is necessary and respected by all.
I continue with this site because of the high level of communication, understanding, and respect among its members.....so far. You have attacked many people Mr. Lear, and you have the undivided attention of so many that I would think that you would use this opportunity to be a role model...but in fact just the opposite is happening. I am sure that I, and my opinion, am not important to you....what a shame because I once held you in a very high regard. The opportunity has been there for you to talk to me, even say, "hey Mondo...I'd love to chat but I am just super busy", I even offered you that caveat but still........nada.

Alas I must speak my mind a bit and mention how much I dislike your attacks at the people that just want proof that has yet to come. Do you have to prove yourself?......I don't know, but all these people want is some support to back up your ideas.......what they get is insults!!!!

I have and will always admire your achievements within the aviation field. The human relations field and manner in which you debate have left me unimpressed. Please don't forget that we are all human and deserve respect, being humble is so rare these days.
I write this to you in an effort to show my support of fellow members/friends on ATS and as a show of last resort to communicate with you. There is never a need to bash others..if you disagree or have strong feelings, just explain in a mature respectful manner.

Mr. Lear, please underatnd that I mean no offense by this post at all...I just feel let down. Also, I will not stand by and watch what I consider an attack on fellow members.
These people are good people who contribute greatly to the life on ATS.....they will not be hammered and/or insulted by anybody, not without my support anyway!

I wish you a good day, I will not expect a response as I have done that too many times already. I am not happy to write this to you, but not having the time for me is one thing, watching my brothers be insulted is another.......we can turn this around and get back to a respectful converstion, learn from each other, and expect proof for claims.

Peace and God Bless, Mondo


Again, this is in no way an attack on you or your credentials or beliefs. I am just expressing dislike in the comments you make to other members.....take it as constructive criticism..or with a grain of salt, either way it is meant with respect from me sir.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Mondogiwa]



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH

B-2 (fall asleep to it)


How true! A couple years ago, I went to Andrews AFB just outside of Washington, DC, for the annual Armed Forces Day celebration. As part of the airshow, they had a B-2 Spirit do a flyby. At the time it arrived, I was looking at something else. I Never heard the plane coming. If my mother hadn't tapped me on the shoulder and pointed it out, I would have missed it for sure! It really was THAT QUIET!

Tim



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH


And you make me sick with your BS and being a stuck up jerk to myself.


I missed this message from a few days ago. Please accept my apologies. And please accept my apologies for being a stuck up jerk. It was just the thought of someone asking for a description of "roundels" on a highly advanced space ship had me rolling on the floor laughing. I was imagining roundels like on a Spitfire on a black triangle fresh out of the skunkworks.




How about you sit back John while I do the work of asking the questions and you contribute BS attack about my character which i have tried not to do to your self.


I can do that but I was not attacking your character. I was having fun with your complete inability to grasp current (but secret) technology like trying to put 'roundels' on spacecraft. Sorry, Please accept my apologies.


Frankly John this post says alot about the way you treat people here on ATS and maybe why alot of the people who ask questions and think critically hate your off topic banter and inablitiy/unwillingness to say anything more. Good day sir


Many share your thoughts, so you are not alone. And good day to you.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
John do you understand how your posts come across to myself and some people on these threads. I'm sorry for some of my comments but frankly with the way that I feel as if I've been treated you didn't deserve any praise from myself.

Yes roundels was an interesting word to use but your posts in regard to myself have been about more then that one comment. Frankly im pretty sure you knew that I meant "any markings" which I'm pretty I prefixed my question with. Humour is fine John but when you have treated that person like crap previously it sorta loses the humour and turns into a not so funny jab.

Personally John I'm trying to find infromation that can be seen and just as easy to understood for people. Your posts can be helpful but for this thread you have resorted to the opposite of any help, but for you own agenda.

I hope that in the future we can work together to deny the ignorance of people who are mis-informed. I just think in the recent past you have resorted to be-littling those who want to work with you.



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
It was just the thought of someone asking for a description of "roundels" on a highly advanced space ship had me rolling on the floor laughing. I was imagining roundels like on a Spitfire on a black triangle fresh out of the skunkworks.



May I ask why?

John, Roundels are simpally a form of identification marking that shows where an aircraft comes from. They serve the same function as the "Star and Bars" on US aircraft.

This is a Roundel:



And here is the "Star and Bars":



Every military aircraft has marking like these. How is that funny?

Tim



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
KC-135A and B-52s that used water injection, were really really loud.

I would think a B-58 taking off in burner would have been incredible to hear, if you had any hearing left.

I do think John Lear sincerely does believe what he says, and he says you can take or it leave it. Which is certainly preferable to those who sell you such stories, and are trying to get you to hand over your cash to them, all the while they know their own stories are just that, stories.

If I had been through that many checkrides, I may be a bit grumpy sometimes too







[edit on 15-4-2007 by firepilot]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
KC-135A and B-52s that used water injection, were really really loud.
[edit on 15-4-2007 by firepilot]


This is a bit surprising to me, maybe because I'm not an engineer. I know Jet engins can be quite loud. I've had an A-10 fly over my head at an airshow and that makes your whole body shake.

Now, what does water-injection have to do with how loud a plane is?

Tim



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Some of the early turbojet aircraft like the KC-135A and B-52 (up to the B-52G) used water injection to increase power during takeoff.

Those turbojets were already loud, but the ability to make some extra power, so hence bit louder. It was just something used on early turbojets.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
perhaps is sume short of f-22 portotype



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
At our local air museum, one of the volunteers who worked on a base (I'm not sure where) said (Rather cautiously) that A-11's were very early prototypes of the A-12. This happened after I mentioned the supposed A-11 to A-12 name change. I didn't want to ask anymore, because he might have slipped up and I didn't want to make it seem like I was trying to gather secrets.


Could have just been a slip up in wording, meaning no "A-11" actually existed.

Just putting that out there!



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevenharryw

The A-11 was never built. It was the concept designation just prior to the A-12 and represented Kelly Johnson's feeling that it was too difficult to design an airplane that could fly fast an still be stealthy. The two characteristics seemed mutually exclusive. With the A-11, he sacrificed stealth for speed, but the CIA rejected his proposal because the A-11 had such a large radar cross-section that it was likely to be misidentified as a bomber. So, Johnson went back to the drawing board and came up with the A-12, which had a nice balance between performance and low observables.

Johnson also designed an interceptor version of the A-12 for the Air Force. He called it AF-12, and it was eventually designated YF-12A. This was the first version of the Blackbird unveiled to the public in 1964, when President Lyndon B. Johnson announced its existence. By agreement with Kelly Johnson, the president intentionally misidentified the aircraft as an “A-11.” Kelly Johnson's reasoning was that the A-11 designation represented the non-stealthy configuration. Coincidentally, or not, the YF-12A is the least stealthy of the Blackbirds. It had several ventral surfaces that probably made good radar reflectors, and lacked the radar-absorbent edge treatments that were applied ti the A-12 and SR-71.

The fact that the president announced it publicly as the A-11 meant that numerous authors and journalists have also used that term, leading to much confusion over the years. Further muddying the water, the Air Force carried the stored A-12 airframes on their books as A-11s. Compartmentalization and habitual secrecy of those who worked on the A-12/YF-12/SR-71 has resulting in even some Blackbird veterans using the term "A-11" in reference to one or more of the airplanes.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

Ma'am that sounds like a TR3 Astra:www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can of worms too.
But saying the PHOENIX LIGHTS are AIRCRAFT flares is really a reach. I haven't seen flares fly in tight formation SLOWLY at all .Parachutes don't maneuver to well either so Army signal systems are out,Drones would drift by natural currents of air too.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

The TR-3 was never built. Neither the TR-3A nor the TR-3B ever flew or were built as mockups or as actual aircraft.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Then I would say the term "TR3" would be a 'PLACEHOLDER" of sorts for the silent black triangles we keep seeing everywhere until their REAL name surfaces on these odd things.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: Stevenharryw


Johnson also designed an interceptor version of the A-12 for the Air Force. He called it AF-12, and it was eventually designated YF-12A. This was the first version of the Blackbird unveiled to the public in 1964, when President Lyndon B. Johnson announced its existence. By agreement with Kelly Johnson, the president intentionally misidentified the aircraft as an “A-11.” Kelly Johnson's reasoning was that the A-11 designation represented the non-stealthy configuration. Coincidentally, or not, the YF-12A is the least stealthy of the Blackbirds. It had several ventral surfaces that probably made good radar reflectors, and lacked the radar-absorbent edge treatments that were applied ti the A-12 and SR-71.



Learn something new everyday. I didn't know that there was that much difference between the A-12 and YF-12A.






top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join