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.

 

Latest and greatest (F117, B2, F22*) buzz Rose Parade!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   


U.S. Welcomes 2004 Peacefully But Still Tense

Security was tight. Lots of cops and such. And this is only the Rose Bowl. I fear what is going to happen with some of the bigger bowl games and the Super Bowl. Could take hours just to get into the stadiums once you get in line.


* Oops, yeah, F22, not JSF

[Edited on 1/2/04 by crayon]




posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 02:52 AM
link   
The one on the very right looks more like a F-22 than a JSF but like it really matters.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Something tells me they weren't there for just show.A STEALTH BOMBER flanked by TWO FIGHTERS!!!With all the extra security in Las Vegas and New York during New Years Eve celebrations,maybe they thought the Rose Parade could have been a "terrorist" target as well. Just seems kinda fishy that they would break out that kind of hardware for a parade. Maybe I'm just paranoid.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Yes you are just paranoid.

The F117 isnt really a fighter, it wouldn't be much use at all against any convieable threat.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Anybody planning on going to one of the major sporting events this weekend?

Would you go if you had the opportunity?

My parents want me to go down to Houston, TX for the SuperBowl, but I am not sure I want to be anywhere near there at that time. Go Chiefs!



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Chiefs suck, they knocked my team out!



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Nice picture!
From right to left,
Stealth generation 1, 2 & 3...

as for these planes being used to patrol the skies over the bowl game and parade... nope - none of these units are suited to this task... with the exception of the Raptor which is not officially operational yet.

This task is most likely given to 2 or 4 F-16's circling the metro area loaded for bear ~ with a few Apaches not necessarily airborne in the close vicinity.

But what do I know - I'm just a girl~



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Americans reaction: "Woah! cool F-22 F117 and a stealth bomber, impressive!"
Europeans reaction: "Duh? 3 shapes of planes, whatever..."

No offense! Just funny to see how we differ in our passion for weapon technology



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl

Stealth generation 1, 2 & 3...


I would do this 'lotto' as:

2,3,3..

As there really isnt any great differences between B-2 and F-22..

and:


"Tacit Blue"

Link!

I would say that this is 1st gen.




posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Intelgurl, you are very knowlageable, for what you call "just a girl" and i would agree with you on Generations 1,2&3. Tacit blue was an emperimental aircraft, not a generation aircraft. and raptor is definatley next geration from the B2. F117 uses all flatpannel isometric shapes, none of which make a 90 Degree angle, B2 employs an all curved body, there are no flat surfaces on a B2. F-22 however uses a mix of both, which in my book consitutes a generation progression. all ties in to the generation progression of the supercomputers used to compute all the angles and calculations needed to design the aircraft.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
couple of other points i forgot to make!!!

i'm a european and i still think the pic is cool!

theres no way they were patroling the skies above! B2 only carres air to ground ornance for a start! F117 is not a fighter either, its a rotten fighter, hence its nickname, the "wobbly goblin".

shame they didnt have a B1 as well, another 2nd generation Stealth



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I don't think you can say the B2 and the F22 are the same plane. Just start with the manufacturers, Boeing and Lockheed. So at the basic level, inside the planes they are going to be different.

I don't think I would be happy flying a plane (F117) that needs constant adjustment by computers to keep it in the air.

Give me an A-10 Warthog!



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
lol...guys....the planes weren't for "defense". It was simply the "wow" factor flyover. They do it for all major sporting events. This is an old sports tradition, and has nothing to do with actual defense at all.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   


I don't think I would be happy flying a plane (F117) that needs constant adjustment by computers to keep it in the air.


just to let you know. Almost all arcraft are designed like that to a lessor or greater degree. combat aircraft are designed to be extreamly unstable, you could not fly one with out a computer assistance. this is because when you make an input on the controls, instead of acting slowly and smoothly like an airliner, or a training aircraft, it acts sharply and quickly. exactly what you want from a fighter jet or low level bomber.

an A-10 is very unstable without the computers. it needs to be very manoueverable.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 01:41 AM
link   
The one on the very right looks more like a F-22 than a JSF but like it really matters.


its a F-22 the JSF is smaller and has a single engin. with VTOL/STOL capabilatys. so it does really matter



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knowsstuff
just to let you know. Almost all arcraft are designed like that to a lessor or greater degree. combat aircraft are designed to be extreamly unstable, you could not fly one with out a computer assistance. this is because when you make an input on the controls, instead of acting slowly and smoothly like an airliner, or a training aircraft, it acts sharply and quickly. exactly what you want from a fighter jet or low level bomber.

an A-10 is very unstable without the computers. it needs to be very manoueverable.


Hmm, I did not think that a highly maneuverable aircraft needed a computer. P-51 Mustang? Very maneuverable, no computer. Though it did have problems in negative G situations, thank the carburetor for that.

The F-117 is a fly-by-wire system, I believe. Which would mean a computer is necessary to control the aircraft. The A-10 is redundant hydrolic control with a backup manual control system, just in case you lose hydrolics. So, no high-tech computer needed. The reason why the A-10 is so maneuverable is its small size, compared to a passenger jet, and its low speed.

The slow response of a passenger jet is more for passenger comfort than lack of a computer to control the plane. And the A-10 only has 1 passenger, and the pilot should know what they are getting themselves into if they yank on the stick.


[Edited on 1/3/04 by crayon]



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   


Hmm, I did not think that a highly maneuverable aircraft needed a computer. P-51 Mustang? Very maneuverable, no computer. Though it did have problems in negative G situations, thank the carburetor for that.


the Mustangs used in combat were powered by the Packard V-1650. a license built Rolls Royce Merlin engine, which was fuel injected, and didnt have a carburetter. which meant it could fly upside down and everything!



The F-117 is a fly-by-wire system, I believe. Which would mean a computer is necessary to control the aircraft. The A-10 is redundant hydrolic control with a backup manual control system, just in case you lose hydrolics. So, no high-tech computer needed. The reason why the A-10 is so maneuverable is its small size, compared to a passenger jet, and its low speed.


Crayon, trust me, i am An Airframe Systems and Structures Technician for the Royal Air force. i was previously a Licensed Airframe and Propulsion Technician for civialian helicopter companies. i have worked on all sorts of aircraft, from small utillity helicopters to large scale off shore oil and gas support helicopters, also passenger jets, air to air refuelers and combat jets.

Fly by wire or not, all modern aircraft are controlled by a computer to some degree. you could not fly a modern combat jet without the assistance of the computer. all the minute control inputs from the computer are what keep the aircraft stable inflight. theese inputs are made so quickly a pilot couldnt possible do it, so the computer does it for him. try to look into the British aerospace Jaguar Advanced Control Technologies aircraft from the 70's thats when the brits were using this technology to make their combat jets stable and simple to fly yet agile and manouverable to fight and bomb with.

size has nothing to do with manouverability, most light aircraft are very benign in their handling since they are designed to be easy to fly, thats down to design of wings and control surfaces etc. think of the Tomcat on the other hand, a 28 ton FIGHTER jet! it is one of the most highly manouverably aircraft in the world. or better still, the B1 Lancer! a supersonc bomber that is almost as manouverable as a fighter jet! thats all down to advanced control technologies. the F117 is Physically impossible to fly without the help of the computers because the stealth design is not compatible with flight charachteristics, so it is essentially Forced to fly.


Cranfield University

quote from above web page, from Cranfield university, a specialist university for Aeronautical Engineering.

"(iii) Autopilot and flight director systems provide automated piloting commands to relieve the pilot of mundane tasks, to control the aeroplane when conditions may not be favourable for normal pilot control and to provide extreme control precision which may be difficult for the human pilot to achieve. Clearly, the flying qualities performance requirements for this type of controller are different and since there is no human pilot in the loop, handling qualities considerations do not apply. The large majority of autopilot systems provide various automated flight path control functions and facilities for holding variables like height, Mach number, attitude, etc. at constant pre-set reference values."





The slow response of a passenger jet is more for passenger comfort than lack of a computer to control the plane. And the A-10 only has 1 passenger, and the pilot should know what they are getting themselves into if they yank on the stick.



i never said that an airliner didnt have a computer onboard, and i know its for passenger comfort. actually, its because the aircraft isnt designed to take the loads associated with high speed manouvering, but it is designed like this because there is no need for the aircraft to be highly manouverable. the computer onboard the aircraft is usually programmed NOT to allow movement like that. take for example the new Airbus A318. All Airbus aircraft a fly by wire, side stick controled. there is no phisical link from the cockpit controls to the control surfaces. it makes now difference how quicky you move the stick, it will not operate the control surfaces out with the parameters of the aircrafts flight envelope. it also wont allow you to stall the aircraft, or let it enter a spin.


[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Knowsstuff]

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Knowsstuff]



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knowsstuff
the Mustangs used in combat were powered by the Packard V-1650. a license built Rolls Royce Merlin engine, which was fuel injected, and didnt have a carburetter. which meant it could fly upside down and everything!

In June 1940, Packard was requested to undertake the production of some 9000 Merlin XX engines. It took just three days for the company to respond positively but on that proviso that some modifications would be made to the powerplant to enable American accessories such as carburetors, fuel and vacuum pumps to be utilized. So I guess we are both right, though I find no mention of the V-1650 engine anywhere.

From: P51

Crayon, trust me, i am An Airframe Systems and Structures Technician for the Royal Air force. i was previously a Licensed Airframe and Propulsion Technician for civialian helicopter companies. i have worked on all sorts of aircraft, from small utillity helicopters to large scale off shore oil and gas support helicopters, also passenger jets, air to air refuelers and combat jets.

Work on any A-10's?

Fly by wire or not, all modern aircraft are controlled by a computer to some degree. you could not fly a modern combat jet without the assistance of the computer. all the minute control inputs from the computer are what keep the aircraft stable inflight. theese inputs are made so quickly a pilot couldnt possible do it, so the computer does it for him.

If you are talking about a computer controling the hydrolic pumps, then I agree with that.

or better still, the B1 Lancer! a supersonc bomber that is almost as manouverable as a fighter jet

When its not crashing.

the F117 is Physically impossible to fly without the help of the computers because the stealth design is not compatible with flight charachteristics, so it is essentially Forced to fly.

Yes, that is why I would not want to fly one of these.

Cranfield University

Great paper. But it talks more about high speed, highly maneuverable aircraft. No mention of the A10, just hints at flight control systems, but that is it.

All Airbus aircraft a fly by wire, side stick controled. there is no phisical link from the cockpit controls to the control surfaces. it makes now difference how quicky you move the stick, it will not operate the control surfaces out with the parameters of the aircrafts flight envelope. it also wont allow you to stall the aircraft, or let it enter a spin.

Yes, fly-by-wire, passenger jet. We are talking about a flying gun though. I know there is someone out there that has some good technical information on the A-10. I keep finding the same stuff, over and over again.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   
merlin specifications

page above refers to the Injection type carburetter. not actually a carburetter, only called that as a lay-mans term. 1st generation of injectors injected the fuel into where the carburetter would be. unlike modern injected engines, which are usually directly into the cylinder.




Work on any A-10's?


the Royal Air Force doesnt have A-10's. i dont need to have worked on them to know how it all works, almost all aircraft work on the same principles, there are just variations specific to type. you seem to have A-10 's on the brain though




If you are talking about a computer controling the hydrolic pumps, then I agree with that.


computers dont control the Hydraulic pumps, they are driven from the Accessory gear box of the engine, or main rotor gear box on a helicoper and are controled by servo pressure sensed from pressure in the system. when the system pressurises it moves the pump off stroke. keeping the pressure up but cutting off the flow. or in the case of a fixed delivery pump, the fluid goes through an automatic cut out valve, when sysem pressure is reached. computers control the actuators on the control surfaces by way of moving a small servo valve on the body of the actuator.

as for your comment on the B1, all aircraft suffer losses and this is by no means a reflection of how good the aircraft is at performing its function.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Knowsstuff]



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
It's OK, Crayon... I have A10s on the brain, too.

No, they are not fly by wire. Are the hydraulics MONITORED by computers, yes, but not controlled by them (well, not as in FLY BY WIRE control, anyway).

When the hydraulics fail on an A10, manual control is possible because the pressure on the control surfaces are light enough for a man to use brute strength to maintain control. Much like a small Cessna, but the controls are much "heavier" on an A10 compared to a C152.

The A10's slow-flight characteristics are possible because of it's main wing type which include a decent amount of dihedral. See this picture:




Knowsstuf said:

the Royal Air Force doesnt have A-10's. i dont need to have worked on them to know how it all works, almost all aircraft work on the same principles, there are just variations specific to type. you seem to have A-10 's on the brain though


This statement troubles me. Yes there are basic prinicples, but one can not be this general with respect to complex machinery. I "knowsstuff" about computers, but I don't proclaim to know anything about Crays. But hey, they all work on the same principles, right? At least you know stuff about how a control surface is actuated by a hydraulic system.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join