Can anybody identify this for me ?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 


I just tried to edit to say I have got it now after searching on James Joseph and NX-2 but as is usual my edits don't take.

Much appreciated Canada_EH, cool looking aircraft




posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

The US never flew a nuclear powered bomber.

The B-36 that was modified actually flew with a 1 megawatt reactor on board



Directly contradicting yourself is a post worthy of stars?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


Well if you read it quickly you could be forgiven for thinking that but there was a difference.

Yes an aeroplane flew with a nuclear reactor onboard to test feasibility of shielding weight etc....
But officially an aeroplane did not fly powered by a reactor.

OK



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


I read very carefully. Not only that post but the rest of them as well, and the links presented. The consensus is that indeed a modified bomber flew with a nuclear power plant but the idea was abandoned. I guess you buy the USAF cover story- "ya we spent millions building this test plane, flew it around and decided that trying it out wasn't worth flipping the switch".



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


Cover story or truth is for people to decide. There was issues in that the exhaust of a truly powered aircraft when the project was scrapped wasn't able to be devoid of nuclear traces so that presented an issue. There also was the issue that the power generated when compared to even just the weight of the reactor wasn't substantial enough for flight. Now they did seem to cancel the project when their was a hope for a break through in the weight and power output issues. Its speculation which is fine but wasn't the point of this thread.

As for the original picture that is different then the one mentioned in the video I think we need to look through some old mags. Or can you direct us as to where or what you typed to get this image.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


The point was that Zaphod did not contradict himself



I guess you buy the USAF cover story- "ya we spent millions building this test plane, flew it around and decided that trying it out wasn't worth flipping the switch"


Well I try to be open minded hence my use of the word "official" but even if there was photographic evidence of the NX-2 in flight how can we be sure it was only flying under conventional power, as Boyd Bushman says in the video the plane flew with a reactor onboard, which is non specific regarding powered flight.

I try to get to the truth of these things but it can be an uphill struggle without the undeniable proof available.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 



As for the original picture that is different then the one mentioned in the video I think we need to look through some old mags. Or can you direct us as to where or what you typed to get this image.


That image was posted because I thought it was a match for the NX-2 in the video clearly it is not and the original pupose of the thread was to identify the NX-2.

However identifying it would be good too so I am trying to backtrack to the original site where I found it, I remember there was no id on it and seemed to be a general illustration connected to atomic powered flight.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
This is the site that used the the op illustration.

Apoligies for not including the source in the first thread posting.

davidszondy.com...



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


As I said in a earlier posts. When he says it flew and you look at the photo it looks to me like NB-36H reactor.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 


And there lies the rub, how can it be proved that it was installed in the Nx-2 other than that video.

Finding some documentation to that effect would be usefull but I suspect it will be rarer than hens teeth.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Information regarding the nx-2 powerplant




General Electric developed a HUGE jet engine, the X211 (military J-87), to be used in the 450,000-pound Convair NX-2 bomber. The engine would have been a twin-turbine unit with a nuclear reactor and heat exchanger between the engines to heat the air entering the turbine section. Each side of the engine would develop 27,730 pounds of thrust. The paired unit was 42’ long, and weighed 15,745 pounds.

The C-133 test bed would operate only the right engine of the pair, with an air intake aft of the crew entrance door. The test parameters included speed to Mach 0.62 and altitude to 35,000’. The first year was planned for 75 total flight hours, and 100 hours in subsequent years. It would have been an interesting operation, to say the least.

www.angelfire.com...



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


Just because the plane flew with a reactor onboard doesn't mean that it was POWERED by said reactor. The militaries of MANY countries have tossed ideas around, and spent millions of dollars on a LOT of ideas that never even left the drawing board, let alone gotten as far as actually having a couple of test flights performed. The Russians got as far as flying a plane with a reactor on board as well, yet again, never powered it up to actually power the aircraft. Both countries realized that they would be irradiating the crews, probably to fatal levels, if they ever powered the reactors to full power.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa



The image above is nothing to do with any nuclear programme, it is a Lockheed concept for an airlifter (note the hinged nose) but is not related to any official programme. It dates from circa 1980 and is one of several unorthodox transport designs studied independently by Lockheed as they explored various potential future possibilities, another was the 'Flying Flatbed' shown below, neither design went any further naturally.

I always wondered if this freighter was borne out of the 'Rutan-mania' of the day which led to loads of canard/tandem wing proposals including the Boeing design for the 767 sized airliner shown at the bottom.






NX-2 stayed on the drawing board and the Reactors carried on the NB-36 and Bear were not connected to the engines at all and were merely used to to test the radiation shielding of an onboard reactor.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I watched a fascinating documentary on the history channel about this and according to one russian chap the russian military flew a short program of flights which *did* operate under nuclear power, but at the time they were concerned about whether it would work not whether it would kill the crew. which apparently it did. within 3 years the 2 flight engineers were diagnosed with cancer, within ten the co-pilot and pilot were both dead from cancer. he was the navigator, and was apparently in good health!

the program concluded that the US and the russians had both tried too much too soon and if there were sufficient funds available today the small nuclear reactors like they put into satelites would probably work!



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Just when I think that I've seen almost every aircraft concept, Waynos digs up another one!! Keep up the good work!!

The flying flatbed is amazing. If this was thought of in the 60's you can imagine the crazy ideas. All you need is a pressurised coach, and you can get on it at your local bus station, taken to Birmingham or Heathrow, drive straight onto the plane, fly to Lanzarote, Tenerife, or wherever, drive off, and get dropped off at your hotel!!! Ultimate in inter-modal package holiday!!





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join