It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

B-2 crash near Guam? (Update: Post Crash Pics & Video)

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 02:28 PM
So the engines aren't powerful enough to keep it airborne with the "antigravity" huh? That's funny, I thought they were plenty powerful enought to get it airborne.

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So the engines aren't powerful enough to keep it airborne with the "antigravity" huh? That's funny, I thought they were plenty powerful enought to get it airborne.

The B-2 has 4 General Electric F118-GE-100 engines,
providing 17,300 pounds each engine
But the Maximum Takeoff Weight is: 336,500 pounds.

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by hawk123

Boing 787-9 has 540,000 lb of max takeoff weight,2 engines - 70000 (probably each) . When those will start flying, i guess antigrav will be dislosed.
A350 has to use it also - 650,000 lb ,92,000 lbf, 2 engines.So US is not the only one with antigrav.
The weight aircraft carries actually is also function of wing- area, not only engines, as far as i understand.(zero,:-) ).

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 03:17 PM

Im rather confused right now

Anderson AFB is in Guam Alabama - ap footage is from here with fire on runway smoke visible

The cnn and fox have both been showing graphics of GUAM the Island in the pacific

This makes no sense to me can anyone help:??

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 03:19 PM
They're actually 19,000 which gives a total thrust rating of 76,000lbs. What's your point? The 747-400 uses either 4 PW4056 with 60,000lbs of thrust, 4 PW4060s with 62,000lbs, 4 PW4062s with 56,750lbs, 4 RB-211-524G or 524H with 59-60,000lbs of thrust, 4 CF6-80C2B1F/C2B7F with 58,000 lbs of thrust. At the low end it has 227,00lbs of thrust total. It has an MTOW of between 800,000 and 875,000lbs. That comes out to about 4lbs of weight for every pound of thrust. The B-2 comes out to about 4.4lbs of weight for every pound of thrust. Does that mean that the 747 uses antigravity too?

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by Localjoe3

Uh wrong. Anderson AB is in Guam, on the little island in the Pacific.

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 03:42 PM
Hawk 123, the B-2 does not take off vertically, it is a flying wing and wings are useful in generating something called 'lift' when they are moving forwards, therefore the engines only need to be powerful enough to move the thing forwards along the ground, then the wings generate lift and hey presto - it flies.

This is not magic, it is something that George Cayley figured out over a century before the Wright brothers put it into practice.

If you are going to try and justify the existence of anti gravity (and UFO's) maybe you could acquire a bit of basic knowledge first. This way you do not make yourself look a tit in the face of people who actually know a bit about the subject.

Don't thank me, its my pleasure.

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 03:43 PM
Wow take a small break from checkin the news and a B-2 goes down. As fro my take I'll echo what Zaph and others have said. The plane has had a great safety record for a plane that has been flying since July of 89. This is a well below normal attrition rate which it shoudl be for a plan that cost 2.1 billion when including development.

As for what mission it was on it would be highly likely that it was either training or combat. The amount of training done through use of the actually airframes is light considering that very often a pilot will train for 6 months on a sim before actually using the real airframe and very often they will train for the length of a 24 to 44 hour mission and stay in the sim for the whole flight.

Glad both pilots are safe and it will be very interesting to see how much secercy is going to desend on the investigation.

Also figured we need all the images we can find at this point please hunt gfor all that you cna find guys/girls and put em up.

From the looks of the picture it really doesn't seem like it got very far at all.

There were no munitions on board at the time and there was no damage to nearby buildings, the Air Force said.....

According to Saboy, his co-worker said the bomber exploded a second time about 30 minutes after it crashed. Other residents also reported hearing two explosions...

As smoke from fire billowed upwards over northern Guam after the crash, Marianne Blas of Yigo said a smell "like burning tires" wafted over her ranch just outside of Andersen. Blas said the stink was so strong it chased her and her husband out of the ranch

Deffently training then.

Also narrowed the crash site.

[edit on 23-2-2008 by Canada_EH]

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 04:08 PM
My take on the articles I've read so far is ferry. They were heading back to Whiteman at the end of a 4 month deployment.

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 05:46 PM
89-0127 Spirit of Kansas is the bird that went down today. AV-12 delivered in 1995.

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by Canada_EH

Which was the impact zone? Where the little line points to, or the big circle? If it was where the line was, then he banked, and could have been an elevon problem.

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 10:53 PM
Its tough to say I was thinking the same thing that the plane may have banked on takeoff and impacted sideways. The images from outside the base make it hard to tell. I'm not sure if the picture shows Runway 24 R or L both or just the one. If the runway behind the cloud is runway 24R then it would stand to reason that the plane must of banked on takeoff.

after looking at this video it looks like its wunway R which means it still would of banked a bit because it doesn't look like its sitting right on the runway.

Also msnbc has a quick clip posted that zooms in even closer on the wreakage. Can't see much and I assume it would be cover with tarps now or removed as son as the fre was put out. No need for it too be sitting out there for everyone to see would be there reasoning.

[edit on 23-2-2008 by Canada_EH]

[edit on 23-2-2008 by Canada_EH]

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 10:58 PM
It's really looking like he had an elevon problem. I can't wait to see the accident report on this one. I don't think they'll be able to keep it quiet. Not with this, it's too high profile. That's probably why they ejected so fast. They started dragging a wingtip as soon as they went airborne.

I just talked to my friend and he said the pics he saw showed it was off to the right side of the runway. So it looks like his right elevon deployed after take off.

[edit on 2/23/2008 by Zaphod58]

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 11:06 PM
Is there any chance the airframe can be restored? Or given the line being closed, the special parts, cost etc...

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 11:08 PM
What wasn't destroyed in the impact burned. Once RAM goes up in flames it's going to completely destroy itself unless they put it out pretty quick. I'd say the changes of anything being salvaged is pretty slim.

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 11:09 PM
reply to post by WestPoint23

From the looks of the fire and the fact that it was airborne from all acount I've seen its unlikely in my opinion. Any one else seen any other images any where?

posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 12:49 AM
I am no Janes military guru. But I do remember reading someone doing the math on its purported payload and engine output and found an anomaly. Many have said its lead edges are highly electrified using some advanced lift tech.

posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:18 AM
I don't see an issue with having 76,000lbs of thrust for it. As waynos said all you need to do is move it along the ground, and the shape will take care of the rest.

posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 05:18 AM

Originally posted by jpm1602
I am no Janes military guru. . Many have said its lead edges are highly electrified using some advanced lift tech.

Janes Defense writer Nick Cook has done research on B-2.

Also other authors show B-2 antigravity possibility

Combined with my real expierence of seeing charged leading edges
on the wings there is more then just the standard aerodynamics.

And even Boeing is involved.

posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 09:01 AM
reply to post by hawk123

Even your own links show that this process is aimed at drag reduction, apart from the link YOU provided that openly ridicules Nick Cook and his fairy tale. Moving from 'more than simple aerodynamics' (which it is certainly true) to "anti-gravity" is a leap that even Evel Kneivel would have been proud of. There is already a thread covering this subject on ATS so this discussion can convene there if you like, leaving this one to the real world and the B-2 crash that it was created for.

PS, haven't you ever wondered why you would make an anti-grav vehicle who's shape was nothing more than a huge wing? Hell, you could virtually switch its engines OFF and it would still fly

[edit on 24-2-2008 by waynos]

[edit on 24-2-2008 by waynos]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in