TR-3B nuclear powered flying triangle

page: 24
22
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Johnson talked about a YF 11 experimental interceptor had been developed. I think that he mis-spoke regarding the YF 11 as I can find no reference to it. There was no mention of the reconnaissance SR 71. I cannot find any non classified references to the SR 71 until shortly before its initial retirement in 1989, can you?

Johnson spoke of an experimental interceptor that had been developed. There was no mention of the 32 SR 71s that that were built and flown that I can find. Are you a myth buster?




posted on May, 1 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by whywhynot
 


There were a lot of references to the SR-71.

In fact just before (as in hours before) he announced them, they had to fly two of them from Groom Lake to Edwards because he was going to say they were flying out of Edwards AFB, and not Groom Lake. That was the first official announcement of the SR-71.

In 1984(ish), I was at Pease AFB (my father was one of the enlisted advisers for the 509th) and an SR-71 came in broken. I was able to cross the ropes and walk around anywhere I wanted to except the cockpits.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Johnson talked about a YF 11 experimental interceptor had been developed. I think that he mis-spoke regarding the YF 11 as I can find no reference to it. There was no mention of the reconnaissance SR 71.


johnson's speech reference was to an A-11 interceptor - the A-11 was the previous iteration that lead to the A-12 but was never built.

The actual interceptor was the YF-12A, of which 3 were built. Their existance officialy revealed on 29 February 1964.


I cannot find any non classified references to the SR 71 until shortly before its initial retirement in 1989, can you?



This page shows a number of displays of "Blackbirds" throughout the 70's.


Johnson spoke of an experimental interceptor that had been developed. There was no mention of the 32 SR 71s that that were built and flown that I can find. Are you a myth buster?


The whole A-12/YF-12A/SR71 programme was essentially the same thing - the SR71 was a more capable development of the A12 (it was larger and could carry more equipment - the A-12 was lighter and could fly a couple of thousand feet higher because of that), designed by the same people, built by the same company.

An SR-71's was displayed at least once with the fictitious designation YF-12C to mask it's true purpose.


edit on 1-5-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: missing quote tag



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by whywhynot
 


There were a lot of references to the SR-71.

In fact just before (as in hours before) he announced them, they had to fly two of them from Groom Lake to Edwards because he was going to say they were flying out of Edwards AFB, and not Groom Lake. That was the first official announcement of the SR-71.


those were YF-12's - the 2 aircraft seem to have ben often interchanged.

Arguably the A-12 was the most secret of the lot because of its small numbers built and being operated by the CIA



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


"By the way do you have any idea why I saw a B-2 flying over Kent (UK) back in mid 2009 in broad daylight?
I have always wondered......"

Wonder if it was the same one I saw, flying overhead, at a place called Froghall on the A52 about 10 miles east of Hanley, Staffs.

It was a clear blue sky and it was flying Northwards. It took me a couple of minutes to work out what this small,black bat shaped plane was.

Joining dots, Kent, Staffs next stop west Scottish coast?

Not 100% sure of the date, but 4 years ago would be about correct. Time was early afternoon, say 3 ish and there was some sort of steam train festival going on. Rather incongruous really, 1920's steam on the ground, 2000 plane in the sky.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
how does a nuclear powered aircraft work??

as far as i know nuclear power is used to make steam to spin a turbine in order to propel a ship or submarine.

but i cant see how an aircraft can afford such a system?



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


There are 2 possible methods of using heat generated by the nuke in place of the heat generated by burning fuel in order to expand a gas and thus generate thrust.

You can use the heat directly or indirectly - if directly then you suck in air, pass it over the hot core, and it gets expelled out the back hot and fast - and by hot I mean both radioactive hot and temperature hot!! This was how the SLAM would ahve worked

the indirect method uses a heat exchanger - you heat a working fluid with the core, and then use that to heat air through a heat exchanger. This way the air does not get radioactive.

See the wiki article on nuclear aircraft propulsion for links.

These days I suspect you might also think about using a reactor to generate electricity to power electric motors.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


It was steam powered!

Taken from Wikipedia.

1890: Clément Ader built a steam-powered, bat-winged monoplane, named the Eole. Ader flew it on October 9,
1890 over a distance of 50 m (160 feet). The engine was inadequate for sustained and controlled flight. His flight did prove that a heavier-than-air flight was possible. Ader made at least three further attempts, the last on 12 and 14 October 1897 for the Ministry of War, which is surrounded by controversy as to whether or not he attained controlled flight. Ader did not obtain funding for his project and this points to its probable failure.[1]

1894: Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim (inventor of the Maxim Gun) built and tested a large (3.5 tons, 110 ft wingspan) steam powered aircraft. The machine generated sufficient lift and thrust to break free of the test track and fly but was never operated as a piloted aircraft.

Very few things are really new!



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Just have a look at this coordinates, and tell what this triangle looks like.

GMaps link

You'll have to open these coordinates it in Google Earth and select 'view historic data' and choose a date earlier than 2009 (now there is an wind farm). I would post the image here if I only were able to figure out how to do it...
edit on 14-9-2013 by Mieszko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Mieszko
 


It's a ground based antenna in Australia.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
What a disappointment...



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul
You can use the heat directly or indirectly - if directly then you suck in air, pass it over the hot core, and it gets expelled out the back hot and fast - and by hot I mean both radioactive hot and temperature hot!! This was how the SLAM would ahve worked

the indirect method uses a heat exchanger - you heat a working fluid with the core, and then use that to heat air through a heat exchanger. This way the air does not get radioactive.

See the wiki article on nuclear aircraft propulsion for links
Good summary of the two methods.

The wiki doesn't mention the Soviets actually flew a nuclear powered plane with the direct method.

The way they got around the problem of the shielding weighing too much for an airplane was to use an inadequate amount of shielding, and the crew was irradiated. The first crew member to die only lived about 3 years after the test flight.

Since they had that many problems with the direct method, and the indirect method weighed a lot more, there was no way that was going to work back then, but with more modern material technology, it's not out of the question. The biggest problem I see is if the plane crashes.

When the US flew a test nuclear reactor around, that plane was accompanied by a "glow in the dark" Marine brigade whose job was to parachute out in the event of a crash to cordon off the area and prevent curious onlookers from getting lethal doses of radiation. While I admire the safety precaution, it seems better if there's no radioactive crash site to cordon off to begin with, which can be accomplished by just not building nuclear planes.

The technology works great in naval vessels though where weight isn't an issue, and the radiation is somewhat contained by water if the vessel should sink.

At least the fictitious TR-3B doesn't use a nuclear reactor for power.





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join