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.

 

Stealth bomber photographed breaking sound barrier

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Stealth bomber photographed breaking sound barrier


[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5315480/Stealth-bomber-photographed-breaking-sound-barrier.html]www.telegraph.co.uk[/ url]

Its unmistakable teardrop profile is shrouded in the blur of a condensation cloud as it reaches high subsonic speed.

The striking image of the B-2, officially known as the Spirit Bomber, was taken as the aircraft soared over Palmdale, near Los Angeles.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 15/5/2009 by 0010110011101]




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I had a quick search around here on ATS and couldnt find a link to this story or a copy of the picture. I do apologise if this has been posted before.

"US defence contractor Northrop Grumman Corporation disclosed on Tuesday that it is installing upgraded software in the B-2 bombers' flight management system.

A statement from technology group Semantic Designs, which designed the software, said the project "will enhance and extend the lifetime of the B-2"."

Really? Surely the SR-91 Aurora is already in combat use?

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5315480/Stealth-bomber-photographed-breaking-sound-barrier.html]www.telegraph.co.uk[/ url]
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Link to picture and story

Sorry, I messed up the link in the OP.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Edit:Comment not relevant anymore.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by SvenTheBerserK]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Forget the Billionare Boys Club, these guys have the best toys.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
FFS : the B2 is NOT " breaking the sound barrier " - it begars beleif that a paper would print such utter twaddle as ` fact `



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
SR-91 Aurora is an aircraft that probably doesn't exist, and if it did it wouldn't be called SR-91 (that name was made up). Read posts by 'Dan Tanna', 'Shadowhawk', and maybe ask Bill Sweetman (found on aviationweek) what he thinks. In any case even if there was something better wouldn't mean they'd just chuck out the old. Updating mission software is a remarkably effective way of increasing capability.

[edit on 15/5/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 0010110011101
 


What is interesting about that article is the fact that the B-2 is a subsonic aircraft, meaning it can't go supersonic.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 5/15/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Please dont shoot the messenger! I know the motto is deny ignorance!

I just liked the photo!!!!



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Im no expert here but i thought i should throw this into the cogs of knowledge

www.wilk4.com...


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
The B-2 IS a subsonic aircraft - the simple shape of it would prevent it from flying supersonic furthermore it doesn't have the power to either. What is happening is as the aircraft APPROACHES the sound barrier, an Prandtl–Glauert singularity occurs.

gigazine.jp...

It can happen when supersonic or subsonic.

gigazine.jp...

chamorrobible.org...

Best example:
chamorrobible.org...

Plane in last example was subsonic (or else everyone ears would of exploded). On video:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Pretty coool.

[edit on 15/5/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
My brother said the inventor or designer of the B-2 saw UFOs and that's what the design is based off of? Is that true? I'm not familiar with its inception.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
My brother said the inventor or designer of the B-2 saw UFOs and that's what the design is based off of? Is that true? I'm not familiar with its inception.

I guess that's possible, but the main reason for using a flying wing is that it's very efficient (it's all wing so it's pretty much the most efficient shape possible), it can lift a LOT for its size and is also very good with stealth.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
My brother said the inventor or designer of the B-2 saw UFOs and that's what the design is based off of? Is that true? I'm not familiar with its inception.

I guess that's possible, but the main reason for using a flying wing is that it's very efficient (it's all wing so it's pretty much the most efficient shape possible), it can lift a LOT for its size and is also very good with stealth.



They are also extremely difficult to fly manually, that is why the original flying wing failed. It wasn't until "fly by wire" that a true flying wing could be feasible.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


I thought it's design shape was about getting minimal radar returns?

I also thought that aerodynamically it is unstable and only stays in the air due to the constant re-adjustments being made by it's on board computers?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I find it hilarious that they say it reached high subsonic speed only to then say in the same breath that it broke the sound barrier.

The picture is cool, yes. It's a very fast aircraft, yes. But once again the mainstream media shows it's utter disregard for facts even when it comes to the most simple and irrelevant of stories.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   

I thought it's design shape was about getting minimal radar returns?

Yes, but a flying wing is very efficient which is also why it was chosen. This is why it was chosen for the Northrop YB-49 and YB-35, where stealth were not considerations (even though both failed).


I also thought that aerodynamically it is unstable and only stays in the air due to the constant re-adjustments being made by it's on board computers?

Neither the YB-35 and YB-49 were fly by wire however as jkrog08 said they're difficult to fly without it which is why they kept crashing. Edwards AFB was named after a pilot was was killed flying one. FBW is the best invention since sliced bread.


[edit on 15/5/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Thanks for the heads up on Edwards, I didnt know that.

"Originally known as the Muroc Army Air Field, the base was renamed on December 8, 1949 in memory of U.S. Air Force test pilot Glen Edwards (1918-48), who died 18 months earlier while testing the Northrop YB-49 flying wing."




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


actually they didn`t keep crashing - the yb-35 was grounded because of gearbox failures in the contra-rotating prop`s and after less than 2 years metal fatigue was found in the engines ; it was also slower and less range than predicted , and bombers were about to enter into the jet age when it was designed (1944) (the B-36 had 2 jet engines)


the YB-49 was designed a few years later and had 6 turbojet engines - but with the up coming B-52 , which could carry more , over longer range the days of teh YB-49 were doomed.

it actually set world records at the time for endurance , and as for crashing?


1 did - when the wings came apart during spin recovery and the aircraft exceeded mach 1 in a dive.

www.check-six.com...

if you want to see footage watch the 1950`s version of `war of the worlds` as the YB-49 was featured



so im sorry to say but as for `crashing all the time` its not true - it was simply that other aircraft could do the job better at the time.

[edit on 15/5/09 by Harlequin]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
just goes to show how efficient the "saucer" shape is..
being "teardrop" shaped from every viewing angle.. allowing the most efficient method of moving through the atmosphere from every angle (on one axis that is) .. (which is all you really need when dealing with a horizontal plane of direction )..radially speaking.. that is..


-



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join