What the hell was that!!, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 04:44 PM by boaby_phet

reply to post by Kurokage

I also had the joy of seeing a vulcan flypast this year (at blackpool air show)

i doubt it was a vulcan he saw... as their hella loud ... i took a video earlier this year (and it flys more or less over my head). also the vulcan only has 1 delta wing, and no wings near the front.

i also doubt it was a typhoon, as again, their REALLY loud ... i have seen them practicing over preston and blackpool many many times.... sometimes right over where i used to work! ... (on the outskirts of preston, under the flightpath into warton..about 3 -4 miles away from warton)

heres a vulcan video ....

YouTube Link

the strangest thing about this IS the lack of sound coming from the large craft ... if we ignore the no noise, we are looking for a craft which not only has a delta wing, but front canard wings as well! ... not only that, but its massive!

and that limits it to a few craft, one being concordski!, one being that top secret US nuke plane, and the other.... well, if its anything else i would have to say something secret.

-----------

ive been doing some internet searching, for a craft which has both delta wing and canard.... and ive came accross this little gem... now, following on from the lateral thinker and the idea that things might have looked out of perspective ....

not only does it have a canard and delta wing, but it also has a proppellor!

it does not explain what could have been in front of it. but it does cover 3 of the main aspects of this sighting.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by boaby_phet]

reply posted on 25-10-2009 @ 07:06 PM by waynos

I thought I might have a mystery plane of my own to investigate today, my wife said that when I was at work a strange and very dark aeroplane flew over our house. Intrigued, I asked her what sort of shape was it? I was hoping to come here and ask for help, but alas, she just replied 'aeropane shaped' and that was the end of that discussion.

reply posted on 25-10-2009 @ 07:30 PM by _Del_

reply to post by waynos

Splendid bit of reporting, that.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 01:37 AM by BLV12

How can the original poster be sure it wasn't a glider, if he can't even identify the aircraft he claims he saw to begin with?
It not logical.
Oh I saw an aircraft, I don't know what it was, but I know it wasn't a glider..sure, that's believable.

Either he saw something and doesn't know what it was, or he is making the whole thing up.

And as for it being a nuclear powered bomber or other black projects, yeah, right.
Because they spend billions developing experimental aircraft secretly with the highest security imaginable, only to fly them over peoples back yards.

And if it was a nuclear powered bomber, that was scrapped at the concept stage, but secretly continued and built, there is even less of a chance it will be flown over peoples homes.

Some times I really wonder about the crap that gets posted on this site, and the people posting it and responding.
I know we all like to think of the possibilities and what is kept from us, it excites me too thinking of how far they may have gotten with advanced technologies. But let's use some common sense and logical reasoning.

It's almost as bad as the lame "the world will end on this date" threads.

reply posted on 3-11-2009 @ 11:28 PM by sealteamsix

Originally posted by BLV12
How can the original poster be sure it wasn't a glider, if he can't even identify the aircraft he claims he saw to begin with?
It not logical.
Oh I saw an aircraft, I don't know what it was, but I know it wasn't a glider..sure, that's believable.

Why is that so unbelievable? First off, glider airplanes are pretty obvious to recognize (when considering their shape and size). Secondly, most gliders don't have any sort of engine; as he stated, he saw fumes or exhaust or whatever coming out the back.

Sure, maybe it is a glider. But to discredit this guy's whole story because he doesn't think it's a glider is a bit silly.

reply posted on 10-12-2009 @ 03:42 PM by randel

If it was really big it can't be a bomber unless your engineers are stupid. It can't be a fighter, and can't be a glider because it had some sort of engine.

So if it's new, because all old planes are grounded it might just be a new refueling plane. considering the shape it should be able to go near or over the speed of sound, but that would make noise.

So maybe you got it the wrong way round, the second plane had propellers and was a new model tanker airplane, but that doesn't explain the shape.

If you consider that shape it must be able to go supersonic, but that will make noise. Unless it's a propeller aircraft with some new technology that makes it go at around 0.99 mach.

reply posted on 10-12-2009 @ 04:22 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by randel

All old planes are grounded? What? If that were the case the only thing the USAF would be flying are a few C-130s, a handful of C-17s, and F-22s.

reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 04:10 PM by randel

reply to post by Zaphod58

the only english planes that look like that are the Vulcan and Concorde, the first if from the 60s and the second is a liner and easy to recognize.

The only reason the US has the bombers is the same reason they have Aircraft carriers ... and i don't know the reason. The B2 can be replaced by the tomahawk and the carriers by allies.

It might just be a new rocket launched glider. It actually makes sense ...

reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 05:05 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by randel

So we can replace the very stealthy B-2 that can hit targets with virtual impunity, with the non-stealthy Tomahawk? Really? Here`s a little question for you. How many Tomahawks had to be sent against targets in Desert Storm to ensure they hit? How many F-117s against their targets? How many Tomahawks get shot down? How many B-2s have been shot down?

The US has bombers for the same reason they have carriers. To project power, and BOMB targets (hence the BOMBER name).

reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 05:56 PM by randel

reply to post by Zaphod58

actually not many tomahawks were shot down, I would bet under 10 and if they missed is because programmers are lazy. A new generation bomber has to usually fly all the way from the US to hit a target. And they also sometimes miss... Like when the China embassy was hit. You can't consider the Gulf war a real war ... if we compare technology it's like fighting ants.

Carpet bombing should become obsolete soon... The radar footprint of the JSF is so small they could do in Iraq what the B2 did, yet the JSF can be deployed from an aircraft carrier.

reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 06:21 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by randel

And once a Tomahawk is launched, that`s it. You can`t retarget, or reroute it if necessary.
As for the "F-35/B-2" argument there`s no comparison. A single B-2 can carry something like 84 500 lb bombs. For an F-35 to carry even mid double digit weapons, they would have to be carried externally, which kills the stealth factor.

reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 07:00 PM by MrGrey1701

Back to the original point of this thread I would like to offer something of a corroboration to your sighting - I live in the Worcestershire area, Kidderminster to be exact and I recall an incident which happened in the same time frame that had me stumped.

My family and I were driving to a friend`s house in the early evening - still early enough to be light so I`m guessing around 5:30 to 6:00 pm. My girlfriend and I spotted an aircraft flying in a north westerly direction, very slowly and quite low over Kidderminster. As it was unusually warm weather we were in the car with the windows open, yet we did not hear any sound - although from the close vicinity and low altitude we would have surely expected to hear something.

It was a very passing glimpse as the car was traveling along a busy road and we lost sight of the aircraft behind houses and buildings - so I had very little time to identify it. All I can say for definite is that it appeared to be a dark gray in colour and my first immediate thought was that it was a Vulcan due to it's size and the apparent delta wing, but soon dismissed it as I had noticed the front stubby wings and then supposed it had to be a B1 bomber with it's wings swept back - it's identity just didn't fit anything else I know of.

Having been to a few airshows in the past I am well aware of how loud these things are - especially at the low altitude we witnessed, so I still find it baffling why we didn't hear anything at all in the car, nor did our friends - over who`s house it's flightpath would have taken it.

reply posted on 12-12-2009 @ 09:37 AM by BLV12

reply to post by VitalOverdose

Actually that only has 2 wings.
The two at the front of the aircraft are actually canards, technically speaking.

I'm sure some of the aero-geeks around here will be able to explain the differences, if there are any.

reply posted on 13-12-2009 @ 03:15 AM by firepilot

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by randel

And once a Tomahawk is launched, that`s it. You can`t retarget, or reroute it if necessary.
As for the "F-35/B-2" argument there`s no comparison. A single B-2 can carry something like 84 500 lb bombs. For an F-35 to carry even mid double digit weapons, they would have to be carried externally, which kills the stealth factor.

not entirely correct. Tactical Tomahawk can be reprogrammed in flight.

reply posted on 13-12-2009 @ 03:53 AM by Pellevoisin

I would like to offer a thought upon the OP's sighting.

I am wondering if the propeller driven airplane were like a tug boat guiding the large unknown craft to some "sky harbour" or an undisclosed destination -- a secret air base perhaps?

'Tug boat' was my first thought for the little plane, and as I have read this thread I am back again at the OP and this initial thought.

Imagine if a craft from 'elsewhere' had been sent to the UK but the destination was classified how would it get to its destination? Visual contact with another aircraft acting something like a tugboat bringing in the 'craft from elsewhere' to a safe landing at a secure facility...

reply posted on 14-12-2009 @ 12:17 PM by RygelUK

I've had a little think on this, and other than a flight of fancy and a large dose of imagination, I'm of the opinion that the OP could have seen something similar to the following image, especially if the prop driven aircraft was further away from the viewer. The prop sound would drown out the jet sound, especially as the jet would be throttled back and close to stalling speed so there wouldn't be the characteristic roar of jet engines near to full power.

I wonder whether there was a flypast for some memorial or anniversary in the area at that time?

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^