The B2 Must have Anti Gravity Propulsion

Originally posted by Catalytic
Ben Rich writes

New advanced-technology airplanes are budget breakers. The B-2 bomber, at more than $2 billion a copy proves that point. but we need stealthy long-range bombers like B-2's, which can fly anywhere in the world in twelve hours and drop a payload of forty conventional bombs.

"Fly anywhere in the world in twelve hours".... To go anywhere in the world means to be able to fly halfway around the world.To fly half way around the world is greater than 12,000 miles.....

12,000 miles in 12 hours?... (not hard to turn this into a miles per hour figure)

First, 12000 miles isn't a bad approximation for halfway around the world, I think it's 12,450, so is that extra 450 miles what you refer to when you say it's more than 12,000 miles?

Second, I don't agree with your comment that "12,000 miles in 12 hours?... (not hard to turn this into a miles per hour figure)" Sure the math is easy, but Ben Rich didn't say the B-2 could go that fast. As far as I know the top speed of the B-2 is just under the speed of sound.

You seem to be assuming that they all need to leave from the same base in which case they might have to go 12,000 miles, but I don't think Ben Rich made the same assumption. Here's an article about B-2s being stationed in the UK (scroll down to "RAF Welford and RAF Fairford – its new B-2 Stealth Bomber role):

www.secret-bases.co.uk...

And don't forget about B-2 flights originating from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean:

www.fpif.org...

In the 2001 war, B-1, B-2, and B-52 bomber flights originating on Diego Garcia dropped more ordnance on Afghanistan than any other units.

So I can't speak for Ben Rich but I CAN say the evidence suggests that it's not necessary to go 12,450 miles to get anywhere in the world in less than 12 hours when the B-2 can fly out of the US, the UK, or the Indian Ocean's Diego Garcia. The electrostatic technology may reduce drag as you suggest (unless it's purpose is to reduce the radar return), but the cruising speed of the B-2 is supposed to be Mach 0.95 and I've never seen any evidence to cast doubt on this claim, including the statement by Ben Rich you just posted.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by Theyarelying
You're a closed minded fool. Completely discluding and insulting to a new idea or thing because you think you know what you're talking about.

He knows what he's talking about. And he doesn't go around insulting people--unlike you.

In this case, I think being open-minded enough to believe the garbage all over the internet can also be called being "gullible".

Actually I am curious about what the electrostatic charging is for since its purpose is still classified, but I suspect it's either for drag reduction or radar signature reduction. But I'm reasonably sure it's not for "anti-gravity" unless you (Theyarelying) are wrongly using that term to describe drag reduction. If you can prove antigravity with the internet, I can prove "elvis presley is still alive" with the internet as I just ran that search and got 1,250,000 hits. A search for "antigravity" only yielded 597,000 results so there would seem to be more sources confirming Elvis is still alive? Or else maybe we shouldn't believe half the stuff we find on the internet, especially from questionable sources.

But I agree with Astyanax, if you want to post your best antigravity evidence, go for it. The only antigravity experiments I've ever seen with any credibility are some experimenters getting a meager 2% reduction in gravity which is most likely the result of experimental error, in fact in one case I'm reasonably certain it was experimental error and it's probably the case in the other instances of 2% gravity reduction experiments also. No reputable labs have ever independently verified even these supposed tiny gravity reductions.

Originally posted by Catalytic
Trial of man accused of selling B2 stealth secrets to China

If Gowadia's quotes contained in the link attached are free from hyperbole then he has said some interesting things here...

(1) He said the B-2 was the second-most secret project in United States history after the atom bomb

Hmmm, that is not my recollection of events! That an Advanced Technology Bomber was under development was a matter of public record long before the aircraft was first displayed (which in turn was 8 months before it had even took to the air). I suppose it's possible that aspects of the B-2's technology pallet are "the second-most secret project in United States history", however IIRC the ATB project itself was more grey (e.g. ATF) than super black (e.g. QUARTZ) maybe things were different back in 1981?


This statement is at best disingenious, He did not design the B-2's General Electric F118 engines! Maybe this is just somantics but to me a propulsion system is primarily the engines, however Gowadia seems to interchange propulsion system with geometry and leading / trailing edges.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by Catalytic]

Another application of the F118 engine is the U-2S. The U-2S is the result of re-engining a U-2R aircraft with a F118-GE-101.

www.geae.com...

Now why is this engine only use for the B-2 and the U-2?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
First, 12000 miles isn't a bad approximation for halfway around the world, I think it's 12,450, so is that extra 450 miles what you refer to when you say it's more than 12,000 miles?

SNIP!

Second, I don't agree with your comment that "12,000 miles in 12 hours?... (not hard to turn this into a miles per hour figure)" Sure the math is easy, but Ben Rich didn't say the B-2 could go that fast. As far as I know the top speed of the B-2 is just under the speed of sound.

SNIP!

The electrostatic technology may reduce drag as you suggest (unless it's purpose is to reduce the radar return), but the cruising speed of the B-2 is supposed to be Mach 0.95 and I've never seen any evidence to cast doubt on this claim, including the statement by Ben Rich you just posted.

SNIP!

Actually I am curious about what the electrostatic charging is for since its purpose is still classified, but I suspect it's either for drag reduction or radar signature reduction.

Sorry for butchering your post, just didn't want to go quotation crazy

First
Agreed, 12000 miles is a fair approximation of travelling halfway around the world, however it's unlikely (and probably very un-sound tactically) for a combat aircraft to fly in a straight line for 12000 miles (even for stealth aircraft). It's extremely unlikely that to hit a target in an "unfriendly" country a B2 would overfly say Russia or China whithout permission, political concerns will therefore make "as the crow flies" route planning unusual.

Greater than 12,000 miles seemed like a fair aproximation for a minimum distance to get half a world away.

Second
As far as I know (from airforce factsheets), the B2 does not utillise electrostatics!

Thirdly
I guess that the cruising speed of 0.95 mach that you quote is also from the same open sources that also do not disclose spooky electro-shennanagins on the B2?

Just a question, why accept the officially published cruising speed but also accept un-official speculation on highly charged leading edges?

AIAA electronic library search (1)

1. 100% Electroaerodynamics in supersonic flow.

ANDREW, G. M., NORTHROP CORP., NORTHROP NORAIR, HAWTHORNE, CALIF.
AIAA-1968-24
AMERICAN INST OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, AEROSPACE SCIENCES MEETING, 6TH,
NEW YORK, N.Y., Jan 22-24, 1968

front page (1)

"The results indicate that electrostatic
forces can alter the flow pattern of a fluid
and it may be possible to attenuate the sonic boom.
In addition, if the sonic boom is decreased there
may also be a wave drag reduction."

AIAA electronic library search (2)

2. 100% Recent experiments in supersonic regime with electrostatic charges

ANDERSON, W. E., NORTHROP CORP., HAWTHORNE, CALIF.
AIAA-1970-759
AMERICAN INST OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, FLUID AND PLASMA DYNAMICS
CONFERENCE, 3RD, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., Jun 29- Jul 1, 1970.

Front page (2)

"In one experiment at Mach 1.4 the shock wave completley dissapeared from view"

amusingly 1000 MPH (yes, thats the speed required to fly 12000 miles in 12 hours) coresponds to a Mach number of...... 1.4 (depending on altitude and other factors)

It's a fun topic and we'll wait and see if there is any truth to this........ in say 50 years!

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Catalytic]

NASA ER-2 is also using the same F118 engine as used by the U-2 and B-2

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by hawk123


It's an interesting question as to why the B2 shares engines with extremely high altitude aircraft when the published ceiling of the B2 is a fairly modest 50,000 ft?

I think we have speculated before (in this thread?) that the max altitude of the B2 might be higher than is disclosed.

Certainly prior to the airforces insistance on a low level capability (LIDAR guided terrain following?), earlier design incarnations had very high altitude capabilities. However these designs had longer, more graceful & slender wings and as a result the aircraft would have flapped like a bird when flown down low among the weeds.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Catalytic]

Originally posted by Catalytic
reply to post by hawk123

 

It's an interesting question as to why the B2 shares engines with extremely high altitude aircraft when the published ceiling of the B2 is a fairly modest 50,000 ft?

I think we have speculated before (in this thread?) that the max altitude of the B2 might be higher than is disclosed.

Certainly prior to the airforces insistance on a low level capability (LIDAR guided terrain following?), earlier design incarnations had very high altitude capabilities. However these designs had longer, more graceful & slender wings and as a result the aircraft would have flapped like a bird when flown down low among the weeds.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Catalytic]

Indeed, I expect that the max altitude of the B2 might be higher than is disclosed. Therefore we cannot trust any of the other given figures for the B-2.

reply to post by hawk123


A wise man once pointed out to me that there are some holes in our logic here

The NASA WB-57 easily flies in excess of 60,000ft and this uses engines dervied from those used on the boeing 707. I was then asked if I believed that the 707 has secret super high altitude capabilities (had to admit that there was a flaw in my logic)

I agree though, high altitude would be a desirable characteristic on th B2 and if it existed it would be hidden from those tasked to shoot it down (and consequently us).

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Catalytic]

B-2 IS 'old hat' technology as superslovak put it.

The TR-3B Astra (made around the same time) is the true anti-gravity craft.

The B-2 is nothing more than a diversion from it, perhaps it costs billions per unit to produce because it's funds were being diverted to the Astra? food for thought.

a reply to: minkey53

yes it does i have seen one

originally posted by: JIMC5499
Uhhh, I helped build the leading edges of the wing for the first six aircraft. There's none of that crap in there and there is no way to put it in there.

Just to keep the fun going. What would power this anti-grav system that isn't there?

Um, who cares about the B-2? We still use B-52's from 1955.

If we're going to pretend to care about the B2 Spirit, than we have to look at one of the only articles that ever went into the detailing of how it worked, and that article was published in '92 by aviation week, and in that article they definitively say that the leading wing is positively charged and the exhaust is negatively charged while in flight.

It also goes into how, and evidently it's not all that hard and doesn't require additional power as the actual flight of the plane itself powers the charge.

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.......

I think you just have no idea what you're talking about. I don't even believe you helped build the first 6, let alone touched anything that ever made it onto one, and if you did, you'd still be under NDA about it with Northrop.

originally posted by: Toby231
a reply to: minkey53

yes it does i have seen one

If that was the case, the B-2 that crashed during take-off could of just switched on its antigrav system and floated back to base.




It did not, obviously.