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.

 

The Lockheed X-22A Anti-Gravity Fighter Disc

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   
The only difference is that the Bell X-22A is real and flew almost forty years ago, the Lockheed X-22A is made up. Or at least the name is. IF this aircraft exists at all it will be known as something else. IMHO




posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
also i doubt this thing is possible just cause of the physics of it.
i mean its just too dificult ot produce an mantian and FLY.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
also i doubt this thing is possible just cause of the physics of it.
i mean its just too dificult ot produce an mantian and FLY.


The problem is the fact that you're thinking about this from a traditional aerodynamic view. If this thing is anti-grav, all current aero knowledge goes out the window.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dangermouse


The problem is the fact that you're thinking about this from a traditional aerodynamic view. If this thing is anti-grav, all current aero knowledge goes out the window.

no the basics still exsist like airflow, when the air is flowing over the craft it affects it. now on a disc its impossible for it even with anti grav propilsion,its really unstable and well is far too unstable to pilot.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Aren't you all getting a little carried away? THIS was the X-22A

www.unrealaircraft.com...

Very nice of you to clear this up, also, anyone who believes that the US government or any other government, for that matter, has recovered "an extra-terrestrial air/spacecaraft", let alone cover it up, needs to be commited to an insane asylum in a secret location and never released to the general public for the remainder of their lives, reason being; provoking mass hysteria. There is no such thing as ETs and "little green astronauts" flying around in so called flying saucers.


[edit on 21/8/04 by Intelearthling]

[edit on 21/8/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Aren't you all getting a little carried away? THIS was the X-22A

www.unrealaircraft.com...

Very nice of you to clear this up, also, anyone who believes that the US government or any other government, for that matter, has recovered "an extra-terrestrial air/spacecaraft", let alone cover it up, needs to be commited to an insane asylum in a secret location and never released to the general public for the remainder of their lives, reason being; provoking mass hysteria. There is no such thing as ETs and "little green astronauts" flying around in so called "flying saucers".

Whoops, didn't mean to waste space.


[edit on 21/8/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
This doesn't sound right. The only X-22A I have ever heard of was made by Bell back in the 80s i think and it had four fan engines used for lift. After doing a search online i could only find that the only guy posting about this is Dr. Richard Boylan. Does anyone out there have more info on this thing because I am a huge of Lockheed and have never heard this before



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Is anyone aware the Tesla claimed to be in contact with aliens??



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SethJaneRob
Is anyone aware the Tesla claimed to be in contact with aliens??

umm mate dont you think your in the wrong forum?
and no i didnt know but care to exsplain anyhow.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by dangermouse


The problem is the fact that you're thinking about this from a traditional aerodynamic view. If this thing is anti-grav, all current aero knowledge goes out the window.

no the basics still exsist like airflow, when the air is flowing over the craft it affects it. now on a disc its impossible for it even with anti grav propilsion,its really unstable and well is far too unstable to pilot.



Wrong. If you for instance, could create a gravity field just say for instance, 10 mete3rs ahead of the craft, that is hrmmm, 20 times the gravity of earth, the air would be affected by the gravity also, So the air would rush to that spot also, the air in front of the aircraft between the aircraft and the gravity field would basically be going in the same direction as the craft.

It woul dbe like you aren't moving against the air at all...

[edit on 6-9-2004 by DaRAGE]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE



Wrong. If you for instance, could create a gravity field just say for instance, 10 mete3rs ahead of the craft, that is hrmmm, 20 times the gravity of earth, the air would be affected by the gravity also, So the air would rush to that spot also, the air in front of the aircraft between the aircraft and the gravity field would basically be going in the same direction as the craft.

It woul dbe like you aren't moving against the air at all...

[edit on 6-9-2004 by DaRAGE]

yeah well that would requier a very powerful energy source on the craft.
hmm yeah well it IS possbile. but it would also suck the craft their and anything near it. hmm. interesting idea though.
one thing though how is it gona land or fire ?

[edit on 6-9-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by DaRAGE



Wrong. If you for instance, could create a gravity field just say for instance, 10 mete3rs ahead of the craft, that is hrmmm, 20 times the gravity of earth, the air would be affected by the gravity also, So the air would rush to that spot also, the air in front of the aircraft between the aircraft and the gravity field would basically be going in the same direction as the craft.

It woul dbe like you aren't moving against the air at all...

[edit on 6-9-2004 by DaRAGE]

yeah well that would requier a very powerful energy source on the craft.
hmm yeah well it IS possbile. but it would also suck the craft their and anything near it. hmm. interesting idea though.
one thing though how is it gona land or fire ?

[edit on 6-9-2004 by devilwasp]


To land, simply hover very close to the ground and shut off the gravity field. To fire, I don't know, but I suspect energy weapons (especially a laser) would be perfect because they are very resistant to gravity.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


To land, simply hover very close to the ground and shut off the gravity field. To fire, I don't know, but I suspect energy weapons (especially a laser) would be perfect because they are very resistant to gravity.

umm one thing though everything near ,under or on the ground will be pulled towards the craft or repelled away so not so good for an airbase lol. but would be easy to land.
still it would have to be massive to carry a powersource of a laser.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Edit: Double post

[edit on 6-9-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
still it would have to be massive to carry a powersource of a laser.


Not at all. There is going to be a laser on the JSF which only has one engine, so I would assume a nuclear powered Flying disc (or one with a more exotic energy source) would also be able to power a laser.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


Not at all. There is going to be a laser on the JSF which only has one engine, so I would assume a nuclear powered Flying disc (or one with a more exotic energy source) would also be able to power a laser.
what ? a laser on the JSF? whats that gona be used for ? you cant stand and burn an object at like mach 2.
a nuke would be nasty if it crashed or got shot down.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Of course the Air Force and Lockheed and Boeing and every agaency and their dogs have a TONNE of crap we don't know about, and maybe we shouldn't know about it. I personally love aircraft, and would give my left nut to see a fraction of the cool stuff that some of these agencies have been designing and building, but its secret for now and for good reason. Why tell Joe Public something to make him happy that is only going to take away your battle field advantage and cost soldiers lives. One day they will declassify this stuff, be it next year or thirty years from now, but some day.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

Just a little correction to your numbers Shadow

World $950 billion 2004 est. [see Note 5]
Rest-of-World [all but USA] $500 billion 2004 est. [see Note 5]
United States $466.0 billion FY04 actual [see Note 8]
China $65 billion 2004 [see Note 1]
Russia $50 billion [see Note 6]
France $46.5 billion 2000
Japan $45.3 billion FY04
Germany $38.8 billion 2002
United Kingdom $31.7 billion 2002
Italy $20.2 billion 2002
Saudi Arabia $18.3 billion FY00
Korea, South $16.18 billion FY04

Stats from www.globalsecurity.org...


Another correction for you there... these are the latest figures from the CIA world fact book for the top 20 countries.

1. United states = $466.0 billion 2004
2. China = $65 billion 2004
3. Russia = $50 billion 2004
4. Japan = $45.3 billion 2004
5. France = $45 billion 2003
6. UK = $43 billion 2003
7. Germany = $35 billion 2003
8. Italy = $28 billion 2003
9. Saudi Arabia = $18 billion 2002
10. South Korea = $16.18 billion 2004
11. India = $14 billion 2003
12. Australia = $14 billion 2003
13. Turkey = $12 billion 2003
14. Brazil = $10.4 billion 2003
15. Spain = $10 billion 2003
16. Canada = $9.8 billion 2003
17. Israel = $9.11 billion 2003
18. Taiwan = $7.6 billion 2003
19. Greece = $7 billion 2003
20. North Korea = $5.2 billion 2002
21. Sweden = $5.1 billion 2002
22. Mexico = $5 billion 2003
23. Iran = $4.3 billion 2003
24. Argentina = $4.3 billion 1999










[edit on 20-10-2004 by Lucretius]

[edit on 20-10-2004 by Lucretius]



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Shouldnt it be simply the X-44A MANTA (MultiAxis No Tail Aircraft) by Lockheed? It is also near disc shaped with no tail surfaces and it looks very unusual. The designation X-22A should be a mistake, because X-44A is a tailles derivate of F-22A with 3D vectoring. It is belived, that two prototypes remanufactured from YF-22A will be ready at 2008. For pictures see my web at:

www.hitechweb.szm.sk/x44.htm

(sorry, but my english is still not very good)



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   
IMO i wouldnt call that near disc shape, more like an f22 with a fat round arse but if its a good plane then who am i to insult it.
the problem with discs is that they must fly spinning , if not they sorta go unstable and tend to crash.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join