It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by chepye
oh my god! why crush? didn't they check the engine first? poor pilot . .>.<
Originally posted by neo96
the launch platform is not a problem
the x-1 was launched from a b-29 considerably slower than the x-1.
b-52 while slower creates a stable platform for vehicle launch.
the crash could have been caused by any number of reasons but the b-52 aint one of them.
i just look at millions lost.
edit on 18-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mikepopy
I dont know how true it is, but I remember hearing that the blackbird could reach mach 8 back then.
Question. How long do they expectt this little plane to stay in the air?
It doesnt look big enough to hold a lot of fuel for long periods of time.
Will it be for unmanned use only, or for future kamikaze pilots?
Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by whyamIhere
Dropping a rocket plane from a B-52! Don't they have any imagination!
If you believe the X-51 is a legitimate R&D activity for aircraft/aerospace industries in this day, I've got some very slightly used F-117As for sale and soon, some priceless B-2 bombers. These will be further examples of the high art that those industries have been directed to produce for public consumption. They are part of the dog-and-pony show to keep interest away from the triangles and other exotic craft--not aircraft--that do not use air for lift or propulsion. (Potential buyers for the surplus F-117As and B-2s please note these craft are evn close to being supersonic not intended for serious business such as engaging in modern real war activities.)
I urge all of you airplane enthusiasts steeped in the lore and history of conventional aircraft development to broaden your horizons to get beyond the old concepts that limit what you allow yourselves to accept as possible in aviation.
If as much amateur effort was put into proving the existence of triangles as was involved in digging up the little facts and tidbits of the F-117 before it was announced, you could have virtual proof in a short time of the realaity of triangles.
Those enthusiast that deny or ignore triangles as unique craft are either set in old-fashioned ways or have other obligations that shape their words and views. I've always loved aircraft, the older the better, but something else is up there these days.
As I've said many times on ATS on one thread or another, I've seen a triangle low, slow and silent at close range and I know they exist. So don't bother trying to convince me that they don't exist or explain them away. If I were the only person to ever report one, you could do that, but there are thousands and thousand of sightings of them.
Is this post off topic? No. I'm denying the true legitimacy of craft such as the X51edit on 18-6-2011 by Aliensun because: Clarification/word corrections
6+ scramjet. I was wondering if you can actually make high speed manuvering at these speeds in atmosphere, say avoiding missile defense systems, without tearing themselves apart.(?)
Originally posted by thebozeian
Now as for the black triangles. Why is it that anytime somebody begins mentioning exotic research programs some idiot or said bunch of idiots jumps out of the woodwork making completely fantastic and completely unproven claims of black triangles, alien technology or some other self absorbed crap? NO SERIOUSLY, what are you, socially disaffected?