It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Mach 50 Secretaircraft(X-22A,SR-75,XR-7???)

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:59 PM
Ran across some links claiming that an air/spacecraft has been developed by the US Air Force and Lockheed with capable of speeds approaching mach 50. Can't seem to find pictures or drawings of this craft. Anyone else heard of this craft? Here are some links;
Would love to see additional information on this craft if it really exists.

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 11:15 PM
I doubt that Mach 50 is it. A scramjet has a huge top end, but thats assuming that you can make an airframe that won't melt. I not saying those plane don't exist, Im just doubting the Mach 50

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 11:24 PM

Originally posted by FredT
I doubt that Mach 50 is it. A scramjet has a huge top end, but thats assuming that you can make an airframe that won't melt. I not saying those plane don't exist, Im just doubting the Mach 50

I agree - Mach 50 is a bt too fast for atmospheric travel due to the heating factor.
I am fairly certain that there are operational secret aircraft capable of low hypersonic speeds. Mach 50 however is too optimistic.

Dr Boylan does not seem very convincing to me - just my opinion.

[edit on 29-8-2004 by bios]

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 11:39 PM
I havn't read them yet but I would say Mach 30 tops, theres no need to go any faster then that. Besides that would be over 5 digits hot.

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 11:40 PM
I found some pics

The SR-75 Penetrator: (with mounted XR-7)

The XR-7 Thunderdart:

There just models so who knows

The models' designer, John Andrews of Testor, says they are based on "available government information, some expert aviation and aerospace contacts, his own engineering experience, and several technological guesses."

The ad copy asserts that these craft "were designed to replace the aging SR-71 Blackbirds and are now flying missions from remote bases around the world." The Air Force denies this.

Heck Micro machine produced a version of both the TR-3A and Aurora

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 11:47 PM

Originally posted by IntelearthlingRan across some links air/spacecraft ...... speeds approaching mach 50.

my guess:

supercaviting - is to - water
??????????? - is to - air

maybe there is technology which reduces drag of aircraft, thus allows plane to fly faster in atmosphere. also, mach 25 is all you need, faster than that = you are off into solar system

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:19 AM

Originally posted by titus

my guess:

supercaviting - is to - water
??????????? - is to - air

maybe there is technology which reduces drag of aircraft, thus allows plane to fly faster in atmosphere. also, mach 25 is all you need, faster than that = you are off into solar system

Thats a really interesing concept I have never thought about. If you could some how create a pocket of vacuum around the skin of the plane you would not produce any air friction on the planes skin.

I wonder if you could create a pocket of plasma around a plane, would the plasma have less drag like when water is turned to a gas like a supercavitating underwater craft uses.

If water turning into a gas makes the molecules spread apart farther then makes less friction would spreading those same molecules even farther apart into plasma produce even less friction then air would?

[edit on 30-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:27 AM

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I wonder if you could create a pocket of plasma around a plane, would the plasma have less drag

thats one of the advantages of plasma-stealth... drag reduction.

*bell rings*

supercaviting - water
----plasma---- - air

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:45 AM
WOW this makes Plasma stealth seem alot more real too me. Im not really sure how plasma would effect radar, but the benefits in drag reduction alone seem worth trying to make a system. If its really makes a plane stealth even better.

We might be on to something here Titus

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:02 AM
I was about to say that plasma stealth reduces drag, but you guys beat
me to the punch...

Regardless, Mach 50 is pure BS as many have said. Mach 20-25 is probably the highest we have the tech to even consider.

BTW, I believe the B-2 has a system somewhat like this (plasma) where it creates a huge electrical charge on the leading edge of its wing......And that is 1980's tech.

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:08 AM
ok, here we go:

*wild imagination*

i install 100kg plasma generator on my mig-31bm, and get:

stealthy, Mach 6+ interseptor...

*/wild imagination*

but do you really think this is possible?

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:13 AM
So is there a magic speed for plasma like with supercavitating objects in water at which it would create a bubble I thinks its 180 km/h in water

I wonder how fast a plane has to go before it produces a plasma bubble with the air around the craft. I know it would be a giant super hot fire ball. But it would be interesting to know what speed this effects is produced.

If have read that some plasma can be made at much lower temps but wouldnt this require you bring some form of fuel with you to make the plasma?

I also found a cool pic

I wonder if this is what a plasma effect would look like on a plane. It might look alot like what a UFO would look like if it was glowing

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 09:14 AM
Scramjets are only now being developed and one has not flown beyond Mach 7 yet never mind Mach 50. Hell, orbital equivelent speed is only Mach 26 or so. A hybrid combined cycle engine which uses some kind of turbine propulsiion plus ramjet is much more likely given todays state of the art black world technology. There might even be some PDWE tech available, but for those wishing such monstrously fast aerospace vehicles exist, only in their imagination. Engineers often talk about a theoretical material called "unobtanium", their dream material, strong, light, tensile, capable of extremely high temperatures. It just doesn't exist, therefore a lot of the more outlandish claims in some groups are just that. Unsubstantiated and rumors. I'm somewhat reminded of the 80's when Testors put out the F-19 aircraft, and todays people who use the same methodology to look at a store bought model and think that it is has much to do with reality. They are only guestimations, the designations and even their very existence in a lot of cases is highly questionable.

Is there really any serious data indicating that with the exception of a few theoretical study groups in say Boeing or elsewhere that there's a development of antigravity vehicle anywhere? I think people have been mistaking the Northrop research of the 80's when they found an electrostatic field on the leading edge could reduce drag by helping to maintain lamanar flow over the wing. Other advanced propulsion concepts do include using plasma spikes to "trick" a hypersonic airflow into a lower energy state. Scramjets are in their infancy but ramjet propulsion is still a well known quantity, with good efficiency between Mach 2 and 5. I have no doubts that given a need and the technical expertise a hybrid ramjet/turbine or PDE aircraft can exist. But that's state of the art and very expensive.

It's easy to believe anything is possible, and in fact the old Skunk Works philosphy was "the difficult we do right away, the impossible just takes awhile". Have a little perspective though, unsubstantiated pictures of models suspended on fishing line and CGI drawings do not make a real aircraft. To uncover one you need to stop having expectations of what you think is there but to just look and observe and weigh based on reliability of evidence whether it is valid or not.

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 09:26 AM
just because we are not privvy to it, doesn't mean the technology doesn't exist. If we were privvy to such information, what would be the point of the official secrets act?

Chryogenics was developed by the Nazi's during World War II, but to give the general public this idea, many would have dismissed this as proposterous.

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 09:28 AM
Space Craft Go about Mach 17 or so, so i would say mach 50 is imppossible but mach 15 is. anyways something like this was disscussed in the aurora aircraft project which i just joined.

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 09:57 AM
I'm trying to say don't take a single source at face value, many have their own agendas and have very little to do with facts, only their version of the "truth". Only by being open and parsing through what's utterly garbage, what's plausable and what's known through multisource and validated research can anybody have a leg to stand on wihere the black world is concerned. And liquid gases had been known for a long time "liquid air" had been produced as far back as 1895. 8 years before my 101 year old grandmother was born.

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 10:09 AM
is that where the idea for the breathing aparatus in 'ABYSS' came from? I beleive I read some truth in that technology in New Scientist a while ago...

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 10:21 AM
No, liquid air is basically undifferentiated crygenic atomosphere, a mix of nitrogen and oxygen, with other trace gases. What you're referring to is a breathable flourine compound called perflubron which in addition to its use in specialized deep water diving is helping save premature babies whos lungs cannot deal with air yet, so they breathe oxygenated perflubron fluid until their lungs are healthy enough for atmosphere.

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 10:24 AM
thanks for putting me straight

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 10:37 AM
You could build a plane out of alumium assuming its strong enough and fly it at what ever speed your engians are capible of .If the engian can push it up to mac 50 then it will go that fast.
The heat isent a problem. Heres an excample of what you can do in your own back yard.
start a barbcu Fire and get a PAPER cup fill it with water place it in the fire so the cup stands up .It will NOT burn even after much time.
Its very simply the top temp of water gets to 220 f or so and the lowest temp paper will burn at is 440f or so.
Simply put the water keeps the paper cups temp BELOW the burning point. Try it it works untill the water is boild off.
Now with a plane the same thing would work build into the wings a thin layer and inbetween the layer put water that is circlated with a pump and cooled with a cooling system in the plane . Done right the WHOLE skin of the air craft can be water cooled including the windows. And no amount iof heat generated by air friction can harm it .
Heck water is pronbly not even the best way to transfer the heat even Id beat with moderen teck you could come up with an even better liquid coolent.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in