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.

 

B-27 Switchblade

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I don't know much about this aircraft but my roommate has told me about it. Apparently, someone goofed up and let their squadron patch out into the public. According to my roommate, it is a super-sonic stealth bomber with swept wings that can invert and angle towards the front. Its name is the B-27 Switchblade. F.Y.I. I do not believe in aliens and all UFO's are simply Air Force Aircraft. The big wing over Phoenix was a bomber with magnetic levitation engines, the USAF does have the Star Wars Satellite Laser Ballistic Missle Defense System, and the SR-71's capabilities are bigger than they say. It's top speed is more like Mach 9 and it's ceiling is more like 150,000 ft. It also first flew in the 50's, not the 60's. Oops I'm getting carried away. I better save the rest of this stuff for later.

[Edited on 9-4-2003 by Albermarle52]

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 05:05 PM
link   
First off there was the B-27 Designator has already been used in the aircraft inventory for a proposed experimental aircraft based on the B-26

www.wpafb.af.mil...

2nd you can't have a swept wing aircraft where the wings will sweep forward, The only swept wing aircraft design in the US was the X-29

members.tripod.com...


3rd if you're referring to this as the switchblade:
www.area51zone.com...

it's nothing more than an artist's rendering, no a prototype, not a concept model just a design rendering.

4th so what if there is a patch that said switch blade on it? Do you really think if there was a secret aircraft squadron a pilot or aircrew member would even think of wearing the patch in a public location let alone leave it for someone to find????



are people really this gullable?????



posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 07:04 PM
link   
of course you can have a forward swept wing, why do you think you can't? it's been proven many times in several different aircrafts



posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 07:41 PM
link   
F.Y.I. I do not believe in aliens and all UFO's are simply Air Force Aircraft. The big wing over Phoenix was a bomber with magnetic levitation engines, the USAF does have the Star Wars Satellite Laser Ballistic Missle Defense System, and the SR-71's capabilities are bigger than they say. It's top speed is more like Mach 9 and it's ceiling is more like 150,000 ft. It also first flew in the 50's, not the 60's. Posted by Albermarle52

I dont know about the B-27 being factual or not, although I would imagine it to be within the realm of possibilty. However, some of his other information is factual.

I certainly agree that the vast majority of UFO sightings are USAF X Craft, either accidentally exposed or more likely in a disinfo ploy. These X Craft do employ magteohydrodynamic/electrogravitic propulsion systems, and are based on technology over 100 years old, developed by Nikola Tesla.

If there is a flaw in his claim about the B-27, it is that these X Craft have made any advanced bomber obsolete.

I have debated the likelihood of the US having a functional orbital laser/missle defence system. It is known the the US CIA/DIA/NSA/NRO has an active orbital laser system known as BrightEye. This was originally used as a system to track/communicate with nuclear submarines at great depth, using a blue/green laser to penetrate ocean water to extreme depths to commo gear on the upper decks of the subs. This system has also been modified for the NRO to actively surveil surface targets in inclement weather conditions. In this role, the laser wavelength can be actively modified to penetrate virtually any weather conditions, and reflectively image a target, essentially like taking a huge flash photo from orbit. This gives an order of magnitude better resolution and dependability than IR photography and radar imaging, which are the only options for surveilance in bad weather.

I dont know that BrightEye can be used in an offensive role (although I would imagine it to be possible to blind a target population from orbit with it easily), although I am sure the NRO/NSA has at least considered it. In any event, any orbital satelite defence system has been rendered obsolete by HAARP, which can effectively strike any missle targets, even while still in thier silos, and has also been used effectively against orbital targets.

The SR-71 Blackbird information is correct. It was in use well before the date commonly accepted, and the X-15 rocket plane was actually used as a test bed for technology used by the "Skunk Works" exclusively, regardless of what NASA likes to say about it. The Blackbird does in fact have a ceiling around 150K, and has at least exceeded Mach 6 numerous times (dont know about it being capable of Mach 9 though).



posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 11:51 AM
link   
You are incorrect in saying the B-27 moniker was used. There was a YF-27 bomber designed but it never went into service. Therefore it can be used. And the link for the switchblade shows them in the forward configuration. You are an idiot. You said that forward swept wings are impossible when the website you cited refutes your erroneous statement. And you were also wrong in saying that the X-29 was the only swept wing aircraft. Look up the General Dynamics high-speed interdictor known as the F-111 Aardvark. All you can do is look up crap on Google and you don't even read the sites. You are a moron. In other words; KNOW YOUR # BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR GOD DAMN MOUTH YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH.




[Edited on 10-4-2003 by Albermarle52]



posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 01:34 PM
link   
though i agree with your basic statements a warning to you, watch the insults and the cussing here, the mods and admins ban people for such offenses



posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The UFOs over Phoenix were just flares. Its easily proven when you look at the descent rate, unevenness of the shape, and the fact that the order the lights disappeared in, is consistent with the mountain silhouette, as the mountain then obscured them from the vantage point of the video...

As for the B27...it is true that this name is already linked to an old Lockheed-Martin design (my father works on the Raptor
)

However, the information of the Switchblade being a joint project of Northrop and Lockheed-Martin seems to jive with what I've heard...however, it never advanced beyond prototype, and was seemingly scrapped in favor of the B2. It is conceivable that patches do survive, as patches are often put out even when planes are in development and worn by work crews...(I should get a photo of my father's patches, hehe...though it'd be easier if he were in the same state...)



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider
It's top speed is more like Mach 9 and it's ceiling is more like 150,000 ft. It also first flew in the 50's, not the 60's. Posted by Albermarle52
[qoute]

I can't bealive in mach 9. 1mach is 1200kmh depend of air presur and altitude. I don't think that any material can hold tempeture on mach 9. And what about G-force on pilot.



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 04:36 AM
link   
The only aircraft *unofficially* designated as "switchblade" is this one:
www.air-attack.com...

That patch you are referring to is most likely this one:


At the time that the article about "the switchblade" was written, it was believed that the patch with "bird of pray" on it belonged to the switchblade program.

A couple of months ago, Boeing declassified their latest Stealth Technology demonstrator program called "the Bird Of Pray"...


You'll never hear me say that mach 9 is impossible though, but it seems highly unlikely for a fighter aircraft to go mach 9. Mach 9 reconnaisance aircraft seems much more logical to me.

=============
Oh, and one more thing Mr. Albermarle52,

If I ever see a post like that again, you will be banned!
We do not tolerate insults.


I'll keep an eye on you for a while.



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Ok I'm sorry I went a little overboard. But that guy ticked me off cause he acted like he knew everything and he really didn't know anything. I don't get this Mach 9 non-existent thing. The space shuttle goes 25,000 mph and is going much faster than Mach 9 when it reenters. I didn't say the switchblade did Mach 9. I said the SR-71 probably can. And I will again reiterate: the B-27 moniker was never used; the Lockheed-Martin design was called the YF-27 and since it never entered service it was never officially called the B-27. The B-27 name is not for sure but according to my friend it has been in service for about 5 years. This is a common practice in the Air Force. They announce a plane five to ten years after it goes into service. I.e.: my dad knew a guy who was living in Alaska in the mid-50's and he saw an SR-71 land and immediately taxi into a hangar of which the doors opened right before it landed and closed right after it went in. It supposedly went into serivice in 1964. And another note: Star Wars (the laser satellites) is there to destroy enemy ballistic missiles.

[Edited on 11-4-2003 by Albermarle52]



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 12:02 PM
link   
was specifically, the XB-27, which is why I agreed with it being "taken"...

Funny you should mention the Alaska thing, hehe... As a kid, I lived in Alaska, and they used to hide SR71s in the Coast Guard hangars for flights over Russia. and this was in the mid to late 70's... I'd say your source is correct...
Of course, when I was a kid, I could swear they were UFOs (look at a Blackbird head on), but later it was easy to identify what I saw....



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Thanks to everyone for replying and making my topic look respectable. Sorry to conspiracy for blowing up.



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I can't bealive in mach 9. 1mach is 1200kmh depend of air presur and altitude. I don't think that any material can hold tempeture on mach 9. And what about G-force on pilot. Posted by Serbian Spirit

I hate to break it to you, but mach 9 has been broken long ago. I dont know that the SR 71 is capable of this speed, although it has been known to exceed mach 6 on a regular basis (although it is "officially" claimed to only be capable of mach 3). Albermarle is correct, the space shuttle routinely exceeds airspeeds of mach 25+ during reentry, and until Columbia, had a fine time of it.

Although no official information exists publicly about Aurora, the successor to the Blackbird, it is at least rumored to exceed mach 12 in straight and level flight, powered by Pulse Wave Detonation engines. (This is basically an *external* combustion propulsion system, where the fuel is detonated outside the aircraft, and the propulsion shockwave is confined and vectored by the mach shockwave which begins to conform to the fuselage of the aircraft at around mach 6. This form of propulsion is only feasible at extremely high mach numbers)

The original X-15 rocket plane exceeded mach 7 in straight and level flight as far back as the early 50s.

As for the G forces on the pilot, these speeds are attained gradually, not 0-mach 50 in 5 seconds. G Forces are equivalent to flying a standard aircraft. Keep in mind, going that fast, you have next to no maneuverability, so sharp banking, turning, diving, and any other dogfighting maneuvers are NOT on the menu. There was a story that during trials with the Blackbird, they made a 90 degree turn at mach 3, and they crossed 3 states before they completed the turn.

As far as how can they survive the temperature/pressure, well, materials technology is a wonderful thing! We dont have any credible information for Aurora or other X Craft, but we do know that the Blackbird was almost 100% titanium, with a special high temperature ablative coating. When sitting cold on the ground, it was actually very loosely fitted (body panels), and the fuel tanks leaked very badly. This was done for a reason, as at high supersonic speeds, the body panels would thermally expand, sealing itself. The crews, who wore the same spacesuits as the shuttle pilots, ate food in tubes, same as astronauts. There were stories of them heating thier lunch by holding it against the canopy for about 10 seconds.



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 07:41 PM
link   
that is encountered on an atmospheric level, where most planes fly. however in space, the bounds of gravity and particle matter and gasses in the atmosphere can be broken. being out in an uncompressed environment allows for a lower level of resistance. just like a hot knife though anything. however, during atmospheric reentry, as posted above, the higher levels of mach are attainble but this is in more or less a freefall like stage, not a controllable flight where you can manuever.



posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Another technology from the Luftwaffe engineers.

If Germany claimed its pre-1945 Patents back from the US, that would mean a HELL of lots of money, just think of the delta wings or the flying wings



posted on Apr, 13 2003 @ 11:09 AM
link   
The Germans didnt invent the delta wing, but they did develop it a bit. Yes, the US did "appropriate" a good bit of material from the Germans during Project Paperclip, but this info had NOTHING on stealth aircraft, variable geometry wings, hypersonic aircraft, or reverse rake wings, or any other technology directly related to the above.



posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 01:48 PM
link   
The SR-71 CANNOT do mach 9. That statement was utter #e. Also there can be aircraft with forward swept wings the sukhoi s-37 [or something] and the x-29.

The number generally associated with the switchblade is the A-17. The two projects are linked as both are thought to be attack aircraft.

And i dunno if any of you pointed this out but Northtop was granted a patent for the aircraft back in 1999. The patent number is 5,984,231. The patent was shown to the pentagon who said where the hell did they get that and then clammed up and saying nothing. More on this aircraft and what it needs for it to fly right can be found in my black projects guide or in Aircraft Iluustrated June 2000 issue.



posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Here's a link to the specs and speed (according to this web site) on the SR-71.......

www.digitalf8.com...www.digitalf8.com... php?tid=4562Hope that works............

It wasn't mach 9 for the SR 71 ... that I can say.



posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 02:00 PM
link   
OK, here's the quote... "For years, there has been a lot of speculation about how fast an SR-71 could fly. The top speed was top secret for decades. However, the SR-71's pilot manual has been declassified and is available online here. The answer to the SR-71 top speed question is here. Cool.

Maximum Mach

Mach 3.2 is the design Mach number. Mach 3.17 is the maximum scheduled speed recommended for normal operations. However, when authorized by the Commander, speeds up to Mach 3.3 may be flown if the limit CIT of 427 degrees C is not exceeded.

So, it appears the limiting factor was compressor inlet temperature. Slick. "

So it looks like mach 3.17!


Christian

[Edited on 14-4-2003 by UniQue Werkx]



posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Today scientists routinely conduct ground tests of scramjet engines at simulated speeds up to Mach 15.

www.sciam.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join