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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 02:06 AM
link   
It’s something of an old favourite and you’ll find a lot on old ATS archives. It’s there in almost any “black” aircraft forum and the consensus is of a swing-wing fighter with high stealth capability. There’s all manner of speculation – (It doesn’t help that there’s a Russian missile code-named switchblade and a dreadful Eddy Murphy film : “I Spy” about stealing the “switchblade”)
I don’t quite see it as a “B 27” unless this was some deliberately misleading cover-name for a project (a real B-27 would be two before the Superfortress and about 60 years old, I guess).
Also, it’s not easy to see what obvious current or anticipated “gap” such a machine would fill. I have seen it –on a less speculative level –as a name for a development of the F111 and as the A-17. Mach 9 does seem very, very improbable.
The area51 site above has an entertaining brief article on it.
On “swept forward” design, I think we’d agree that there has been some confusion in certain postings here. It is, of course, quite an old idea and several design projects were undertaken for the Luftwaffe. The problem was, of course, the dangers of structural fault – dangers somewhat minimised as technology has produced newer and stronger composites.
There’s an excellent article here
www.centennialofflight.gov...
The Su (or, S-)-37 Berkut has been a firm favourite on ATS and a search should turn up some goodies.( you’ll find it as the S ( or, Su)-47, as well)
However, to prove there’s nothing new under the sun, I’d recommend a search on the German HFB.320 Hansa jet. 40-50 (depends on your sources) of these “Executive Learjet” types were built and they flew from the 60’s until quite recently (Estragon has actually seen one): genuinely swept forward.
Nice picture here :
1000aircraftphotos.com...



[Edited on 15-4-2003 by Estragon]




posted on Apr, 16 2003 @ 07:57 AM
link   
It's mission parameters were filled by it's competitor, and winning design...the B2.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 01:01 AM
link   
If you actually believe those phony "manuals" you're as oblivious as Baghdad Bob. The SR-71 can at least do mach 5. Crap the F-14 can do mach 3 and the SR-71 can outrun missiles. In other matters I made an incorrect statement. The switchblade is probably called the F-27. But there was NEVER a B-27. There was a YB-27. But the aircraft was never put into service, and therefore the moniker B-27 was not used.



posted on May, 5 2003 @ 06:42 PM
link   
X is the term used for the prototype of an aircraft, and initial testing. Y is the term used during the pre-production and testing stage. And then the rest is really obvious.



posted on May, 5 2003 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Crap the F-14 can do mach 3

WTFEH????????????????
AND MY BIKE CAN DO WARP 500!!!!



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracymyass
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

First off this is a WWII aircraft. Each new approved Concept/R&D airfram clasified as a bomber for the Air Force is given a Number in order of witch they were aproved even if that number never makes it past the Y or X stage the number is used. But Note that the numbers have all reset with the development of the B1. The current B1 is the secound B1 the first dates back to before WWII. Yes your right in the Idea that the number for the Switchbalde is not going to be B27. Just for the wrong reason. I.E. the B27 number is again available but there must first be a B3-B26, granted there most likely already some of these in R&D that we do not know of.

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

Your way off here. The first forward swept wing Aircraft was the German with the JU 287 wich first flew in Aug 1944. The JU287V1 ahd speed of 620 Km/Hr with 4 jets, JU287V3 had 800Km/Hr, and flew up to 30,840 feet top alt. The soviets have a forward swept winged airfraft also. What I have no record of is a veriable forward swept wing.


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

On this the Switchblade is U.S. Patent Nov 16 1999 #5,984,231 as released in Popular Sci Mag. I also had a USAF FTD instructor that was picked to work on a aircraft that meets the discription of the switch blade. My neighbor back in 2000 was a weapons system developer asigned to Langley AFB and he also confirmed the aircraft when I asked him about it. Also had a friend say one night late a aircraft fitting the description landed and was secured in a hanger at Lakenheath AFB UK. Also keep inmind there is no airfraft in the US inventory today that can do the Job the F-111 did. The F-15E is the closest but cant carry the load nor does it have the range or ability to linger on target. The F-111 was retired do to a developent of structural cracks in the Wing Sweep box limiting them in G loads allowed. As the last few bases drew down in in 1994 there was a larg number of my coworkers on F-111 that disapeared so to speek. We all where sloted to Mix AFSC with F-15s but for example. When I tested For Rank in 1994 (F-111 only troops) there was over 1,000 E-4 testing for E-5 but the next year when it was F-15 and F-111 troops together testing there was only 480 E-4 testing for E-5. There should have been an increase. When RAF Upper Hayford closed all its F-111 troops had orders to Cannon AFB NM wich would have put them at 250-300% manning Yet when I talk to a friend they where not over maned. Those troops went some where. One more point on the Switchblade as its got to be a stealth Aircraft (in my opinion) it will have the special outer coating and with is security level will need to be hangered just like the F-117. Military thinking today is to keep cost down so this aircraft will most likely be stationed at Holloman AFB NM along with the F-117. This would finish out the Wing these as now there is only one squadron of F-117. This would work well also as the airframs will have sim missions. Now keep in mind that the German 1st Air Force was invited to Holloman and fly the Tornado wich is swept wing and about the same size as the switchblade. The US government built hangers for the Germans something we almost never do state side (thats not maint hangers thats parking hangers for each Aircraft) for our own aircraft with the exception of the F-117. Note that the German Airforce has now left Holoman or so I have been told so there are empty hangers waiting for the switch blade. One other interesting point the F-117 squadron was built up and made operational at Tonapaw and stayed there untill a new airframe needed the space. The time the F-117 left Tonapaw falls in line for the time the Switchblade would have been built up to Squadron level. If you dont think the Switch balde can be real do to lack of info, keep in mind the plans for the F-117 was started before the F-4, and it was kept from the public. (F-117 designator comes after the F-111 and before the reset to F1 or F-4)

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????

The patch is not the Swich Blade patch that was just a hunch from someone looking for proff. The patch belongs to the Bird of Pray boeing test bed.



are people really this gullable?????



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
There is no hard proof of the SR 71 doing Mach 9. But the key is the thermal barrier. The higher you fly the thinner the air, so there for less friction. So, you have to go faster before you reach a speed where the friction will over heat the skin of the Airframe, (thermal barrier). The SR 71 is the fastest recorded jet powered aircraft due to its high ALT and Titanium skin (meaning it can withstand far greater temps).

So in order to go Mach 9 for example you must be effectively out of the atmosphere or at least to a point you will starve conventional Jet engines, due to lack of oxygen to burn. Now the natural logic is you will need a non oxygen burning eng. or supplemental oxygen supply to operate at a height sufficient to lower the air density to allow you to go Mach 9+ (I.E... the space shuttle). Or you must have a way to dicipate the heat.

In JANES, (important book) in 1996 there was information on an experimental Jet eng made by Bell that would do Mach 9 at sea level. No known conventional airframe would resist melting long before reaching this speed at sea level. That makes you think they must have invented a way to bleed off the heat or else why make a mach 9 eng.

That takes me to a NOVA progam from the PBS on Heat shielding developed for the space shuttle. There was a material developed but was not ready until after the Shuttle was completed. It was shown on the NOVA progam it was developed in England and was called thermal plastic. It converted 99.9% of heat to light. Yes I couldn't believe it either. In the show they had a cube of it in a blast furnace and then they reached in with a pair of titanium tongs and pulled out the bright shining cube. The tongs were white hot from being in the furnace. The person set down the cube and took off his glove and picked it up with his bare hand.

Now if you coated an airframes leading edges with this thermal plastic, then the heat would not build up and you could pass through the thermal barrier. When I repeatedly questioned a Boeing engineer about this a few years ago asking him, "why arent we using thermal plastic to enable aircraft to pass through the thermal barrier?" Finally, he said "trust me, its being done."



[edit on 28-2-2005 by trepida]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   





posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
found those while surfing a week ago.... baffles me as to whether they're real or not.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Wooo where did you find these. I have blown them up and looks a it very close at the edges and it looks real or its some one with alot of EXP on carrier operations. And if it was cut into a different Carrier launch they took alot of time blending it in and even layering in Workers in frount and behind it. Then there is the image its self a bit different then the art concepts which you would expect and most of the changes are logical like the horiz stabs being slightly angled up for stability. I would realy like to know where you found the shots? Was there other info or just the pics? If its a fake its a hollywood fake not a amature cooking it up at home. Does seam odd that there is alot of camera men on it. Normaly from those I talked to when it flys in or out people are restriced from even looking out the windows even though its at night. Also I had never heard of it operating off a carrier and the struts on the one in the Pic seam a bit light duty to take carrier landings and catapulting. Hmm who knows

Excuse my spelling years of help and even in college I had to pay some one to proff read every thing I wrote. Then again back in those days we didnt have computers to do it.

[edit on 28-2-2005 by trepida]

[edit on 28-2-2005 by trepida]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Guys, that is a prop from the movie 'Stealth" and has been the subject of an exhausting amount of threads here on ATS. Move on nothing to see here



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Well good to hear I was woundering what it was doing on a Carrier as those I know that have seen it say its a F-111 replacement. I will say they did a good job on it. The only major diffence from the Patend that bugged me was the removal of the horizontal stub it had for stubility and changing it to a troft. Thanks for letting me know where it came from. I am hopeing to run into some of my old F-111 friends that I have not seen in years nor could I find them on the Locator. I know they know just as many of us did about the F-117 years before as it was F-111 troops that worked it for years in secret. Oh well someday I was just hopeing that it would come out before I retire so I could get the scoup on it. Also it lacks the trailing edge flap when the wings are full forward. Yet it looks like the Movie artist was baseing it off the Switchblade artists drawings. Thanks again for the heads up, I am not up on movies in fact seldom find time for them.




[edit on 28-2-2005 by trepida]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
hey guys!!! do you really believe what i'm reading??? or you are just kidding?? Look at the Blackbird, please... to go mach 9 with '60s technology you would need rockets... a rocket to make a plane of this size such speeds would need A LOT of fuel... there is no place in the plane for that if you want to go to russia...
On the other side, space shuttle entered the atmosphear thanks its covered with ceramics... a think that going mach 9 in the atmosphere would need ceramics too... it would need an extremely high budget to make the maintenance, and this maintenance would be long... i dont think they want the blackbird flying a few times a year, like the shuttle...
Guys, there isn't any plane with antygravity flying over the world, blackbird goes mach 3... and not allways... all this technology you're talking about is only on your minds!!!!



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Albemarle52,

I hate to say this but i feel it to be true, your are a gullible and obnoxious cretin.

The SR-71 is not capable of Mach 9 and the F-14 can only manage Mach 3 straight down and trust me it will be a one shot deal cos it aint gonna pull out of that dive.

Your attitude to other posters is outrageous and your xenophobic signature quote makes me sick.

BHR



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracymyass


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?????


Actually I remember an aircraft being shot down over Europe in 1944. From the wreckage the Germans retrieved a complete and detailed set of genuine plans for Operation Overlord (D-Day 06/06/44) US and UK disinformation was so effective however that these plans were considered a deception. Such things happen and maor may not have happened here though the details could be distorted. They may also be disinformation.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by trepida
That takes me to a NOVA progam from the PBS on Heat shielding developed for the space shuttle. There was a material developed but was not ready until after the Shuttle was completed. It was shown on the NOVA progam it was developed in England and was called thermal plastic. It converted 99.9% of heat to light. Yes I couldn't believe it either. In the show they had a cube of it in a blast furnace and then they reached in with a pair of titanium tongs and pulled out the bright shining cube. The tongs were white hot from being in the furnace. The person set down the cube and took off his glove and picked it up with his bare hand.


Why is this such a shocker? You are not breaking any laws of physics doing this. You are taking one form of energy (heat in this case) and changing it to another (light). In a car crash, if the collision in inelastic, which it alwasys is, the kinetic energy is changed to sound, light (any sparking), and heat. It stands to reason that you could make a material with the properties mentioned above since it didn't break any laws of physics. But that just might just be me. However I'd say that 99.9% is a really optimistic efficiency.

[edit on 3/16/2005 by SwitchbladeNGC]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
To CmptrN3rd5:

I hope, for the sake of all that's good, that your last post was directed at me. The reason for this is that I'm used to that kind of verbal abuse and therefor handle it much better than most people. Now on to replying...

Assuming for a minute that you were directing that comment at me, what part of my statement was in error? I am a theorist of sorts, I understand theory like most people understand basic math (1+1=2). I will acknoledge that my questioning why it was a shocker may have offended someone. I sometimes forget that not everyone grasps concepts that I do as easily. But I have theorized about materials that are designed top change one form of energy to another (specifically changing kinetic to another form as that would be very useful in the automotive industry as safety material in case of crashes). I would appreciate it if you would show me where my flaws are instead of just cussing me out (as the latter does nothing to add to the topic and mearly shows how immature you are).



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Estragon
However, to prove there�s nothing new under the sun, I�d recommend a search on the German HFB.320 Hansa jet. 40-50 (depends on your sources) of these �Executive Learjet� types were built and they flew from the 60�s until quite recently (Estragon has actually seen one): genuinely swept forward.
Nice picture here :
1000aircraftphotos.com...


I looked at the picture and was unable ttell from that view if the leading edge actually swept forward or went straight out with a forward sweeping trailing edge. I did a google search and found one picture which showed a good view from underneath, but unfortunatly the link to the pic from the thumbnail was broken so I was unable to get a good view. If they do sweep forward they don't do it to nearly the same degree as the Berkut or the Grumman X-29. But good none the less.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Of course the HFB 320 is just a baby compared to the Junkers Ju-287, a WW2 FSW jet bomber which was further developed in Russia after the war and flown as the Baade 140R From Junkers EF-140), looking almost like a FSW Il-28 in layout.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Switchblade, well done for not replying to ignorance with ignorance.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join