Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pictures requested by popular demand of planes in Groom and the NTS

page: 11
83
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


There is a new type of engine that just went into testing, but the turbofan is one of the most efficient types of engines when it comes to aircraft. The new engines are basically turbofans on steroids.




posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Hey Boomer, I would like to ask you a question. I have been talking about it a little her on ATS and I would like your honest opinion if you would please. I figured that since you were in a position to maybe be a little more proficient than others around here.

Why do you think that we are still using turbine engines for propulsion?

Let me elaborate if I can to try to convey my question a little better.

From the time flight was invented to the time of turbine engines were invented, that was only about 50 years give or take. Within that time we saw internal combustion engines, rockets(solid and liquid), and turbine engines.

Why after 50 to 60 years later have we not started using anything more efficient, or completely different in design?

Do you think that the military had anything different in design and tested it?

I know that the answer is purely speculation but I would like your honest opinion. I hope you do not think this is a silly question, I am truly stumped as yo why after 5 plus decades we are still using petroleum products for propulsion.
edit on 4-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: typing on the gfs phone sorry for the typos


You know, this isn't a silly/stupid question at all. I've wondered that myself. Like, what if all the rumors/theories are true about places like Roswell and I hate even saying his name but, John Lear. What if we really did get alien technology somehow and that's why we had such leaps in technology during a short period. Maybe we haven't received any help from our foriegn visitors in a while??

Just to be clear, I want to post my thoughts on aliens, etc. I believe that aliens exist. I think that this universe is way too big for life to have formed only once. I don't believe in creationism in regards to one person or being created life on earth. I believe in science, and although we don't know everything about how the universe was formed/created, we know enough that it wasn't created by some all mighty power like God. Again just my personal opinion, and I'm not trying to put anyone down by saying it. My brother is an Assemblies of God pastor, and we have these discussions all the time. He's a "new earth" person, one that believes that the earth is 5,000 years old. He believes that humans and dinosaurs lived side by side until the great flood. If you want to believe in religion, that's one thing. Believing in something is great if it helps you through life. I've always took the stance that I will never, ever tell somebody that religion is a crock of poo, or believe this way or that way, etc. All i've ever asked (especially my brother) is to let me come to my own conclusions and live my life according to those conclusions.

Now that that's out of the way, I don't think that Roswell was a crashed flying saucer from visitors from another galaxy, or even our own galaxy. I think it was a top secret program from either the US or another country and that the ufo was acutally human built. I don't believe it was 13 year olds modified to look like aliens with a flying saucer from great minds in germany and built using Russian technology, etc, a la Annie Jacobsen. BUT...I don't discount the possibility that we have been visited from aliens, and that we've used the technology we learned to better the human race. Things like computers, internet, fiber optic cables, jet engines, you name it, could have came from aliens or it could have came from great minds throughout history. So if you, me, or anyone else believes that technology was learned from an advanced civilization, then that could explain the lack of technology with today's aircraft engines. Maybe we haven't got a visit in fifty years or so...

I want to believe that we created our own technololgy and today we have computers trying to create it for us. Maybe that's the problem. We have computers doing everything for us these days. Just look at stealth technology. We have computers building and modeling our stealth airplanes to get the best Radar Cross Section. We didn't have that when we built the F-117 or the b-2. But they have been the great planes regarding stealth thus far. So to answer your question, I think we probably have prototypes out there being developed, but they have been a little slacking today with creating the technology.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Boomer135, did you ever saw something classified which was about size of Janet 737 which took off from Groom?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Regarding the F-117a, they certainly had computers back then and used them in the design, but they didn't have much horsepower. As I have mentioned a few times, Lawrence Livermore's NEC program, which is used 99.99% of the time to design antennas, also has a mode to predict the reflection properties of shapes. I suppose it was to design dishes, but it can predict the radio wave reflection of any surface. But the surfaces have to be flat. Hence (my guess) the flat surfaces on the F-117a. The program is truly ugly, being written in Fortran. You literally feed it cards, like a virtual punch card.

Regarding technology comes from ET, not so likely. I have read "The Day After Roswell" and it is bunk. For instance, there is the claim ET gave us the transistor. If you study the invention of the transistor, the research predates Roswell. Then note that the first transistors were point contact germanium devices, totally useless technology. Damn those aliens for giving us such junk!

Regarding man walking with Dino, that is known as the "Flintstone Effect." Yabba dabba dooooooo.

You don't read much about pulse detonation engines these days.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GroomLakePolishFAN
 


Yeah the Janet 737's are classified.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Everything I've read about the pulse detonation engines is that they suck to put it bluntly. They will get the aircraft off the ground, but they won't give it any kind of speed, and it's not very efficient.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Thank you for your input on the matter.

I personally feel that the alien thing is a little overhyped though. In my own personal opinion it sounds like a cover story, or the old smoke and mirrors trick. I feel that with Hollywood, the powers that be want the alien "thing" to stick around for an excuse or cover story to possibly hide what our trillions of dollars and mit, Harvard brainiacs have developed over the decades. I mean the money being spent is staggering g.

But that is just my opinion on the matter. I feel that for some reason "they" seem to want us to think it is stagnated.

I sure would like to see if we have something else in the hangar before I kick the bucket. I am 33 years old so I
hope it doesn't take another 50 years.

Anyways thank you for your insight. Like I stated, I feel that really it is all opinions anyway because the one's that are really in the know wouldn't be posting any information on the internet.

I love the pics you brought to ATS. Keep up the good work and maybe one day we will know f there is, or have been aliens visiting. But I would be happy with some sort of warp drive.....lol
edit on 4-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The turbofan engine has its limitations though.

I mean it seems that they are just trying to inprove the old tech instead of invent new ones.

It seems that the age of discovery happened five decades ago in the aviation industry. Now we seem to be "improving" on them, instead of revolutionizing the industry as a whole. If that makes any sense.
edit on 4-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


There are several new types of engines coming out in the very near future. It's just that there is only so much you can do, without a radical leap in technology, which takes a ton of money we can't afford right now. The new ADVENT engine is pretty impressive.

It's not that we aren't developing anything new, it's just that we've reached a plateau, where we won't see any huge leaps until other technologies catch up. I suspect that within the next 10-15 years we'll see some new technologies hitting the markets that will change things up quite a bit. But we won't see the huge leaps that we saw earlier in the aviation sector.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 





The turbofan engine has its limitations though.


Everything has limitations. ;-) There is a TV special about the Rolls Royce jet engine company that came out of the UK about two years ago. I need to find the DVD. Anyway, you should see what it takes to make a good conventional turbofan. The blades are hollow inside. [Hey, who knew?] It is a trade secret how they do it. The engine needs to operate with water flowing through it. The video of that is just amazing.

There are maybe half a dozen companies that can make a decent turbofan. It just isn't as easy as it looks.

China has been trying for years to copy a turbofan. When China can't copy it, you know the task is tough. Honda had to partner with GE to make a jet engine.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Great thread, boomer!

Interesting reading about the new engines too guys, I've really had my head in the sand lately about all this avtech and other 'hobbies'.

Good to get a few mins to get back on here and cruise through some threads.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


There are several new types of engines coming out in the very near future. It's just that there is only so much you can do, without a radical leap in technology, which takes a ton of money we can't afford right now. The new ADVENT engine is pretty impressive.

It's not that we aren't developing anything new, it's just that we've reached a plateau, where we won't see any huge leaps until other technologies catch up. I suspect that within the next 10-15 years we'll see some new technologies hitting the markets that will change things up quite a bit. But we won't see the huge leaps that we saw earlier in the aviation sector.


I have to agree and disagree, with the privatization of Space flights ie: Virgin Galactic etc, i think we will see more success in Scramjet technology and propulsion systems. And then theres all the concepts from Boeing and Airbus for high altitude, high speed commercial flights.These are the corporations who can afford the money if the military cant. 10-15 years is a long time when you consider other technology like iPhones, PCs and Laptops are obsolete within weeks of release. Well not 'obsolete' but maybe superceded is a better word.

I remember thinking that the B777 was a big deal at the time, essentially a jumbo with just 2 turbofans instead of 4. And then i started reading Dale Brown's novels about the same time, his tale of a EB-52 Megafortress that was headed for the Boneyard but instead ended up in the hands of "Dreamland" where it was stripped down and rebuilt with composite fibres and its 8 powerplants reduced to 4 'modern' turbofans really got my imagination cranking about existing airframes getting huge upgrades with ultra-technology.

A question for Boomer - you made reference to the T model tankers and their different fuel types. In your experience as a Boomie did you ever experiment with "green fuels" or "bio-fuels"? Just curious with all the talk about the US Navy testing bio-fuels to replace AVTUR.

Cheers!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Ironside800
 


The talk of the BUFF getting four engines has been going on for years. Then money gets involved and it gets shelved. They are going to 757 style engines on the C-5 however, which in a way makes me sad. That unique whine is going away. However, the improvements are worth it. But we're still looking at basic turbofan engines, even if they go to four on the BUFF, and the changes to the C-5 it's not new engines. The same with Airbus and Boeing and their sonic cruisers, or high altitude aircraft. They're just using improvements to existing engines. The ADVENT, and the engine that the Navy is working on will be the first real change we've seen to an engine in many years.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ironside800

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


There are several new types of engines coming out in the very near future. It's just that there is only so much you can do, without a radical leap in technology, which takes a ton of money we can't afford right now. The new ADVENT engine is pretty impressive.

It's not that we aren't developing anything new, it's just that we've reached a plateau, where we won't see any huge leaps until other technologies catch up. I suspect that within the next 10-15 years we'll see some new technologies hitting the markets that will change things up quite a bit. But we won't see the huge leaps that we saw earlier in the aviation sector.


I have to agree and disagree, with the privatization of Space flights ie: Virgin Galactic etc, i think we will see more success in Scramjet technology and propulsion systems. And then theres all the concepts from Boeing and Airbus for high altitude, high speed commercial flights.These are the corporations who can afford the money if the military cant. 10-15 years is a long time when you consider other technology like iPhones, PCs and Laptops are obsolete within weeks of release. Well not 'obsolete' but maybe superceded is a better word.

I remember thinking that the B777 was a big deal at the time, essentially a jumbo with just 2 turbofans instead of 4. And then i started reading Dale Brown's novels about the same time, his tale of a EB-52 Megafortress that was headed for the Boneyard but instead ended up in the hands of "Dreamland" where it was stripped down and rebuilt with composite fibres and its 8 powerplants reduced to 4 'modern' turbofans really got my imagination cranking about existing airframes getting huge upgrades with ultra-technology.

A question for Boomer - you made reference to the T model tankers and their different fuel types. In your experience as a Boomie did you ever experiment with "green fuels" or "bio-fuels"? Just curious with all the talk about the US Navy testing bio-fuels to replace AVTUR.

Cheers!



Ahh...sort of.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Speaking of the T model, back when they were the Q model they used to drive my father nuts. He spent many years on tankers and BUFFS. Every model of -135 he could walk around blindfolded, except the Q. Every time he went to go under it, he would walk into that extra antenna that they installed for the Blackbird. Every. Single. Time. It was kinda funny, but I felt bad for him at the same time.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Switching engines requires going through a qualification phase. I suspect they crunched the numbers and figure it just isn't worth it.

You can't change much on an airplane design without FAA qualification. A chip I designed had an issue in an aircraft manufacturer's avionics. You can change any passive component values in the design without getting approval, according to the manufacturer. (Resistors or capacitors can be changed, but you can't change a diode or transistor type.] This is total nonsense in my opinion. However what they wanted to change gave me a clue on how to fix the product.

Regarding the B-52, how can one tell by inspecting the back of the plane if it is "nuclear qualified" for lack of a better phrase.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


That's a good question. I didn't know there was a plane by plane check for it.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


At one point in time, per the START treaty, they had to have specific antennas on them. I believe nuclear qualified aircraft had to have a white HF (I think it was HF) antenna on the top of the airframe.
edit on 11/5/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


HF is usually done on wire for fixed wing aircraft. But it wouldn't surprise me it is just an antenna or a bump. It is supposed to be easy to spot, well if you know what to look for, which I don't. ;-)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Bombers don't use wire antennas though. They had knife blade antennas for HF and UHF. The C-135s went from wire to wingtip after they figured out that if they were using SATCOM and HF at the same time, they ended up talking to each other, while standing right next to each other.

I remember reading something years ago that it was just that simple. It was a picture of a B-1, and the antenna that was on top of the "bump" behind the cockpit was white. I had never seen a white one before, and the explanation given was that it was due to the START treaty.

Speaking of the B-52..... One of my all time favorite BUFF pics.




IF I am remembering correctly, it's the front antenna forward of the tail.


You can kind of see that it's white, and tall in that picture. That BUFF is from Minot, which still has a nuclear mission. Here's one from Barksdale, where it's a little bit shorter and a dark color.



Here's another one with a slightly different antenna layout.



A slightly better look that shows that it's white on this bomber (or it appears to be).





new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join