Aurora statistical analysis

Hi,

Had a few spare thought moments earlier and started thinking about the existance of the 'Aurora' craft. THere have been a huge number of sightings dating back years, but I was wondering if anyones actual done any statistical analysis on these sightings, among other things.

The name 'Aurora' is known to stem from a mistaken inclusion of a name on the black budget, and it was immediately snapped up as the name of the SR-71s replacement. I think it was later proven to be a line item inclusion for modifications to the B-2s trailing edge, but Ill look for my archived material on that later.

My thoughts were along the lines of "well, we know roughly how much they spend a year in the black budget, sometimes even down to individual projects" and "we have the fiscal reports for all the major military contractors", and we know dates, times and locations of credible sightings, why cant we do rough analysis on it, and potentially discover things.

For example, 1992 was the year a number of credible sightings occured, such as a 747 pilot having an encounter with a "supersonic aircraft that looked like the front end of a SR-71" and a similiar plane being seen loaded into a C-5 at Lockheeds skunkworks facility the same year. A credible report was made in UK papers in 1991 regarding a "triangular aircraft flying in close formation with a military transport aircraft over the irish sea". Funnily enough, none of these reports are available through online clipping services, even tho it appeared in several papers.

Also of interest is that 1992 was the year the Shuttle stopped carrying military payloads, and a number of suggestions regarding Aurora place it as a single stage to orbit craft (ssto).

Circumstantial evidence doesnt get you anywhere in court, but often enough its all you need to put together a framework for some serious evidence. Using statistical evidence, we could probably determine where it flies from, what wing flies it, who maintains it, whether it is maintained on base or flown to its manufacturer, how many there are in active duty.

Anyone interested? IF so, Ill stick up a collaborative website someplace.

Be a hard task. Putting together the number of Mach 5 sonic booms recorded on seismos in Califorinia would be a good start (but they stopped flying that way years ago).

OK - I know that it is classified as a subsonic bomber, my question is given enough thrust, could it go supersonic?

Or does the very shape it's self prevent it from doing so?

I'd prefer people who actually know something about aerodynamics to respond

Originally posted by American Mad Man
OK - I know that it is classified as a subsonic bomber, my question is given enough thrust, could it go supersonic?

Or does the very shape it's self prevent it from doing so?

I'd prefer people who actually know something about aerodynamics to respond

Given enough thrust, anything can go supersonic. The problem is that chances are it wouldnt be able to carry the engine necessary to do so (body shape is horrendous for supersonic flight and would produce far too much drag) and if it did go supersonic, its flight control surfaces arent designed to handle supersonic flight and it would be near to uncontrollable.

I doubt that the B-2 airframe was even designed with supersonic flight in mind, hence why you dont see the B-2 in steep dives etc.

A very simple basic rule of thumb is that you wont ever see a supersonic aircraft that is wider than it is long.

About the 'Aurora' budget reference, I remember reading in 'Flight' way back in the early '80's when it happened that the pentagon explained it away as a reference to the Canadian purchase of the CP-140 Aurora (P-3 Orion). Flight thought the explanation 'hard to swallow'

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by American Mad Man
OK - I know that it is classified as a subsonic bomber, my question is given enough thrust, could it go supersonic?

Or does the very shape it's self prevent it from doing so?

I'd prefer people who actually know something about aerodynamics to respond

Given enough thrust, anything can go supersonic. The problem is that chances are it wouldnt be able to carry the engine necessary to do so (body shape is horrendous for supersonic flight and would produce far too much drag) and if it did go supersonic, its flight control surfaces arent designed to handle supersonic flight and it would be near to uncontrollable.

I doubt that the B-2 airframe was even designed with supersonic flight in mind, hence why you dont see the B-2 in steep dives etc.

Also, Supersonic flight creates a shock wave(Sonic Boom)! The B-2 was design to sneak up on a target, bomb it, and then sneak away unseen. A sonic boom would give it away!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Sorry - I didn't mean to hijack the thread, I meant to make it a different one.

My bad....

RichardPrice - It wouldn't make much sense for you to make a site about the Aurora stats. Because nothing you hear or read is concrete evidence. We will never find out anything official on the Aurora until it becomes declassified.

Just because the shuttle no longer lift military payloads doesn't really mean much, because the Air Force uses alot of rockets to get there payloads into orbit.

Originally posted by Murcielago
RichardPrice - It wouldn't make much sense for you to make a site about the Aurora stats. Because nothing you hear or read is concrete evidence. We will never find out anything official on the Aurora until it becomes declassified.

Just because the shuttle no longer lift military payloads doesn't really mean much, because the Air Force uses alot of rockets to get there payloads into orbit.

This is precisely what Im talking about. By correlating and bringing together all the *known* sightings of an aurora type aircraft, you can begin to put together a *better* picture of the aircraft than we have today. It might tell us how many are flying, it might tell us aurora isnt one single type of aircraft, but several fulfilling different roles.

THe Soviets did this for the A-12 and SR-71, and were able to tell what sort of speeds it was capable of, what its maximum flight duration was, where it was based etc etc.

Im not saying we can do it to the extent a superpower can, but currently all this data is sat out there doing nothing. Yes, not much of it is concrete, but just what percentage is concrete? Care to guess? Care to throw a ballpark figure? I dont know personally, want to find out? Currently we have nothing but "hey wouldnt it be cool if..." or "aurora might be powered by...", wouldnt it be great if we could at least build up a profile of the aurora? Statistical analysis can do this, even on less than concrete data (indeed it can help prove whats concrete and whats not)

If you are going to sit there behind statements like "We will never find out anything official on the Aurora until it becomes declassified" then jsut what the hell is the point of this forum? Technically this forum wouldnt exist if we all took that view.

Do you expect the US government (if it is them flying these craft - care to prove it?) to suddenly one day go "oh, by the way, we have the aurora - heres the full specs". No, chances are, like many before it, its going to be decommisioned one day and forgotten about until some future legal clerk some place will dig through a pile of old classified documents from days gone by, and then publish it on an obscure website as a "oh, hey I guess it did exist" post.

By the way, the shuttle was also used to retrieve military satalites when in orbit, and on more than one occassion brought sensitive satalites back to earth, when the tech was deemed too advanced for its destruction to be left to chance in a standard deorbiting burnup. The shuttle hasnt returned from orbit with a retrieved military payload since 1992 either. (No, the shuttle doesnt have to be empty on reentry, indeed it was origionally the plan to use it to grab Hubble ST and bring it home)

RichardPrice
If you are going to sit there behind statements like "We will never find out anything official on the Aurora until it becomes declassified" then jsut what the hell is the point of this forum? Technically this forum wouldnt exist if we all took that view.

I'm not arguing with you, i'm simply saying that the majority of people post opinions/speculation/& questions.

It would be near impossible to get official info on anything Black.

RichardPrice
(No, the shuttle doesnt have to be empty on reentry, indeed it was origionally the plan to use it to grab Hubble ST and bring it home)

I know, BTW the shuttle also got the presidents approval because we was told that it could be used to steal Russians satellites right outta there orbit.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
OK - I know that it is classified as a subsonic bomber, my question is given enough thrust, could it go supersonic?

Or does the very shape it's self prevent it from doing so?

I'd prefer people who actually know something about aerodynamics to respond

It is much more involved than just adding thrust. The shape of the B-2 is not suited to supersonic flight, because the shock wave would carry down the entire leading edge. Every part of the airplane which strikes the airflow and slows it to subsonic speeds will produce a shock wave (the bow wave.) This shock wave will sweep back at an angle known as the mach angle (The mach angle is simply 1/Sin(M) where M is the Mach number of the aircraft. i.e., an aircraft flying at mach 2 will produce shock waves which trail back at a 30 degree angle.)

If a wing is placed behind the shock wave, (like the B1B, with it's long nose and swept wings), then the air flowing at right angles over that wing will be subsonic, even though the aircraft is flying faster than the speed of sound. Therefore, a subsonic airfoil, with round leading edges can be used without creating a bow wave.

But this is not the case with the B-2. The wing cannot be behind the shockwave, because there is nothing in front of the wing to create the shockwave. Therefore drag will increase dramatically as the AC approaches the speed of sound. At the transonic point, where the air traveling over the wing is partly supersonic, drag will go out of sight, and the aircraft will perform as if it was in a slow speed stall. This is known as "mach tuck". The nose down attitude will cause a disruption in the airflow over the control surfaces, and if the pilot does not reduce power immediately, the speed will rapidly increase to the point that the AC may not be recoverable.

It is crucial for a jet which may encounter transonic effects to have a stabilizer and elevator combination which will work effectively even if a shock wave has formed. Conventional stabilizers with a fixed horizontal stabilizer and a separate elevator promote the formation of shock waves because they form a highly cambered airfoil when the pilot moves the controls. Once the shock wave forms it disrupts the airflow over the elevators often rendering them useless, or at least greatly degraded in effectiveness.

Therefore, almost all supersonic jets use either a fully moving tail surface, known as a Stabilator or a trimmable stabilizer. Both of these designs ensure that the tail surface never has much camber on it. Therefore, they will remain effective even at transonic speeds and should provide the control authority necessary. Again, this feature is missing in the B-2.

I've tried to keep this simple, there are many more reasons why the B-2 is not suitable for supersonic flight, and I won't bother with them here.

But basically what would probably happen is that it would go into an unrecoverable tumble.

Cheers.

How many times are people going to repost statistics?

jointstrike.aagu.net...
jointstrike.aagu.net...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

ive got a bit off info on the aurora. 110ft long 60ft wide. Pulse Detonation Wave Engine. Mach 6+. Lockheed made them. It is smoothly covered in thermal tiles. Fueled by misted liduid hydrogen and methane. leaves a pulse contrail while flying.

Engineer

Thanks for the lengthy reply. I know that the flying wing design isn't suited for supersonic flight, I was just wondering if it could be done in some sort of reasonable way, which I believe you have proven otherwise.

Originally posted by P_38lightning
ive got a bit off info on the aurora. 110ft long 60ft wide. Pulse Detonation Wave Engine. Mach 6+. Lockheed made them. It is smoothly covered in thermal tiles. Fueled by misted liduid hydrogen and methane. leaves a pulse contrail while flying.

Is this your guess, and if not what is it based off of?

Originally posted by American Mad Man
OK - I know that it is classified as a subsonic bomber, my question is given enough thrust, could it go supersonic?

Or does the very shape it's self prevent it from doing so?
respond

Its a horrable supersonic shape, but of course it could.
My pontiac could go supersonic.
I just havn't tried it yet.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
...I was just wondering if it could be done in some sort of reasonable way, which I believe you have proven otherwise.

AMM, I don't doubt that a supersonic flying wing could be developed, but it would have certain basic requirements.

1. A supersonic airfoil shape and a highly swept wing would be necesssary. That is, it would have to have sharp leading edges. This AC would have very high takeoff and landing speeds.

2. You would need some way of shifting the CG upon transition to supersonic flight. The aerodynamic center of a wing in subsonic flight sits at about 25% of the chord length. In supersonic flight, this moves back to about 50%, because there is no longer a pressure wave in front of the wing.

3. Very authorative control surfaces and FBW to compensate for the mach tuck. Some sort of canard surface on the nose would probably work best for controlling the pitch. Longitudinal stability increases in supersonic flight, making pitch changes more difficult. If the mach tuck cannot be controlled immediately, the nose down attitude increases and may not be recoverable.

This was first encountered during the second world war when some P-51 and Spitfire pilots got too close to the speed of sound, usually in a dive to catch, or escape from, the enemy. The pilots experienced a tendency for the nose to pitch down even more and reported that it took all his strength to pull the nose back up. Some pilots did not make it and augured in, or broke up, as their aircraft exceeded the maximum design speed.

As an aircraft approaches mach 1, some unusual non-linear effects begin to appear. Localized areas of extremely high and low pressures build up, and if the pressures cannot equalize very quickly, the temperature in the low-pressure areas drop and a condensation cloud forms.This is known as the Prandtl-Glauert Singularity, and takes place just before the transonic point is reached.

In this first picture, a USN F/A-18 is going transonic. You can see the cloud that is formed. Note the even, controlled shape of the cloud. The AC's tail surfaces are within the zone of turbulence.


In this picture, a B-2 is approaching mach 1. Note the shape of the cloud. It is concentrated mainly on the upper surface of the AC, and is much more chaotic in shape. The aircraft is still subsonic, and nearly enveloped by the cloud, but the wingtips are outside the zone of turbulence, and the pilot still has good control authority. If he were to push it much further, things would start to happen very rapidly. Not good things.

Again - thanks for the in depth explination

The question actually had a bit to do with that pic of the B-2 and it's condensation cloud, as I saw it recently and figured that if it could get that close to the supersonic mark, why not add some more power to get it over the hump.

Basically, you answered my question perfectly - it could be done with a flying wing, but the B-2 airframe most likely could not handle it.

On another note - welcome to ATS. I look forward to seeing some more f your posts as you seem to have a good grasp of the technical aspects of flight.

First although I would love to tell you who I really am, I can't. But I will go this far out on the limb.

My dad was a fighter pilot in the USAF. He was shot down in an F-100 in Vietnam and picked up by Gen. John R. Dean USA. I didn't even know who my dad was until I was in 2nd grade. Any way........He was at the Pentagon in the late 70's until 80 when we moved to Utah, Hill AFB, he became "something" there. I( don't think I should say, but you may figure it out ) It was the first wing of F-16'A's first block from Texas. Lotta crashes back then. He went back to the pentagon as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Caspar Weinberger ( Now you will figure it out ).

Then I joined the Air Force. Crypto guy.

When dad was at the Pentagon the first time he was in charge of Special Projects. He would leave and come back a few days later and always say he was in California and stopped to see grandma. No problem, until he left to go to Utah and got a plaque from the people he worked with. It was a Model Metro train ( DC Metro ) with a white boomerang over it, the only inscription was M, M, or M............. Never would say what it was or meant. I kept asking but he wouldnt say, It was a "secret". I forgot about it.

I did some crypto work on the Night Hawk ( wobbly goblin' ). Took a little trip from Vegas one day. Wooooooooaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh In civies.

Came home on leave and dad was still at the Pentagon and I stayed at his house. I asked him where he used to go and he finally told me. Area 51 Groom Lake. I laughed my *** off because I just got back. I didn't tell him but he knew. I asked him if he ever saw any 'aliens'. He looked at me with a straight darn face and said "No, but I did see a lot of weird stuff". I just nodded and chuckled. I finaly took the plaque with the model train off the mantle and handed it to him and demanded to know what it meant.

Here goes.

The train represented Washington DC's slow way to get around. The boomerang should be obvious, it was the B-2 Spirit. The M, M or M????

Man, Myth or Machine??????? I had it finaly after all of those years.

He was the project leader for the bird. The name of the project...............................

You guessed it, AURORA. I am not saying that there may not be planes out there like you describe. BUT, the name is not AURORA

JB

[edit on 24-10-2004 by just_a_pilot]

[edit on 24-10-2004 by just_a_pilot]

just_a_pilot
I asked him where he used to go and he finally told me. Area 51 Groom Lake. I laughed my ass off because I just got back.

You got back from Area 51? and if so, did you hear about or see any exotic craft thier? (something thatis still classified or black)