Pictures Of Mystery Plane Over Wichita

a reply to: Astr0

Yeah sorry astr0 I was just answering the other guys question!!

a reply to: Astr0

I remember that plane...

I had a Testor's model of it when I was a little kiddo. I believe it was called a "stealth fighter". Interesting design, certainly ahead of it's time. In fact, it still looks "futuristic" 20+ odd years later!

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Astr0

I remember that plane...

I had a Testor's model of it when I was a little kiddo. I believe it was called a "stealth fighter". Interesting design, certainly ahead of it's time. In fact, it still looks "futuristic" 20+ odd years later!

Yeah, too bad the physics is wrong.

As you can see by visiting any aiport today, the wingtips need to be turned upwards to ameliorate the wingtip vortex.

And down is bad for rough landings too, one bounce and you'll scrape all that expensive paint off the tips and then Dad will be steaming mad.

More seriously, it sure looks like delta wings and triangles are what engineering says works.

Also I noticed that Hollywood "Aircraft" have canards on the same plane or lower as the main wing, but in actual aircraft, they're significantly higher and in uglier locations (e.g. typhoon, J-20

a reply to: Astr0

Very decent what if right there lol

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Astr0

I remember that plane...

I had a Testor's model of it when I was a little kiddo. I believe it was called a "stealth fighter". Interesting design, certainly ahead of it's time. In fact, it still looks "futuristic" 20+ odd years later!

Yeah, too bad the physics is wrong.

As you can see by visiting any aiport today, the wingtips need to be turned upwards to ameliorate the wingtip vortex.

And down is bad for rough landings too, one bounce and you'll scrape all that expensive paint off the tips and then Dad will be steaming mad.

More seriously, it sure looks like delta wings and triangles are what engineering says works.

Also I noticed that Hollywood "Aircraft" have canards on the same plane or lower as the main wing, but in actual aircraft, they're significantly higher and in uglier locations (e.g. typhoon, J-20

Boeing [YF-118G] Bird of Prey


North American Aviation [XB-70] Valkyrie



(you can see how eerie things could get with these type of experimental wing configurations, on landing! Holy cow!)

The reason behind their dynamic adjusting wing tips:

North American Aviation (NAA) improved on the [plane's] basic concept by adding a set of drooping wing tip panels that were lowered at high speed. This helped trap the shock wave under the wing between the down-turned wing tips, and also added more vertical surface to the aircraft to improve directional stability at high speeds. NAA's solution had an additional advantage, as it decreased the surface area of the rear of the wing when the panels were moved into their high-speed position. This helped offset the rearward shift of the center of pressure, or "average lift point", with increasing speeds. Under normal conditions this caused an increasing nose-down trim, which had to be offset by moving the control surfaces, increasing drag. When the wing tips were drooped the surface area at the rear of the wings was lowered, moving the lift forward and counteracting this effect, reducing the need for control inputs.

Source


Interesting read on that, actually.


Anywho, sorry to temporarily derail the thread... lol

BACK on topic!

a reply to: ATBspirit

Hey welcome to the aviation world!

What I can't figure out is if these are still being tested, or are these mysterious craft actually being used and just a very well kept secret.

What is the point of testing a plane for 10+ years and then revealing it, only to retire it a couple more years later?

And if some of these planes are being used, why haven't more people in contested areas (Afghanistan/Pakistan) seen them?

Sometimes I think our black budget is nothing more than a slush fund for the egg heads to play around with

a reply to: MystikMushroom

These, at least some of them are not for low threat environments. You don't want to bring them out for something like Afghanistan or Iraq.

There are however several more UAVs that are perfect for that kind of environment.

a reply to: boomer135

Thanks mate, long time reader first time poster

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I think they probably test it for a while and then if it goes operational and the technology is still pretty cutting edge then there's no point in declassifying it.

The trick is to catch it in testing or just before, because it's funny how some technology will do great during testing then all of a sudden lose funding.

There's been plenty of articles on left handed metamaterials bending light around an object making it invisible, you could make an aircraft skin out of it and you'd have an invisible aircraft. PhantomWorks got a contract to do a working model of it although you won't find that on the internet anymore.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I never would have thought that Iraq or Afghanistan counted as low threat environments. Is that just because there is no threat of air combat and only of ground to air ordnance? So those are fighter jets or spy planes/ewar? Sorry for probably using wrong terminology I don't really know the subject that well.

a reply to: ATBspirit

That's interesting stuff. When ya'll talk about making a skin for aircraft is that a technical term for paint or with these new technologies are they applied differently like how you wrap cars or something similar?