Looks like our boys saw something cool out there

Ok for the record compared to people on here I literally have no major understanding of aircraft so I'm really replying because I've been reading the thread and it's one of this a 'this is why I joined ATS' type of thread it's an interesting one

But I thought I'd add what I think even though it's probably going to be complete rubbish and it will seem I'm talking a load of horse waste

It's not a B-2 the silhouette just for whatever reason doesn't sit right with me there's something not quite right about the pic and i believe it's not a B-21 either, what makes you say that i hear you ask.

For it not being a B-2, I understand the image is shot at an angle or that's what it looks like. Yet there seems to be a gap we can see through between the cockpit and what looks like a possible air intake if it were a B-2. To see that gap on a B-2 you've got to be almost looking straight at the aircraft due to the sloping fuselage which slopes almost all the way to the rear of a B-2 and a B-2 air intakes are almost at the front of the aircraft. I assume the image of the aircraft is shot at an angle otherwise we would see the second 'intake' on the other side.

This leads me on to it not being a B-21 but this is where I could be wrong as I'm going by the rending that was released to the public.


Again going by the rending which I know may not be entirely correct the B-21 intakes look like they are almost built into the airframe and do not protrude out as much as the B-2s and again the intakes start relatively close to the front of the aircraft.

So what's my speculation? Well this is where I use my imagination and create some mega horse waste. The aircraft is obviously a flying wing design (I forgot the proper definition.. load span?). Let's start off with the YF-23 and it's design.
Here's an overhead pic of one which might help to show you where I'm going with this

Now obviously removing the ailerons from the top, you blend all the wings into a triangle shape (roughly) or similar shape to a B-2. You the bring the cockpit back behind the point (nose) of the aircraft. Now this is why I mentions the F-23, look at the rear of the aircraft and see how far back the engines at set. I believe in the image captured by our ATS guys what looks like air intakes are the engines but are set back toward the rear of the fuselage unlike a b-2. with them being set back this allows the gap between the cockpit and the engines that we can see in the picture. The other engine is blocked by the cockpit

You can kind of get the idea in this picture of a F-23 but because the engines are close together you can see both of them, you can see the starboard side engine in the 'gap' between the cockpit and the port side engine but if they were further apart the the cockpit would be blocking it allow the gap to be visible


Keeping on the same design as the F-23, the engine intakes were located underneath, which stumped me a little bit when looking at the pic taken my Zaph and friend. This is where I could be majorly wrong if I'm not completely wrong already with my theory. I took another look at the image, we can clearly see the under carriage and possible under carriage doors, but I was puzzled about the flap second in from the right. They look a little large but could these be the engine intakes? The one on the left is obscured slightly as the angle has it lining up with the undercarriage doors


Long and short of it, my speculation... triangle shaped aircraft with engines on top like a 23. Which .. leads me to my final crazy thought of what it might be.. we all know what this pic is right ?


Apologies if I've just replied with a load of rubbish, but I did read that the thread was created to see what other people thought, and well that's what I think

I always wondered what came out of the F-23 and its design

I might shortly try and draw a quick sketch of what I think it might look like
Edit: ok you're gonna laugh at me now but I don't need to make a sketch what I'm going for is a similar aircraft that was in the John Travolta film Broken Arrow

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

That was actually very well thought out and written.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I do try sometimes, the idea of it being a b-2 though defintely doesn't sit with me. Apart from what I've tried pointing out the image doesn't look right there's something there telling me it's not a B-2. Another thing I see is ... it looks thinner than a B-2 as in the thickness of the aircraft from top to bottom but that could be just to the quality of the picture.just so you know I'm not knocking you guys for the quality of it I'm just saying lol

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

No, I get it. There's only so much you can do across almost 11 miles at night, into a not very well lit up area. Those two lights were really all there was for light. It wasn't nearly as well lit as it appears. You should have heard us talking about the quality a few times.

Thing is now we know its the Wichita bird..What do we call the sucker :-P

originally posted by: Blackfinger
Thing is now we know its the Wichita bird..What do we call the sucker :-P

I didn't say it was .. my post was all speculation and just my thoughts running wild there's no solid proof.

a reply to: Blackfinger

If I'm right about one of the things I'm looking at, this bird was not Wichita.

a reply to: Zaphod58
One of the things? Well what’s the other thing? lol

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

I like this angle a lot, only I'm still not convinced that Wichita was a simple flying triangle.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Lemme guess: wingspan?

a reply to: weavty1

We're still trying to massage out some things in our copious spare time.

a reply to: Barnalby

It's related to the wing, but not the span.

As crazy as it seen the 1st time I seen the picture also the ducts reminded me if the 23 also....could it be sum kind a spin off ?larger yf23 ?

a reply to: Slys13

Maybe those aren't ducts. Maybe those are humps

a reply to: Zaphod58

Leading edge aoa variences?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

That's a big part of it. The B-2 wing doesn't seem to have as big a variance.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

look at the 170's wings for instance.

a reply to: penroc3
Humbs and thickness of the wings... not many known unknowns designed that way

a reply to: mightmight



these might be mistaken for inlets if the picture was distorted like ours