TR-3B nuclear powered flying triangle

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by crazyewok

 

There are several black projects that I'm aware of. None that *I* know of for certain would fit exactly the description, but I don't know every project out there. It's possible that there is one that I haven't found out about.

Thanks for replying I always value your input. Im guessing your siting on fence on this one from what I see. You havent heard anything but would'nt be surprised if there was something im guessing?

To be honnest I think the abilitys seen by some have been exagerated. If the craft was flying low it could have looked to be traverling faster. The ones I saw where at a low but normal aircraft height and moved at a fast but normal for military Aircraft speed.

Useing the above theroy that the mach 9 anti grav stuff is just exagerated so would be best try to try and pin it on a similiar black project that could be confused for it. Hell some of the sighting may just be B-2's.


As for anti grav I did read something intresting that been around for a while:
en.wikipedia.org... (Im gunna play around with this at some point)
and the Biefeld–Brown effect.

and also to look up is

Gyroscopic devices and the Barnett effect but this seem pretty unrealible.

All intresting reads. And to be honnest with a USA militray budget of over a trillion dollers and all the alphabet agenceys that have money chucked at them (I think half you angencys are just shell that recieve funding then tanfer it elsewere) It would be naive to think the USA and its NATO allies havent been doing some big research into these.

reply to post by crazyewok


I don't put much stock in the claims of what it has done, just because for a really black project there is a lot "known" about it. But that said, I know there was a craft developed that flew with the F-117 we don't know much about, as well as a few others, so no I wouldn't be surprised.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I don't put much stock in the claims of what it has done, just because for a really black project there is a lot "known" about it. But that said, I know there was a craft developed that flew with the F-117 we don't know much about, as well as a few others, so no I wouldn't be surprised.

I 100% agree no one can say what its specs are or what tec it has or even its role. How can we? The airframes classified so its internal working can only be guessed at. Its all speculation until some one from the government or whatever company makes it spill and tells.

All we can say from eye witnesses (and there is to many to say something isn't out there) is there is a unusual triangular aircraft out there. It black with some camouflaging abilities. Has 3 lights on each angle and a central light. It has V/STOL like capabilities and runs very quietly.

But that all anyone can say. Hell even the name TR-3A/D is all speculation.

reply to post by crazyewok


Exactly. But everyone takes it as gospel. The sources I have all agree there is no "TR-3B" and the claims of its capabilities are almost laughable. As far as there being a triangle craft, that's a different story (not necessarily that its a triangle, as there was something developed at the same time ass the F-117 as a companion craft).

Originally posted by Zaphod58
there was something developed at the same time ass the F-117 as a companion craft).

Take it we cant have any more information on it?

reply to post by crazyewok


Even that much isn't widely known.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Well thank you for shareing what you DO know.

I do woneder were the Trillions of doller of "lost" US money goes....

reply to post by crazyewok


Most of the fun in this is the bread crumb hunt. It can get frustrating, and not go anywhere for a long time sometimes, and then out of the blue someone sends you another nugget that seems unrelated to anything, and you have your next clue. Its a hell of a lot of fun.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Fun and frustrating, good observation. How many know that the SR 71 flew for over 20 years before the government disclosed it. I believe that we got many things that operate today in the air and in/under the sea that would spin our heads. Mach 9, well the record is mach 3.2 so that would be a leap. But still I want to believe. Maintaining a significant military capability over our potential foes is what keeps the peace. Not talking the brush wars that are so disturbing but the world wars that could be planet killers.

reply to post by whywhynot


Oh we have it. Not just aircraft but other systems as well that are amazing.

Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Mach 9, well the record is mach 3.2 so that would be a leap.

If a big Nuclear powered plane existed (and its not a far out claim seeing as nuclear planes were a real concept) then it would most likely have the speeds of Mach 1-2 not mach 9 and rather than being 600m it most likely would be the size of a 747, infact if nuclear that would have to be size to make room for the reactor.

And I could see the role as being similar as a missile sub plus command and control plan.

As for it running quietly. well I saw a B-2 flying over were I live once ( by the way why did I see one flying over the UK was back in 2009). So I dont know what they use to muffle the aircraft sounds but it seemed to glide. It was sureal as all the traffic stoped in the street to look up at it.

reply to post by crazyewok


Nuclear powered aircraft have one big problem to them. Shielding. The nuclear powered B-36 could carry enough shielding for the crew to survive powering up the reactor, but was so heavy it couldn't get airborne. The Soviet nuclear powered bomber (that allegedly ran with the reactor running, but not powering the plane) cut the shielding to the point where the crew would die of radiation poisoning within a few missions at best. Add in the potential for an accident contaminating a massive area, and you have something that looks great on paper, not so much in reality.

Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Fun and frustrating, good observation. How many know that the SR 71 flew for over 20 years before the government disclosed it.

A commonly repeated myth - no-one knows that, because President Johnston went on nationwide TV to admit the existence of the programme before the SR-71 made a single flight (although after the A-12 & YF-12A predecessors had been flying tests for a year or 2 before then)



this was on 25 July 1964.

The A-12 first flight was 25 April 1962 - TWO years before the broadcast. the YF-12A first flew on 13 August 1963, and the SR-71 on 22 December 1964 - 6 months AFTER the broadcast.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Nuclear powered aircraft have one big problem to them. Shielding. The nuclear powered B-36 could carry enough shielding for the crew to survive powering up the reactor, but was so heavy it couldn't get airborne. The Soviet nuclear powered bomber (that allegedly ran with the reactor running, but not powering the plane) cut the shielding to the point where the crew would die of radiation poisoning within a few missions at best. Add in the potential for an accident contaminating a massive area, and you have something that looks great on paper, not so much in reality.

When was this research done though? Its not impossible to think that better tec MAY have been developed plus as for public hazzard? May be why it is so secret Public cant compain if they dont know about it

Again all speculation.

By the way do you have any idea why I saw a B-2 flying over Kent (UK) back in mid 2009 in broad daylight?
I have always wondered......

reply to post by crazyewok


It was done in the 1960s, but you have the same problem today. There has been a major increase in engine power, but you still have to have a lot of shielding. A nuclear powered carrier, or sub has quite a bit of shielding around their reactors, and they're pretty small reactors. One on a plane is still going to be smaller, but you still need quite a bit of shielding around it. Eventually you're going to impact payload, to the point there is no point in doing it.

As for the B-2 when in 2009 exactly was it? There are several reasons why it might have been in the area. As a random factoid, there is an RAF pilot that is an MC on the B-2, with a couple more that were supposed to join him.

indirect cycle system

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Nuclear powered aircraft have one big problem to them. Shielding.

And also fallout and contamination in the event of a crash.

Recall that the SLAM missile was going to have a nuclear engine, and the increadibly dangerous fallout from it was factorred in as part of its destructive capability!!

Designing indirect air cycle system a solved this - but the problem of contamination in case of an accident remained and was not able to be solved.

In the end the advances in conventional jet technology removed any need for a nuclear engine.

The Soviet nuclear aircraft was the TU-119 - shielding was actually a major concern!!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by crazyewok

 

It was done in the 1960s, but you have the same problem today. There has been a major increase in engine power, but you still have to have a lot of shielding. A nuclear powered carrier, or sub has quite a bit of shielding around their reactors, and they're pretty small reactors. One on a plane is still going to be smaller, but you still need quite a bit of shielding around it. Eventually you're going to impact payload, to the point there is no point in doing it.

As for the B-2 when in 2009 exactly was it? There are several reasons why it might have been in the area. As a random factoid, there is an RAF pilot that is an MC on the B-2, with a couple more that were supposed to join him.

Vallid points. Well unless the us is sitting on something.

Erm must have been may or june in 2009. Whats a MC? I always thought you yanks wouldnt let anyone near your B-2s.

reply to post by crazyewok


Mission Commander. You have the Aircraft Commander, who is the pilot, and the Mission Commander who handles everything else.

The US has a long history of exchange programs with foreign military pilots, this was just a natural progression. It's unusual, but it makes sense.

I believe that there were several airshows in the UK during that time, he was most likely at one of those. They tend to practice flight displays in the area around the base, if they're going to do one, sometimes at locations away from the airshow location.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Mission Commander. You have the Aircraft Commander, who is the pilot, and the Mission Commander who handles everything else.

The US has a long history of exchange programs with foreign military pilots, this was just a natural progression. It's unusual, but it makes sense.

I believe that there were several airshows in the UK during that time, he was most likely at one of those. They tend to practice flight displays in the area around the base, if they're going to do one, sometimes at locations away from the airshow location.

Most likely because of a show at Bigen Hill or Mansen. It certainly made everyone stop and look anyway.