The B2 Must have Anti Gravity Propulsion

Originally posted by whatwasthat
reply to post by Phage

 

At the altitude these jets fly the temp is a constant -65 degrees. The thin air is above the weather and consistently very dry in relative humidity. Contrails are a mystery, the moisture is likely condensation from incomplete combustion. They are likely formed when the upper atmosphere is moving as a stable block with no turbulence at the flight level of the jet moving through relatively stable air.

Contrails are a mystery ? Please !
CO2 + H2O = CH2 + O3
CH2 is Hydrocarbon [fuels] or Carbohydrate [food] or Carbonic Acid [this is the more chemistry way of talking about elements chemically bonded to Hydrogen for example even water H2O is described as Oxygen Acid] depending apon who is doing the talking with what axe to grind. CH2 is all the carbon based life in the Universe. It is all your food. It is also jet fuel.
CH2 + O3 = CO2 + H2O
Thus the jet fuel burns [oxidisation] to form carbon dioxide and water vapor. Those water molecules apon hitting that minus 65*C that you mentioned are obviously crystalizing into ice crystals. At such minus 65*C even the Carbon Dioxide is likely to crystalize too. Thus the contrail that lingers behind aircraft flying at altitude. No big mystery to me. What comes out of the back end of a jet engine is certainly not the pollution [smog] that certain relatively uneducated "village idiot" would like you to believe it to be. Not wishing to offend anyone ofcourse. However CHEMTRAILS are a different matter. A chemtrail emmitting from the back end of a jet engine is a modification that might be detrimental to the environment and public health.
SHIMONO

[edit on 16/2/2010 by CAELENIUM]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by minkey53

 

All aircraft obtain electric charges while flying through air. That is why ALL aircraft are grounded (connected to Earth) before they try to refuel them. They don't want an arc to ignite the gas vapors.

At last an admission from an insider that the wings of an aircraft become "electrically charged" during flight. That is my point. That "electrical charge" [which is actually a frequency of magnetic resonance] is what is lifting the aircraft off the ground. It is quite literally the "Anti Gravity Force". See it from a radio science electricians point of view. See it as possible to create that same anti gravity force "electrical charge" by some solid state [no moving parts] means. This anti gravity system is obviously where aviation is going in this twenty first century. Already if you look up "Hutchinson Effect" on the internet you will discover that one Canadian radio scientist Mr Hutchinson gained possession of some hyper high frequency transmitter equipment secondhand from the [military] navy. Apon investigation experimenting in his home laboratory he found that using these apparatus he could levitate objects. In one video we see a 50kg cannon ball float up to the ceiling. The question arises as to what were the Navy doing with this equipment before Mr Hutchinson obtained it ? Levitating battleships "submarines" into space ? Perhaps that might be why Russian AKULA class submarines are made of titanium which we know is an aviation metal. From what I know Mr Hutchinson is currently working with Boeing ... et al ... to bring such levitation to the civil aviation sector. Namely take off and landing can and surely should be vertical simply for safety reasons but there are fuel conservation gains to be had too. Which is the point being made by the originator of this thread.
SHIMONO

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

Google Video Link

[edit on 16/2/2010 by CAELENIUM]

I always found it interesting that the B2 and the U2 share the same engines.

What do we believe is the service celing of the B2?.... 50,000 ft? From what I understand the B2 platform certainly has plenty of lift (so much so that it's difficult to land) and its engines evidently have the capacity to breathe at 70,000 ft + (as exhibited by the U2).

If there is a mystery regarding the B2's powerplant and performance... it's why is the service celing so unimpressive.... unless... do you think they could have lied to us and it actually flies higher?

reply to post by Catalytic


It's folly to try to judge the service ceiling of an aircraft by just looking at the engines. Yes, the B2 has lift, but not super-massive amounts. Its uncontrollability is because it is a flying wing with no vertical stabiliser, not because it has loads of lift.

The B2 is no mystery.

Originally posted by Catalytic
If there is a mystery regarding the B2's powerplant and performance... it's why is the service celing so unimpressive.... unless... do you think they could have lied to us and it actually flies higher?

My guess is that it can fly at a higher maximum altitude without its full load of bombs, and fuel, look at the weight difference, its weight more than doubles when fully loaded:

en.wikipedia.org...

- Empty weight: 158,000 lb (71,700 kg)
- Loaded weight: 336,500 lb (152,200 kg)

And weight matters:

What factors determine the maximum altitude of an airplane?

An airplane maintains altitude by producing enough lift to counteract its own weight. So the amount of lift an airplane produces determines how high it can climb.

So if you have to create enough lift to offset the planes weight, it only stands to reason that when it weighs less than half as much, your lift to weight ratio more than doubles, so it should be able to fly higher empty. I'm not sure what other altitude limitations would be considered, but even without bombs and with a minimal fuel load, I doubt it could go as high as the U2, dereks is right that there's a lot more involved than the type of engine, though that is one factor.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by davesidious


Regarding speculation that the B2 can be difficult to land, I wasn't referring to the lack of vertical stabilisers. I was thinking more about the chatter I've heard that pilots can get a little too accustomed to the rapid sink rate employed to get the B2 on the strip (due to high lift charcteristics and wing in ground effect) and when transitioning to more conventional platforms, they can get themselves into a little 'trouble' (lets call this 'trouble'... very heavy landings???).

Regarding the servicle ceiling... Even a vulcan could do 55000 ft! I could think of many reasons why a service ceiling of greater the 60000 ft would be very useful for a B2 (or B2 replacement) and logically why this capability, IF IT EXISTED, would be obscured.

Just speculation on my part I'm sure the B2 only does exactly what is said on the airforce factsheets and no more. After all it dosn't have much thrust, even when compared to a 737!



[edit on 24-2-2010 by Catalytic]

reply to post by Catalytic


Arbitrageur pretty much answered your questions.

Originally posted by Catalytic
I always found it interesting that the B2 and the U2 share the same engines.


If there is a mystery regarding the B2's powerplant and performance... it's why is the service celing so unimpressive.... unless... do you think they could have lied to us and it actually flies higher?

They absolutely lied to us.
www.jp-petit.org...

On above page:
Presently the american military try to hide those secrets as long as they can. Pseudo-projects are shown to public.

As far as we can see the so-called B2 is not... the real one. This last has a similar design (see above). The peculiar shape of its wing has been designed to give the machine a better stability when landing. A godd specialist in fluids mechanics can guess why it is designed such way. But the upper part is different. The "real B2" has a thick wing, for its four (conventional) motors take place in. Before their inlet we refind the MHD wall generator, which slows down the air enough to make possible hypersonic flight in very rarefied air and high altitude (200,000 feet) with... conventional turboreactors. Velocity : 6,000 knots.

The "real B2 is more sophisticated than the spyplane Aurora. It is not designed to be sattelised. It must stand long range missions so thet it has been designed to operate complete shock wave cancellation. The surface of the bomber is fully coated by MHD wall convertors. Some parts work as generators, some as accelerators. The whole ensures the complete control of the flow in ant point. The strenght of the discharge modifies the local value of the velocity of the sound. The geometry of the two high voltage discharges, et the stagnation point and at the end of the profile modifies the flow, the drag and the relative width of the wing. There is no canopy, for it is non longer necessary. As shown on the figure the modern hypersonic US bomber is very flat, very stealth.




[edit on 24-2-2010 by hawk123]

reply to post by hawk123


That link is nothing but conjecture.

reply to post by hawk123

There's no doubt the military has secret aircraft, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them can do 6000 knots. However I don't understand that terminology "real B-2", the B-2 is the B-2, if they are saying there's another plane, then there are other planes I agree but they would be called something other than B-2.

I think that site gets a lot wrong, but one thing I think it got right is in the photo of the hypersonic craft at the bottom, the wings are swept back at a steep angle, which from my knowledge of aerodynamics is how a hypersonic craft needs to be shaped. The B-2 wings aren't swept back at a steep enough for extreme hypersonic flight.

It's not so much that they lied to us, they just aren't telling us what they've got, it's a secret, well except for the photos on the skunkworks website, that gives you some clues. But they actually do tell us a little about the skunkworks project for a 6000 knots plane. Here's the image from the skunkworks home page:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/50397338c727.jpg[/atsimg]

See that plane on the right, the "Falcon"? That's your 6000 knots plane, not the B-2 or "real B-2" or whatever nonsense that site is babbling about.

Here are some videos about a "real" 6000 knots plane:

DARPA Falcon hypersonic X-plane - part 1


LM Skunk Works Falcon


There is just no way the B-2 or "real B-2" would go that fast so I suggest you find some better sources of information. The Falcon on the other hand, is supposed to go that fast.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


in a similar (and admittedly quite inept) public domain intelligence gathering attempt, this link may be worthwhile

[url=http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Martial-Arts.html?c=y&page=1]

(do I see the LRS next gen bomber in the 6th pic in the photo gallery?)

If you can get a paper copy of this magazine there are all kinds of interesting drawings & models to be seen, for example...

Northrop Grumman QSP (Quiet supersonic platform)
Northrop Grumman NG-LRS subsonic (next generation - long range strike)
Northrop Grumman FSA-S (future strike aircraft-supersonic)
sensor craft
space planes (mini shuttles and lenticular/ fat rounded triangles NB// these look quite old)
FB23
some kind of JSF type prototype with a YF23 type wing planform
some kind of UAV with a bird of prey type cranked wing

Disclaimer these are likely only concepts but there may be the odd nugget of truth in there.

reply to post by Catalytic

Looks like a good source to me, and I see the subsonic bomber in the 6th photo: www.airspacemag.com...

I had a little trouble with your URL though, just a formatting issue. I'll post the URL I used:

www.airspacemag.com...

You don't need the tags unless you you want text other than the link to appear, so that's the problem I had with your link.

For supersonic craft, the tip of the nose creates a shock wave, and to the extent you can keep the rest of the aircraft in that shock wave "wake", the better the design, otherwise you end up creating extra shock waves at the wing leading edges where they protrude from the shock wave wake "cone", and the more they protrude, the worse the problem.

So even that next gen bomber isn't really suitable design for supersonic or hypersonic. If they design it for super or hypersonic, the load carrying capacity goes way down because the skinnier wings don't create as much lift, so I suspect that's why these large bomber designs are subsonic, they want a huge payload. By comparison, the supersonic/hypersonic craft will tend to have a smaller payload capacity.

Just one question:

If it has anti-gravity; Why give the thing bleeding huge wings?

They only induce drag (assuming they are not used for lift), reducing range and manouverability, as well as increasing the drag are increasing RCS (Radar cross section).

I was listening to Coast to Coast AM one night and the show was about secret technologies, etc. One of the guests who was very knowledgeable on the subject mentioned that he heard from 'insiders' that the B2 did have limited anti-grav augmentations to get more mileage with the fuel it has. Other than that I have not heard or read anything else about this.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by Unplugged]

reply to post by Unplugged


More conjecture for the fire That's just the claims of one guy on a radio show. Not exactly stellar evidence

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Catalytic

 

For supersonic craft, the tip of the nose creates a shock wave, and to the extent you can keep the rest of the aircraft in that shock wave "wake", the better the design, otherwise you end up creating extra shock waves at the wing leading edges where they protrude from the shock wave wake "cone", and the more they protrude, the worse the problem.

So even that next gen bomber isn't really suitable design for supersonic or hypersonic.

Hypersonic, I fully agree, low Mach subsonic?....hmmm

In 1968 and in 1970 M.S. Cahn and G.M. Andrew from Northrop Corporation published some potentially 'illuminating' papers :

AIAA 6th Aerospace Sciences Meeting " Electroaerodynamics in supersonic flow" by M.S.Cahn and G.M.Andrew from Northrop Coporation - N°68-24 January 22-24, 1968.

AIAA 3rd Fluid and Plasma Dynamics conference" Recent experiments in supersonic regime with electrostatic charges" by M.S.Cahn and G.M.Andrew from Northrop Coporation - N°70-759 June 29-July, 1970.

To paraphrase these papers.... "The tests show that it is possible to modify the airflow and shock structure of a body by electrodynamics.... The tests have proven that electronic charges have considerable effect on supersonic flow. At Mach number 1.4, large changes in shock wave structure were caused using moderate power"

Rather annoyingly (inevitably?) the papers are now missing from the AIAA's archives, the paper pointed to electronic charges reducing drag on airliners, thus cutting heat friction as well as increasing fuel range (no bad thing for a long range stealth bomber, for example why try to track the bomber? just attack it's in-flight refuling tanker support, NB// obviously this countermeasure is not viable if the stealth bomber has surprisingly.... 'long legs'?). It was also noted in this paper that plasma surrounding an aircraft reduces it's RCS ("ooh thats handy, we'll have some of that too").

Another implication of of this work is that the electrostatic field could actually provide a significant reduction in drag allowing airframes that would appear hopeless for supersonic flight to slip through the sound barrier also possibly reducing sonic booms (again no bad thing for a stealth aircraft)

Wishful thinking?
if even part of the above were true... I imagine it would be extremely secret (game changing performance expansions inevitably are) however if some "wispers" regarding the technology escaped, a disinformation campaign might well be applied?.... UFO's have worked well as disinformation for the airforce in the past (except in the case of roswell) so we could imagine that for the B2, anti-gravity might well fit the bill and continue the "legend"!

"whispers"...?
March 1992 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, entitled "Black world engineers, scientists,encourage using highly classified technology for civil applications". This article explaines how the B-2's unusually profiled leading edge is charged to "many millions of volts", while the corresponding negative charge is blown out in the jets from the four engines. The General Electric F118 engines can operate as ordinary turbofans OR they can act as flame-jet generators, pumping out gas greatly diluted by fresh air, all at millions of volts negative. The word 'flame' gives a rather false picture, because in fact the jet comes out not very much hotter than the surrounding atmosphere.

Noshir Gowadia
"Gowadia was reportedly one of the principal designers of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, who conceived and conceptually designed the B-2 Bomber's entire propulsion system and billed himself as the "father of the technology that protects the B-2 stealth bomber from heat-seeking missiles." r.e IR, see paragraph above

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Catalytic]

reply to post by Catalytic


I also remeber an article on Electric spraying by Noshir Gowadia.
Need to search my archives.

reply to post by hawk123


Gowadia's career appears to be bereft of publications (or at least, not in the public domain)

One, (which is almost certainly him) is very on message regarding conventional IR suppession i.e. engine nozzle modification (nothing revolutionary here).

NASA Technical Memorandum 81951 "US. and U.S.S.R. Military Aircraft and Missile Aerodynamics (1970-1980)
see page 36

Capone, F. J.; Gowadia, N. S.; and Wooten, W. H. :
Performance Characteristics of Nonaxisymmetric Nozzles Installed on the F-18 Aircraft.
Presented at the 17th AI AA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, New Orleans, La., Jan.
15-17, 1979, 31 pp.
AlAA Paper 79-0101


More speculatively
There is a conference paper by an N Gowadia relating to “Electrospraying Biologically Active Materials,”

Coincidentally, this paper was published in 2005, the year of N. S. Gowadia arrest. If it is the same man, the underlying principle of electrospraying + the timing of the conference paper = obvious speculation to be made here......!

the paper is titled

Gowadia, N. and Dunn-Rankin, D. (2005) “Electrospraying Biologically Active Materials,” ILASS
Americas 18th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Irvine, CA, May
23–25.
D.74 Li, Y.-H.,

I have not yet been able to otain a copy of the conference paper or verify that these are the same Gowadia's..... They are probably not but it's worth chasing?

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Catalytic]

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Catalytic]

Originally posted by Catalytic
reply to post by hawk123

 

Gowadia's career appears to be bereft of publications (or at least, not in the public domain)


More speculatively
There is a conference paper by an N Gowadia relating to “Electrospraying Biologically Active Materials,”

Coincidentally, this paper was published in 2005, the year of N. S. Gowadia arrest. If it is the same man, the underlying principle of electrospraying + the timing of the conference paper = obvious speculation to be made here......!

the paper is titled

Gowadia, N. and Dunn-Rankin, D. (2005) “Electrospraying Biologically Active Materials,” ILASS
Americas 18th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Irvine, CA, May
23–25.
D.74 Li, Y.-H.,

I have not yet been able to otain a copy of the conference paper or verify that these are the same Gowadia's..... They are probably not but it's worth chasing?

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Catalytic]

That is exactly one of the documente I refer to.
"Electrospraying Biologically Active Materials"was also mentioned for Noshir Gowadia.

This presentation was in 2005 but also on some schools.
www.ilass.uci.edu...

Electrospraying is related to ionization.
The reference to this document was mentioned shortly after Noshir Gowadia was arrested.
There was a second document. I am still searching my archives.

See also Mr. Dunn 's interest on combustion.
gram.eng.uci.edu...



[edit on 9-3-2010 by hawk123]

This was the other course: Fundamentals of Aircraft Survivability

Since 1974, 40 civilian aircraft have been shot down by hand-held heat seeking missiles. While military aircraft have provided “Stealth” design concepts for decades, the present threat of IR sensor missiles has led to an interest in providing some survivability features on commercial aircraft as well. Add some more stuff here…


The course will emphasize techniques to reduce IR signatures, but radar and acoustic signatures will also receive some discussion. Specific topics of discussion include: definition of survivability, classification of and operation of IR sensing missiles, specific application to helicopters, bombers, fighters, and commercial platforms, design philosophy and methodologies, physics of IR emissions and signals, flares, jammers and other countermeasures, and minimum signature nozzle design techniques.


The lectures will be held mainly during intensive sessions on Wed-Friday, January 5-7 with additional lectures during March. Homework and practice problems will be given in Jan/Feb. concluding with a midterm exam in March. A team-based class project involving design of a low-observable nozzle to counter a given threat. Students will prepare for preliminary design reviews in March and final presentations and written reports of the project will be due at the end of the semester.





* Dr. Gowadia has over 38 years experience in research, development of aerospace and marine systems. He was one of the principle designers of the USAF/Northrop B-2 bomber, whose entire propulsion system was conceived and conceptually designed by him. He is an internationally recognized expert on aircraft survivability and has recently been appointed as a Visiting Professor in Purdue AAE School.


New Course for Spring 2005: AAE 590N

Fundamentals of Aircraft Survivability

Professor N. Gowadia* with Coordination by Professor Heister

See also next page 9 of this thread


[edit on 9-3-2010 by hawk123]