Mysterious delta jet over Texas, a fortnight ago

[chopper2004]

Came across the pic on a group in Fakebook......:E

Mystery Aircraft Over Texas (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A98ddaa5a-e2b3-4a1a-9218-14d04d3ef6a1)

Any takers?

Cheers

[AnglianAV8R]

If anyone in these hallowed halls does know, I suspect they wont tell you :cool:

[Roland Pulfrew]

Looks like a B2 to me, particularly in the colour photo.

[Boy_From_Brazil]

Roland

Couldn't agree more...at first I thought a F117...

BFB

[Kitbag]

Really surprised that if a 'secret' ac, ie not a B2, would operate in a contrail environment. Suspect it is indeed a publicly known and acknowledged type

[Willard Whyte]

Compare to a B-2

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/images/b-2-contrail.jpg

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

US Navy drone X-47B perhaps?
(I disagree with the reasons why not, and the shape and contrail are correct)

http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/111029-F-EM261-011-580x404.jpg

[chopper2004]

X-47B - looks a tad too small, judging from photo looks like something flying at 20,000 and unless someones used telephoto long lens, be difficult to get a fast jet sized shape in....

But are there not delegated areas especially for UAS ops in the states, agreed with the FAA, and anything else be around Edwards, Groom, Eglin, Pax ranges? I do not believe (please correct me if I am wrong) the state of Texas has any restricted airspace to fly UASs bar the bases?

Though thought it was a 1950s/60s photo initially ....

if you take away the forward canards, of this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/XFV-12A_HC352-0-112_P1.jpg/754px-XFV-12A_HC352-0-112_P1.jpg


The wing shape would look similar?

[dagenham]

Is it aurora?

Can i claim my five pounds?

[MPN11]

I know the answer, but I'd have to shoot you first? :cool:

[Stuff]

The shape looks more like the Boeing Phantom Ray

http://realitypod.com/wp-content/uploads/HLIC/fd887650767f532e90c9735322e4a02d.jpg

But both this and the X-47B have a single engine. How does that form 2 parallel contrails?

Edit: I'm not saying 2 contrails from 1 engine is impossible (the B2 picture in this very thread seems to have 3 contrails from 2 engines) I'm just not sure how that happens.

[500N]

I see it has hit the front pages of the Daily Mail :rolleyes:

But interesting / good blow up of the black and white photo.

UFO of secret fighter jet? The mysterious triple triangle craft pictured flying over Texas | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2591860/UFO-secret-fighter-jet-The-mysterious-triple-triangle-craft-pictured-flying-Texasre.html)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The x-47B appears to have a divided exhaust nozzle

p.s. The DM's next Don't Miss article is "Was Kim Kardashian too fat for Harper's Bazaar?"

whereas that probably isn't the next article in FlightGlobal, 'Jane's..', etc

If you post DM links again 500N I'll put you on my 'Ignore' list - no excuses!!

[barnstormer1968]

Could a Neuron be out there?

[TEEEJ]

Douglass claims that there was three of these aircraft in formation. Photographs and full details on Steve Douglass website. Apparently 509th confirmed to Bill Sweetman that no B-2s were in the area at that time.

Search on 'Deep Black Horizon'. First website on search as I am unable to post direct link to website.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Deep+Black+Horizon&rlz=1C1GGGE_en-gbGB443GB443&oq=Deep+Black+Horizon&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3.1267j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=Deep+Black+Horizon

From: GREENE, JENNIFER D GS-07 USAF AFGSC 509 BW/PA
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2:00 PM
To: Sweetman, Bill
Cc: COOPER, JOHN M 1st Lt USAF AFGSC 509 BW/PA; GREENE, JENNIFER D GS-07 USAF AFGSC 509 BW/PA

Subject: Aircraft sighting

Sir,

I have spoken with our schedulers and the aircraft you saw was not a B-2 on the date and time in question.
Thank you!

Very Respectfully,

Jennifer Greene
Director of Community Relations
509th Bomb Wing Public Affairs
509 Spirit Blvd. Suite 112
Whiteman AFB, MO 65



B-2 contrail video for comparison.

OP0fp5bo-Uo&feature=related

[LowObservable]

Correct, Teej... the 509th denial will be in the upcoming AW&ST also.

So one thing it probably wasn't, was a B-2.

[NutLoose]

Aurora?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

[TEEEJ]

LowObservable wrote

the 509th denial will be in the upcoming AW&ST also.

Is it coming out on April 1st ;)

3 of them in formation? Really?

Is it just me or is Steve Douglass working up to an April Fools' stunt?

With Steve Douglass you have to take a few things that he comes out with a huge pinch of salt. He does have a history of BS, IMHO. Take into consideration that Steve Douglass was the guy who first came out with the "donuts on the rope" contrail photograph back in 1992. In 2010 he claimed that it was back.

I was on my way home from Wal-Mart this afternoon when I heard a strange thumping noise - rhythmic in nature. At first I thought it might be a flat tire - but then I realized it was coming out of the sky. Then I realized what it was. It came back in a flash - a sound I hadn't heard since 1992. I looked up and saw a familiar sight. My old friend the "Pulser" was back.

The above snippet from his website complete with images. Again, anyone can post images of contrails with pendules and claim whatever they like. You tube and the web is full of them with people claiming they were produced by undisclosed aircraft.

Ever since then contrails with pendules have been associated with claims of pulse detonation wave engines. Contrails with pendules are nothing new.

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/contrailscience.com_skitch__283_29_Clouds_of_the_World_2C_19 72___Google_2B_20130302_111801.jpg

Douglass also got caught up in the nonsense of NATO manned aircraft losses over Yugoslavia in 1999 claiming figures of around 22 shot down. I've heard that radio interview he did back in 1999 on NATO losses and it didn't do him any favours.

Texas Radio Buff: About Two Dozen NATO Aircraft Shot Down by the Serbs

What attracted our attention to Steve Douglas, however (thanks to a heads-up we got from a TiM reader in the U.K.), was that he also eavesdrops (literally and legally) to many unencrypted U.S. military messages. Such as those exchanges during NATO's war on Serbia, for example, when many communications between the NATO pilots and command and control centers were not encrypted, due to a lack of sufficient number of encryption devices, according to Douglas.

So what valuable "intel" did Douglas pick up from all this eavesdropping to be invited as a guest on the Jeff Rense radio show? How about that at least 22 NATO fixed wing air craft were shot down by the Serb defense, about 10 of those U.S. planes.

S99-145, KFOR "Peacefarce" 39 - Special TiM GW Bulletins (Sep. 3, 1999) (http://www.truthinmedia.org/Kosovo/Peace/ps39.html)

After what he has produced in the past then call me skeptical.

[Haraka]

Thanks for that TEEEJ. I was unaware of the dubious provenance of the images.

[WhiteOvies]

X-47B usually flies with Chase aircraft from VX-23 and it says there were 3 aircraft in the formation, not 3 of these triangles.

My money's on X-47B, which is surprisingly small up close, although with a big wing.

[Lima Juliet]

Lockheed Polecat has 2 engines, but I thought that it had been shelved...

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=13837

[saudipc-9]

Twin engine contrails so all the single engine drones are out.

[ShotOne]

No they aren't. Contrails are formed by wingtip vortices, not a function of number of engines.

My money is on an X47B

[Hempy]

No they aren't. Contrails are formed by wingtip vortices, not a function of number of engines.

My money is on an X47B

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Contrail_fourengined_airplane.jpg

[BEagle]

Condensation trails can be caused either by pressure reduction, for example in wing tip vortices or by engine exhausts.

If you ever saw a Buccaneer flying a blown overshoot on a damp day, you'd see a plethora of such pressure reduction trails.

[NickPilot]

Contrails formed by pressure drop are short lived. Trails formed by engine exhaust are usually longer lived, depending on atmospheric conditions. The ones in the photo are definitely exhaust generated.

[DITYIWAHP]

Vapor trails that are formed by wingtip vortices never persist because the low pressure area disappears as the vortex quickly dies, whereas those formed by engines persist because of the water vapor added by the combustion process in the engines. Index finger to glasses, glasses adjust...

[ShotOne]

DITY, if we're talking about high level contrails, they are caused by the jet exhaust, specifically the water content, being mixed by wingtip vortices. Hempy, if you were to take another picture 30 secs later you'd see two contrails. Beagle, what you say about pressure drop is true but doesn't much help identify our mystery machine; we're talking tens of thousands of feet over Texas not Honington on a drizzly morning.

[saudipc-9]

Shot- you would either have to have the jet under G or have lift devices deployed for what you are referring to and as has been mentioned are short lived and are not present at the altitudes this aircraft was flying. The photo shows engine contrails emitting from the aircraft. What the vortices do afterwards is irrelevant.

[Sideshow Bob]

No they aren't. Contrails are formed by wingtip vortices, not a function of number of engines.


Doncha just love amateur hour

[ShotOne]

Read my post in the context of the question being answered, Bob. It's simply not possible to state how many engines this aircraft had just by looking at the contrail.

[langleybaston]

Jet engines eh?

So all those Flying Fortresses I saw during the war were running on jets after all.

So the USA invented the jet engine and flew it before Germany or GB?

Real education this thread.

[Willard Whyte]

I think they scrapped all the X/YB-35s...

[dagenham]

So all this is telling me is high altitude stealth is a bit pointless if your in the contrail layer?

The only airframe(s);) I know of that has fewer contrails than engines is because 40% of the engines fitted where shut down for most of the flight.

[Roland Pulfrew]

if we're talking about high level contrails, they are caused by the jet exhaust, specifically the water content, being mixed by wingtip vortices.]

Bloody hell. All that time watching the VC10's contrails and apparently the exhausts were mixing with the wing tip vortices!!

[BEagle]

I don't know why it's all such a mystery?

Surely it was just one of these on test:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/unknown_zpsf0735494.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/unknown_zpsf0735494.jpg.html)

[Compass Call]

Sea Vixen?


I'll get my coat!!

[saudipc-9]

X-45A and F/A-18B Formation Flight (Flight 13) - YouTube

Here's an interesting video

[ShotOne]

Yes they were, Roland. Are you postulating that contrails from aircraft with tail mounted engines behave fundamentally differently from others? I'd challenge you to tell those of, say, an MD80 and a 737 apart a minute after they'd passed.

That said, I feel the contrail debate is a red herring; my money is still on the (single engined)X47B for the much more basic reason that the planform looks like it. This isn't the 50's with dozens of exciting projects. Even if some new mega plane had somehow been funded and built in super-secrecy, would it reallly be cruising over Texas in broad daylight?

[saudipc-9]

http://anandgreenwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/contrails317140916_std1.jpg

This one is for Shot. If you're telling me that the vortices mix the contrails, fair enough. However, that is not what your post said "Contrails are formed by wingtip vortices". This is also why, in order to ID the number of engines, that you would look very close to the aircraft itself. However, given the video and the similar contrail pattern from the original picture may very well show a UAV.

[ORAC]

X47b trialling a couple of chem-trail dispensers. Simples....... :cool:

[chopper2004]

BEagle,

At my old Part 145 MRO company, around 10 years back, the other other of the business was a Part 21G and J composite facility. We had a contract with a bunch of Bedfordshire academics and boffins to build the BWB scaled drop test models as said academics had been contracted by the Boeing Phantom Works. Also we got involved indirectly with the Cambridge Uni / MIT Silent Aircraft initiative

The 'Silent' Aircraft Initiative (http://silentaircraft.org/)

Back to the BWB, below my feet in my Quality Dept, these shapes were built and then shipped off back to Huntington Beach and would find their way up to the Mojave and used for a series of crash test evaluations. I do not believe they were in anyway used as airborne tests from say NASA NB-52H or any other platform, but launched like as a UAS....

Last I heard the BWB scaled models we built, had all but one or two used and made a dent in the lovely Mojave desert,

Cheers

[hoodie]

... my money is still on the (single engined)X47B for the much more basic reason that the planform looks like it.

But it really doesn't.

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Mystery-plane-Musket.png

http://www.trtturk.com/application/static/data/news/content/1373524465_x-47b-10.jpg

Where's the crank in the leading edge and the W-shaped trailing edge "boat tail" in the first pic?

Even if some new mega plane had somehow been funded and built in super-secrecy ...

Well, there's got to be SOME reason for the USG to be spending all that money on this:

http://notreally.info/sol/terra/us/nv/groom_lake/img/_werc/smak/prev//groom_lake_31052_800px-Area_51.png

It's not as if there aren't precedents for super-secret aircraft development programmes.

Steve Douglass's credentials were mentioned earlier. To me, it seems he may have been naive and not too rigorous in the conclusions that he has drawn in the past. I've not seen anything that suggests he is a hoaxer or would fake images, though.

... it says there were 3 aircraft in the formation, not 3 of these triangles.

Actually, the suggestion is that there were three triangles - there's another shot apparently showing three from Steve Douglass's site, which PPRuNe annoyingly won't allow a link to but which can be found from the AvWeek link in the original post in this thread.

Phantom Ray fits more than X-47B (except for the single engine...), but both those are open programmes, and only 1 of the former and 2 of the latter have been built. Or acknowledged to have been built you might well object, but then why reveal the aircraft but hide how many are built? They're demonstrators, not operational aircraft, we are told.

Also, the Phantom Ray has a one-piece wing and is therefore difficult to move from factory to test site - people would surely notice.

http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/12/img/bds_feat_MSF10-0213-060_phantom_ray_400.jpg

PS Can anybody point to definitive information on the current US rules for flying UAVs outside of Ranges or otherwise segregated airspace? In other words, if UAVs could not have been flown over Amarillo legally then it is a strike against the triangles being UAVs. If they could, well - we're none the wiser!

Edit again, to answer my own question. The relevant FAA Fact Sheet is here (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153), from which I quote selectively but hopefully accurately:

The Certificate of Authorization [for Public Use UAVs] allows an operator to use a defined block of airspace and includes special provisions unique to the proposed operation.

Because UAS technology cannot currently comply with “see and avoid” rules that apply to all aircraft, a visual observer or an accompanying “chase plane” must maintain visual contact with the UAS and serve as its “eyes” when operating outside airspace restricted from other users.

So there would need to be a manned chase AND a defined COA Block of Airspace. In the absence of a COA NOTAM to that effect, which has not been mentioned by anyone, I think that means they shouldn't legally have been UAVs.

[ShotOne]

Thanks for the great pic, pc9, that illustrates my point exactly. I agree my initial post only told a bit of the story, although I did elaborate in my PM to you. I still feel the contrail debate, fascinating as it was, has sent us off at rather a tangent. hoodie, fair point, it's certainly missing the "boat tail"

[tartare]

Quite possible it is something entirely new.
That planform does look odd; not a cranked arrow, not arcuate, no beaver tail like the B2.
I've long suspected there are a whole family of subsonic reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles that we're unaware of.
Nothing incredibly exotic, just variations on a theme - and I wonder if this is one of them.
Look at the Sentinel, Polecat, Bird of Prey.
Developed relatively quickly, and in secrecy.
I assume that rapid prototyping, large single composite piece manufacturing and re-using existing powerplants (and other bits like landing gear etc) means that new sub or transonic manned or unmanned prototypes can be developed reasonably quickly.
History seems to show its when you start wanting to go very fast, very high, very far or combinations of all three that programs get expensive, big and unwieldy.

[saudipc-9]

Shot, if you sent me a PM, I didn't receive it.

[Roland Pulfrew]

ShotOne

ShotOne:if we're talking about high level contrails, they are caused by the jet exhaust, specifically the water content, being mixed by wingtip vortices.

ShotOne:Yes they were, Roland.

No they weren't. Nor were the contrails on a Nimrod formed by mixing of the exhaust gases and the wing tip vortices.

Please note that from saudipc9's 747 photo the contrails are most definitely coming from the engines - they appear well before the wing tip vortex could have mixed with jet eflux. What happens further behind the 747 is the mixing of the contrail and vortex - but the contrail is NOT caused by mixing - that just changes the shape and look.
Are you postulating that contrails from aircraft with tail mounted engines behave fundamentally differently from others? I'd challenge you to tell those of, say, an MD80 and a 737 apart a minute after they'd passed Only that the contrails from any type are formed from the jet exhaust and would be there whether there was a wing tip vortex or not. What happens further behind the aircraft when the two do mix is an entirely different question.
And yes, you can often tell the difference between 4-jet contrails and twin jet contrails.

Now back to the mystery aircraft. Given the graininess of the picture and lack of definition, I'm still sticking with B2. Try copying and pasting the photo into something that you can zoom in on (ie Word - other word processing software is available) and zoom in to 500% - to my eye you can see the "wings" and the trailing edge saw tooth. The trailing edge definition (as shown in Willard's earlier photo) is just lost in the pixelation of this photo.

[hoodie]

A problems with them being B-2 is the response Douglass got from Public Affairs at Whiteman AFB (quoted at the page linked from the OP):

From: GREENE, JENNIFER D GS-07 USAF AFGSC 509 BW/PA
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2:00 PM
To: Sweetman, Bill
Cc: COOPER, JOHN M 1st Lt USAF AFGSC 509 BW/PA; GREENE, JENNIFER D GS-07 USAF AFGSC 509 BW/PA

Subject: Aircraft sighting

Sir,

I have spoken with our schedulers and the aircraft you saw was not a B-2 on the date and time in question.
Thank you!

Very Respectfully,

Jennifer Greene
Director of Community Relations
509th Bomb Wing Public Affairs

Now, there might be B-2s operated away from Whiteman (AFFTC is the obvious alternative), but 3 of them?

Maybe the photos are too poor, but I would still have expected to see evidence of a W trailing edge if a B-2.

[Roland Pulfrew]

A problems with them being B-2 is the response Douglass got from Public Affairs at Whiteman AFB

I don't know what US FoI laws are like, but would the USAF necessarily confirm an operational, or even a training, sortie?

[hoodie]

But they unequivocally said "Not ours" - they didn't say "I am unable to provide that information".

[awblain]

hoodie,

Given the modest resolution of the picture, and the unknown color of the underside of the boat tail, it's not impossible it's an X47. To be more sure you'd need to blur the image using the resolution response of the camera against a bright sky background, and include the effects of the uncertain elevation to the aircraft, which makes it appear shortened in the wingspan direction than if it was directly overhead, and so makes the wing sweep angle appear greater than it is.

[hoodie]

The twin contrail is the clincher against X-47B for me. Your suggestion may be valid for B-2 if from somewhere other than Whiteman, though.

[Tashengurt]

It just doesn't look like a B2 to me.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[KiloB]

Why are all you guys presuming it is an American aircraft? Don't you read the Iranian Press Releases? :rolleyes:
KB

[Willard Whyte]

Why are all you guys presuming it is an American aircraft? Don't you read the Iranian Press Releases?

If it'd nuked Texas we would've heard about it by now. Nebraska, on the other hand...

[ShotOne]

If, as an earlier poster seemed to suggest, this was in airspace not open to UAV's that certainly points to it not being one. In the post-wikileak age it would take impressively big cojones to flagrantly break the law in broad daylight.

Very happy to accept your word, Roland, on VC10 contrails. Not seen many lately for some reason:)

[SpazSinbad]

Alien craft or military spy plane?Alien craft or military spy plane?
"Published on Mar 31, 2014
Texans spotted something odd in the sky in Amarillo on March 10. Photos of the object were verified by experts as "something real," but what exactly is still not known. To try and find out whether the mysterious craft may be a new US spy plane or military jet, RT's Lindsay France spoke with the Senior International Defense Editor of Aviation Week, Bill Sweetman."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rm7okJdrqk

[chopper2004]

Northrop Grumman Subscale Test Vehicle | Aerospace Projects Review Blog (http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=336)


http://http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/8454D050-D485-4CF5-862C-D740097EBA88_zpsswxcpeen.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

Northrop Grumman Subscale Test Vehicle | Aerospace Projects Review Blog (http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=336)

I an trying to sort out where the passengers fit (http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=336)in this lovely design.

[West Coast]

Graphic and story are not complimentary. The graphic show the payload as 463L pallets upon which cargo is shipped. It also shows 4 engines which at this size aircraft (based on weight) means roughly 100-120 pax if conventional aircraft are accurate for comparison. I don't see many airlines being interested in that in a relatively small aircraft.
I recognize this is a paper airplane and a lot of work remains but this looks like a plane designed with requirements closer to what the military would want than what the airlines would want.

[Cpt_Pugwash]

Just for comparison, this was the second of two B2s overhead this QTH around 1330 local on Friday 13th June, ICOSA 12 I think

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/pugwash09/Aircraft/Ohdwbury_zps803a10ba.jpg

and zoomed in..

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/pugwash09/Aircraft/Ohdwbury2_zpsa6c0bc74.jpg

[chopper2004]

In current issue of Combat Aircraft, on the last article on page 112 by David Axe with the title "Is the US Air Force's New Bomber Already Flying?"

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/1405417929859_wps_1_Boeing_Next_Generation_Bo_zps2dc914e1.jp g

It was citing the circumstantial evidence that Northrop already has a prototype or two (or three in this case) flying for the entry into the Long Range Strike Bomber competition and a controversy that the USAF had decided there and there to choose Northrop which Boeing was not particularly happy with....

Cheers

[Buster Hyman]

Mysterious delta jet over Texas, a fortnight ago
Are you sure it wasn't United?

[Willard Whyte]

So all this is telling me is high altitude stealth is a bit pointless if your in the contrail layer?

Apparently the B-2A has a rear facing laser, or "laser" (© Dr Evil), to detect contrails, thus enabling the computer, err... pilots, to adjust altitude.

BTW, could the pic be of a RQ-180? (See also http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/547619-u-2-retired.html )

[chopper2004]

Wonder if it could be this?

Cheers

Northrop Teases New Bomber in New Ad (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/blog/intercepts/2015/01/29/northrop-new-bomber-super-bowl-ad/22539301/)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/635581431537895940-New-bomber-from-Northrop-hangar-CX-Jan-2015b_zps77pkonfi.jpg

[Just a spotter]

I wonder what Walter & Reimar Horten would make of how their designs have evolved since the end of WWII and how they've been deployed.

JAS

[Heathrow Harry]

probabaly cursing in some aviation heaven that they didn't get a world-wide patent on account of external difficulties - like a World War

[Bigbux]

Only that the contrails from any type are formed from the jet exhaust and would be there whether there was a wing tip vortex or not. What happens further behind the aircraft when the two do mix is an entirely different question.

You're not kidding. I was at Fairford last year and I witnessed a whole formation of highly secret aircraft fitted with some revolutionary new kind of engine. The contrails actually changed colour mid flight.

[thing]

Apparently the B-2A has a rear facing laser

Didn't the B2 have a highly toxic chemical mix at some point during it's development that was supposed to prevent contrails? Can't remember what the chemical was now but I seem to remember it melted the containers that carried it.

[Willard Whyte]

Heard about that too, thing.

Stealth Aircraft Contrails (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-vulnerabilities-contrails.htm)

[tartare]

I think that's the SR-71?
Isn't there a reference somewhere to sled drivers once turning the contrail hiding mixture on and off in quick succession after exiting hostile territory to spell in morse an extremely rude word for female genitalia?!
Probably urban legend - but a great story...

[chopper2004]

RQ-180?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42261/mystery-flying-wing-aircraft-photographed-over-the-philippines?fbclid=IwAR1kl0whFnsvfvaCPoldqinEx8mFeEUe2YgQLL-MgoySPUslNtMu_sEVMYA


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x540/1e7f5b6e_b7bb_4155_a8f6_5b3c0cdb8499_5411dc39b98a17755fe1845 ab3ded227a5c37a6a.jpeg

[langleybaston]

Really surprised that if a 'secret' ac, ie not a B2, would operate in a contrail environment. Suspect it is indeed a publicly known and acknowledged type

How good is US Met. at predicting contrail levels?

I ask because we were [I was] still struggling in 1997 when I retired. Devilish tricky stuff ..... best way to find out is fly¬

[chopper2004]

@2:33

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbqWdXzV-Bk&t=27s

Any thoughts please?

Cheers

[ORAC]

Breakdown/analysis here….


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42964/glitzy-northrop-grumman-ad-teases-totally-notional-new-long-range-stealth-fighter