Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Mysterious delta jet over Texas, a fortnight ago

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Mysterious delta jet over Texas, a fortnight ago

Old 30th Mar 2014, 22:31
  #41 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,340
X47b trialling a couple of chem-trail dispensers. Simples.......
ORAC is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2014, 22:37
  #42 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,612
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

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
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2014, 22:55
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 664
Originally Posted by ShotOne
... 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.





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

Originally Posted by ShotOne
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:



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.

Originally Posted by WhiteOvies
... 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.



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, from which I quote selectively but hopefully accurately:

Originally Posted by FAA
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.

Last edited by hoodie; 30th Mar 2014 at 23:48. Reason: Stuff about 3 triangles & query about UAV rules in US
hoodie is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2014, 23:47
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
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"
ShotOne is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 00:51
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,964
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.
tartare is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 04:00
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 55
Posts: 548
Shot, if you sent me a PM, I didn't receive it.
saudipc-9 is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 10:21
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,877
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.

Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 31st Mar 2014 at 10:41.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 10:51
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 664
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.
hoodie is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 11:17
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,877
Question

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?
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 11:24
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 664
But they unequivocally said "Not ours" - they didn't say "I am unable to provide that information".
hoodie is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 14:20
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
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.
awblain is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 15:00
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 664
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.
hoodie is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 19:44
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 52
Posts: 1,490
It just doesn't look like a B2 to me.


Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
Tashengurt is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 21:17
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wilds of Warwickshire
Posts: 205
Why are all you guys presuming it is an American aircraft? Don't you read the Iranian Press Releases?
KB
KiloB is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 00:16
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 93
Posts: 1,947
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...
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 15:31
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
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
ShotOne is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 20:42
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 73
Posts: 1,999
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
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2014, 10:53
  #58 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,612
Northrop Grumman answer

Northrop Grumman Subscale Test Vehicle | Aerospace Projects Review Blog


chopper2004 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2014, 13:55
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 62
Posts: 5,674
I an trying to sort out where the passengers fit in this lovely design.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2014, 16:50
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,839
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.
West Coast is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.