RED ALERT !!!!!
Mary Shafer
that many of the folks in a.f.u don't do acronyms and aren't airplane
nuts, while those in a.f.u should be aware that many of the folks in
r.a.m are airplane nuts and fond of acronyms. Avoid jargon,
emoticons (smilies et al), and UFO topics in both groups to be safe.
In article <19990902025748...@ng-fn1.aol.com>,
Blaze Firestormer <sma...@aol.comeangetme> wrote:
>>The U.S. had stealth bombers in 1963? Please elaborate.
>The first primitive stealth bombers were designed in the mid-50s,
>although they were classified until the 70s. The entire fleet has
>always been kept at the one base in Wisconsin.
The first bomber with anything vaguely stealthy about its design was a
bomber version of the interceptor airframe of the YF-12, which was
based on the then-civilian A-12. To quote Crickmore in
_Lockheed_SR-71:_The_Secret_Missions_Exposed_, "During the initial
stages of assembling the YF-12 in late 1960, it became apparent to ADP
[Advanced Development Projects, better known as the Skunk Works]
engineers that thie basic interceptor airframe could be adapted to
provide a strike bomber. Russ Daniel approached Kelly [Johnson, head
of ADP] with the idea and asked to write a basic feasibility report.
Kelly reviewed Daniel's B-12 proposal with Strategic Air Command's
Commander-in-Chief (CINCSAC) General Curtis LeMay, who agreed to fund
R & D [Research & Development] studies provided that these projects
would not be used to harm support for the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber
programme [which is stunningly unstealthy, with huge wingtips that
deflected downward at right angles, two big verticals also at right
angles, non-moving canards at right angles, and a delta wing with only
small dihedral]. A copy of the engineering analysis was sent to the
Special Projects Office at Wright Field [now Wright-Patterson AFB],
Ohio, where engineers confirmed that the proposed system would indeed
make a highly effective strike-reconnaissance platform.
[Snip a page and a half. mostly about how great the YF-12 missile
launches went and how well the targeting worked, as well as praise for
the proposed targeting system for the bomber, which was evaluated in
ground tests.]
"On 4 June 1962 an Air Force Evaluation team reviewed the B-12's
design. Six months later Lockheed was contracted to build six
pre-production airframes for static tests, and to produce 25 follow-on
aircraft at a rate of one per month for 31 months. This production
target was met and the entire static and flight test categories I, II,
and II were completed under budget at a cost of $146 million--a great
achievement by any standards. Meanwhile, the Air Force assigned the
so-called B-12 to a reconnaissance-strike role of post-ICBM 'look and
clean-up', and incorporated the new aeroplane into SAC's nuclear war
plan--the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan). At this time,
considerable doubt was being expressed in 'strategic think tanks' as
to the long-term value of bombers as delivery platforms for nuclear
weapons. The ballistic missile had come of age and more than 1500
B-47s [non-stealthy bomber much slower than Mach 3] were on their way
out of SAC's inventory of weapon systems. The fall-out of such
thinking within the Kennedy administration was that Secretary of
Defense McNamara never ordered weapons for the B-12s. During this
period of uncertainty, much re-titling of ADP drawings took place,
which resulted in wide-spread confusion as to the new aircraft's exact
designation.
[Another page and a half snipped]
"Sometime in 1966, the B-12 was christened the RS-71 (RS for
Reconnaissance-Strike and the number '71' indicating a follow-on from
the RS-70 Valkyrie, which was formerly the B-70). The lack of weapons
procurement alarmed Lockheed, who produced drawings of a pure
reconnaissance variant, designated the R-12. [Imaging system detailes
snipped here.]
"Despite the notable speed and altitude advantes of the RS-71 over the
RS-70, Kelly stuck to the promise he made to LeMay and did not promote
the Lockheed design over that of his North American-Rockwell [now just
Rockwell] competitors, even though Gen. Bernard Schriever, then head
of the Air Force Systmes Division [now the Air Force Materiel
Command], was an ardent supporter of the superior survivability of the
design. The R-12 was fully vindicated in May 1964 when McNamara
cancelled the RS-70 program.
[More snippage, mostly of discussion of the political situation during
the election year and the transcript of the White House press release
inwhich the airplane was called the SR-71 and described as providing a
long-range advanced strategic reconnaissance (i.e. SR, as it wasn't
Johnson mis-speaking) plane for military use.]
"Although the political wrangling continues, the future of the R-12
was being solved by Goldwater's taunt. Johnson had conveniently (and
politically) transposed 'Reconnaissance-Strike' into 'Strategic
Reconnaissance'--hence 'SR-71', which was really Lockheed's R-12.
Unfortunately, the B-12 was lost to the McNamara era."
He inclues about four pages, with maps, chars, and tables, discussing
the B-12 and the proposed RS-70 [the recce version of the XB-70, which
was to be the prototype of the B-70 except that it got lost along with
the B-12], but I'm not going to copy it. Buy your own copy or try a
good library. His dates are screwed up--that renaming was in about
1963, I think, not 1966.
However, the reason the SR-71 is somewhat stealthy (I've been told it
has an unaugmented radar cross section about the same as that of a
Cessna 172, but I have no way of verifying this, except that it came
from someone reliable) is because it flies at Mach 3.2 (3.3 on a
per-mission basis, with the commander's permission, before you ask),
and the design that the Skunk Works came up with to deal with the
aerothermodynamics of flight in that regime is inherently stealthy.
It's not that Mach 3 _requires_ stealthiness, vide the XB-70, but that
one way of dealing with it produces stealthiness.
Anyway, the B-12 was _never_ built (it would have been in test no
earlier than the very end of 1964, as did the SR-71A, the B-12 in
recce form, which first flew on 22 December 1964, and operational
somewhat later, like mid-1967, if, and only if, Mach 3+ bombs had been
designed and successfully tested). There are no missing tail numbers,
no weapons development, everything is declassified, and the first
stealthy (not somewhat stealthy, but stealthy) tactical bomber was the
F-117 and the first stealthy strategic bomber was the B-52.
Anyone who thinks "the first primitive stealth bombers were designed
in the mid-50s" isn't too far off if A-12 design is counted, although
"early-60s" would be more accurate. The existance of the SR-71, which
came from the B-12, was revealed in 1963, however, and the entire
airframe (with one minor exception), but not the recce equipment, was
declassified in 1990, when the aircraft was retired from military
operation.
However, anyone who thinks that the airplane was built or that "the
entire fleet has always been kept at the one base in Wisconson" is
wrong. Really, really wrong.
I suppose one (that the B-12 was proposed at all) out of six or eight
isn't all bad, but it's not what I'd call factual, although some of
the details are so ingenious (and ingenuous) as to be quite funny. So
far as I know, the nearest a flying SR-71 has ever gotten to operating
at any base in Wisconson is the Dryden SR-71 that dropped in at
Milwaukee after developing a fuel leak while doing a flyby of Oshkosh
about two years ago. The airplane lived with the Air Force Reserve at
Mitchell Field for a week or two before it departed.
--
Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
"Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard
Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...."
John Stranart
[ snip ]
> Anyway, the B-12 was _never_ built (it would have been in test no
> earlier than the very end of 1964, as did the SR-71A, the B-12 in
> recce form, which first flew on 22 December 1964, and operational
> somewhat later, like mid-1967, if, and only if, Mach 3+ bombs had been
> designed and successfully tested). There are no missing tail numbers,
> no weapons development, everything is declassified, and the first
> stealthy (not somewhat stealthy, but stealthy) tactical bomber was the
> F-117 and the first stealthy strategic bomber was the B-52.
Please tell me this is a typo, Mary, or my faith in you is completely
shaken.
[ snip ]
> --
> Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
> "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard
> Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...."
J. Stranart
Mary Shafer
John Stranart <stra...@ecf.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>Mary Shafer wrote:
>[ snip ]
>> Anyway, the B-12 was _never_ built (it would have been in test no
>> earlier than the very end of 1964, as did the SR-71A, the B-12 in
>> recce form, which first flew on 22 December 1964, and operational
>> somewhat later, like mid-1967, if, and only if, Mach 3+ bombs had been
>> designed and successfully tested). There are no missing tail numbers,
>> no weapons development, everything is declassified, and the first
>> stealthy (not somewhat stealthy, but stealthy) tactical bomber was the
>> F-117 and the first stealthy strategic bomber was the B-52.
>
>Please tell me this is a typo, Mary, or my faith in you is completely
>shaken.
It's a typo. A really bad typo. I had B-52s on my mind because we
were talking about the B-52B that's on display out in the desert here
at Edwards, compared to the NB-52B, and both compared to the B-52G
that we considered making into a newer launch airplane until the
spoilers and short vertical got us worried about the roll and yaw
stability.
B-52s are not stealthy, even if they've had their verticals shortened
like the G and H models.
B-2s are stealthy.
Better? I'm sorry about that. I read it over twice and still missed
it. At least I didn't call it the B-52 BUF (Big Ugly Fellow), which
is how you can be sure I didn't mean the B-52.
Tarver Engineering
Mary Shafer <sha...@spdcc.com> wrote in message news:FHI3F...@spdcc.com...
> In article <37D021...@ecf.utoronto.ca>,
<snip>
> B-52s are not stealthy, even if they've had their verticals shortened
> like the G and H models.
With a radar cross section of 1649 square feet that is an understatement.
John
Michael Kagalenko
]Notice the cross-posting , people. Those in r.a.m should be aware
]that many of the folks in a.f.u don't do acronyms and aren't airplane
]nuts, while those in a.f.u should be aware that many of the folks in
]r.a.m are airplane nuts and fond of acronyms. Avoid jargon,
]emoticons (smilies et al), and UFO topics in both groups to be safe.
]
]In article <19990902025748...@ng-fn1.aol.com>,
]Blaze Firestormer <sma...@aol.comeangetme> wrote:
]>>The U.S. had stealth bombers in 1963? Please elaborate.
]
]>The first primitive stealth bombers were designed in the mid-50s,
]>although they were classified until the 70s. The entire fleet has
]>always been kept at the one base in Wisconsin.
]
]The first bomber with anything vaguely stealthy about its design was a
]bomber version of the interceptor airframe of the YF-12, which was
]based on the then-civilian A-12.
I have seen documentary about the German jet planes. It it, they
showed the actual, flying machine designed as "flying wing":
without vertical stabilizers. The documentary alleged that the designers
of the plane, brothers with the name starting with H (so the plane
was named H-something) discoverd that it has very low RCS.
So this German flying wing can be deemed the first Stealth jet, even though
it was not designed with Stealth in mind.
Another good candidate for the first Stealth would be American project wherein
they put numerous lightbulbs on the underside of the B-something
propeller bomber, and the photo cell on the upper side; the photocell
regulated the brightness of the bulbs so that it matched the brightness
of the sky above the plane. Reportedly, it worked spectacularly well.
BUFDRVR
You know Mary, I was hoping you guys/gals at Edwards were working on a stealthy
B-52, thanks for getting my hopes up ;)
>and both compared to the B-52G
>that we considered making into a newer launch airplane until the
>spoilers and short vertical got us worried about the roll and yaw
>stability.
the tall tail on the B model really makes that much difference huh ? I can
understand the concern with losing ailerons.
>B-52s are not stealthy, even if they've had their verticals shortened
>like the G and H models.
I like to call us "anti-stealth" ;)
>B-2s are stealthy.
But BUFF's are beautiful ;) (actually I think were ugly)
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
Bob Ward
Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu> wrote in message
news:7qpslo$dlj$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu...
> Mary Shafer (sha...@spdcc.com) wrote
> ]Notice the cross-posting , people. Those in r.a.m should be aware
> ]that many of the folks in a.f.u don't do acronyms and aren't airplane
> ]nuts, while those in a.f.u should be aware that many of the folks in
> ]r.a.m are airplane nuts and fond of acronyms. Avoid jargon,
> ]emoticons (smilies et al), and UFO topics in both groups to be safe.
> ]
> ]In article <19990902025748...@ng-fn1.aol.com>,
> ]Blaze Firestormer <sma...@aol.comeangetme> wrote:
> ]>>The U.S. had stealth bombers in 1963? Please elaborate.
> ]
> ]>The first primitive stealth bombers were designed in the mid-50s,
> ]>although they were classified until the 70s. The entire fleet has
> ]>always been kept at the one base in Wisconsin.
> ]
> ]The first bomber with anything vaguely stealthy about its design was a
> ]bomber version of the interceptor airframe of the YF-12, which was
> ]based on the then-civilian A-12.
>
> showed the actual, flying machine designed as "flying wing":
> without vertical stabilizers. The documentary alleged that the designers
> of the plane, brothers with the name starting with H (so the plane
> was named H-something) discoverd that it has very low RCS.
> So this German flying wing can be deemed the first Stealth jet, even
though
> it was not designed with Stealth in mind.
>
> Another good candidate for the first Stealth would be American project
wherein
> they put numerous lightbulbs on the underside of the B-something
> propeller bomber, and the photo cell on the upper side; the photocell
> regulated the brightness of the bulbs so that it matched the brightness
> of the sky above the plane. Reportedly, it worked spectacularly well.
>
>
Sounds like a plot from a Post WW II comic book to me.
Brian Yeoh
> Mary Shafer (sha...@spdcc.com) wrote
<snip early stealth bombers>
> ]The first bomber with anything vaguely stealthy about its design was a
> ]bomber version of the interceptor airframe of the YF-12, which was
> ]based on the then-civilian A-12.
> I have seen documentary about the German jet planes. It it, they
> showed the actual, flying machine designed as "flying wing":
> without vertical stabilizers. The documentary alleged that the designers
> of the plane, brothers with the name starting with H (so the plane
> was named H-something) discoverd that it has very low RCS.
> So this German flying wing can be deemed the first Stealth jet, even though
> it was not designed with Stealth in mind.
Horton Ho9. There was also a Gotha design which was a flying wing. But if
you want to define terms that loosely, the XB-40 was also a stealth, and
was definitely a bomber.
> Another good candidate for the first Stealth would be American project wherein
> they put numerous lightbulbs on the underside of the B-something
> propeller bomber, and the photo cell on the upper side; the photocell
> regulated the brightness of the bulbs so that it matched the brightness
> of the sky above the plane. Reportedly, it worked spectacularly well.
Ah, this one. They did the same thing with tanks, until people suddenly
realised that the bulbs _break_.
Brian "practical considerations interfere with theoretical perfection"
Yeoh
Clear, unscaleable, ahead | Rise the Mountains of Instead | -- WH Auden,
"Autumn Song" From whose cold cascading streams | None may drink except in
dreams. |
Ian Mac Lure
:> Mary Shafer (sha...@spdcc.com) wrote
[SNIP]
:> I have seen documentary about the German jet planes. It it, they
:> showed the actual, flying machine designed as "flying wing":
:> without vertical stabilizers. The documentary alleged that the designers
:> of the plane, brothers with the name starting with H (so the plane
:> was named H-something) discoverd that it has very low RCS.
:> So this German flying wing can be deemed the first Stealth jet, even
: though
:> it was not designed with Stealth in mind.
That would be "H" as in "Horten" and the plane was the HO-9.
[SNIP
--
*******************************************************************
***** Ian B MacLure ***** Sunnyvale, CA ***** Engineer/Archer *****
* No Times Like The Maritimes *************************************
*******************************************************************
* Opinions Expressed Here Are Mine. That's Mine , Mine, MINE ******
*******************************************************************
John Keeney
>
>Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu> wrote in message
>> Another good candidate for the first Stealth would be American project
>wherein
>> they put numerous lightbulbs on the underside of the B-something
>> propeller bomber, and the photo cell on the upper side; the photocell
>> regulated the brightness of the bulbs so that it matched the brightness
>> of the sky above the plane. Reportedly, it worked spectacularly well.
>>
>>
>
>Sounds like a plot from a Post WW II comic book to me.
Actually, this works quite well against Mark-1 eyeball detection.
I've seen a TV show demonstrat making an armored personal carrier vanish
this way. The M-113 was parked on a ridge line with the sky behind it,
when they flipped the switch for the bank of lights (2-3 foot grid) the
thing was gone.
I'm not sure if it was fielded but there was WWII work doing this for
antisub work.
D. Scott Ferrin
>Anyway, the B-12 was _never_ built (it would have been in test no
>earlier than the very end of 1964, as did the SR-71A, the B-12 in
>recce form, which first flew on 22 December 1964, and operational
>somewhat later, like mid-1967, if, and only if, Mach 3+ bombs had been
>designed and successfully tested).
There is a publication called Classic Wings put out by the people who
do World Airpower Journal. In one of the issues they cover the
A-12/YF-12A/SR-71. There's lots of good stuff there. They have a
photo of the front fuselage mock-up of the F-12B (production
interceptor) and some kind of Lockheed drawing of the B-71. It shows
it carrying four SRAMs internally "modified for Mach 3.2 launch".
Pretty interesting stuff.
Simon H. Lee
electrons spell out:
>>B-52s are not stealthy, even if they've had their verticals shortened
>>like the G and H models.
>
>I like to call us "anti-stealth" ;)
Well, considering you guys usually get press coverage before
you're sent anywhere it's almost as if the USAF *likes* to tell people
that you're coming ;)
--
(-o-) A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E ! <*>
| __ |
| (__ * _ _ _ _ "Consistency is the last refuge of |
| __)|| | |(_)| \ the unimaginative." --Oscar Wilde |
|___________________________________________________________________|
Mary Shafer
>:> I have seen documentary about the German jet planes. It it, they
>:> showed the actual, flying machine designed as "flying wing":
>:> without vertical stabilizers. The documentary alleged that the designers
>:> of the plane, brothers with the name starting with H (so the plane
>:> was named H-something) discoverd that it has very low RCS.
>:> So this German flying wing can be deemed the first Stealth jet, even
>: though
>:> it was not designed with Stealth in mind.
>
> That would be "H" as in "Horten" and the plane was the HO-9.
None of the flying wings, Horten or Northrop, went into production
until the B-2. As a result, none of these are "real" aircraft.
Prototypes don't count. Anyone can lash together a prototype and get
it into the air to demonstrate a limited set of objectives. It's only
when building a real operational airplane that the designer has to
take into consideration every aspect, not just the few that were to be
demonstrated. Survivability, weapons suites, flight control systems,
maintainability, reliability, these are just the beginning of the list
of issues that have to be considered.
I mean, the Gossamer Albatross is a stealth airplane par excellence,
being made mostly of plastic sheeting, with a few composite structural
elements, no engine to reflect radar back from spinning compressor
blades or emit heated air for FLIR or heatseeking missiles to track,
no noise for ground observers to hear, no electronics to emit signals
to be detected. But it didn't go into production, either. It was a
single-point design, an airplane that could fly across the English
Channel powered only by the exertions of the human flying it. Neat,
but not a real airplane.
The same is true of most of the X-planes, technology demonstrators,
and testbed aircraft I've spent my life working on. Not dead ends,
but not viable products for the aviation market, either.
Raptor
>
> I mean, the Gossamer Albatross is a stealth airplane par excellence,
> being made mostly of plastic sheeting, with a few composite structural
> elements, no engine to reflect radar back from spinning compressor
> blades or emit heated air for FLIR or heatseeking missiles to track,
> no noise for ground observers to hear, no electronics to emit signals
> to be detected. But it didn't go into production, either. It was a
> single-point design, an airplane that could fly across the English
> Channel powered only by the exertions of the human flying it. Neat,
> but not a real airplane.
I start my training program tomorrow to achieve the fitness level
required to deliver a 500-lb bomb in this airplane. Anyone is welcome
to try to shoot me down with a radar-guided missile. Heck, even an
optical-guided missile, since it's all transparent. :-)
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
STEVE JOBS: We're better than you are. We've got better stuff.
BILL GATES: You don't get it, Steve. That doesn't matter!
"Pirates of Silicon Valley"
Photo Restoration done here:
http://www.xmission.com/~lawall/PhotoIndex.html
Ragnar (no, not THE Ragnar)
Tarver Engineering
Ragnar (no, not THE Ragnar) <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37D1EBEF...@earthlink.net...
> Wouldn't the bomb be visible to radar?
Lynn will never be in the physical shape to fly the airplane without the
bomb so the point is irrelevant.
John
Walt Shiel
> None of the flying wings, Horten or Northrop, went into production
> until the B-2. As a result, none of these are "real" aircraft.
Although technically production prototypes, I'd say the 14 YB-35s -- many of
which were intended to be converted to YB-49 configuration -- qualify as much as
the 21 B-2s produced. The only reason they didn't see service was the unfortunate
flying wing accident and the dispute between Jack Northrop and the vindictive
SecDef Stinson.
Ever seen the overhead photo of the ramp full of YB-35s? Certainly looked like a
production operation....
Semantics and technicalities aside.
Walt
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Walt Shiel
Author: "Cessna Warbirds: A Detailed and Personal History of Cessna's
Involvement in the Armed Forces"
--"A true military aviation enthusiast's delight." - Airpower Journal
------
For information: mailto:ces...@writeshiel.com
Web Site: http://www.writeshiel.com
Subscribe to FREE The Warbirds eXpress (TWX) newsletter at:
-- http://www.writeshiel.com/listform.html
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TMOliver
>
> Mary Shafer wrote:
> >
> > I mean, the Gossamer Albatross is a stealth airplane par excellence,
> > being made mostly of plastic sheeting, with a few composite structural
> > elements, no engine to reflect radar back from spinning compressor
> > blades or emit heated air for FLIR or heatseeking missiles to track,
> > no noise for ground observers to hear, no electronics to emit signals
> > to be detected. But it didn't go into production, either. It was a
> > single-point design, an airplane that could fly across the English
> > Channel powered only by the exertions of the human flying it. Neat,
> > but not a real airplane.
>
> I start my training program tomorrow to achieve the fitness level
> required to deliver a 500-lb bomb in this airplane. Anyone is welcome
> to try to shoot me down with a radar-guided missile.
Although the "GA"'s radar image is likely much smaller than that of such
"whole quadrants of the scope" hogs as the B52 and the Bear (as visible
as a whole line of giant thunderstorms), the shiny mylar-covered
styrofoam (?) prop simply begs to cast a return upon the ether.
--
TMOliver, el pelon sinverguenza
From a small observatory overlooking the confluence of the Three
Bosques...
"Ask not what your government can do for you,
but how to get out of the way when it does!"
Andrea Jones
Mary Shafer wrote in message ...
<snip>
>I mean, the Gossamer Albatross is a stealth airplane par excellence,
>being made mostly of plastic sheeting, with a few composite structural
>elements, no engine to reflect radar back from spinning compressor
>blades or emit heated air for FLIR or heatseeking missiles to track,
>no noise for ground observers to hear, no electronics to emit signals
>to be detected. But it didn't go into production, either. It was a
>single-point design, an airplane that could fly across the English
>Channel powered only by the exertions of the human flying it. Neat,
>but not a real airplane.
>
defenseless E-1s into service as airplane engines. Yet one more argument
for getting your job guaranteed when you enlist.
Andrea "Look, kid, get in there and pedal!" Jones
Steve Davies
--
Steve Davies
England
Bob Ward
TMOliver <swr...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
news:37D27CB4...@iamerica.net...
> Raptor wrote:
> >
> > Mary Shafer wrote:
> > >
> > > being made mostly of plastic sheeting, with a few composite structural
> > > elements, no engine to reflect radar back from spinning compressor
> > > blades or emit heated air for FLIR or heatseeking missiles to track,
> > > no noise for ground observers to hear, no electronics to emit signals
> > > to be detected. But it didn't go into production, either. It was a
> > > single-point design, an airplane that could fly across the English
> > > Channel powered only by the exertions of the human flying it. Neat,
> > > but not a real airplane.
> >
> > required to deliver a 500-lb bomb in this airplane. Anyone is welcome
> > to try to shoot me down with a radar-guided missile.
>
> Although the "GA"'s radar image is likely much smaller than that of such
> "whole quadrants of the scope" hogs as the B52 and the Bear (as visible
> as a whole line of giant thunderstorms), the shiny mylar-covered
> styrofoam (?) prop simply begs to cast a return upon the ether.
>
Cast a return, perhaps... but in what direction?
wal...@oneimage.com
>On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 03:04:27 GMT, "Bob Ward" <rcw...@gte.net> wrote:>
>>
>>Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu> wrote in message
>>> Another good candidate for the first Stealth would be American project
>>wherein
>>> they put numerous lightbulbs on the underside of the B-something
>>> propeller bomber, and the photo cell on the upper side; the photocell
>>> regulated the brightness of the bulbs so that it matched the brightness
>>> of the sky above the plane. Reportedly, it worked spectacularly well.
>I've seen a TV show demonstrat making an armored personal carrier vanish
>this way. The M-113 was parked on a ridge line with the sky behind it,
>when they flipped the switch for the bank of lights (2-3 foot grid) the
>thing was gone.>I'm not sure if it was fielded but there was WWII work doing this for
>antisub work.
Yes, but . . . It was tested successfully in WW2. Since the sky at the horizon is lighter
than it is higher up dark objects silhouette quite nicely. Adjustable brilliance flood lights
on outriggers proved able to mask ship silhouettes. But admirals refused to 'light up
their ships'. In my opinion these projects had value in pre-radar days and unwittingly were
the source of the 'Philadelphia Experiment' where a US DD allegedly was 'disappeared'.
Walt BJ ftr plt ret
Raptor
>
> Ragnar (no, not THE Ragnar) <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:37D1EBEF...@earthlink.net...
> > Wouldn't the bomb be visible to radar?
>
> Lynn will never be in the physical shape to fly the airplane without the
> bomb so the point is irrelevant.
>
> John
Ha. You say this having no clue what I did today, for fun.
John Keeney
>Mary Shafer wrote:
>>
>> I mean, the Gossamer Albatross is a stealth airplane par excellence,
>> being made mostly of plastic sheeting, with a few composite structural
>> elements, no engine to reflect radar back from spinning compressor
>> blades or emit heated air for FLIR or heatseeking missiles to track,
>> no noise for ground observers to hear, no electronics to emit signals
>> to be detected. But it didn't go into production, either. It was a
>> single-point design, an airplane that could fly across the English
>> Channel powered only by the exertions of the human flying it. Neat,
>> but not a real airplane.
>
>I start my training program tomorrow to achieve the fitness level
>required to deliver a 500-lb bomb in this airplane. Anyone is welcome
>to try to shoot me down with a radar-guided missile. Heck, even an
>optical-guided missile, since it's all transparent. :-)
>
>--
>Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
The bomb will make a good enough target for the radar guided missile.
And if you attack during the day, we'll probably even get enough sun-glint
off all that plastic for an IR shot.
As for the optically guided missile, when you get up to toting that 500
pounder, you'll be plenty big enough for an optical track.
Peter Deutsch
Raptor wrote:
. . .
> I start my training program tomorrow to achieve the fitness level
> required to deliver a 500-lb bomb in this airplane. Anyone is welcome
> to try to shoot me down with a radar-guided missile. Heck, even an
> optical-guided missile, since it's all transparent. :-)
Ah, that one so young and idealistic should be doomed...
We have discovered that it is possible to detect the outgassing from the
various plastics and polymers used in your stealth airplane. With all
the cutbacks we haven't been able to go into production with our
olfactory targetting heads, but have fitted small cages to the Phoenix
nosecone and trained beagles to ride out the shot, correcting the
trajectory in flight. As my dad says, "once you fire that thing, the
other guy's dead - he just doesn't know it yet".
- Peter "and if he survives the explosion, he get's a cookie.." Deutsch
Tarver Engineering
Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:37D332AE...@xmission.com...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > Ragnar (no, not THE Ragnar) <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:37D1EBEF...@earthlink.net...
> > > Wouldn't the bomb be visible to radar?
> >
> > Lynn will never be in the physical shape to fly the airplane without the
> > bomb so the point is irrelevant.
> >
> > John
>
> Ha. You say this having no clue what I did today, for fun.
You are no world class bicycle racer.
John
D. Scott Ferrin
Endurance is what's required not racing skills.
>
>John
>
>
Moramarth
>In article <7qqa0d$juf$2...@ns.svpal.org>, Ian Mac Lure <i...@svpal.org> wrote:
>
>>:> I have seen documentary about the German jet planes. It it, they
>>:> showed the actual, flying machine designed as "flying wing":
>>:> without vertical stabilizers. The documentary alleged that the designers
>>:> of the plane, brothers with the name starting with H (so the plane
>>:> was named H-something) discoverd that it has very low RCS.
>>:> So this German flying wing can be deemed the first Stealth jet, even
>>: though
>>:> it was not designed with Stealth in mind.
>>
>> That would be "H" as in "Horten" and the plane was the HO-9.
>
>until the B-2. As a result, none of these are "real" aircraft.
>
>it into the air to demonstrate a limited set of objectives. It's only
>when building a real operational airplane that the designer has to
>take into consideration every aspect, not just the few that were to be
>demonstrated. Survivability, weapons suites, flight control systems,
>maintainability, reliability, these are just the beginning of the list
>of issues that have to be considered.
>
straight to production in it's initial format, the prototype had
armament installed - there may have been more than one prototype?
Anyhow, AFAIK the beast still survives, dismantled and in storage
somewhere in the US. There was footage of the bits in a documentary on
stealth soon after the F117 went public. Although the big intakes with
the turbine face exposed would have given a lousy RCS, the materials
used in its construction were somewhat stealthy, by accident.
Apparently the glue used in the wooden elements absorbed radar energy!
Cheers,
--
Moramarth
Steve Hix
Scott Ferrin) wrote:
The minimum power output required is pretty high.
And carrying a 500# bomb, to boot....
Tarver Engineering
D. Scott Ferrin <sfe...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:37d3ffc...@news.xmission.com...
> On Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:00:46 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote in message
> >news:37D332AE...@xmission.com...
> >> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Ragnar (no, not THE Ragnar) <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:37D1EBEF...@earthlink.net...
> >> > > Wouldn't the bomb be visible to radar?
> >> >
> >> > Lynn will never be in the physical shape to fly the airplane without
the
> >> > bomb so the point is irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> > John
> >>
> >> Ha. You say this having no clue what I did today, for fun.
> >
> >You are no world class bicycle racer.
>
>
> Endurance is what's required not racing skills.
Take you fat little butts down to the museum the next time the human powered
simulator is in town. Find out how long the two of you can peddle above V1
and then you might figure it out.
Of course letting two people try to get to V1 is cheating just about 50%. :)
John
D. Scott Ferrin
<jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
>D. Scott Ferrin <sfe...@xmission.com> wrote in message
>news:37d3ffc...@news.xmission.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:00:46 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote in message
>> >news:37D332AE...@xmission.com...
>> >> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Ragnar (no, not THE Ragnar) <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:37D1EBEF...@earthlink.net...
>> >> > > Wouldn't the bomb be visible to radar?
>> >> >
>> >> > Lynn will never be in the physical shape to fly the airplane without
>the
>> >> > bomb so the point is irrelevant.
>> >> >
>> >> > John
>> >>
>> >> Ha. You say this having no clue what I did today, for fun.
>> >
>> >You are no world class bicycle racer.
>>
>>
>> Endurance is what's required not racing skills.
>
>Take you fat little butts down to the museum the next time the human powered
>simulator is in town. Find out how long the two of you can peddle above V1
>and then you might figure it out.
Are you just trying to sound like an idiot or are you really that
dumb? Racing skills don't mean shit. It's endurances that matters.
A triathlete won't necessarily win the Tour de France but he'd
probably do better in the plane.
Ken Sykes
> > >> Ha. You say this having no clue what I did today, for fun.
> > >You are no world class bicycle racer.
> > Endurance is what's required not racing skills.
> And carrying a 500# bomb, to boot....
No problem! Peddle the later-model, Greek island hopping Icarus.
It's faster and has more range (25knots/70miles)
When you drop the bomb from 20ft and 25knots, are you going to use a
retarding chute, snake-eye, or what? õ¿ó
Tallyho!
KS
Time delayed for at least 5 minutes, silly.
Albert H. Dobyns
>
> >Anyway, the B-12 was _never_ built (it would have been in test no
> >earlier than the very end of 1964, as did the SR-71A, the B-12 in
> >recce form, which first flew on 22 December 1964, and operational
> >somewhat later, like mid-1967, if, and only if, Mach 3+ bombs had been
> >designed and successfully tested).
>
> There is a publication called Classic Wings put out by the people who
> do World Airpower Journal. In one of the issues they cover the
> A-12/YF-12A/SR-71. There's lots of good stuff there. They have a
> photo of the front fuselage mock-up of the F-12B (production
> interceptor) and some kind of Lockheed drawing of the B-71. It shows
> it carrying four SRAMs internally "modified for Mach 3.2 launch".
> Pretty interesting stuff.
If you happen to have a spare copy, email me if you're
willing to sell it!
>
> There are no missing tail numbers,
> >no weapons development, everything is declassified, and the first
> >stealthy (not somewhat stealthy, but stealthy) tactical bomber was the
> >F-117 and the first stealthy strategic bomber was the B-52.
> >
> >Anyone who thinks "the first primitive stealth bombers were designed
> >in the mid-50s" isn't too far off if A-12 design is counted, although
> >"early-60s" would be more accurate. The existance of the SR-71, which
> >came from the B-12, was revealed in 1963, however, and the entire
> >airframe (with one minor exception), but not the recce equipment, was
> >declassified in 1990, when the aircraft was retired from military
> >operation.
> >
> >However, anyone who thinks that the airplane was built or that "the
> >entire fleet has always been kept at the one base in Wisconson" is
> >wrong. Really, really wrong.
> >
I can add extra info: I've flown to Baraboo's airport
and taken by "taxi" to the downtown Wisconsin Dells
area. Never saw anything odd there.
Albert H. Dobyns
>
[snip]
>
> In article <19990902025748...@ng-fn1.aol.com>,
> Blaze Firestormer <sma...@aol.comeangetme> wrote:
> >>The U.S. had stealth bombers in 1963? Please elaborate.
>
> >The first primitive stealth bombers were designed in the mid-50s,
> >although they were classified until the 70s. The entire fleet has
> >always been kept at the one base in Wisconsin.
>
[Mary, I snipped most of your excellent post
because I just wanted comment on one part]
>
> He inclues about four pages, with maps, chars, and tables, discussing
> the B-12 and the proposed RS-70 [the recce version of the XB-70, which
> was to be the prototype of the B-70 except that it got lost along with
> the B-12], but I'm not going to copy it. Buy your own copy or try a
> good library. His dates are screwed up--that renaming was in about
> 1963, I think, not 1966.
>
> However, the reason the SR-71 is somewhat stealthy (I've been told it
> has an unaugmented radar cross section about the same as that of a
> Cessna 172, but I have no way of verifying this, except that it came
> from someone reliable) is because it flies at Mach 3.2 (3.3 on a
> per-mission basis, with the commander's permission, before you ask),
> and the design that the Skunk Works came up with to deal with the
> aerothermodynamics of flight in that regime is inherently stealthy.
> It's not that Mach 3 _requires_ stealthiness, vide the XB-70, but that
> one way of dealing with it produces stealthiness.
I have wondered for a long time what the RCS value of
the SR-71 is. I believe a value was given in one of
Bill Sweetman's books but I am not sure if the value
is a good ballpark figure. Different books and a few
aviation magazine articles have given some values for
other planes. Figures for the F-117A and B-2 may
have been listed. I'd have to find the source to be
sure but I would think RCS for those 2 aircraft is
still a sensitive topic.
>
> Anyway, the B-12 was _never_ built (it would have been in test no
> earlier than the very end of 1964, as did the SR-71A, the B-12 in
> recce form, which first flew on 22 December 1964, and operational
> somewhat later, like mid-1967, if, and only if, Mach 3+ bombs had been
> designed and successfully tested). There are no missing tail numbers,
> no weapons development, everything is declassified, and the first
> stealthy (not somewhat stealthy, but stealthy) tactical bomber was the
> F-117 and the first stealthy strategic bomber was the B-52.
>
> Anyone who thinks "the first primitive stealth bombers were designed
> in the mid-50s" isn't too far off if A-12 design is counted, although
> "early-60s" would be more accurate. The existance of the SR-71, which
> came from the B-12, was revealed in 1963, however, and the entire
> airframe (with one minor exception), but not the recce equipment, was
> declassified in 1990, when the aircraft was retired from military
> operation.
>
> However, anyone who thinks that the airplane was built or that "the
> entire fleet has always been kept at the one base in Wisconson" is
> wrong. Really, really wrong.
This is one story I've never heard before <puzzled look>
>
> I suppose one (that the B-12 was proposed at all) out of six or eight
> isn't all bad, but it's not what I'd call factual, although some of
> the details are so ingenious (and ingenuous) as to be quite funny. So
> far as I know, the nearest a flying SR-71 has ever gotten to operating
> at any base in Wisconson is the Dryden SR-71 that dropped in at
> Milwaukee after developing a fuel leak while doing a flyby of Oshkosh
> about two years ago. The airplane lived with the Air Force Reserve at
> Mitchell Field for a week or two before it departed.
>
Another event I missed. Actually even if I had contacted
you to see if it was possible to see the aircraft in
person, regulations probably would not have allowed it.
Al
Raptor
>
> Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:37D332AE...@xmission.com...
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >
> > > Ragnar (no, not THE Ragnar) <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:37D1EBEF...@earthlink.net...
> > > > Wouldn't the bomb be visible to radar?
> > >
> > > Lynn will never be in the physical shape to fly the airplane without the
> > > bomb so the point is irrelevant.
> > >
> > > John
> >
>
> You are no world class bicycle racer.
Fair enough, but that doesn't mean I couldn't become one.
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
Raptor
>
> Take you fat little butts down to the museum the next time the human powered
> simulator is in town. Find out how long the two of you can peddle above V1
> and then you might figure it out.
>
Wow, is there such a thing? I'd love to give it a try. Does it have a
web page? I could keep it flying for a minute at least, even in my
present lard-butt condition.
Josh Hesse
: but not a real airplane.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It didn't crash did it?
-Josh "...and if that's not enough, I've got a piece of paper to fold..."
--
Do not send mail to this account. Really.
"Talk about silly conspiracy theories..." -Wayne Schlitt in unl.general
This post (C)1999, Josh Hesse. Ignored material is (C) of the person quoted.
|ess|erb|unl|u| (Oo) MYTHOS How's my posting? 1-800-DEV-NULL
email: jh|e@h|ie.|.ed| /||\ DREAMLANDS .Sigfile freshness date: 2/12/99
Tarver Engineering
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > Take you fat little butts down to the museum the next time the human
powered
> > simulator is in town. Find out how long the two of you can peddle above
V1
> > and then you might figure it out.
> >
> > Of course letting two people try to get to V1 is cheating just about
50%. :)
>
> Wow, is there such a thing? I'd love to give it a try. Does it have a
> web page? I could keep it flying for a minute at least, even in my
> present lard-butt condition.
The simulator tours children's museums all over the US.
John
Mary Shafer
> Mary Shafer wrote:
> > I suppose one (that the B-12 was proposed at all) out of six or eight
> > isn't all bad, but it's not what I'd call factual, although some of
> > the details are so ingenious (and ingenuous) as to be quite funny. So
> > far as I know, the nearest a flying SR-71 has ever gotten to operating
> > at any base in Wisconson is the Dryden SR-71 that dropped in at
> > Milwaukee after developing a fuel leak while doing a flyby of Oshkosh
> > about two years ago. The airplane lived with the Air Force Reserve at
> > Mitchell Field for a week or two before it departed.
> Another event I missed. Actually even if I had contacted
> you to see if it was possible to see the aircraft in
> person, regulations probably would not have allowed it.
Everyone in Milwaukee could see it in person--Ed and Bob did a flyover
of Mitchell after they took off. I don't know how you could have
missed it, though, as it was the news story on TV and in the papers
the whole time it was there, for about a week. The takeoff time was
well known and there was a huge crowd of people just off the airport
there to see it.
Seeing it up close was a function of airport security and FAA rules,
plus the USAFR rules, not NASA regulations, incidentally.
--
Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Lead Handling Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com please
5644
> The first bomber with anything vaguely stealthy about its design was a
> bomber version of the interceptor airframe of the YF-12, which was
> based on the then-civilian A-12.
Many years ago I saw a photo in a magazine that showed a missile
being loaded into a YF-12. The article referred to the missile
as a "Super Falcon" but gave no other designation. It was big,
and reminiscent of an AIM-54, which was built much later. Any
idea if this "Super Falcon" was related in any way to the later
AIM-54?
Albert H. Dobyns
>
> > Another event I missed. Actually even if I had contacted
> > you to see if it was possible to see the aircraft in
> > person, regulations probably would not have allowed it.
>
> Everyone in Milwaukee could see it in person--Ed and Bob did a flyover
> of Mitchell after they took off. I don't know how you could have
> missed it, though, as it was the news story on TV and in the papers
> the whole time it was there, for about a week. The takeoff time was
> well known and there was a huge crowd of people just off the airport
> there to see it.
I heard about it here I think but I figured it would
have been fixed and gone in only a day or two. I did
not know about the takeoff time having been announced.
I'm destined to suffer eternally not being able to
see one in flight. ;)
>
> Seeing it up close was a function of airport security and FAA rules,
> plus the USAFR rules, not NASA regulations, incidentally.
>
2 flying friends of mine and I flew to Kalamazoo airport
the day before an airshow was going to be held. It was
a busy airport and we had to park a long way from the
office. A car came by and gave us a ride. At the time
we didn't realize that the airport staff was being very
concerned about security..or something. I saw a C-5A
parked outside of a nearby hangar. I wanted to get a
few closeup shots. Someone told me not to go near that
plane which happened to have a guard posted by it.
A local tv station news team came out with all sorts
of gear. The news guy kept telling the lady behind the
desk that they had already been cleared to come out
and videotape some stuff that they could use as
filler for their newscast. The lady kept telling
them that since they weren't on the approved list
they could not wander around. This seems like bad
PR to me or maybe a screwup in making the approved
list. She was very tired of telling everyone to
stay inside unless they were leaving the airport.
When we decided we had seen enough we told the
lady that we were leaving and headed to where we
parked it. She said we had to wait for a shuttle
van. By then I was tired of her attitude and said,
hey it's a nice day out and you're very busy so
we will just walk to the plane and not get in
anybody's way. Don't know what she said because
we were outside before she could answer. We did
stop and take a few photos and then had tosit
in the hot sun while we waited for the tower to
tell us planes can now taxi to runway xx and
takeoff. Now maybe she was doing what she was
supposed to be doing but her attitude was poor
IMO. I decided that I would never fly or drive
to that airport again.
Al
D. Scott Ferrin
The ASG-18 and the AIM-47 "Super Falcon" were originally designed for
the Mach 3.2 F-108 Rapier. The F-108 was cancelled but work on the
weapon system continued. It was then put in the YF-12, which was also
cancelled. Hughes built the radar and the missile (not sure about the
IRST) and then later built the AWG-9/AIM-54 combo. I've heard that
the Phoenix/AWG-9 is the decendent but in some ways it is inferior to
the APG-18/AIM-47. The APG-18 had a 300 mile range (one source even
said 500 miles) which, from what I've read, is better than the AWG-9.
The AIM-47 flew at Mach 6 and the highest I've ever seen quoted for
the Phoenix is Mach 5.
Mary Shafer
> Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> > The first bomber with anything vaguely stealthy about its design was a
> > bomber version of the interceptor airframe of the YF-12, which was
> > based on the then-civilian A-12.
>
> Many years ago I saw a photo in a magazine that showed a missile
> being loaded into a YF-12. The article referred to the missile
> as a "Super Falcon" but gave no other designation. It was big,
> and reminiscent of an AIM-54, which was built much later. Any
> idea if this "Super Falcon" was related in any way to the later
> AIM-54?
I don't know anything about the AIM-54 but I do know that the missiles
fired by the YF-12 were AIM-47s.
John Campbell
>
> 5644 <n...@spam.here> writes:
>
> > Mary Shafer wrote:
> >
> > Many years ago I saw a photo in a magazine that showed a missile
> > being loaded into a YF-12. The article referred to the missile
> > as a "Super Falcon" but gave no other designation. It was big,
> > and reminiscent of an AIM-54, which was built much later. Any
> > idea if this "Super Falcon" was related in any way to the later
> > AIM-54?
>
> I don't know anything about the AIM-54 but I do know that the missiles
> fired by the YF-12 were AIM-47s.
>
From Janes AWA 68/69 - USA: Miltary Missiles - Hughes
summarising
Falcon AIM-4A, C & D 6'6"/6'7" long speed above Mach 2
Super Falcon AIM-4E and AIM-4F developed from the Falcon to arm F106,
7'2"/6'9" long Mach 2.5
AIM-47A Falcon larger derivative of Falcon being tested on YF12
12' long Mach 6
Phoenix XAIM-54A for F111B size and speed not quoted, from the article
it appears to be a different design. A photo of the three
missiles (all at different angles) shows the AIM-54 as
apparently longer, slimmer and with different aerodynamics
to the AIM-47.
Regards
JC
D. Scott Ferrin
I think you might have those flipped around. I've seen a photo of the
AIM-47 and AIM-54 side by side and the Falcon appears slimmer and
actually weighs about a hundred pounds less.
>
>Regards
>
>JC
Edward Zager
|>
|> Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu> wrote in message
|> > Mary Shafer (sha...@spdcc.com) wrote
|> > ]Notice the cross-posting , people. Those in r.a.m should be aware
|> > ]that many of the folks in a.f.u don't do acronyms and aren't airplane
|> > ]nuts, while those in a.f.u should be aware that many of the folks in
|> > ]r.a.m are airplane nuts and fond of acronyms. Avoid jargon,
|> > ]emoticons (smilies et al), and UFO topics in both groups to be safe.
|> > ]
|> > ]In article <19990902025748...@ng-fn1.aol.com>,
|> > ]Blaze Firestormer <sma...@aol.comeangetme> wrote:
|> > ]>>The U.S. had stealth bombers in 1963? Please elaborate.
|> > ]
|> > ]>The first primitive stealth bombers were designed in the mid-50s,
|> > ]>although they were classified until the 70s. The entire fleet has
|> > ]>always been kept at the one base in Wisconsin.
|> > ]The first bomber with anything vaguely stealthy about its design was a
|> > ]bomber version of the interceptor airframe of the YF-12, which was
|> > ]based on the then-civilian A-12.
|> >
|> > showed the actual, flying machine designed as "flying wing":
|> > without vertical stabilizers. The documentary alleged that the designers
|> > of the plane, brothers with the name starting with H (so the plane
|> > was named H-something) discoverd that it has very low RCS.
|> > So this German flying wing can be deemed the first Stealth jet, even
|> though
|> > it was not designed with Stealth in mind.
|> >
|> wherein
|> > they put numerous lightbulbs on the underside of the B-something
|> > propeller bomber, and the photo cell on the upper side; the photocell
|> > regulated the brightness of the bulbs so that it matched the brightness
|> > of the sky above the plane. Reportedly, it worked spectacularly well.
|> >
|> >
|>
|>
If you want to personally see one of the Horton Brothers flying wings, go to
the Garber facility near Washington. (where they restore the planes for
the Smithsonian) In one of the last buildings on the tour, they have an
unassembled jet powered flying wing. So much for the comic books.
My understanding was the the early American flying wing designs (YB49) were
noticed to not show up on RADAR also. (which meets my requirements for
Stealthy) Any comments Mary? (since the YB49 data would have to come from
Edwards)
Edward Zager Focke Wulf 149JZ