AAPalmTree
Well-Known Member
Need to apply this to my overnights in sketchy countries.
Air Force reveals first image of B-21
- Thread starter fholbert
- Start date
Need to apply this to my overnights in sketchy countries.
Soku39
Well-Known Member
No idea what any of that means, but it sure sounds smart.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
On another note, why change the design if it works? A 787 looks like a 777 or 767 to anyone outside of aviation. Its whats on the inside that counts.
Actually, when considering low observable aircraft, the outside figures in substantially, as well.
I'm mostly surprised that 35 years after the B-2, given the advances in IADS technology (e.g. double-digit SAMs, etc), and on the opposite end the advances is design and computing power to design LO shapes that also fly, they're going with essentially the same shape they had in 1979.
It is no secret that the B-2 isn't "invisible" to radar or other detection systems by any stretch of the imagination. Although it is very, very stealthy, and is still highly survivable in a complex threat environment, it does have its vulnerabilities. It isn't like they happened upon the perfect shape in the 80s and are just keeping with a good thing, because the threat a "B-21" will be flying against in 2025 is much more capable than the one the B-2 was designed to get through in 1990.
I can see why it took years to design.
Really radical design they have there.
Way to step out of your comfort zone NGC!
I know. I presume it's a Boeing.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
All of that has to do with the US posture in world affairs; that's a political issue, not a tech-vs-anything argument.
Example from an article posted yesterday:
http://in.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-putin-insight-idINKCN0VZ1G8
I know. I presume it's a Boeing.
Nah, former employer lost another one. No shocker there
I might have to move that 401K into Iraqi Dinars
gne in prog
Well-Known Member
B2 max.
ryan1234
Desensitized Member
What do you think the Third Offset is about?
http://www.defense.gov/News/Speeche...-and-its-implications-for-partners-and-allies
The bottom line is that the argument for A2AD items like the B-21 is about force posturing for Bob Work / Ash Carter's Third Offset. The "political posturing" and D-I-E have to gain credibility from somewhere.
Let's take China.....The assumption is that the competitive rise of China as a superpower undermines U.S. primacy and geopolitical rule sets through China's pursuit of regional hegemony. China's capability rise only exacerbates the uncertainty. A traditional neorealist view would welcome "stability" through a bipolar world vice the current unipolar world. Unfortunately, bipolar stability does not merit the same context as the Cold War. In the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union were two completely different economic spheres of influence. The two economic systems of the Cold War were not dependent on each other, this is obviously not the case with the US and China currently. This is why I believe it's common to hear many in IR circles talking about China's capabilities (i.e. rise) as an indicator of their future pursuits, which is sometimes without specific context. "Managing" the rise of China though the strategic-competitive long game is the tricky part. Long story short, this is being attempted through a "tech advantage" and the whole A2AD deal.
Interesting article from Jon Czarnecki:
http://warontherocks.com/2014/10/against-a-tech-centric-offset/
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
Back....to the future!
We've got one of the early model units at Chino. It fly's often and is a regular at our April/May airshow.
The Northrop N9MB Flying Wing!
deadstick
Well-Known Member
SFLAX
Well-Known Member
Dropping bombs while playing facebook. ::thumbs up::
On another note, why change the design if it works? A 787 looks like a 777 or 767 to anyone outside of aviation. Its whats on the inside that counts.
Used that line once on a hot chick once.
Cal Goat
Prestige Worldwide™
Can we make it official? Jack Northrop was a genius.
Area 5150
Model citizen, Zero discipline
It's cool and all.....
but, would it be alright if we went back to the B-17, B-24 design for awhile? Ya know, stir things up a little. Aviation is becoming as stale as 8 month old Premium Saltine Crackers. (No white jokes please, I, "May or May Not" become offend)
but, would it be alright if we went back to the B-17, B-24 design for awhile? Ya know, stir things up a little. Aviation is becoming as stale as 8 month old Premium Saltine Crackers. (No white jokes please, I, "May or May Not" become offend)
It's cool and all.....
Yes.
When I was a kid, we had lunar missions. Now we're supposed to be all giddy about "Ooh! I can unlock my phone with my thumbprint! What will Apple think of next?! Amazing!"
Area 5150
Model citizen, Zero discipline
It's like that United 727. Would it actually be SOOOO hard for the the U.S. airlines to keep at least 1 of each type of aircraft they had in their history, Flying? Example: Say I book a flight from ATL to SFO on Southern Jets in 2016. Just so happens that my particular flight will be on the, "L-1011-500". It's like winning a lotto ticket of sorts. Or, a American 727 from DFW to MIA. Or maybe a United DC-10 from JFK to DEN.
I know most J.Q's could give a rats ass about planes types and history, but the reverse side of that coin, there are Tens of Thousands of aircraft lunatics that do. And cost.......yeah yeah yeah. Same ole song and dance. Maintenance.....crew training..... All that being said, still could be done.
Damn crown making me feel all nostalgic and stuff.
FloridaLarry
Well-Known Member
737 - SLVOBBS (Sneaky Low Visibility Over Budget Behind Schedule)
(And don't ask about the seat pitch).
(And don't ask about the seat pitch).
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
You'd think they could make the stealth bomber class as diverse as the weather balloon class.
///AMG
Well-Known Member
We've got one of the early model units at Chino. It fly's often and is a regular at our April/May airshow.
The Northrop N9MB Flying Wing!
I could certainly wiki this and find the answer, but it is a cool plane and maybe worth discussion……..was that piston-engined or turboprop? I know the follow on was full jet (YB-49 maybe?). All three are unique and cool planes and I've always found it interesting that what was a purely aerodynamic & structural breakthrough in the 1940-50's happened to also be an ideal LO shape in the late 70's/early 80's……and thus a relatively mature configuration by that point as well, conveniently.
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
Piston engines.A couple of 300hp Franklin's.
On 30 October 1941, the preliminary order for development of the B-35 Flying Wing bomber was confirmed, including engineering, testing, and most importantly a 60 ft (18 m) wingspan, one-third scale aircraft, designated N-9M.[4] It was to be used in gathering data on flight performance and for familiarizing pilots with the program's radical, all-wing design. The first N-9M was ordered in the original contract, but this was later expanded to three test aircraft in early 1943. A fourth was ordered a few months later after a crash of the first N-9M destroyed that airframe; this fourth N-9M incorporated various flight test-derived improvements and upgrades, including different, more powerful engines. The four aircraft were designated N-9M-1, -2, -A, and -B, respectively.[5]
The N-9M framework was partially constructed of wood to reduce its overall weight. The wings' outer surfaces were also skinned with a strong, specially laminated plywood. The central section (roughly equivalent to the fuselage) was made of welded tubular steel. The aircraft were originally powered by two 290 hp (216 kW) Menasco C6S-1 inverted air-cooled straight-six engines, driving twin-bladed propellers, except for the N-9MB which was powered by 2x 300 hp (224 kW) Franklin XO-540-7 engines.[4]
The first flight of the N-9M occurred on 27 December 1942 with Northrop test pilot John Myers at the controls.[6] During the next five months, 45 flights were made. Nearly all were terminated by mechanical failures of one sort or another, the Menasco engines being the primary source of those problems. After roughly 22.5 hours of accumulated flight time, the first N-9M crashed approximately 12 miles (19 km) west of Muroc Army Air Base on 19 May 1943. The pilot, Max Constant, was killed as he attempted to recover the aircraft from a right-hand, 60° nose-down spin. The investigation found that Constant had suffered control reversal, the control column had been pressed against his chest during his recovery attempt from the steep spin, preventing him from parachuting to safety. Steps were taken to fix this problem and prevent it from happening on other N-9M test aircraft.[6]
When Northrop's Flying Wing bomber program was canceled, all remaining N-9M flight test aircraft, except for the final N-9MB, were scrapped. For more than three decades, it slowly deteriorated until the Chino, California Planes of Fame Air Museum acquired the aircraft in 1982 and began the labor-intensive restoration process. For the next two decades, former Northrop employees and other skilled volunteers slowly returned the N-9MB to its final flight configuration.[7] Since 1993, the yellow-and-blue Flying Wing has been exhibited, with flight demonstrations at several airshows every year.[8]
In April 2006, the N-9MB suffered an in-flight engine fire. The aircraft was landed safely with limited damage. Donations to the museum were solicited for its repair, and the aircraft was fully repaired to flight status. It was once again flown during the annual Chino airshow on 15–16 May 2010
Northrop N-9M
Aircraft model
The Northrop N-9M was considered an approximate one-third scale, 60-ft wide, all-wing aircraft used for the development of the full size, 172-ft wide Northrop XB-35 and YB-35 flying wing long-range, heavy bomber.Wikipedia
Top speed: 258 mph
Range: 500 mi
Weight: 5,893 lbs
Cruise speed: 208 mph
Wingspan: 60′ 0″
Engine type: Menasco Buccaneer
Designer: Jack Northrop