Flaming Pumpkin Seeds

[SOC]

ATS? Wow, talk about hitting below the belt ;D

X-43, etc...maybe they tried to be too ambitious and had to go simpler? Who knows. All I'm saying is that if the idea is technically sound, there is always a possibility that somebody has tried it.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

OK, Well we agree on one thing then. Truce.

 

[vulture]

Ok;
Everyone that replied have valid points. But the "powers that be" are not about to declassify the "pumpkinseed" or anything else that has be wallowing out there in the "black world" anytime soon. just because "someone wants to see proof" is not a good enough justification or a "need to know" reason to declassify something. "Something" had to exist for the eyewitnesses at Norton AFB on November 12 1988 to make such reports. Plus there are a few other witnesses that actually saw the vehicle in flight. These witnesses were not prone to just "starting rumors" !!! This was around the same time frame as the declassification of the F-117A, and the "public" rollout of the B-2. Plus I have other sources in official positions at the the time, but won't speak publicly about the pumpkinseed, but confirm to me privately that it did in fact exist.

Vulture

 

[Orionblamblam]

"Something" had to exist for the eyewitnesses at Norton AFB on November 12 1988 to make such reports.

"Something" could have been "booze."

 

[vulture]

Not likely. I wish people would stop saying the old cliche "the witnes just had to be drunk on booze." That's an insult to the guy who told me about pumpkinseed in the first place - he doesn't drink alcohol or use any type of drug - FYI Mr. "Orion"! What makes your opinion any more credible, sir?!

Vulture

 

[quellish]

Hi

Here is an image of one of NASA's test models of a pumpkinseed shape

Vulture

Actually, that is an image of a wind tunnel test fixture. The wind tunnel is being calibrated.

 

[quellish]

OK, everyone has a point of view and their own opinion.

You are correct. Everyone has an opinion, though facts are absolute. Factually, the Aviation Week article that started the pumpkinseed rumor was hypothetical. The body of the article does make that clear.

Explain to me exactly why it isn't feasible. I mean, I understand aerodynamics pretty well. There are "sources" that claim they have located the patent drawings of such vehicles. Plus, NASA is known to have tested in their wind

There is a patent section in this forum where information like that is freely shared. There are many patent tracking enthusiasts on here, and they can be a valuable resource. If you have the patent references, I am sure everyone would enjoy looking at them.
Now that patent information is readily available and searchable on the internet, patents have become another tool in the amateur researcher's arsenal of techniques for tracking aerospace programs. Once someone has some skill in searching patent databases they can find many, many interesting things

tunnels, so-called "pumpkinseed" or aerodiamond shapes. You know, some people still can't fully grasp just how lifting bodies work in the first place - the pumpkinseed shape is just another lifting body shape, though unusual. As for the external burning combustion technique described, that portion of such as system is very feasible.

It's not feasible as described, no. There is an excellent discussion of external combustion on the forum that details how it works and what kinds of things it works for. That should answer most of your questions on that subject.

The people here are an excellent resource, and most of them are happy to pass on their knowledge. I encourage you to read up on old threads, and ask the best questions you can.

 

[quellish]

"Something" had to exist for the eyewitnesses at Norton AFB on November 12 1988 to make such reports.

Yes, many eyewitnesses saw something that day at Norton AFB:
http://tinyurl.com/yjdca6b
And it's serial number was 61-7962 !

 

[shockonlip]

….and continued with the article

Multiple Sightings of Secret Aircraft Hint a new Propulsion, Airframe Design

also in AW&ST 1-OCT-1990

Well now I know why I remembered it as having external burning. ;D BTW does anybody here know of any actual research done on that (external burning that is)? I'd read about it back in the late 70s/early 80s but heard nothing of it since.

Wow I missed this thread!
Fred Billig's first scramjet model was external burning.
I held it in my hand back in 1994.
According to him, with a shrouded combustor, you get better thrust with a wall that the pressure forces can act on.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Not likely. I wish people would stop saying the old cliche "the witnes just had to be drunk on booze."

Agreed. The day of Booze is over. We are now in the era of Meth.

That's an insult to the guy who told me about pumpkinseed in the first place - he doesn't drink alcohol or use any type of drug - FYI Mr. "Orion"! What makes your opinion any more credible, sir?!

They all agree with me on email.

Don't buy that as an arguement? Well, I don't agree with "some guy I believe said he saw such-and-such" as an arguement. Hearsay evidence is no evidence at all.

 

[vulture]

I guess that everyone that's hooked on meth also is under the deluted notion that everyboby else is on it too -- lol fella!

 

[vulture]

Here is another image that isn't a wind tunnel test fixture

Vulture

 

[Ian33]

Thats a wind tunnel model of the EOS system. Thats no flaming pumpkin seed.

 

[shockonlip]

Not likely. I wish people would stop saying the old cliche "the witnes just had to be drunk on booze."

Agreed. The day of Booze is over. We are now in the era of Meth.

That's an insult to the guy who told me about pumpkinseed in the first place - he doesn't drink alcohol or use any type of drug - FYI Mr. "Orion"! What makes your opinion any more credible, sir?!

They all agree with me on email.

Don't buy that as an arguement? Well, I don't agree with "some guy I believe said he saw such-and-such" as an arguement. Hearsay evidence is no evidence at all.

Scott.

The situation is different between you and an Av Week reporter.

You are very historically biased. Unless you see it confirmed by an agency you trust,
you don't believe it.

However, if you were a reporter for a major aviation magazine, who has expertise also in the
aerospace field, and are widely connected because of your past in the USAF and your current
job, and some of those contacts that you know and trust are telling you something
else, then you can't sit on your hands in that case. Your editor would want you to bring
that story and then they'd decide.

Could somebody cause you to publish bunk, yes, that's possible.

Is such a magazine a historical source in the aerospace field, no!
Such a magazine is a news source.
Fundamental difference there!

 

[vulture]

Its not EOS, its EROS, but thanks IAN33 - and no it no pumpkinseed, its from yet another secret USAF program.

 

[bobbymike]

Could all these so called pumpkin seeds be MaRVs or some other exotic re-entry vehicle?

 

[quellish]

Here is another image that isn't a wind tunnel test fixture

Vulture

This is also not a pumpkinseed.

 

[vulture]

pathes

Vulture

 

[vulture]

patches

 

[vulture]

Ok, ok, does anyone here have an actual image of a true pumpkinseed. Save your harsh comments - please :-\ I know its a speculative vehicle, and I'm also aware of
the many sceptics :-X Does anyone have anything constructive to add ???

 

[vulture]

patch

 

[vulture]

another classified project ???

 

[vulture]

X-151 Torrider ???

 

[SOC]

X-151? Try F-5.

 

[Orionblamblam]

You are very historically biased.

Damned straight. The news media in all its forms is generally in a race to publish the soonest with the interestingest. That's their job. But when they publish the unsupported, their claims need to *not* be touted as fact, but speculation.

And I'm sorry, but "I trust my source" may make for a neato story, but it makes for awful facts. If society as a whole accepted the hearsay of anonymous experts, then criminal trials would be entertaining, to say the least, nevermind science. You'd wind up with Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry being as reliable as indicators of true worth and achievment as Nobel Peace and Literature prizes.

 

[Orionblamblam]

X-151? Try F-5.

Naw. That's an X-304, getting ready to go out and fight the Goa'uld.

:

 

[vulture]

That's not a G"" Damn F-5. This bird is at Helendale - idiot

 

[SOC]

That picture is one of the F-117 RCS test articles (you can make out the engines, body faceting, cockpit and nose, etc), and doesn't look like the one in the overhead.

And, idiot? Seriously? You're basing that on what now?

 

[vulture]

wrong again sporty! Its not an F-5 nor an F-117 of any sort or you just can't idnetify aircraft - you don't seem to have an eye for identifying aircraft

 

[SOC]

wrong again sporty! Its not an F-5 nor an F-117 of any sort or you just can't idnetify aircraft - you don't seem to have an eye for identifying aircraft

Sporty? Another good one. At least now you're not making unsubstantiated assertions regarding my intelligence level.

ID'ing aircraft...yup, didn't spend 10 years doing that. Not a published expert in imagery analysis, either. Now that we've established that I have no clue what I'm talking about, we'll continue anyway:

The picture you posted is most likely an F-117A pole model, with weapons doors open, cockpit covered, and wings/tails removed. In other words, just the kind of thing you'd find out in the open at Lockheed's RCS test facility. The other one does resemble an F-5, but you're right, it isn't. It's an F-16. The distortion in the outline (such as making the tailpipes appear longer) is caused by both shadowing and lower resolution imagery. Look in Google Maps or Google Earth and you'll see that it is in fact an F-16. Go through the historical imagery in Google Earth (except the one from 1994) and you'll see that it sits in the same place every time, but different sensors, different resolutions, and different look angles make it look somewhat different in each image.

And "Torridor" is often assumed to be the "Snowbird" craft (which in reality was in fact an RCS calibration shape)...and the picture reported to be that one is a small, white diamond-shaped thing. Neither of your two images are either 1) white or 2) small enough to be that one.

 

[vulture]

I must apologize to SOC here. Really didn't mean to insult you or anyone else on this forum. And SOC, its not an F-16 either - though in fairness it appears like an F-117 in front, but the aft end of the vehicle - or test model - isn't as sloped in the same places as on the F-117A. And I'm sure your intelligence is way beyond that of idiot; and "sporty" you gotta give that one after all the ribbing I've gotten here on the speculative pumpkinseed air vehicle

Vulture

 

[Jemiba]

Folks, even if it is just kidding or meant as a joke, we should avoid
cusses here ! Too easy, that it could be misunderstood by people
not too familiar with the english language, like me .

And, IIRC, there was something about it in the forum rules !

 

[flateric]

Its not EOS, its EROS, but thanks IAN33 - and no it no pumpkinseed, its from yet another secret USAF program.

This is actually 'USAF AEDC technicians performing low observables testing on an electro-optical sensor fairing, developed for the F-22 AIRST sensor."

 

[flateric]

Looks much like of one of full-scale F-22 RCS models known, representing aircraft rear fuselage with TVC nozzles and horizontal tail with fuselage chopped and streamlined along lines of tail leading edges in plan view. Had photo somewhere, but can't check it right now.

May be wrong about this as well.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Posting random photos of stuff largely identifiable as known things claiming it to be proof of a secret project is not the best start to posting to this forum. There's some knowledgeable people who will mercilessly uncover the truth.

Please note, that this particular section is for unbuilt projects, which is the central concern of this forum. If you believe that the flaming pumpkin seeds are actually built, the topic would be better placed in the Aerospace forum.

 

[flateric]

Not a published expert in imagery analysis, either.

too modest statement, Sean

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Indeed, I think the idea was that Sean *did* spend 10 years in id-ing aircraft, and *is* a published expert in imagery analysis

 

[SOC]

Yeah, sorry, my modesty expires after midnight

 

[CFE]

However, if you were a reporter for a major aviation magazine, who has expertise also in the
aerospace field, and are widely connected because of your past in the USAF and your current
job, and some of those contacts that you know and trust are telling you something
else, then you can't sit on your hands in that case. Your editor would want you to bring
that story and then they'd decide.

I'd be careful about assuiming that aviation reporters have the requisite experience in the aviation field. I don't know what Bill Sweetman's educational background is, per se, but every time he wanders off into the world of black projects, it almost makes me cringe. He never seems to question the technological breakthroughs that would be needed to bring his purported "black projects" to life. If nothing else, my engineering education made me a lot more skeptical about what's possible, even on the "bleeding edge" of research and development. And even the "anonymous sources" often don't see the full picture, or they're spreading false information. We should take nobody's word at face value, even if they're telling us the things we want to hear.

 

[quellish]

I'd be careful about assuiming that aviation reporters have the requisite experience in the aviation field. I don't know what Bill Sweetman's educational background is, per se, but every time he wanders off into the world of black projects, it almost makes me cringe. He never seems to question the technological breakthroughs that would be needed to bring his purported "black projects" to life. If nothing else, my engineering education made me a lot more skeptical about what's possible, even on the "bleeding edge" of research and development. And even the "anonymous sources" often don't see the full picture, or they're spreading false information. We should take nobody's word at face value, even if they're telling us the things we want to hear.

Two words.

LIQUID.
METHANE.