Northrop Grumman TR6 Telos

Status
Not open for further replies.
sublight_ said:
Just to set the record straight. The "V" shaped craft is a real thing. It belongs to or is managed by the Navy in some role. It was tested around Hudson Valley in 1983/1984. The governor of Arizona saw it close up in 1997.
Click to expand...
Why was the Hudson Valley selected as a test site? Comprehensive instrumented Navy test ranges?
 
aim9xray said:
Why was the Hudson Valley selected as a test site? Comprehensive instrumented Navy test ranges?
Click to expand...

Every Navy contractor and his mother was in Hudson Valley. I believe this thing was an urban hostage rescue platform, birthed from the Iranian hostage rescue failure. Where better to test it than an actual urban area.

The info-graphic on the first post is completely fake, with the single exception of being similar to what this thing looked like.
 
Michel Van said:
As Aircraft looks the TR6 atrocious instabile to fly.
and about "electrogravitic" propulsion system, it's new hype under conspirator and UFO fanatics

in 1980s it was nuclear propulsion system in all secret Aircraft, after this Cash-Landrum incident in Texas
in 1990s it was Antigravity drive using element 115 according to Bob Lazar
in 2000s it became "Electromagnetic can behave like Gravity under certain condition" engine

yeah sure that work in theory without violation of Einstein Theory
But, you need a very dense magnetic fluid that rotate in a ring, very very very fast to produce that effect
how fast ? near speed of light !
how dense ? neutronium that's the stuff neutron stars are made off !

so good luck in R&D on that Hardware...
Click to expand...
You somehow think we still need to follow " laws " when the U.S surpassed those laws. We don't care if you dont believe us.
 
sublight_ said:
Just to set the record straight. The "V" shaped craft is a real thing. It belongs to or is managed by the Navy in some role. It was tested around Hudson Valley in 1983/1984. The governor of Arizona saw it close up in 1997.
Click to expand...
Half of the people have no clue what tech we have.
 
Antonio said:
Is this thread going nowhere? Time to clean it up and preserve as a curiosity or just delete it?
Click to expand...
It's never a good thing to delete a topic entirely, if only because it may have been linked from other pages or kept as a bookmark. Since it's already in the "Theoretical, Fake..." section, it seems pretty harmless to me, anyway, don't you agree? The whole point of this section is just to let our interpretations and opinions run a little wild. I don't think anybody would take something from this section at face value, and if there is any suspicion they might, it is always possible to lock the topic after adding a disclaimer in the final post. Just my two cents!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Conspiracy theory crap gets a thread locked, right?
Click to expand...

There has to be a balance in this section. Shamu was a conspiracy theory until it wasn’t.

I’m not saying this is a valid topic that attracts informed discussion, just making the larger point.
 
It is a Navy airship, with a bunch of lights on the front to make it look like other air traffic and specifically not like an airship. Since the Navy did a whole bunch of helium availability studies in the 70s, its likely they used helium and not hydrogen. At some point in the past decade Quellish had outlined all the ways to track down helium use, and if I had followed that I most likely would have had something interesting to show for it by now.....
 
Antonio said:
Is this thread going nowhere? Time to clean it up and preserve as a curiosity or just delete it?
Click to expand...
There is literally a real "thing" that looks like the graphic in the first post. Everything else is junk, with the exception of that. How do you want to handle it?
 
quellish said:
There has to be a balance in this section. Shamu was a conspiracy theory until it wasn’t.

I’m not saying this is a valid topic that attracts informed discussion, just making the larger point.
Click to expand...
Minus the fantastic "anti-gravity" dimension, the shape and concept on the ops post aren't too dissimilar from JP Aerospace's ATO.

Just food for thought.
 
sublight_ said:
It is a Navy airship, with a bunch of lights on the front to make it look like other air traffic and specifically not like an airship. Since the Navy did a whole bunch of helium availability studies in the 70s, its likely they used helium and not hydrogen. At some point in the past decade Quellish had outlined all the ways to track down helium use, and if I had followed that I most likely would have had something interesting to show for it by now.....
Click to expand...

How much lifting gas would an “airship” of these dimensions hold?
 
FWIW, Largest Navy LTA non-rigid airship was ZPG-3W at approximately 1,500,000 cubic feet.
 
quellish said:
How much lifting gas would an “airship” of these dimensions hold?
Click to expand...
Let's see here... 520x220ft, wing sweep looks like 45deg. Length of each wing leading edge would therefore be 370ft. Wing width perpendicular to leading edge looks to be 50-55ft. Let's go with 20ft average thickness, so we're talking about two rectangles each holding 370x50x20. 740,000cuft, for a first-order approximation. (yes, those rectangles technically overlap, I'm counting that in the centerbody.)

No, the wings are wider than that, they look to be about the same width as the length of the B-2, which is 70ft.

Which changes the math to 370x70x20x2, 1.036mil cu.ft.

Which has GOT to be way underballing it. 1mil cu.ft. of helium is only lifting 69,000lbs, the B-2 weighs 158klbs empty so this monster is at least 500klbs.

Increasing the average thickness to 30ft puts us on the order of 1.5mil cu.ft., which is still only lifting like 135klbs.
 
quellish said:
Seems very very low.
Click to expand...
I was actually looking at his answer as meters because I was skipping ahead to trying to math out the lift at sea lvl.

With feet, we turn it into right triangles. 260' for the span, 220' for the length. Area is 28600. Double it is 57200 sq' (this is still going to be way too high, because the actual shape comes way short of filling our triangles). Looks like an airfoil shape, but even if we treat it like a box, it's maybe 20 feet high (envelope/airframe, not above surface)? Extremely generously on both approximations gives a top value of 1,144,000 cu feet? 348,691 cu meters.

What fraction of that box do you think the shape depicted fills? 1/2? 2/3? Or are you using different dimensions than depiction in the OP?
 
Scott Kenny said:
1mil cu.ft. of helium is only lifting 69,000lbs, the B-2 weighs 158klbs empty so this monster is at least 500klbs.
Click to expand...
It's just going to be a truss or two or three, not an actual airframe (if such a thing were to exist). The shape would be envelope. Plus cockpit, plus payload, plus weight of the helium or hydrogen.

Counterintuitively, bigger is better at this sort of thing because as a ratio structural weight to volume will be kinder the bigger you go. That's why the zeppellins kept getting bigger.
 
_Del_ said:
It's just going to be a truss or two or three, not an actual airframe (if such a thing were to exist). The shape would be envelope. Plus cockpit, plus payload, plus weight of the helium or hydrogen.

Counterintuitively, bigger is better at this sort of thing because as a ratio structural weight to volume will be kinder the bigger you go. That's why the zeppellins kept getting bigger.
Click to expand...
I was assuming a relatively rigid shape, at the very least to maintain the airfoil shape and not snap the spars.

Which still suggests an airframe at least as heavy as the B-2's empty weight.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I was assuming a relatively rigid shape, at the very least to maintain the airfoil shape and not snap the spars.

Which still suggests an airframe at least as heavy as the B-2's empty weight.
Click to expand...
You can keep shape with pressure and shaping the envelope.

1445104462_GoodyearInflatoplane01.jpg.d1a41c7135556cb0822d41a155e046aa.jpg
 
martinbayer said:
Any actual evidence???
Click to expand...
I mean, other than the many, many mammoth black triangle sightings of various degrees of dubious-ness? Not really.

But JP Aerospace has actually flown a few things, including at least one acknowledged project for the Air Force. Their ultimate stated goal is really pushing the realm of the credulous, but they have actually built things.

So a giant airship of roughly that shape isn't completely crazy to my ears.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom