Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Ancient Alien's . Season 02 . Episode 00/10 ...
Ancient Alien's . Season 02 . Episode 00/10 ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 01 - Mysterious Places ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 02 - Gods and Aliens ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 03 - Underwater Worlds ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 04 - Underground Aliens ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 05 - Aliens and the third Reich ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 06 - Alien Tech ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 07 - Angels and Aliens ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 08 - Unexplained Structures ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 01 - Mysterious Places ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 02 - Gods and Aliens ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 03 - Underwater Worlds ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 04 - Underground Aliens ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 05 - Aliens and the third Reich ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 06 - Alien Tech ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 07 - Angels and Aliens ...
Ancient Aliens Season 02 Episode 08 - Unexplained Structures ...
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Ancient Alien's , Season 01 , Episode 00/05 ...
- Ancient Aliens Season 01 Episode 00 - Pilot - Ancient Aliens Chariots, Gods & Beyond ... Ancient Aliens Season 01 Episode 01 - The Evidence ... Ancient Aliens Season 01 Episode 02 - The Visitors ... Ancient Aliens Season 01 Episode 03 - The Mission ... Ancient Aliens Season 01 Episode 04 - Close Encounters ... Ancient Aliens Season 01 Episode 05 - The Return ...
BIOLIENS4 ...
Friday, February 24, 2012
Sign the Petetion please ...
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
immediately investigate UFO/ET Disclosure efforts during the Clinton administration - the Rockefeller Initiative."
Disclosure Petition II - The Rockefeller Initiative
The Obama administration has formally stated, "The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race."
If true, what was Clinton's Office of Science and Technology Policy investigating from March 1993 to October 1996 in concert with billionaire, Clinton friend, Laurance Rockefeller?
Those who knew and have not spoken publicly of this initiative include: Pres. Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama transition chairman John Podesta, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Vice President Al Gore and Gov. Bill Richardson.
Confirming Documents: http://tinyurl.com/8x7k9lf and www.presidentialufo.com/bill-clinton
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
NASA Ufo 2012
UFO picture's from NASA , captured by NASA in the space by ISD .
More picture's and video's or document's about UFO's/Alien's or strange other object and thing's from out of our planet , visit our blog:
bioliens.blogspot.com
Thank's for watching , cheer's .
BIOLIENS4
More picture's and video's or document's about UFO's/Alien's or strange other object and thing's from out of our planet , visit our blog:
bioliens.blogspot.com
Thank's for watching , cheer's .
BIOLIENS4
New NASA's picture's .
This are some other picture's from NASA , as you can see , we found some object's (UFO's) on their picture's , captured by NASA , on the space , by ISD ... Enjoy .
- http://imageshack.us/g/828/21720297.jpg/
More to come , + video's ...
BIOLIENS4 .
Monday, February 20, 2012
Non human object , NASA .
This is another picture taken from NASA , it's like white object , it seem's big , it doesn't seem's like human made object ...
- http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/6831/65350560.jpg
We have more and more picture's from NASA etcetera .
Let's share another picture capture from NASA .
This picture is very beautiful one , captured by NASA , we dont know what's this , but it's very good one ...
- http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/2750/97939245.jpg
We will share more picture , ...
Another UFO picture from NASA .
- http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/7784/71798029.jpg
As you can see my friend's , this does not look like a light of any thing , we mean , it does not look like a light of any human object ;) . But it's beautiful and very good picture , it's from NASA , captured by NASA , downloaded by BIOLIENS4 hh . Cheer's ...
Look's like an UFO ;) . NASA's picture .
A UFO picture captured by NASA (Y) .
- http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/5994/30086217.jpg
A good picture ...
NASA UFO picture , .
- http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/1313/32095349.jpg
By downloading all picture's from NASA Server , this is what we found ;) . Look's like a UFO or any other object , cheer's all ...
NASA's picture , cloud's .
- http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/1508/esclargeiss009iss009e11.jpg
Downloaded picture from NASA's Server , what a cloud's ? :O ...
A picture from NASA , what is this , where is this ? :O .
- http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/839/efshighresiss026iss026e.jpg
It's a picture downloaded from NASA Server (FTP) , what is this , where is this ? :O ...
Human made ? ...
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Downloading file's from NASA's FTP Server's .
And soon , many of the file's , we will share them here , until then , we keep up posting thing's , and please share our blog so we share more thing's .
NASA Mars water picture's .
NASA's UFO picture , very clear , this is old , we got new one's , soon we post them all :) .
ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_STS088_STS088-724-65_3.JPG
Crashed Test Flight out of Area 51
There was a huge fire in the Groom Mountains in summer of 1999, just north of Groom Lake. It started in the evening hours of 8/4/1999, and isolated spots were still burning at noon the next day. The first official story said that it was caused by lightning strike. Later, when it became obvious that this was impossible, the story changed. According to the new story, the fire was caused by an accident involving two B-52 bombers that took off from Area 51. One lost two attached external fuel tanks shortly after takeoff, which exploded on impact with the ground.
This version, although more plausible than the first, still does not make much sense. There is no reason for a B-52, which has an un-refueled range of over 8,000 miles, to be equipped with additional external fuel tanks. Unless it is going overseas, which is unlikely for a flight out of Area 51. It is much more likely that whatever crashed that night into the mountains just north of Area 51 was a test flight coming out of Groom.
I saw the flames in the mountains at about 7.30pm from Hwy. 375, and took the photos below, both from a low angle at several locations along Hwy. 375, and from a higher angle at the Powerlines Overlook in the mountain range behind the Black Mailbox. From up there I could see bright flames and a glow in a color spectrum that suggests extreme heat. Clearly not a brush fire after a lightning strike, especially considering how sparse the vegetation is in that area. I could make out two distinct spots that appeared to be the source of the blaze. The center of the larger spot was located in a valley below my line of sight and it almost looked like a small volcano eruption. I watched it until about 10pm, when the flames began to die down. Three or four isolated spots continued to burn all night, and were still burning around noon the next day.
I did not see any fire fighting trucks or planes, or any other attempts to put out the blaze. In fact, except for a couple of security helicopters there were absolutely no planes anywhere around to be seen that night, although it was right in the middle of the summer Red Flag exercises. And my scanner was dead silent that night.
The crash site on the south slope of the Groom Mountain Range is located about 3 miles west of the Area 51 Guard Shack, inside the Groom restricted airspace. This air space is off-limits even for military pilots, and only air traffic going in and out of Groom is allowed here. There were two large fires, approximately 1/2 mile apart, with smaller fires in between. The approximate GPS coordinates are: N 37°21.29' / W 115°43.05' and N 37°21.66'/ W 115°42.63'.
I have no information on the purpose of the test flight. But since the Groom Lake base is usually not involved in Red Flag, I do not believe that the mission was connected to the ongoing air exercises. Please let me know if you have any comments on this incident, or if you have seen a similar accident.
Update 03/06/2000: A Freedom of Information Act request regarding the incident to 11 CS/SCS (FOIA), 1000 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1000 came back with a "no records" determination. Not that I expected anything else, but it was worth a try.
Fastmover Test Flight at Area 51, 4/3/2002
On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, Bill Whiffen and I were lucky enough to observe and record the radio traffic of a very interesting test flight out of Area 51 from a view spot known as the Powerlines Overlook. There is no direct view of Area 51 from there, but you can see the Groom airspace down to about 1000 ft. above ground. And the scanner easily picks up Groom radio traffic, even of aircraft on the Groom runway. The distance to the base is about the same as from Tikaboo Peak, 26 miles.
Around 7.10pm, we saw an aircraft with a bright white strobe appear above Freedom Ridge and climb very fast and at a much steeper angle than the Janet 737's. Although we could not see it take off, there was no doubt that it came out of Groom, taking off on Runway 14.
It was a moonless night, and at a distance of 26 miles we could only see the white strobe, and what appeared to be several dim red lights, even with our binoculars. At about 10,000 ft. it made a sharp turn and flew north or northwest at high speed. There we watched it fly racetrack patterns, possibly over Kawich Valley, Railroad Valley or the Cactus Flat/TTR/S-4 area. These areas are littered with radar sites of all sorts, so it is possible that the aircraft was doing some kind of test involving radar. Sometimes we lost sight of the aircraft, but because of its bright strobe it was easy to identify when it re-appeared. The aircraft appeared to be able to maneuver very easily, and sometimes flew at high speeds. We never heard a sonic boom, but it was certainly going at high subsonic speeds.
At about 7.45pm we heard Maple 25, the last Janet shuttle for the day, request clearance for the flight back to Las Vegas. At about the same time we saw our fast moving friend return from the north. A few minutes later he requested clearance to land at Groom, and the Janet, which was just taxiing to the runway for the takeoff back to Las Vegas, was ordered to hold until the "fastmover" had landed. Yes, in our recording Groom tower can clearly be heard referring to the test flight as a fastmover!
They then decided to make a low approach pass over the base, to give the Janet a chance to take off before they landed. It is interesting that, although it was a clear night, they mentioned the use of the Groom ILS (Instrument Landing System), which is not normally used by Janets. The ILS allows a plane on final approach to land fully automated in poor visibility conditions. They also mentioned "going out to the arc", which refers to the DME arc, a procedure used to set up the ILS approach pattern.
It is also interesting that the taxiing Janet was advised that "the fire department does not have anyone there because they are waiting for the fastmover to land". To which the Janet pilot replied: "Ok... Oh, we'll start without". They were probably referring to a routine runway sweep for debris. The reference to the fastmover could indicate that the fire department was on alert for a possible fire during the landing of the fastmover. Or that the fastmover was so secret that even Area 51 fire department personnel was not allowed near the runway while it landed.
We saw the fastmover make several low passes over the base, disappearing and reappearing behind Freedom Ridge. Then around 8.10pm, after the Janet had taken off to Las Vegas, it landed on runway 32 and was advised to taxi to its parking position.
http://dlr.thexhunters.com/info/20020403_1.wav
I am not sure what type of aircraft it was, but it is very likely that what we saw and recorded was the test flight of a Black Project currently under development at Area 51. They like to fly on moonless nights like this, when it is impossible to make out the silhouette of an aircraft against the sky. The fact that it was flying over the radar sites and ECR ranges may indicate that the stealth capabilities of the test aircraft were tested against the various radar systems.
All I can say for sure is that it was fast, able to maneuver very easily, manned (likely by more than one pilot), and equipped with an ILS system. The following night I looked for it from a location with a good view of the airspace that it was maneuvering in, but of course it never showed up.
Joerg H Arnu, April 2002
Are UFOs In Actuality the Military's Ultimate Sky Spies?
This article originally appeared in Popular Communications Magazine
August 2004. (C) 2004 Steve Douglass. Reproduction here with friendly
permission by the author.
If the winds were kind and the technical problems were ironed-out, by the time you read this you may have already heard about the strange "flying V-shaped" UFO that has been seen by citizens over far west Texas and southeastern New Mexico.
Although the event hasn't happened as of this writing, it is likely this huge flying object will be seen at sunset and is flying so high it probably glows bright for maybe more than an hour after dusk and will undoubtedly prompt uninformed citizens to call local authorities and report a unidentified flying object in the area.
In reality the UFO is a prototype of a new lighter-than-air sky spy and might give utility monitors in the area a rare opportunity to intercept some unique communications.
Scheduled for late June and lasting throughout the summer and fall a V-shaped airship bigger than a baseball diamond is due to rise from the West Texas desert to an altitude of 100,000 feet (30.5 kilometers), navigate by remote control, linger above the clouds and drift back to earth.
This joint JP Aerospace/U.S. Air Force project to build a new kind of reconnaissance and battlefield communications platform that some day might lead to even bigger lighter-than-air, gas filled floating platforms that gossamer spaceships could use as high-altitude way stations.
"The full-size station in our grand vision is 2 miles across," says John Powell, the company's founder. "But that's down the road a bit. We take baby steps." You can learn more about this project by pointing your browser to: http://www.jpaerospace.com/
Known as the "Ascender" the unique shaped aerostat is slated to be (as of press-time) launched from the Pecos County/West Texas Spaceport at Fort Stockton, TX, but the liftoff is dependent on the weather and has been delayed several times. According to Powell, "We actually had the first flight window in February, but we sat there and stared at 30-knot West Texas winds for two weeks, so we're going back in June,"
If tests are successful, the Ascender could lead to a much larger military airship being developed as a separate project.
In 2001, the Missile Defense Agency awarded Lockheed Martin a $40 million contract to work on the High Altitude Airship, a 500-foot-long (152-meter-long) blimp, 25 times larger than the Goodyear blimp and much more capable than the Ascender and could loiter at altitudes above 65,000 feet for as long as a year.
One reason airships are becoming more and more attractive to the Pentagon is the cost. The roughly $500,000 cost of building the 175-foot-long (53-meter-long) Ascender airship is far less than the price tag for any piloted airplane or robotic drone.
But the Pentagon's primary motivation is strategic rather than financial. The altitudes best suited for the helium-filled Ascender are virgin territory for the military. It could take a payload higher than any spy plane, above the weather and well beyond the reach of virtually any attack from the ground or the air.
Although the Ascender is considered to be a prototype of a future system there are some who speculate the NRO has been flying top-secret airships for years which have been responsible for may "slow moving" UFO sightings.
A few years ago an American Air West 727 was flying in an air corridor just north of the restricted military airspace known as Area 51, when lightning from a nearby thunderstorm illuminated a huge motionless cigar-shaped object hovering silently over the Nevada Desert. The pilot startled by the sudden appearance of the eerie craft radioed air traffic controllers to report the encounter as a UFO sighting.
Controllers on the ground responded that it was probably a classified aircraft operating out of the restricted Nellis Range. The pilot described the craft as looking something like an elongated big black blimp, invisible except when illuminated by lightning flashes.
What the commercial pilot saw was most likely one of the best kept black world secrets, the stealth airship, a flying Big Brother, prowling the upper reaches of the atmosphere capable of collecting enormous amounts of intelligence for its spy masters on the ground.
These rumored "stealth-ships" are capable of eavesdropping on military, government and civilian radio communications, photographing the world below in amazing detail, and even listen with sensitive electronic ears for the telltale sounds of war.
Possibly equipped with state of the art imaging devices, ground scanning radars and sonic detection equipment, unmanned sky spies could go completely unnoticed until something goes wrong.
They are only spotted when, as fate would have it, a kink in the jet stream forces these goliaths down into civil airspace where they can become a hazard to commercial aircraft traffic and visible to us groundlings below. On many occasions unidentified "airships" have been spotted by airline pilots and civilians who report them as UFOs.
Could it be that the famous Belgian, Mexico City and Hudson Valley UFO sightings of a huge, slow moving aircraft, accompanied by large formations of military helicopters, are in reality stealth-ships accidentally brought down to low altitude by freakish winds?
Although eye-witness reports by qualified observers point to the possible existence of stealth air ships, new documentation almost goes as far as proving it.
Lockheed-Martin (the same company that designed the SR-71 Blackbird and F-117 stealth fighter) recently secured patents on advanced airship designs with the U.S. Patent Office.
The concept for a high altitude reconnaissance airship is not new and has its roots in the U.S. Navy's HI-SPOT program of the late 1970s. HI-SPOT (High Surveillance Platform for Over-the Horizon Targeting) addressed the Navy's stated needs for a lighter-than air reconnaissance platform.
Visualized missions for the airship included air and sea surveillance, communications interception as well as a communications relaying platform.
An airship was also seen as the ideal heavy-lift platform for a Navy Bi-Static (OTH-B) radar receiver.
By its very nature, a low frequency OTH-B reception, system requires a very long antenna to work. A large airship would be ideal for lifting up to high altitude such a massive antenna. The Navy foresaw HI-SPOT's OTH-B radar capabilities as very useful for detecting submarine-launched cruise missiles.
An OTH-B radar designed to track low-altitude aircraft and stealthy cruise missiles would also have bonus applications in an anti-drug role making it easier to intercept drug running aircraft flying low over the open ocean.
In 1981,the NADC (Naval Air Development Center) selected the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company to develop HI-SPOT. According to information Lockheed released to the press in that same year, the Lockheed HI-SPOT design would be that of an unmanned blimp-like airship 500 feet long.
Shortly after the press release the HI-SPOT program was classified as top secret with no announcements ever coming from the Pentagon that the system was cancelled or fielded, however multiple sightings of slow-moving rigid airships reported by many observers in Nevada and California began surfacing in the mid to late 1980s.
In 1990, a major sighting of a slow-moving black airship occurred in California's Antelope Valley not very far from one of Lockheed's secret radar cross section testing ranges. The airship was described as being 500 to 600 feet long, blotting out the night sky while moving slower than four miles per-hour. Artist depictions of a huge pumpkin seed shaped airship were published in Aviation Week Magazine (AWST 10-1-90) and other aviation technology publications.
Such a huge airship would need to be based in huge hangars. Just such a large hangar has been photographed at the secret Area 51 base in Nevada.
Recently this author also spotted very large hangars capable of housing airships on the Fort Bliss Range in southern New Mexico. These hangars may account for the 1995 sighting of a large black airship by an airline crew flying near Las Cruces, New Mexico. Las Cruces sits on the west side of the Ft. Bliss Range.
A high altitude floating reconnaissance platform has many technical advantages over conventional satellite and aircraft platforms. An unmanned airship can stay over an area of military interest for days or even months at a time.
A stealthy airship could loiter undetected while gathering all types of reconnaissance data. Long term, real-time photographic data could be relayed direct or via satellite to a command center providing an ever changing and always accurate tactical picture of the battlefield.
Due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon known as sonic ducting, the sounds of battle and in particular the loud booms caused by missile launches and nuclear explosions can be detected by sensitive microphones lifted aloft by an airship up into the proper sound ducting atmospheric layer.
Conventional jets are too loud and their engine noise would overload any audio system, but an airship is virtually silent and becomes the ideal listening platform. These airships could also be fitted with radiation sampling systems capable of detecting the telltale signs of nuclear testing or a Chernobyl-type nuclear accident.
Airborne electronic eavesdropping gear could intercept civilian, military, commercial and government radio communications which can only be done for short periods by ELINT platforms such as the U.S. Air Force's RC-135 Cobra Ball aircraft.
Generally only communications that take place above 30 MHz have a chance of radiating into space without being reflected back down by the electrically charged ionosphere. An ELINT airship has an advantage over reconnaissance satellite systems in that it can intercept low powered, low frequency radio communications that satellites are blocked by the ionosphere from receiving.
Many important military communications take place on the VLF and ELF frequency bands including those concerning the command and control of deep diving nuclear submarines.
Any unmanned long-duration reconnaissance airship would have to be self-sufficient. Electricity for the reconnaissance, maneuvering systems and communications systems could be continually provided by solar cells (charging batteries by day) mounted outside the airship's gas filled envelope.
Advanced radar absorbing composites and special shaping could make a reconnaissance airship very hard to spot on radar and at the altitude they hover (above 100,000 feet) these stealthships (camouflaged to match the sky) would be very hard to detected visually.
Recon-Airships could also be protected from detection by hiding in magnetically charged layers of the ionosphere that naturally deflect probing radar beams.
These ships are not designed to float aimlessly at the high altitude. While most of the deployment into a target area could be accomplished by taking advantage of high-altitude winds an airship could stay on station by employing efficient and silent electronic motors spinning propellers at very-low speed. Operated autonomously from the ground, stealthships may be the ultimate spy platform.
It may take days, weeks or months to position an airship but once in place an airship could loiter for an extended time while collecting very valuable strategic and tactical information.
If the winds are unkind, dozens of airships could be placed into a high atmospheric fast lane, cruising on the trade-winds in an endless chain, relaying a constant stream of gleaned information back to an intelligence agency's command center.
As for monitoring Ascender, keep a close ear to civilian and military aviation channels. No doubt monitors in a few hundred miles of the launch area will be able to hear air traffic control advisories as well as pilot-to-pilot chatter concerning the aerostat.
Since a major part of the experiment is to see if Ascender can serve as a military communications relay station, it might do good to give a listen to narrow and wide-band military SATCOM frequencies in the 240 MHz to 370 MHz range. If Ascender works as advertised it might be possible for you to hear military ground stations and units from well beyond your listening horizon. Who knows, the military might also experiment with relaying HF communications. Whatever you intercept, make sure you pass on your logs to this author!
So why try and reinvent the wheel? Why would the Air Force fund a study for a recon system that may already be in use?
For one thing, they may not know about the secret NRO projects. They may be out of the loop when it comes to matters of intelligence (no pun intended) or the white-world Ascender project could be a cover for the black-world counterpart project. Let's theorize that maybe the black airship project is entering a new phase where daylight operations may become the norm. Couldn't any new sightings be explained away as Ascender?
In any event it will be interesting to see what UTE and MILCOM monitors intercept as the project matures.
If the winds were kind and the technical problems were ironed-out, by the time you read this you may have already heard about the strange "flying V-shaped" UFO that has been seen by citizens over far west Texas and southeastern New Mexico.
Although the event hasn't happened as of this writing, it is likely this huge flying object will be seen at sunset and is flying so high it probably glows bright for maybe more than an hour after dusk and will undoubtedly prompt uninformed citizens to call local authorities and report a unidentified flying object in the area.
In reality the UFO is a prototype of a new lighter-than-air sky spy and might give utility monitors in the area a rare opportunity to intercept some unique communications.
Scheduled for late June and lasting throughout the summer and fall a V-shaped airship bigger than a baseball diamond is due to rise from the West Texas desert to an altitude of 100,000 feet (30.5 kilometers), navigate by remote control, linger above the clouds and drift back to earth.
This joint JP Aerospace/U.S. Air Force project to build a new kind of reconnaissance and battlefield communications platform that some day might lead to even bigger lighter-than-air, gas filled floating platforms that gossamer spaceships could use as high-altitude way stations.
"The full-size station in our grand vision is 2 miles across," says John Powell, the company's founder. "But that's down the road a bit. We take baby steps." You can learn more about this project by pointing your browser to: http://www.jpaerospace.com/
Known as the "Ascender" the unique shaped aerostat is slated to be (as of press-time) launched from the Pecos County/West Texas Spaceport at Fort Stockton, TX, but the liftoff is dependent on the weather and has been delayed several times. According to Powell, "We actually had the first flight window in February, but we sat there and stared at 30-knot West Texas winds for two weeks, so we're going back in June,"
If tests are successful, the Ascender could lead to a much larger military airship being developed as a separate project.
In 2001, the Missile Defense Agency awarded Lockheed Martin a $40 million contract to work on the High Altitude Airship, a 500-foot-long (152-meter-long) blimp, 25 times larger than the Goodyear blimp and much more capable than the Ascender and could loiter at altitudes above 65,000 feet for as long as a year.
One reason airships are becoming more and more attractive to the Pentagon is the cost. The roughly $500,000 cost of building the 175-foot-long (53-meter-long) Ascender airship is far less than the price tag for any piloted airplane or robotic drone.
But the Pentagon's primary motivation is strategic rather than financial. The altitudes best suited for the helium-filled Ascender are virgin territory for the military. It could take a payload higher than any spy plane, above the weather and well beyond the reach of virtually any attack from the ground or the air.
Although the Ascender is considered to be a prototype of a future system there are some who speculate the NRO has been flying top-secret airships for years which have been responsible for may "slow moving" UFO sightings.
A few years ago an American Air West 727 was flying in an air corridor just north of the restricted military airspace known as Area 51, when lightning from a nearby thunderstorm illuminated a huge motionless cigar-shaped object hovering silently over the Nevada Desert. The pilot startled by the sudden appearance of the eerie craft radioed air traffic controllers to report the encounter as a UFO sighting.
Controllers on the ground responded that it was probably a classified aircraft operating out of the restricted Nellis Range. The pilot described the craft as looking something like an elongated big black blimp, invisible except when illuminated by lightning flashes.
What the commercial pilot saw was most likely one of the best kept black world secrets, the stealth airship, a flying Big Brother, prowling the upper reaches of the atmosphere capable of collecting enormous amounts of intelligence for its spy masters on the ground.
These rumored "stealth-ships" are capable of eavesdropping on military, government and civilian radio communications, photographing the world below in amazing detail, and even listen with sensitive electronic ears for the telltale sounds of war.
Possibly equipped with state of the art imaging devices, ground scanning radars and sonic detection equipment, unmanned sky spies could go completely unnoticed until something goes wrong.
They are only spotted when, as fate would have it, a kink in the jet stream forces these goliaths down into civil airspace where they can become a hazard to commercial aircraft traffic and visible to us groundlings below. On many occasions unidentified "airships" have been spotted by airline pilots and civilians who report them as UFOs.
Could it be that the famous Belgian, Mexico City and Hudson Valley UFO sightings of a huge, slow moving aircraft, accompanied by large formations of military helicopters, are in reality stealth-ships accidentally brought down to low altitude by freakish winds?
Although eye-witness reports by qualified observers point to the possible existence of stealth air ships, new documentation almost goes as far as proving it.
Lockheed-Martin (the same company that designed the SR-71 Blackbird and F-117 stealth fighter) recently secured patents on advanced airship designs with the U.S. Patent Office.
The concept for a high altitude reconnaissance airship is not new and has its roots in the U.S. Navy's HI-SPOT program of the late 1970s. HI-SPOT (High Surveillance Platform for Over-the Horizon Targeting) addressed the Navy's stated needs for a lighter-than air reconnaissance platform.
Visualized missions for the airship included air and sea surveillance, communications interception as well as a communications relaying platform.
An airship was also seen as the ideal heavy-lift platform for a Navy Bi-Static (OTH-B) radar receiver.
By its very nature, a low frequency OTH-B reception, system requires a very long antenna to work. A large airship would be ideal for lifting up to high altitude such a massive antenna. The Navy foresaw HI-SPOT's OTH-B radar capabilities as very useful for detecting submarine-launched cruise missiles.
An OTH-B radar designed to track low-altitude aircraft and stealthy cruise missiles would also have bonus applications in an anti-drug role making it easier to intercept drug running aircraft flying low over the open ocean.
In 1981,the NADC (Naval Air Development Center) selected the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company to develop HI-SPOT. According to information Lockheed released to the press in that same year, the Lockheed HI-SPOT design would be that of an unmanned blimp-like airship 500 feet long.
Shortly after the press release the HI-SPOT program was classified as top secret with no announcements ever coming from the Pentagon that the system was cancelled or fielded, however multiple sightings of slow-moving rigid airships reported by many observers in Nevada and California began surfacing in the mid to late 1980s.
In 1990, a major sighting of a slow-moving black airship occurred in California's Antelope Valley not very far from one of Lockheed's secret radar cross section testing ranges. The airship was described as being 500 to 600 feet long, blotting out the night sky while moving slower than four miles per-hour. Artist depictions of a huge pumpkin seed shaped airship were published in Aviation Week Magazine (AWST 10-1-90) and other aviation technology publications.
Such a huge airship would need to be based in huge hangars. Just such a large hangar has been photographed at the secret Area 51 base in Nevada.
Recently this author also spotted very large hangars capable of housing airships on the Fort Bliss Range in southern New Mexico. These hangars may account for the 1995 sighting of a large black airship by an airline crew flying near Las Cruces, New Mexico. Las Cruces sits on the west side of the Ft. Bliss Range.
A high altitude floating reconnaissance platform has many technical advantages over conventional satellite and aircraft platforms. An unmanned airship can stay over an area of military interest for days or even months at a time.
A stealthy airship could loiter undetected while gathering all types of reconnaissance data. Long term, real-time photographic data could be relayed direct or via satellite to a command center providing an ever changing and always accurate tactical picture of the battlefield.
Due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon known as sonic ducting, the sounds of battle and in particular the loud booms caused by missile launches and nuclear explosions can be detected by sensitive microphones lifted aloft by an airship up into the proper sound ducting atmospheric layer.
Conventional jets are too loud and their engine noise would overload any audio system, but an airship is virtually silent and becomes the ideal listening platform. These airships could also be fitted with radiation sampling systems capable of detecting the telltale signs of nuclear testing or a Chernobyl-type nuclear accident.
Airborne electronic eavesdropping gear could intercept civilian, military, commercial and government radio communications which can only be done for short periods by ELINT platforms such as the U.S. Air Force's RC-135 Cobra Ball aircraft.
Generally only communications that take place above 30 MHz have a chance of radiating into space without being reflected back down by the electrically charged ionosphere. An ELINT airship has an advantage over reconnaissance satellite systems in that it can intercept low powered, low frequency radio communications that satellites are blocked by the ionosphere from receiving.
Many important military communications take place on the VLF and ELF frequency bands including those concerning the command and control of deep diving nuclear submarines.
Any unmanned long-duration reconnaissance airship would have to be self-sufficient. Electricity for the reconnaissance, maneuvering systems and communications systems could be continually provided by solar cells (charging batteries by day) mounted outside the airship's gas filled envelope.
Advanced radar absorbing composites and special shaping could make a reconnaissance airship very hard to spot on radar and at the altitude they hover (above 100,000 feet) these stealthships (camouflaged to match the sky) would be very hard to detected visually.
Recon-Airships could also be protected from detection by hiding in magnetically charged layers of the ionosphere that naturally deflect probing radar beams.
These ships are not designed to float aimlessly at the high altitude. While most of the deployment into a target area could be accomplished by taking advantage of high-altitude winds an airship could stay on station by employing efficient and silent electronic motors spinning propellers at very-low speed. Operated autonomously from the ground, stealthships may be the ultimate spy platform.
It may take days, weeks or months to position an airship but once in place an airship could loiter for an extended time while collecting very valuable strategic and tactical information.
If the winds are unkind, dozens of airships could be placed into a high atmospheric fast lane, cruising on the trade-winds in an endless chain, relaying a constant stream of gleaned information back to an intelligence agency's command center.
As for monitoring Ascender, keep a close ear to civilian and military aviation channels. No doubt monitors in a few hundred miles of the launch area will be able to hear air traffic control advisories as well as pilot-to-pilot chatter concerning the aerostat.
Since a major part of the experiment is to see if Ascender can serve as a military communications relay station, it might do good to give a listen to narrow and wide-band military SATCOM frequencies in the 240 MHz to 370 MHz range. If Ascender works as advertised it might be possible for you to hear military ground stations and units from well beyond your listening horizon. Who knows, the military might also experiment with relaying HF communications. Whatever you intercept, make sure you pass on your logs to this author!
So why try and reinvent the wheel? Why would the Air Force fund a study for a recon system that may already be in use?
For one thing, they may not know about the secret NRO projects. They may be out of the loop when it comes to matters of intelligence (no pun intended) or the white-world Ascender project could be a cover for the black-world counterpart project. Let's theorize that maybe the black airship project is entering a new phase where daylight operations may become the norm. Couldn't any new sightings be explained away as Ascender?
In any event it will be interesting to see what UTE and MILCOM monitors intercept as the project matures.
Secret U.S. Aircraft Projects at Groom Lake
This article summarizes various rumors about secret U.S. air vehicles, which were possibly tested at the Groom Lake facility (a.k.a. "Area 51", and possibly officially known as "Watertown"). The data has been provided by sources, who claim to have inside information on Groom operations and have allegedly decided to lift the lid of secrecy a bit. However, the reader should always keep in mind, that the information is unverified and quite possibly distorted or plain wrong! To make this clear, every section is divided into two parts: Rumors, where the various claims are presented essentially "as is", and Comments, where I try to evaluate the plausibility of the claims. In this context, it must be noted that the major source for many projects on this page (Sentinel, Astra, Bright Star, COPPER COAST) made a brief statement in the past about the "Bird of Prey" program, calling it a "modified F-15". This has been proven wrong by the revelation of the Boeing "Bird of Prey" stealth technology testbed. This mistake (or deliberate disinformation?) casts further doubt on the other claims by this source.
For information about programs, for which more substantial evidence exists, see the excellent article "Black Projects at Groom Lake: Into the 21st Century" by Peter W. Merlin.
F-121 Sentinel
Rumors
This aircraft was built by General Dynamics (Fort Worth), now part of Lockheed Martin, and first flew in 1986. It is a single-seat Mach 3+ reconnaissance aircraft for NRO, and significantly more stealthy than the SR-71A. It is of almost perfect delta planform with 65° leading edge sweep, and its ventral air intake is highly blended into the fuselage. As of 2001, four of these aircraft were operationally based at Groom in hangars 20 through 23.The unofficial F-121 designator was allocated after Lockheed Martin took over the GD Fort Worth assets, and the 121 is said to honor the Lockheed article number of the first A-12 Blackbird aircraft. The F prefix is widely used for bogus designations of secret aircraft, and is not meant to designate the Sentinel as a "Fighter". The code name "Centennial" was also mentioned for this aircraft.
Below are pictures of a model of the F-121, which was built by Byron Salisbury based on sighting reports. The model has a fair number of inaccuracies (e.g., the F-121 has no overwing engine housings and ventral fins), but illustrates the basic design relatively well.
Comments
If the Hughes graphic is genuine, this aircraft was at least on the drawing boards. If it was actually built, it is definitely an excellent candidate to explain sightings of "large triangular" unknown aircraft. However, there are many major problems with the story: the timeline, a whole group of operational aircraft at Groom Lake, and last but not least the statement that the F-121 was "for NRO" - the National Reconnaissance Office operates spy satellites, but no aircraft!The alleged names and designations also look rather suspicious. The "F-121" label and its background is highly dubious, and the reported names "Centennial" and "Sentinel" sound rather similar - one of them is probably just a garbled variant of the other one.
Although it is quite possible that one (or more) large delta-winged aircraft were/are flying in secret (because of various unconfirmed sightings), any actual names and configurations are still completely unknown (see also Snow Bird). All said, I think it's highly unlikely that the rumored story of the "F-121" comes anywhere near the truth.
A-11 Astra
Rumors
The A-11 Astra is a stealthy replacement for the F-111 Aardvark. It is described as a long highly-swept delta with a serrated trailing edge. Forward-swept rudders are mounted on articulated pylons extending from the trailing edge, and flush ventral air intakes are located near the leading edge. The design is less faceted than the F-117. Characteristics are similar to those quoted for the ATA-B proposal of 1978. The Astra was still in production in 2001, and three aircraft were at Groom at that time for continued developmental testing.Comments
There are some indications, including sighting reports, that an aircraft with the claimed characteristics could actually exist. However, it is also said that the aircraft looks very similar to an F-117A (from some angles, at least) except for its size. Because it is almost impossible to estimate the dimensions of an aircraft in the sky without a known reference, any sighting might easily have been just a mis-identification of an F-117A. Also, the claims that (a) the "A-11" is essentially using 1980s stealth technology, (b) was still in production in 2001, and (c) has not been made public, simply don't add up.Finally, the "A-11" designation (filling the gap between the A-10 Thunderbolt II and the cancelled A-12 Avenger II) and "Astra" name are very dubious. In the past, the USAF has never allocated a standard aircraft designator to a classified aircraft (for obvious reasons), and the "Astra" label has been associated by Black Projects researchers and the "UFO community" to all sorts of claims, including rather outlandish ones.
The "A-11 Astra" rumors are probably a medley of various more or less unfounded claims, which someone has unsuccessfully tried to connect into a coherent story.
Bright Star
Rumors
The Bright Star is a private venture of Lockheed Martin Skunk Works. It is a Mach 2+ supersonic cruise/sonic boom research aircraft, which was used by the Skunk Works to raise DARPA's interest in QSP (Quiet Supersonic Platform) research. Although it is not a DOD project, the USAF provides some support (at least by providing a secret flight test location). The Bright Star has been flying for many years, and was the cause of some of the unexplained sonic booms over the western USA. The Bright Star is the most plausible cause for many so-called "Aurora" sightings.The aircraft was photographed at least twice, at Groom Lake by Andreas von Retyi in 1995 from Tikaboo Peak, and by an unidentified source who made this long distance photograph:
Bright Star is said to be the cause for the famous "Donuts-On-A-Rope" contrails (for photos, see this page), often reported together with a "rumbling" sound. The rumbling is generated by the vehicle in the transoinc speed region, and is essentially a series of low-amplitude sonic booms at a frequency of 1 to 3 Hz. The "donut" contrail is formed by water vapor captured in the shock wave. The "pulsating" sonic boom is directly responsible for both the characteristic sound of the aircraft, and the "strange-looking" contrails.
Comments
The photo of unknown origin is inconclusive at best, and might just as well show another delta-winged aircraft (e.g. a QF-106 drone). The "Donuts-On-A-Rope" contrails are highly controversial, and it is far from certain that they have been produced by an undisclosed type of propulsion system. However, the von Retyi photo does indeed show a large white aircraft. So even if the background story and name of Bright Star is all made up (which it may or may not be), we have at least one genuine unidentified aircraft.HGV (Hypersonic Glide Vehicle)
Rumors
The HGV was a recoverable unmanned rocket-powered hypersonic vehicle, contracted in 1979/80 to the UAB (Unmanned Aircraft Bureau) of the Lockheed Skunk Works. It could achieve a speed of Mach 18 and a range of 8000 km (5000 miles) when launched from 20000 m (68000 ft) by a highly modified B-52H. At one time it was planned to develop the HGV into a survivable quick reaction nuclear strike weapon with a payload of two or three nuclear warheads. Some sightings of HGV flight tests were reported during 1989/90. The HGV was about 9 m (30 ft) long, had 75° delta wings, and four vertical tails. It also featured an extendable aero-spike (similar to the Trident SLBM) to reduce hypersonic drag.Comments
It is certain, that the HGV existed as a project, but actual flights were never officially announced. For additional information on the HGV program, including an unofficial image, see this page.Snow Bird, BRILLIANT BUZZARD
Rumors
Snow Bird is a very high-speed (Mach 3.5+ cruise) reconnaissance aircraft, which was developed out of the so-called BRILLIANT BUZZARD as a replacement for the SR-71. The name apparently refers to its color (white thermal protection tiles). BRILLIANT BUZZARD (possibly not the real code name) resembled a flying wedge with twin vertical stabilizers. Snow Bird is somewhat similar, but is possibly slightly more rounded externally. It's delta wing planform is roughly similar to that of the Concorde, and it has ventral intakes and inward-canted twin vertical tails. It was flying in late 1999.Comments
This is yet another claim about fast delta-winged aircraft (see also Sentinel). Although it is quite possible that one (or more) large delta-winged aircraft were/are flying in secret (because of various unconfirmed sightings), any actual names and configurations are still completely unknown. The Snow Bird story appears to be just another variation of the "secret SR-71 replacement" theme, although in this case no claims are made about actual operational aircraft (which is more realistic, therefore slightly adding to the otherwise marginal credibility of the rumors).L301/COPPER COAST
In the mid-1970s, NASA studied hypersonic vehicles as follow-on projects to the X-24B lifting body under the general "X-24C" designation. Lockheed Skunk Works' concept for the X-24C was the L301 design. The L301 was to be rocket and/or scramjet powered, and was designed for speeds of up to Mach 6.65 at 28000 m (92000 ft) altitude. In September 1977, the X-24C/L301 project was officially cancelled for lack of funding, thus ending the documented history of the L301 in the "white world".
Rumors
After official cancellation, the DOD took over the L301, and development was continued under the highly classified project COPPER COAST. Lockheed also studied operational derivatives of the L301 as potential successors to the SR-71. These studies included designs for Mach 4 at 60 km (200,000 ft) and Mach 7 at 75 km (250,000 feet). An L301/COPPER COAST test vehicle, slightly different from the published configuration shown in the drawings, was actually built, and it first flew in 1981. The planned operational derivatives of the COPPER COAST vehicle were cancelled, however, because the contract for the SR-71 successor went to General Dynamics with their Sentinel design (see F-121).The L301/COPPER COAST flight test program was run by NASA-Dryden, and in the later flight test phase the NASA referred to the vehicle as SYNCON (Synergetic Configuration). NASA also planned waverider designs as follow-on projects to the L301. The photo below is said to show a wind tunnel model of such a design.
Comments
There are no hints whatsoever in open references, that the X-24C/L301 project was continued in any way after its official cancellation. And the notion that NASA runs a flight test program so secret, that even its existence is classified, also doesn't sound very plausible. Therefore the credibility of the L301/COPPER COAST rumors is close to zero.Bird of Prey - An Innovative Technology Demonstration
The project, initiated in 1992, remained under wraps even after its conclusion in 1999. A Boeing spokesman announced that it had been declassified "because the technologies and capabilities developed [during the program] have become industry standards, and it is no longer necessary to conceal the aircraft's existence." Underscoring the importance of the event was the presence of Air Force secretary James Roche and Gen. John Jumper, the two top Air Force leaders.
"Early investments in technology demonstration projects such as Bird of Prey have positioned Boeing to help shape our industry's transformation," said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. "With this aircraft, we changed the rules on how to design and build an aircraft, and what we've learned is enabling us to provide our customers with affordable, high-performing products. Projects such as Bird of Prey have provided the catalyst for integrating speed, agility and reduced cost into the processes we employ to introduce new commercial and military systems to market."
The one-of-a-kind demonstrator was designed and built by the McDonnell Douglas Phantom Works advanced research-and-development organization in St. Louis, using company funds. For the flight evaluation program the Air Force provided flight-test facilities, chase aircraft, engineering personnel and one test pilot. After McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing on Aug. 1, 1997, The Boeing Company continued funding the project, which spanned eight years and cost $67 million.
Only three pilots flew the Bird of Prey: Rudy Haug (McDonnell Douglas/Boeing), Lt. Col. Doug Benjamin (USAF) and Joseph W. Felock III (Boeing). Haug was originally assigned as the back-up project pilot but when primary project pilot Fred Madenwald resigned following high-speed taxi tests, Haug took his place. He piloted eight flights including the first in the aircraft's final configuration. Benjamin, commander of the Bird of Prey Combined Test Force, was next to fly the exotic craft. He developed profiles for technology demonstration flights and piloted 21 sorties for performance envelope expansion, as well as the airplane's final flight. Felock flew nine sorties, overcoming numerous challenges posed by the airplane's performance and flying qualities limitations. "It was a great program," he said, "but I was glad when it was over." In September 2007, the three men received the prestigious Iven C. Kincheloe Award from the Society of Experimental Test Pilots in recognition of outstanding professional accomplishment during the conduct of flight-testing.
Designing Bird of Prey
The airplane incorporated many new innovative concepts to reduce radar, infrared and visual signatures. Designed to represent a platform that would fly operationally during the daytime, it featured exterior markings that blended with the sky and reduced telltale shadows from components such as the engine inlet. Bird of Prey was among the first aircraft to incorporate large single-piece composite structures, low-cost disposable tooling, and three-dimensional virtual-reality design and assembly processes to ensure affordability and high performance.The 47-foot-long, subsonic, single-seat airplane featured a tailless configuration with drooped wingtips spanning just 23 feet. It weighed nearly 7,400 pounds and stood nine feet high. The cockpit was unpressurized and the engine inlet was located just aft of the pilot's canopy.
A Pratt & Whitney JT15D-5C turbofan engine provided 3,190 pounds of uninstalled, sea-level thrust, giving the airplane an operational speed of 260 knots (300 mph) and a maximum operating altitude of 20,000 feet.
Due to cost and schedule factors Phantom Works engineers designed the Bird of Prey with a mechanically actuated, hydraulically powered irreversible flight control system instead of more complex and expensive digital fly-by-wire controls. For roll control, pushrods and a mechanical mixer assembly linked the stick and rudder pedals to four control surfaces - elevons on the inner wings and rudderons on the drooped outer wing panels. Bell cranks and levers in the mixer provided control gains based on predicted stability derivatives from wind-tunnel data and computational fluid dynamics (CFD).
The Phantom Works conceived Bird of Prey as a way to provide state-of-the-art technology demonstration at the lowest possible cost. To save money designers incorporated many off-the-shelf components, which resulted in significant consequences during the course of the test program.
The engine was the same type used in the Cessna Citation business jet and the main landing gear included modified components from Beech King Air and Queen Air twin-prop commuter aircraft. The pilot's ejection seat and the emergency landing gear blow-down bottle were taken from a McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier. The control stick and throttle were scavenged from an F-18 Hornet and the rudder pedals from an A-4 Skyhawk, both McDonnell Douglas aircraft. A Grumman Gulfstream II business jet provided elevon actuators, wheels and tires. General-aviation type cockpit instruments were considerably less expensive than similar equipment built to military specifications. According to Air Force test pilot Doug Benjamin, "the clock was from Wal-Mart and the environmental control system was essentially a hair dryer."
The Phantom Works team further reduced costs by using the actual airplane as a static test article for loads and structures testing. At one point it was raised on jacks so the landing gear could be cycled hundreds of times to test the system's numerous micro-switches and mechanical components. After about 750 cycles, an aluminum drag brace on the main gear strut suffered structural failure during extension. Technicians determined the failure was caused by a combination of excessive cycling and preloading of the over-center lock. As a precaution, both drag braces were replaced with new ones made of steel, adding more structural weight. During high-speed taxi testing, the airplane was equipped with fixed drag braces.
Test Program
Phantom Works chief test pilot Rudy Haug was the first pilot briefed
into the proprietary program. During his initial briefing he studied a
model of the airplane and began to have serious concerns. He
demonstrated these by folding a sheet of paper into an aerodynamic shape
with downturned wingtips. He then tossed the glider across the room and
watched as it immediately rolled on its back and landed upside down.
Based on computer simulations and wind-tunnel model tests, the designers
assured him the real airplane wouldn't do that.
The Bird of Prey was transported by cargo plane to the Air Force Flight Test Center's remote operating location at Groom Lake, Nev., and readied for testing. Haug would perform initial contractor testing while Air Force tests would be flown by a pilot from the Special Projects Flight Test Squadron at the test site. After the merger with Boeing another contractor test pilot joined the program.
For static engine testing the Bird of Prey was anchored to instrumented tie-downs. Initial runs revealed inlet flow distortion that became a significant factor in determining the airplane's thrust-to-weight ratio. The inlet geometry prevented airflow from passing directly to the compressor face, resulting in serious inlet losses and thrust degradation. During tests at 75-percent thrust, airflow separation in the inlet caused the engine to suffer compressor stalls.
To determine thrust-to-weight ratio the airplane was positioned on the runway, where Haug again ran the engine up to 75-percent thrust. He then released the brakes and waited until the instruments first indicated airspeed before applying full power. At this point inlet flow separation was alleviated and there were no compressor stalls.
Average acceleration, computed using time, distance and speed checks, was mild. In fact, during high-speed taxi runs, acceleration was three percent lower than expected. Doug Benjamin described it during a presentation at the Society of Experimental Test Pilots annual symposium in September 2006:
The Bird of Prey was transported by cargo plane to the Air Force Flight Test Center's remote operating location at Groom Lake, Nev., and readied for testing. Haug would perform initial contractor testing while Air Force tests would be flown by a pilot from the Special Projects Flight Test Squadron at the test site. After the merger with Boeing another contractor test pilot joined the program.
For static engine testing the Bird of Prey was anchored to instrumented tie-downs. Initial runs revealed inlet flow distortion that became a significant factor in determining the airplane's thrust-to-weight ratio. The inlet geometry prevented airflow from passing directly to the compressor face, resulting in serious inlet losses and thrust degradation. During tests at 75-percent thrust, airflow separation in the inlet caused the engine to suffer compressor stalls.
To determine thrust-to-weight ratio the airplane was positioned on the runway, where Haug again ran the engine up to 75-percent thrust. He then released the brakes and waited until the instruments first indicated airspeed before applying full power. At this point inlet flow separation was alleviated and there were no compressor stalls.
Average acceleration, computed using time, distance and speed checks, was mild. In fact, during high-speed taxi runs, acceleration was three percent lower than expected. Doug Benjamin described it during a presentation at the Society of Experimental Test Pilots annual symposium in September 2006:
| "At
the time, we weren't sure if this was due to low thrust, high aero
drag, high ground effects, or higher rolling friction. We eliminated the
rolling friction possibility by performing a unique test. A rope was
attached to the Bird of Prey and connected to a fish scale. A second
rope was attached to the fish scale, and the airplane was pulled along
at a walking pace, with an engineer noting the force being measured with
the fish scale. The force was about 90 pounds, which was very close to
what was being used in the takeoff acceleration predictions."The results of the high-speed taxi tests indicated performance loss
was relatively constant compared to aircraft speed and probably didn't
result from aerodynamic drag. Because of uncertainty in the data, flight
planners computed a best-case climb performance with a three-percent
thrust reduction. They also calculated a worst-case scenario assuming a
nine-percent performance reduction due to aerodynamic drag in the
gear-down condition. Based on these calculations the team established a
first-flight maximum weight/temperature combination that would provide
just enough performance for a safe climb-to-pattern altitude. This would
give the pilot sufficient margin to maneuver for an emergency landing
or safe bailout if conditions warranted. In preparation for flight-testing technicians fitted the Bird of Prey with a nose boom to collect air data during the first six flights. The instrumented boom provided information on airspeed, altitude, angle-of-attack and sideslip. A nine-square-foot ventral fin was added toward the airplane's aft end to improve directional stability. It remained on the airplane during the first seven flights and enabled the Bird of Prey to match its computed stability derivatives. Unfortunately, it also prevented the airplane from operating within parts of the flight envelope necessary to complete the technology demonstration objectives. To solve this problem, once the basic flying qualities had been verified, the fin was replaced with a five-square-foot ventral for the remainder of the program. With regard to structural loading, it had the same airspeed restrictions as the basic airplane, thus making it possible to complete the flight envelope expansion. Ultimately the ventral fin was to be eliminated altogether, but gear-down stability data predicted unacceptable directional stability margins in the finless configuration. Haug piloted the maiden flight on Sept. 11, 1996, leaving the landing gear extended throughout the flight. The short hop revealed the airplane had marginal gear-down handling qualities due to excessive drag, nearly three times greater than predicted. Flight-test results indicated about half the drag increase was caused by the open wheel-well cavity. Phantom Works engineers had conducted most of the wind-tunnel testing and CFD simulation with the airplane in gear-up configuration to predict operational performance and stability derivatives. They derived an aerodynamics database from approximately 100 hours of low-speed wind-tunnel testing using a fairly crude 15-percent-scale model that lacked such details as inlet, exhaust or gear wells. To reduce drag on subsequent flights aerodynamic fairings, nicknamed "Cadillac fins," were added to the main landing gear struts. During the first flight Haug also found the Bird of Prey had marginal stability in pitch and was unstable in roll and yaw. Directional stability was particularly poor at low angles of attack (AOA). These characteristics had a significant impact on the airplane's basic flying qualities. With only one flight under their belts Phantom Works engineers had little flight data to work with, but what they had didn't match the predicted lateral-directional stability derivatives and simulator performance. A second flight yielded similar results. During post-flight examination of the airplane a technician discovered a loose actuator on the right elevon and fixed it, hoping this would solve the problem. On the third flight, however, the lateral-directional flying qualities remained unacceptable. By now engineers had enough data to prove that all the predicted stability derivatives were accurate except for the one concerning directional stability due to roll rate, or Cnp. The drooped wingtips produced a negative Cnp relative to typical fighter aircraft designs, tending to drive the airplane to yaw in a direction opposite the prevailing roll moment. "This was something we were concerned about because it was so different from conventional aircraft," Benjamin said, adding: "To counter this characteristic, the gearing between the elevon and rudder (Aileron-Rudder Interconnect) was purposely increased to counter the yaw caused by the negative Cnp. This sounds good, but when the roll command is first applied, the roll rate is zero, which means the adverse yawing moment due to the negative Cnp is zero." Consequently the ARI gearing applied too much rudder for the roll command, resulting in proverse yaw that developed slowly due to differences in roll and yaw inertia.  drag  According to Benjamin, "The yaw motion eventually built to a point where the proverse sideslip it produced fed into the dihedral effect, and caused the aircraft to roll even faster just about the time the pilot was trying to check the roll." The relative time delay between the roll caused by the pilot's application of the elevon and the roll produced by the yawing motion caused the overall roll motion to be out of phase with pilot inputs. This resulted in a mild pilot-induced oscillation. To solve the problem, the control mixer assembly was redesigned to accommodate a revised ARI gearing. Technicians designed and fabricated a new mixer, and installed it prior to the fourth flight. The resulting improvements in lateral-directional stability were dramatic, demonstrating a better than 90-percent match with predicted derivatives. By the end of the fifth flight the Bird of Prey demonstrated adequate flying qualities. On the next sortie Haug was ready to retract the landing gear for the first time, paving the way for low-observables testing. Gear retraction and extension were carefully sequenced in a complex mechanical ballet to mitigate destabilizing factors. To retract the gear, the aft nose gear door opened, the nose gear retracted, the forward nose gear doors closed and the aft nose landing gear door closed. Next the forward main landing gear doors opened, the main landing gear retracted, the aft main landing gear doors closed and the forward main landing gear doors closed. The extension sequence was exactly the reverse and the entire process was controlled by 17 sequential micro-switches. An electrical override panel in the cockpit allowed the pilot to bypass a failed or stuck micro switch. This proved extremely fortunate the first time Haug cycled the gear. The gear retracted without apparent difficulty. On extension, however, the pilot's instruments indicated the main landing gear was not fully down and locked, and the gear sequence stalled with the nose gear still up and locked. In this configuration Haug couldn't land because of the flight-test boom installed on the airplane's nose. Engineers predicted the boom would break off and impale the pilot. Haug used the alternate gear sequence panel to bypass the main gear micro-switches and extend the nose gear, allowing a safe landing. These initial flights demonstrated the design's airworthiness and paved the way for performance envelope expansion and low-observables testing. The airplane was soon flying at design speed and altitude. The Bird of Prey incorporated a variety of stealth features to minimize radar, infrared, visual and acoustic signatures. The overall shape of the low profile, tailless, blended fuselage with sharply cranked aft-set wings contributed to an extremely low radar cross-section. Flexible covers concealed gaps between fixed structures and moveable control surfaces. Designers were careful to ensure edge alignment on the canopy, landing gear doors, wings and fuselage to minimize radar backscatter. To eliminate radar reflections from the engine compressor face, the powerplant was buried deep in the fuselage and hidden behind the canopy and a curved inlet duct. The engine exhaust mitigated the airplane's acoustic signature. A paint scheme consisting of several shades of gray reduced the visual contrast of shadows from various parts of the airplane. All of these features would contribute significantly to the survivability of an operational combat airplane. As the team learned the lessons of each flight, the test program proceeded at a leisurely pace. Only 38 missions were flown between September 1996 and April 1999, roughly one sortie per month. Flight and Ground Performance
The Bird of Prey's unique configuration significantly affected its
flight performance. Although it looked like a futuristic fighter plane
it had a thrust-to-weight ratio more like that of a cargo aircraft, but
with a much smaller wing area. In fact the Bird of Prey had a reference
lifting area of just 366 square feet, including the blended body. The
fuselage carried over half the load, resulting in approximately 20
pounds of wing loading per square foot.
Although it had a design cruise speed of 260 knots, the Bird of Prey achieved a maximum speed of 287 knots on one sortie. The airplane's overall performance was limited by poor lateral-directional stability at low AOA, but it improved dramatically when the landing gear was retracted. The airplane had a peak climb performance of approximately 3,000 feet per minute, and up-and-away drag was slightly lower than predicted. Ground handling also presented challenges, particularly with regard to nose wheel steering. The mechanical steering system had to provide maneuverability at slow speed during taxi, yet not be overly sensitive at takeoff and landing speeds. Initially the nose gear system was borrowed from a Beech King Air, which has a reversible flight control system. The mechanism favored high speeds, providing limited nose wheel steering authority but allowing good ground maneuverability because the centering spring was close to castering. This worked well during low-speed ground handling maneuvers, but nearly resulted in disaster the first time the nose wheel was rotated off the ground in high-speed taxi tests. As soon as the nose wheel lifted off the runway, lack of resistance from the centering spring combined with the wheel's center of pressure caused the wheel to deflect all the way to the left, inducing a sudden yaw. The test was immediately aborted and, fortunately, the nose wheel centered itself before touching down. Had it not, the nose gear might have snapped off or at least suffered severe damage. The problem was traced to the airplane's irreversible flight controls and the King Air landing gear. The hydraulically powered rudderons and the centering spring provided insufficient force to keep the nose wheel centered. This design flaw, it was later determined, resulted from inadequate CFD modeling of the nose wheel, which had predicted the wheel's center of pressure to be forward of the pivot. Two changes were necessary to fix the problem. The nose wheel and tire assembly were replaced by one from a North American F-100 Super Sabre, a 1950s vintage fighter, because it had better center-of-pressure characteristics. Additionally, the nose wheel centering springs were adjusted to have significantly greater resistance to deflection. Unfortunately, these changes resulted in a turning radius of nearly 100 feet, even with maximum differential braking and engine thrust. To assist the pilot in making sharp turns the ground crew devised a special tow bar that could be attached to the nose wheel to pivot it manually from outside the airplane, an operation that became known as "Steerman."   Lessons LearnedThe Bird of Prey program provided many unique challenges and valuable lessons applicable to future aircraft test programs. Many of these involved technical issues, but the most important concerned project management practices.First of all, Doug Benjamin noted the importance of getting input from the test pilots early in the program, during the design phase. "This involvement saved a lot of problems before they became crises," he said, adding, "The design team was pleasantly surprised at the involvement and flexibility of Flight Operations [personnel]." Because the project was supported by a highly integrated team, personnel were interchangeable in a variety of jobs. "The program could not have been accomplished without team members substituting for each other at multiple locations and various times," Benjamin said. This proved especially true as McDonnell Douglas machinists staged a strike shortly before the first flight. In order to meet schedule requirements, engineers and other Bird of Prey team members were forced to place themselves in roles outside their normal job descriptions. Since, according to Benjamin, "they had literally surrounded the airplane as it was being designed and built, they had more knowledge than the standard design engineer who designs a part and passes it over the fence, never seeing how it is produced, installed, operated or maintained." Benjamin also stressed the need to get top-notch people involved from the beginning of a program. "This program really needed the 'A-team' from start to finish," he said. "Some of the problems experienced in the program were the result of decisions made earlier that the 'A-Team' wouldn't have allowed to happen but then had to live with." He also advocated for not blindly adhering to all military standards. Although he acknowledged these provided important guidelines, Benjamin insisted it is possible for program management to accept increased levels of risk "if the overall design is driven by effectiveness and safety." Benjamin said the aircraft was very well built, resulting in a heavier weight than desired. He suggested this might have resulted from the flight vehicle doing double duty as a static test article and acknowledged that it contributed to the airplane's performance problems. CFD calculations proved a valuable tool for designing the Bird of Prey, but they had not been applied to the gear-down configuration. This resulted in unexpected difficulties that made it necessary to delay landing gear retraction until the sixth flight, delaying envelope expansion and low-observables testing. Previous McDonnell Douglas projects, such as the F-15 and F-18, had relied heavily on flight simulator experience. First-flight pilots for these programs commented that, "it flew just like the simulator." Rudy Haug's greatest disappointment during Bird of Prey's maiden flight was that it flew nothing like the simulator. As the team collected flight-test data, they updated the modeling software and the simulator became a valuable tool. The test pilots used it to practice missions and maintain proficiency during long breaks resulting from aircraft modification and weather delays. Unlike most test and operational military aircraft, the Bird of Prey instrument panel did not include a Master Caution warning system, nor were warning indications telemetered to the control room at the test site. A few electrical problems during test flights demonstrated the need for a Master Caution system but there was no time or budget for a retrofit. The instrumentation engineers came to the rescue by developing a telemetry package to transmit individual system warnings to mission controllers on the ground, providing an extra set of eyes to watch over the safety of the pilot and airplane. Most important, the Bird of Prey team learned it is possible to successfully demonstrate cutting-edge aircraft technologies, even with minimal performance and marginally acceptable flying qualities. "The Bird of Prey was a high-risk, high-payoff program that expanded the boundaries of what was acceptable to demonstrate new technologies," Benjamin said. "We showed it's possible, within a limited budget, to conceive, design, build and test a state-of-the-art low observable technology demonstrator." Family TreeDevelopment of the Bird of Prey was parallel and complementary to that of the company's X-36 unmanned tailless demonstrator. The X-36 program was carried out at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards, Calif., in a largely "white world" (unclassified) setting with some restrictions regarding proprietary information. It was primarily aimed at validating technologies that McDonnell Douglas (and later Boeing) proposed for early concepts of a Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) design. Observers will note a distinct family resemblance between the X-36 and the Bird of Prey.Similar characteristics were incorporated into the Boeing X-45A Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) technology demonstrator tested at NASA Dryden between November 2000 and August 2005. For the tailless X-45A, Boeing engineers drew directly from their experience with Bird of Prey. Some aspects of the UCAV's innovative radar-evading design, such as its shape and inlet configuration, were developed from this project. Manufacturing technology developed for Bird of Prey was applied to Boeing's X-32 entry in the JSF competition. For that program, Boeing wanted to stress new design and production methods that would greatly reduce the cost of manned jet fighters.  A Legacy PreservedAfter completion of the test program the Bird of Prey was placed in storage, and may have been destined for the scrap yard. Fortunately, however, it was saved for posterity. On July 16, 2003, the Bird of Prey and its cousin, the X-36, both were placed on permanent display at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio."The success of the Bird of Prey is a testament to the shared commitment of Boeing and the Air Force to pioneering innovative methods to drive down costs and improve performance," said George Muellner, senior vice president of Air Force Systems for Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. "This project stressed affordability as much as performance and quality, and is one of many that we are using to define the future of aerospace."
|
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)