New B-2 Stealth Bomber HD Air-to-Air Footage

[GoldComet6]

​This is never before seen HD air-to-air footage of a USAF B-2 stealth bomber.

It's from Northrop Grumman and was published on Oct 23, 2015. It's on their youtube site.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P30Jf6bN2EA

 

[dmetalmiki]

Bet that is a real joy (and privalidge) to fly.

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

Beautiful.

Looks like a stingray when she does that graceful roll to the left near the end of the video.

I'm thinking some equally graceful background music would earn it an Academy Award.

WOW.

 

[Another Ahab]

What's sort of funny is I saw a recent ad by Northrup-Grumman about the B-2 praising themselves for their state-of-the-art design.

And if you know your airframe history, you'll recognize the almost whole-cloth borrow for concept is from the Horten brothers of Germany back in 1944 (that's 70 years ago).

Yes, it has all new bells and whistles, of course. But the original design?

The credit belongs to Reimar and Walter Horten.

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

What's sort of funny is I saw a recent ad by Northrup-Grumman about the B-2 praising themselves for their state-of-the-art design.

And if you know your airframe history, you'll recognize the almost whole-cloth borrow for concept is from the Horten brothers of Germany back in 1944 (that's 70 years ago).

Yes, it has all new bells and whistles, of course. But the original design?

The credit belongs to Reimar and Walter Horten.


View attachment 590460

True. But, only up to a point.

The B-2 employs computer control to an extent beyond human pilot performance which creates in it a level of operability that makes it a practical airborne platform for its mission. ALL earlier seemingly similar designs were never put into large scale production since pilots with cat-like senses and reflexes, with the calculating minds of the Einstein variety are simply nonexistent in sufficient quantities to keep 'em flying. Computer based sensors, computing, and digitally controlled actuators move the "reflexes" from the pilot to the machine, making it "state-of-the-art design" for which Northrup-Grumman surely deserves full credit.

Sorry, Rocky, but this time they got it right.... granted, they are tooting their own horn, but humility was not a part of their government contract.

 

[Another Ahab]

I'll make a deal with you:

- I won't pick on Northrup-Grumman

- If you agree please not to kill all those big beautiful Texas snakes you all got down there!

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

I'll make a deal with you:

- I won't pick on Northrup-Grumman

- If you agree please not to kill all those big beautiful Texas snakes you all got down there!

It's a DEAL !

Actually, the only snakes I do kill are the known poisonous threats. The last time any were killed "on my watch" was back when we picked up our deuce bed when we bought it. It was on the ground in a goat pen and three rattlers met their fate when it was lifted by the forklift we were using.

On the other hand, if I ever encounter a Northrup-Grumman B-2 Bomber lost and alone in the wilderness I'm going to become a salesman extraordinaire and convince my wife that "It followed me home. Can I keep it!!???!!!???" And I would bet you'd to the same thing.


Just to be sure we stay on topic...

Here are some pics of the B-2 taken during the Thunderbird's Performance at Holloman AFB, New Mexico back on October 8, 2011.....









Carry on.

 

[frank8003]

Is there 20 of them still?
They have a job
· 2 internal bays for ordnance and payload with an official limit of 40,000 lb (18,000 kg); maximum estimated limit is 50,000 lb 80× 500 lb class bombs (Mk-82, GBU-38) mounted on Bomb Rack Assembly (BRA)
· 36× 750 lb CBU class bombs on BRA
· 16× 2,000 lb class bombs (Mk-84, GBU-31) mounted on Rotary Launcher Assembly (RLA)
· 16× B61 or B83 nuclear bombs on RLA (strategic mission)

 

[GoldComet6]

What's sort of funny is I saw a recent ad by Northrup-Grumman about the B-2 praising themselves for their state-of-the-art design. And if you know your airframe history, you'll recognize the almost whole-cloth borrow for concept is from the Horten brothers of Germany back in 1944 (that's 70 years ago). But the original design? The credit belongs to Reimar and Walter Horten.

No question they were pioneers in the concept, but personally I give a huge heeping helping of credit back to Northrop.

They created the XB-35 and YB-49 aircraft and had them flying when the designs were pushing the technology of the day. A flying wing is so hard to control and that was the ultimate downfall of the YB-49. Note that it has small vertical stabilizers where the XB-35 does not.

We ended up getting the B-36 instead as it was thoroughly conventional and more "proven" design. Of course it was already an old plane - just a bigger B-29 in concept. Which is to say only a slightly better World War II type bomber.

The XB-35 had the advantage of using the props to help maintain stability, but the props also held it back. The air-frame could handle far more speed.

XB-35 Flying Wing and XB-36 Film Clips


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOeh_ZDKo4E




You gotta love a sleek flying wing with eight turbojets and a bubble canopy! One of my favorite planes!

Northrop YB-49 "Flying Wing" - Taxing, Take Off & Flight Operations (1947)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuIFvNA1UgU

 

[GoldComet6]

It's a DEAL ! Just to be sure we stay on topic...

The B-2 employs computer control to an extent beyond human pilot performance which creates in it a level of operability that makes it a practical airborne platform for its mission. ALL earlier seemingly similar designs were never put into large scale production since pilots with cat-like senses and reflexes, with the calculating minds of the Einstein variety are simply nonexistent in sufficient quantities to keep 'em flying. Computer based sensors, computing, and digitally controlled actuators move the "reflexes" from the pilot to the machine, making it "state-of-the-art design" for which Northrup-Grumman surely deserves full credit.

You'll like this.... Here is one of the test aircraft they built to prove the concept of the flying wing.

Restored 1940s Northrop Flying Wing

This is a video of the Planes of Fame Museum's (Chino, California) Northrop N9MB Flying Wing during a recent (March 2009) engine run-up of its remaining serviceable engine. This aircraft was originally built as part of the November 1941 contract that Northrop was awarded for four, 1/3-scale aircraft, designated N9M, that were to act as flying test beds for various flight systems for the full-size XB-35 flying wing program and also to familiarize Air Force pilots with flying wing operations


This aircraft experienced an in-flight engine fire in 2006 in its left, 300 hp., 8-cylinder Franklin 0-540-7 engine. The Flying Wing has since been totally restored, but the restoration of the rare Franklin 0-540-7 engine is another matter. There were only about 27 of these engines ever built and it is believed that only three of them exist today. The needed parts will need to be newly manufactured as necessary, but the museum has committed to getting this aircraft back in the air. Common parts from a 12-cylinder Franklin engine are already being scavenged to help in the restoration. The flying scenes in this video were taken just before the engine fire. Progress towards flying staus is well on its way and this aircraft will definitely once again fly, no doubt!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9SMQHzZp5k


This video is of the fourth (and last) 1/3-scale flying wing (the N-9MB) built by Northrop in 1943 to support the development and testing of the full-size flying wing being built at that time, the XB-35. This aircraft is the sole survivor of the original four N-9s. The N-9MB was used for testing the flight characteristics of the flying wing design and to familiarize pilots in the handling of this unusual aircraft. The N-9MB was restored by volunteers of the Planes of Fame Museum (Chino, CA) over a period of about 13 years and now (2011) is flown to many California air shows. It is powered by two Franklin aircooled, 8-cylinder, 540 cubic inch, horizontally opposed, 300-hp engines, of which only three are known to exist today of the 27 originally built. The propellers are driven by extension shafts that utilize fluid-drive couplers (torque converters). The couplers help to reduce engine/propeller vibration problems associated with the long propeller shafts. The top speed is about 258 mph and the range is about 500 miles. An unusual, rare and historic sight!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eZjIx_ViOA

 

[Piper Cub]

Sometime I'll have to get around to posting my airshow pictures and videos. I have a lot with the N-9MB and other Planes of Fame aircraft in action. B2s are awesome but that bright yellow wing sure makes my day every time I see it.

 

[BnaditCorps]

To bad that if you get to see it, you are already dead.

 

[Another Ahab]

No question they were pioneers in the concept, but personally I give a huge heeping helping of credit back to Northrop.

Remarkable how primitive the gear was back then: the test pilot in the second video is wearing what looks basically like a football helmet, only it doesn't even have a chin strap. It did the job of course, but that's something to see.

 

[wdbtchr]

I have to say my favorite planes are of the WW2 propeller type, that said when I look at the B-2 in flight it sends chills running up and down my spine. My .

 

[GoldComet6]

Is there 20 of them still?
They have a job
· 2 internal bays for ordnance and payload with an official limit of 40,000 lb (18,000 kg); maximum estimated limit is 50,000 lb 80× 500 lb class bombs (Mk-82, GBU-38) mounted on Bomb Rack Assembly (BRA)
· 36× 750 lb CBU class bombs on BRA
· 16× 2,000 lb class bombs (Mk-84, GBU-31) mounted on Rotary Launcher Assembly (RLA)
· 16× B61 or B83 nuclear bombs on RLA (strategic mission)

If memory serves me right 21 were built with one aircraft being lost in a crash, so yes 20 are left.

 

[Tracer]

No question they were pioneers in the concept, but personally I give a huge heeping helping of credit back to Northrop.

They created the XB-35 and YB-49 aircraft and had them flying when the designs were pushing the technology of the day. A flying wing is so hard to control and that was the ultimate downfall of the YB-49. Note that it has small vertical stabilizers where the XB-35 does not.

We ended up getting the B-36 instead as it was thoroughly conventional and more "proven" design. Of course it was already a old plane - just a bigger B-29 in concept. Which is to say only a slightly better World War II type bomber.

The XB-35 had the advantage of using the props to help maintain stability, but the props also held it back. The air-frame could handle far more speed.

XB-35 Flying Wing and XB-36 Film Clips


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOeh_ZDKo4E




You gotta love a sleek flying wing with eight turbojets and a bubble canopy! One of my favorite planes!

Northrop YB-49 "Flying Wing" - Taxing, Take Off & Flight Operations (1947)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuIFvNA1UgU

My Mother worked on the XB-35 & YB-49 as well as the Snark, T-38, & F-5 programs for Northrop in Hawthorne, CA......many years ago.

 

[Another Ahab]

My Mother worked on the XB-35 & YB-49 as well as the Snark, T-38, & F-5 programs for Northrop in Hawthorne, CA......many years ago.

That is very cool.

All of that has got to be de-classifed by now, right? Did she ever have any good stories to tell about any of that?

 

[Tracer]

Mostly she spoke about how disappointed everyone was when the flying wing programs were cancelled. Same with the F-20 program years later. Most people don't know that the McDonnell Douglas F-18 Hornet was originally the Northrop YF-17 Cobra.

 

[Another Ahab]

Mostly she spoke about how disappointed everyone was when the flying wing programs were cancelled. Same with the F-20 program years later. Most people don't know that the McDonnell Douglas F-18 Hornet was originally the Northrop YF-17 Cobra.

What does the "YF" destination mean in relation to a Fighter jet, "experimental" maybe, or "concept"?