Warbird Information Exchange

Maybe. But the HARV and the X-53 variants were based on the F-18, not the Super Hornet. Geometry is different. But maybe this is a NASA test article based on the Super that is not yet unclassified. A testbed aircraft would be worth preserving.

Just a wild guess here, but the shape is suggestive of some sort of structural or Radar Cross Section type testbed. This is supported somewhat by the stuff to the right (in the image) in boxes including what looks to be 2 parts of a stand or stands. If the airframe was flown in, it would make sense to remove the wings, but then again, where are the wings? I can't find any evidence of them when I looked in Google Earth/Maps.

Considering the amount of testing that was done by McDonnell Douglas/Boeing on the enlargement and the resulting re-design and testing when the Navy decided to add more and more equipment, it would make sense to have some form of fuselage test article to make sure the changes in the aerodynamics around the center body worked and to possibly allow testing of various box placements without devoting a whole airframe.

CAPFlyer, your wild guess seems to be the most reasonable theory so far. The stuff to the right of the mystery ship did indeed come with it - the ArcGIS image with the thing missing also has the boxes and stuff missing. The item to the upper left is more recent - I've seen two images that did not have that item but did have the mystery ship.

I still wonder about the missing nose and pointed exhausts, though. The pointed exhausts might be explained away by having dummy engines installed if it isn't a full airframe. Don't know about the nose, though. I've seen some pics of a NASA F-18 test article that was missing its nose cone and radar assembly, but the fuselage stuck out further than this one, and besides - the airframe minus the nose was flat, not pointed. Any ideas about that?

My brother-in-law works at DM. I will shoot him an email and see if he knows what it is.

... and if it isn't classified could he get some pix?

According to my brother-in-law it is a fiberglass mock-up of the F-35 prototype. I will ask him about pics Aahz. I imagine the answer to that question will depend upon where the thing is located and if he gets anywhere near it in the course of his travels. It is a very large base!

I had considered the F-35, but it doesn't fit nearly as well as the F/A-18E/F:

But it does go a long way toward explaining away the front and its apparently missing nose. Maybe this is an early mockup, based partly on the F/A-18E/F. The strakes, the fuselage ridge, the engine area, and the vertical stabilizers from it all fit, but the nose of the F-35 fits as well. But I'm not present at DM so I really can't say


It is that!! I would love to go there sometime. If he can get pix of the thing it would finally put an end to the guessing and speculation.

EDIT: BTW, thanks for inquiring. Was impolite of me to neglect that earlier. Also, it is in "Area 20" - don't know if that will help him out or not. Exact coords are earlier in this thread.

Back in 1976 no one wanted to tour the place. My brother was a Sargent at Luke and when I visited him he called the DM public affairs staff and they were fairly surprised that anyone wanted to see the old stuff. They gave us an airman escort and we spent the morning driving up and down rows in my brother's Firebird.
I still have my slides.

Almost 20 years later when I was assigned to HQ AFMC, I had to do some work at AMARG and got another private tour and got to go into the B-52 I had flown in just before it was scrapped.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Have you posted them here? If not, I bet we'd love to see them.

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

Second! All in favor, say "Aye!"