|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
November 13th 03, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
robert arndt wrote:
Jim Wilson, writing for Popular Mechanics, obtained his DoD reports through the Freedom of Information Act after certain military documents were forcibly declassified by a congressional mandate in the mid-to-late-90s. He wrote several articles on the US "Projects Silverbug" and the "nuclear flying saucer", the LRV (Lenticular Re-entry Vehicle) as well as "Roswell Plus 50" and their origin firmly placed with the German discs of WW2. His information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (which the DoD frantically tried to restrict to the defense industry)places German disc engineers at Wright Patterson (back then Wright Field) in 1946 as well as the Horten brothers. The Horten presence can be verified through the declassified "Operation Paperclip" documents. The documents state that the Hortens were released from UK custody in 1945 for work in the US in 1946. The articles contain information on the USAF desire to replicate German disc aircraft at Wright Patterson and the continuing development of disc offensive systems. Horten disc models, not flying wings, were windtunnel tested in the US in 1946. The articles also mention German wartime construction of disc aircraft including the Flugelrads that were in their words... "highly unstable". I'm sure you can contact PM and request their DoD sources for their articles, or just search for them yourself through the Freedom of Information Act. PM doesn't have the best reputation as a serious magazine. Anyway, you say nothing on the Flügelrad except "The articles also mention German wartime construction ...". Whether theis "mention" was also based on USAF documents, or whether it was thrown in just for effect (which would _not_ be untypical for PM), can't be said without further information. Just for the record, I know that "Project Silverbug" existed (as a _project_, not necessarily as a flying prototype), and wind tunnel testing of Horten design isn't a far-fetched claim by any standard. So I have no doubt that Wilson indeed based much of his writing on official USAF/DOD files. _Maybe_ this included the "Flügelrad" claim. I know this story. And where _are_ those photographs? [...] How exactly were the two reporters going to leave MacDill AFB with their cameras and photographic evidence when they were seized and kicked off base? First, they were allowed to see and photograph the discs, and then they are kicked off base? Either something _is_ secret or it isn't - you don't change your mind every few minute. Furthermore, every USAF officier, who would have known about the flying discs, would also have known that this subject was _extremely_ sensitive. So exlanation like "He showed the discs, but was then stopped by his superiors" don't make sense - you don't show your most sensitive secrets to photographers without having made _really_ sure _in advance_ that it's ok to do so. Anyway, my point remains: Without any photos, it's just another story. Anyway, you can at least verify that the next month issue of the USAF in-house magazine, the one that was supposed to feature the prototype aircraft at MacDill AFB, was NOT published. Not just the article... but the entire month's magazine. A coincidence ... which was apparently happily picked up by whoever invented the "flying disc" story. If they just wanted to keep the saucers secret, they had simply printed a different article. Because of complete lack of hard proof. Like provably genuine photographs and/or reports. Just saying the USAF has it all under wraps isn't enough for me - sorry. I disagree based on the volume of consistant leaks of information and declassified information through the Freedom of Information Act. Unlike the UFO conspiracy people I do not believe the evidence is "out there" I believe it has always been internalized, compartmentalized by the USAF, DoD, CIA, NSA, NRO, ad infinitum... "Leaks of information" are just rumours, no proof. And I have yet to see officially declassified information, which is evidence for any of your wilder claims. ["electrogravitics" ...] In short, you can't keep a law of nature a secret. You can keep military projects secret even when information leaks out. T. Townsend Brown proposed electrogravitic propulsion to the USAF back in 1956 and had working models of his craft plus published findings. I find it amazing that physicists on the outside can't seem to or are reluctant to participate in this type of research. Several physicists have tried to replicate some "anti-gravity" experiments. None has succeeded. Two reasons appear possible: 1) They are all not bright enough 2) The original claims are bogus Make you choice. I've made mine already (influenced by the fact that I have a university degree in physics myself). However, it is undrstandable if they don't have the type of coordinated programs the people at Lockheed and Northrop have. They certainly don't have the advantage of German disc propulsion knowledge nor decades of experimentation from Wright Patterson forward. And, most importantly, the funding. First: Theoretical physics doesn't need so much funding - only time. I didn't say a university has to build an "electrogravitic" machine - they just should have come up by now with the theory _how_ to build one. Second: Some of the "electrongravity" pioneers, including Brown, claim that building a small demonstration device didn't take much resources. Current costs of just one TR-3b ASTRA (if it does exist) is said to be $3 billion!!! That's almost the cost of 3 B-2 Spirits which by themselves are $1.3 billion and ironically enough are said to incorporate the very technology you deny- electrogravitics! "is said to be" ... "are said to incorporate" ... Hell, I _know_ that these things are _said_! But I won#t believe it just because it is _said_! Frankly, I regard specifically the claim that the B-2 has "electrogravitic" propulsion is 100% pure bovine excrement! No, common sense tells us that there are more advanced aircraft flying since the B-2 was unveiled in the late '80s. Do you honestly believe the only thing we're working on now is that lame F-22 and F-35? What has the USAF, NRO, NSA, CIA, etc... been doing covertly for over 2 decades? I can't see any real argument in that last paragraph. Just because _you_ think that the B-2 etc. are outdated, it _must_ be true that more advanced aircraft are developed? I'm sorry, but I'd prefer a bit more tangible evidence. What more tangible evidence do you need than history? No great military power in the world just "gives up" on R & D. Huh??? I did _not_ say that the U.S. (or anyone else) gave up R&D!! I only said I don't believe that they successfully developed "exotic" propulsion systems. _Of course_ R&D is continuing, but hopefully mainly on more promising topics. The UK for example is nowhere near the US in airpower. Yet they have the HALO and other stealth aircraft out of Bae Warton. The UK MoD also admitted the HALO after years of denial. Years when near-fatal air collision with commercial aircraft were commonly reported. HALO is a delta the size of a Hawk... but with no visible propulsion system. If you have photographs of this HALO, where it can be clearly seen that no "conventional" propulsion system is used, please share them with us. Are you telling me that the British with their limited resources have an electrogravitic aircraft in the air while the US with vast resources has none? Neither the US nor the UK has a working electrogravitic aircraft. That's absurd. And there is persistant talk of the German Firefly II black triangle. Despite US pressure on MBB not to develop the original Firefly (Lampyridae) it seems the Germans didn't just give up their stealth development program either. "Persistant talk" ... there we go again! The talk can be as persistent as possible, it's still no evidence! Why do you think something becomes more likely to be true the more people talk about it?!?! When I surf the web, the opposite sometimes seems to be nearer to the truth. ["Belgian Wave" UFOs] Please spare the sarcasm for a moment. I can show you hundreds of conventional aircraft filmed at night (like the F-117 and B-2) and you couldn't distinguish them either. Indeed. That was my point. What is important in the BW incidents is that the craft photographed don't match any propulsion system around. Is my English _that_ bad?! I asked you to show me a photograph were you can positively see that the aircraft doesn't use a conventional propulsion system! As you said _a single sentence earlier_, a night time photo won't do! According to various sources the TR-3b Astra matches these images. The 3 blobs of light (which actually looks more like fire) are the 3 maneuvering rockets, not the electrogravitic drive itself. "Various sources" ... no, I don't say it again. why then has the USAF also admitted testing of a FFX or Field-Effects demonstrator back in the '90s? Did they? Please provide a source for this claim. A _USAF_ source where they admit it. I am trying to locate that source right now. It was back in the late '90s, based on the LoFlyte demonstrator, but utilizing a field-effect system. I know LoFlyte, but never heard it in connection with a field-effect propulsion system. Google has thousands of hits on Field Effect propulsion, Electrogravitics, and the German discs I mentioned... so what are you talking about? You can also look up US disc projects Silverbug, LRV, etc... But nothing on "Field effects demonstrator" or many of its variations. No, but I will probably be here in 2020 when the files are opened. Maybe you will too and we will see who was right and who was wrong. Fair enough? Fair enough ... provided that you'll actually believe what's in the files, even if they _don't_ contain anything on flying saucers. Andreas OK, deal. Andreas 
|
|
#23
November 14th 03, 01:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From:
One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was this Focke Wulf "VTOL" http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the tilt rotor concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted a gas turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted propellor in the center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being deflected to provide forward propulsion. Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a helicopter or tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or land in tight spots free of the dangers of rotor impact. And do what? The drawing shows a vehicle that would carry a crew of one and NO payload. Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3 feet off the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could not fly and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and proved how complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has been tried several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify proceeding to an operational prototype. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
|
|
#24
November 14th 03, 04:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"B2431" wrote Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3 feet off the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could not fly and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and proved how complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has been tried several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify proceeding to an operational prototype. I've seen that beast. Looks evil to ride. Pete
|
|
#25
November 14th 03, 08:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#26
November 14th 03, 02:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was this
Focke Wulf "VTOL" http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the tilt rotor concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted a gas turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted propellor in the center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being deflected to provide forward propulsion. Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a helicopter or tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or land in tight spots free of the dangers of rotor impact. Here's more information on the Fw VTOL: http://www.germanvtol.com/fwvtolfolder/fockewulf.html Rob
|
|
#27
November 16th 03, 12:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"B2431" wrote in message ... From: One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was this Focke Wulf "VTOL" http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the tilt rotor concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted a gas turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted propellor in the center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being deflected to provide forward propulsion. Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a helicopter or tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or land in tight spots free of the dangers of rotor impact. And do what? The drawing shows a vehicle that would carry a crew of one and NO payload. It has one crew member. It could no doubt carry a warload or cargo in the ring shaped fueselage or adated for more crew or passengers. Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3 feet off the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could not fly and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and proved how complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has been tried several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify proceeding to an operational prototype. This Canadiarn AVRO device used the coanda induced airflow effect and a sort of hover-craft effect which is somewhat different to this Focke Wulf FW-VTOL concept which used a large rotor sised ducted fan in a lenticular like body. Most ducted fan lift concepts have worked and seem to have provided forward speeds twice that of helicopters. A ducted fan of course is not going to be as effective at providing lift as a full sized rotor. Better to have a good hovering helicoper and a poor crusing vehicle than a poor hovering VTOL craft and an average cruising vechicle. Hence aprt from the Harrier helicopters are the only VTOLs in service. As I pointed out however such a vehicle might have advantages in closed approaches in rescues or landings in confined spaces or if twich as fast as a Helicopter better survivability in battle. Two vehicles using ducted fans are being built now in the USA and Israel. http://www.moller.com/ http://www.urbanaero.com/Urban_Main.htm They both have a plausible market. (The Israeli one seems the better to me) If equiped with an appropriate control system of gyroscopes, accelerometers and perhaps radar/lasers such a vehicle might be made to hold station centimeters from a building to rescue people or to land on someting as small as a tennis court. The old FW-VTOL concept seems as good as the above two. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
|
|
#28
November 16th 03, 10:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: "The Enlightenment"
"B2431" wrote in message One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was this Focke Wulf "VTOL" http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the tilt rotor concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted a gas turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted propellor in the center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being deflected to provide forward propulsion. Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a helicopter or tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or land in tight spots free of the dangers of rotor impact. And do what? The drawing shows a vehicle that would carry a crew of one and NO payload. It has one crew member. It could no doubt carry a warload or cargo in the ring shaped fueselage or adated for more crew or passengers. Look at the fuselage, other that very small spaces everything would have to be structural, puffer and drive ducts or fuel tanks. In any event the Nazi version would have required technology not available until the 1960s like computers and turbinoshaft engines with enough power to be able to divert some bleed air for forward thrust and control. Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3 feet off the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could not fly and wobbled a lot. snip Most ducted fan lift concepts have worked and seem to have provided forward speeds twice that of helicopters. Name one. snip Two vehicles using ducted fans are being built now in the USA and Israel. http://www.moller.com/ http://www.urbanaero.com/Urban_Main.htm You have GOT to be kidding. In over 30 years of sucking money from investors and promising to produce a working prototype " soon" the only thing Moller has produced other than a bunch of hot air was an unmanned hover in ground effect. I am not familiar with the other machine you cite, but more power to them. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
|
|
#29
November 16th 03, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Enlightenment" wrote Two vehicles using ducted fans are being built now in the USA and Israel. http://www.moller.com/ "Built" is a matter of opinion. Has Moller actually flown one of his 'cars'? No. Tethered, unmanned, hover is as far as it's gotten. http://www.urbanaero.com/Urban_Main.htm They both have a plausible market. (The Israeli one seems the better to me) "Plausible market"? How so? 'Driving down to your neighborhood vertiport' and toodling off to work? HA. The average person can't reliably handle 2D movement, much less 3D. Why haven't personal helicopters 'taken off'? Moller VP says this about saucer shapes: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/me...cars-0302.html "We still have it here, " Moller VP Jack Allison says about the M200X. "It's a good test vehicle for part of the technology, but it's not a very practical vehicle. A saucer's not a very practical shape for aerodynamic flight and transporting people and things. It's good for takeoff and landing." Pics of the M200X and others he http://www.laesieworks.com/ifo/lib/moller.html The old FW-VTOL concept seems as good as the above two. Exactly! Pete
|
|
#30
November 17th 03, 01:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(B2431) wrote in message ...
From: "Pete" "B2431" wrote Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3 feet off the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could not fly and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and proved how complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has been tried several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify proceeding to an operational prototype. I've seen that beast. Looks evil to ride. Pete I have seen films of it in operation. It wobbles. Last time I was in the museum at Ft. Useless, early 1980s, they had a few really loony devices. The strangest has to be the one man helicopter where the guy had to stand on a platform ABOVE the rotors. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired Dan, you say that this AVROCAR VZ-9-AV proved that the 'flying saucer couldn't work' despite that fact that it did fly albeit only in ground effect and with a degree of wobble. The results of the tests were as follows: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~billzuk/F...aucer%202.html "The results of the testing revealed a stability problem and degraded performance due to turbo-rotor tolerances. Before modifications could be achieved, funding ran out with the final flight test program completed in March 1961. With the problems that the contractor was facing in the wake of the cancellation of its premier fighter program, the Avro Arrow by the Canadian government, Avro was unable to continue the project. " OK so the engineering problem of turbo tollerances is corrected ( a cinch for todays wide bodied cowling manufacturers I expect ) and the stability problems are solved by a gyroscoep based "Fly By Wire" stability augmentation system. ( an FBW system like this is an of the shelf cinch today ) Why wouldn't it work now? From what I can see this system should work. An efficient VTOL device needs large volumes of slow moving air. A helicopter achieves this with a rotor. A "saucer" like this can do so by sucking in air at the top and distributing it to a lip at the edge of the saucer where the high velocity air is converted to low velocity by inducing an airflow. When in forward fligh the vehicle will have a low drag coefficent, a very high lift coefficient. It will be extremely unstable with stability provided by vectoring under FBW control and perhaps the gyroscopic effect of the central fan. This might make the device very manoeverable due to low wing loading.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
