A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Vril 7 at Arado Brandedburg '44/'45



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 13th 03, 04:52 PM
Andreas Parsch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Ads
  #22  
Old November 14th 03, 01:24 AM
The Enlightenment
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...
Andreas Parsch wrote in message ...
robert arndt wrote:

First, let me address the fact that you keep ignoring my the FACTS
that the USAF ADMITTED the Flugelrad craft in 1996. May I remind you
yet again that they denied the craft even existed for 51 years.


Could you please quote the USAF report? Thanks. Anyway, even if the
Flügelrad actually flew, none of the web sources I saw (Unfortunately,
I don't have any other sources on it) mention any of the outlandish
alien or occult propulsion schemes. The Flügelrad seems to be
effectively a very fancy turbojet-powered autogyro.


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.


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.
  #23  
Old November 14th 03, 02:19 AM
B2431
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 14th 03, 05:41 AM
Pete
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #26  
Old November 14th 03, 03:44 PM
robert arndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 16th 03, 01:39 PM
The Enlightenment
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 16th 03, 11:09 PM
B2431
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 17th 03, 12:14 AM
Pete
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 17th 03, 02:11 AM
The Enlightenment
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.