PDA

View Full Version : Real 1950's Flying Saucer?



PhantomWolf
2006-Jul-24, 12:20 AM
I watched the second part of Nick Cooks, "An Alien History of Earth" last night. I got the impressions that while he doesn't believe the USAF and US Govt "cover stories" for things like Roswell, that he doesn't believe they were Alien either, but rather secret USAF projects such as this one. (http://www.project1947.com/fig/sb/sb_html.htm)

He seems of the opinion that the US was experimenting with alternate propulsions and aircraft shape and that these were the reasons for the sightings of the 1940's and 50's and that those that occured in the 1960's thru to today are other secret projects such as the F-117A, B2, and so forth. He even showed what might be reasonable evidence for some sortof current secret project involving a plane that can well and truely out perform the Blackbird. (basically it was photos of very unusual shaped contrails, including a satelite photo the showed one from the west cost of the US stretching all the way across the US, Atlantic, over Europe, through Russia and over China.)

a) Has anyone else seen the program (I asked this eailer in the Life Forum, but didn't get a lot of answers)
b) Does anyone know of, care to comment on Silverbug?
c) What other evidence (apart from the "Aurora" budget document) is there of a new spyplane capable of speeds up to Mach 8.0?

btimsah
2006-Jul-24, 01:13 AM
I watched the second part of Nick Cooks, "An Alien History of Earth" last night. I got the impressions that while he doesn't believe the USAF and US Govt "cover stories" for things like Roswell, that he doesn't believe they were Alien either, but rather secret USAF projects such as this one. (http://www.project1947.com/fig/sb/sb_html.htm)

He seems of the opinion that the US was experimenting with alternate propulsions and aircraft shape and that these were the reasons for the sightings of the 1940's and 50's and that those that occured in the 1960's thru to today are other secret projects such as the F-117A, B2, and so forth. He even showed what might be reasonable evidence for some sortof current secret project involving a plane that can well and truely out perform the Blackbird. (basically it was photos of very unusual shaped contrails, including a satelite photo the showed one from the west cost of the US stretching all the way across the US, Atlantic, over Europe, through Russia and over China.)

a) Has anyone else seen the program (I asked this eailer in the Life Forum, but didn't get a lot of answers)
b) Does anyone know of, care to comment on Silverbug?
c) What other evidence (apart from the "Aurora" budget document) is there of a new spyplane capable of speeds up to Mach 8.0?

I Tivo'd that show and I did like some of his alternative hypothesis. The problem with the Alien or "top secret" vehicle explanation is we simply can't prove either one of them. Because if either one of them explain the case they would be top secret - that's why it's a mystery today. :(

Most importantly, each case should be "solved" seperately. For instance, what crashed in Roswell is not the same that crashed in Kecksburg. I did like the bit on the German space program and the things they were trying. I really find stuff like that interesting. Kind of like the 1960 goal of setting up a lunar outpost on the moon by the U.S. Although it never happened, were trying it again and this time out in the open. The 60's attempt was classified, and subsequently declassified and junked.

Phillip J. Corso says we stopped going, not because of funding, but because we couldnt keep the ufo's from bugging us.. ? In all of this, we must always remember that a UFO does not equal alien. The word has been over-used to say the least..

Dave J
2006-Jul-24, 03:14 AM
Hmmm, "a" satellite photo showing a contrail stretching across the USA, Atlantic, Europe, Russia and China...
Haul out a globe and explain how such a photo is possible...????

Also, some time ago AW&ST had articles about the possible "Aurora" contrails...pearls-on-a-string things, with photos. I saw many after that, even to this day, there always seems to be a jetliner attached to them. While somewhat unusual, it is obvious to me that it's not a characteristic of some sort of hypersonic black project jet, I can only suppose an atmospheric thing.

PhantomWolf
2006-Jul-24, 04:32 AM
Hmmm, "a" satellite photo showing a contrail stretching across the USA, Atlantic, Europe, Russia and China...

Well I guess that a series of photos mereged into one would be more accurate, though they only showed to the mid Atlantic, the claim was that the series showed it right through tho China.

I saw many after that, even to this day, there always seems to be a jetliner attached to them. While somewhat unusual, it is obvious to me that it's not a characteristic of some sort of hypersonic black project jet, I can only suppose an atmospheric thing.

Thanks, most interesting. I did get the feeling that he was going for the "interesting" solution over the mundane. Sort of playing both sides in a game of "The Government is lying, but it's not aliens."

Goblin
2006-Jul-24, 05:41 AM
I have seen that one and some other TV that shows video of old US attempts at making a flying saucer. Some had a nose cone and tail like a regular jet. Another was completely round. They all had one thing in common. Horrible performance. One could only get 2 feet off the ground and bounced around like a air hockey puck. It was very unstable and was scrapped. The ones that looked more like jets with a round section instead of wings were suppose to perform better but were unable to hover, basically moved like a regular jet.

The saucer shape really is best when its in rotation. Frisbees fly much better when you give them a flick of the wrist for the spin.

Its almost like we were attempting to copy what people had been seeing. The shape could be mistaken but the performance of them nowhere near matches that of prior UFO reports/sightings.

I have not seen a US military film of one hovering or taking off.

pvicente
2006-Jul-24, 10:18 PM
Ok, I've got something for you, not about high-speed spy planes but rather about "weird" aircraft...
First, about the silverbug, if you can read french there was an article about it in the magazine "Le Fana de L'Aviation" on issue 389 (April of 2002).
Second, there were some (rare) airplanes with circular or disc-shaped wings I managed to find these two after a bit of googling ,the "umbrella" airplane (http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/vought.html) and the Sack AS-6 (http://www.luft46.com/misc/sackas6.html).
And let's no forget the "flying flapjacks", by Vought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U) and Boeing (http://www.geocities.com/unicraftmodels/on/b390/b390.htm) .
And third, I think that Goblin migth have seen some footage of the Avrocar (http://www.avroland.ca/al-vz9.html).

trinitree88
2006-Jul-24, 11:00 PM
Ok, I've got something for you, not about high-speed spy planes but rather about "weird" aircraft...
First, about the silverbug, if you can read french there was an article about it in the magazine "Le Fana de L'Aviation" on issue 389 (April of 2002).
Second, there were some (rare) airplanes with circular or disc-shaped wings I managed to find these two after a bit of googling ,the "umbrella" airplane (http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/vought.html) and the Sack AS-6 (http://www.luft46.com/misc/sackas6.html).
And let's no forget the "flying flapjacks", by Vought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U) and Boeing (http://www.geocities.com/unicraftmodels/on/b390/b390.htm) .
And third, I think that Goblin migth have seen some footage of the Avrocar (http://www.avroland.ca/al-vz9.html).

pvicente. The Silver bug was real, was dynamically unstable, and could not be flown beyond it's tethers successfully. It's shape was to replicate the observed shape of the mysterious flying disks, of Kenneth Arnold....as if something inherent to the disk shape enabled their aerodynamic performances. The AVRO was of the same origin, but Canadian.
If there was anything of aerodynamic merit to the prototypes...they would have been follwed up with a series....they weren't. They actually built a similar craft at Weymouth North High School, Weymouth, MA., under the supervision of Bernie Whitman....designer of the Russian MIG.
It isn't the shape that gives UFOs their aerodynamic capabilities...it's that the design and engineering characteristics that produce those capabilities....inherently require radial, or spherical symmetry ...hence the absence of airfoils in almost every case. Pete.:shifty:

Dave J
2006-Jul-24, 11:02 PM
There was an Aviation Week article recently that talked about the supposed existance of a sub orbital space plane of some sort...I'll dig around and see if I can track something down...it was a multi page piece, created quite a stir.

Edit: here's the link to the original article...it was pretty well "debunked" by the aviation press in general...
http://www.aviationweek.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/030606p1.xml

Larry Jacks
2006-Jul-25, 01:15 PM
I watched a program on the History Channel last night about UFO shaped aircraft. The Avrocar was a failure as an aircraft (unstable in pitch, subject to foreign object injestion, couldn't fly more than a couple feet high) but some credit it with leading to the development of the hovercraft. In general, disk shaped aircraft are unstable in pitch. With today's flight control systems, that wouldn't be nearly the problem that it would've been in the 1940s and 50s when all of this development was alleged to have taken place.

JayUtah
2006-Jul-25, 05:09 PM
The aerodynamic properties of disc-shaped airframes constitute a testable claim. The saucer is an absurdly impractical design in terms of airflow management at any high speed. The only favorable aerodynamics you get are at low speeds in conjunction with some other form of stabilization (e.g., gyrostabilization).

The point is not that we can't get a disc to fly. The point is why we would want to. We know that flight control systems can be made that will make even a garbage truck display the semblance of flight, but why choose such and aerodynamically poor shape for a craft? When you compromise in one design dimension you do so only because there is an advantage in another. The F-117 has atrocious aerodynamics, but makes up for it in stealth. So what possible reason is there for a saucer shape in a craft that is allowed to fly in air?

And keep in mind that the craft these USAF designs were allegedly meant to duplicate were supposedly observed not merely coping with aerodynamics, but exhibiting behavior for which the aerodynamics of a saucer would have been a distinct detriment. They are said to have flown at fantastic speeds in various directions, including straight up (the worst possible way a saucer can present itself to the airstream).

UFO enthusiasts present all kinds of speculative arguments to get around the inherent stupidity of a disc-shaped airfoil, none of which is anything more than wishfully trying to patch up a demonstrably absurd belief. It's even more absurd when you recall that the saucer shape was originally a misinterpretation of a popular early report. The report said the unidentified phenomenon skipped across the air like a "saucer skipping across the water", or words to that effect. It described the motion of the vehicle, not necessarily its shape.

R.A.F.
2006-Jul-25, 06:13 PM
The report said the unidentified phenomenon skipped across the air like a "saucer skipping across the water", or words to that effect.

According to Robert Sheaffer, in the Sept. 97 issue of Skeptical Inquirer (http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/sheaffer.html) magazine...


Arnold told a reporter that "they flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water."

Most telling is Marty Kottmeyer's comment on the power of suggestion...


Why would extraterrestrials redesign their craft to conform to [the reporter's] mistake?

PhantomWolf
2006-Jul-25, 09:03 PM
I'm going to suggest for the same reason that ET now looks like a Grey. ;)

Reports of "ET" sightings prior to around the 1960's were quite varied in shape and type, but since the Roswell Gray was made popular in the media, that is what people see as aliens.

JayUtah
2006-Jul-25, 09:35 PM
The question of predisposition is quite acute in UFO lore. UFO enthusiasts maintain that witnesses had not been predisposed in any way to interpret their observations in terms of things they may have seen or heard before, but it's not too hard for skeptics to show that UFO accounts generally follow what's in the popular media at any one time.

Edit to add: I think we must have read the same Kottmeyer piece.

pvicente
2006-Jul-25, 10:33 PM
pvicente. The Silver bug was real, was dynamically unstable, and could not be flown beyond it's tethers successfully. It's shape was to replicate the observed shape of the mysterious flying disks, of Kenneth Arnold....as if something inherent to the disk shape enabled their aerodynamic performances. The AVRO was of the same origin, but Canadian.
Hmmmm... The magazine that I read said the Silver Bug (and the Avrocar) was an attempt to create a VTOL airplane, not to replicate some "miraculous" disk shape (that's a bit hard to swallow). I suppose that it is futile to ask you for sources or proof that disc-shaped aircraft are an alien concept...

They actually built a similar craft at Weymouth North High School, Weymouth, MA., under the supervision of Bernie Whitman....designer of the Russian MIG. Now, this is interesting, I never heard of this "Bernie Whitman", wich of the MIGs was it and when?

Goblin
2006-Jul-27, 08:12 PM
The aerodynamic properties of disc-shaped airframes constitute a testable claim. The saucer is an absurdly impractical design in terms of airflow management at any high speed. The only favorable aerodynamics you get are at low speeds in conjunction with some other form of stabilization (e.g., gyrostabilization).

The point is not that we can't get a disc to fly. The point is why we would want to. We know that flight control systems can be made that will make even a garbage truck display the semblance of flight, but why choose such and aerodynamically poor shape for a craft? When you compromise in one design dimension you do so only because there is an advantage in another. The F-117 has atrocious aerodynamics, but makes up for it in stealth. So what possible reason is there for a saucer shape in a craft that is allowed to fly in air?

And keep in mind that the craft these USAF designs were allegedly meant to duplicate were supposedly observed not merely coping with aerodynamics, but exhibiting behavior for which the aerodynamics of a saucer would have been a distinct detriment. They are said to have flown at fantastic speeds in various directions, including straight up (the worst possible way a saucer can present itself to the airstream).

UFO enthusiasts present all kinds of speculative arguments to get around the inherent stupidity of a disc-shaped airfoil, none of which is anything more than wishfully trying to patch up a demonstrably absurd belief. It's even more absurd when you recall that the saucer shape was originally a misinterpretation of a popular early report. The report said the unidentified phenomenon skipped across the air like a "saucer skipping across the water", or words to that effect. It described the motion of the vehicle, not necessarily its shape.

The problem we made with getting a disc to fly was most likely a wrong assumption. That assumption was that the disc shape was using lift like airplane wings. If real the shape could have more to do with creating some sort of field where a round shape would have some advantages. We don't know how to do that so we did the only thing we knew how to.

JayUtah
2006-Jul-27, 09:19 PM
A shape will have certain aerodynamic properties whether they are intended properties or not. Even if we allow that the disc shape was not intended to have favorable aerodynamic properties, we have to discover what other advantage was offered by that shape -- an advantage so great as to compel us to accept the cruddy aerodynamics.

mugaliens
2006-Jul-30, 02:16 PM
http://www.project1947.com/fig/sb/sb_phot5.htm

As for the aerodynamics of a disc, that depends on the vehicle's size (and Reynold's numbers). When you're talking about an RC airplane that less than about 6 inches in any dimention, it turns out the disc is a favorable flying platform, with big, fat, discoid propeller blades.

LazyCat
2006-Jul-31, 12:47 AM
I'm going to suggest for the same reason that ET now looks like a Grey. ;)

Reports of "ET" sightings prior to around the 1960's were quite varied in shape and type, but since the Roswell Gray was made popular in the media, that is what people see as aliens.

Quite true. Back in 6th grade, or back in the sixties, I read every book on UFOs I could find. There were quite a few eyewitness drawings of aliens, and very few were grays.

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Aug-01, 10:50 PM
On the Summary of that report (http://www.project1947.com/fig/sb/page_iii.htm), it mentions that the project is was based on a proposal by A.V. Roe Canada LTD, so I suppose they are talking about the Avro-Canada VZ-9AV Avrocar (http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/avro.htm)

The AvroCar had major stability problems (as well described by Jay) so the project was abandoned, the two prototypes sit on museums.

I do recall a picture of the Avrocar from a 1960s encyclopedia I used to read.

Interestingly enough, A.V. Roe Canada also designed and built the Avro Arrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Arrow), one of my favorite planes. As mentioned by Jay ages ago, a good deal of the engineers at A.V. Roe left Canada after the company closed operations and went on to work for the Apollo project in the US.

The Backroad Astronomer
2006-Aug-03, 04:10 AM
dumping the avro arrow was one Canadas biggest mistakes.

Count Zero
2006-Aug-03, 07:22 AM
As I recall, aliens used to have antennae. I guess those went the way of the fins on a car. ;)

MG1962A
2006-Aug-03, 12:08 PM
The report said the unidentified phenomenon skipped across the air like a "saucer skipping across the water", or words to that effect. It described the motion of the vehicle, not necessarily its shape.


Made even funnier by the knowledge that Arnold was in fact tracking reflections of his own instruments on the windsheild. Rather than UFO's maybe he should file patent infringements on the aero space industry seeing he invented HUD ;)

trinitree88
2006-Aug-04, 01:36 AM
When Washington called in a red alert over intrusions in their air corridor in the fifties,..:naughty: it wasn't quite so funny.

When Roswell was overflown by said, same, and housed the world's largest collection of nuclear weapons at the time...:naughty: it also wasn't so funny.

When dozens of WW2 aviators reported foo-fighters doing aerodynamic acrobatics around their aircraft (of every nationality)..:naughty: it wasn't so funny

When an unknown landed at Edwards AFB in CA...:naughty: it wasn't so funny.

When the magnesium samples of the Ubatuba, Brazil exploding UFO indicated that the isotopic composition could not be replicated by using pure magnesium from any combination of terrestrial sources...:naughty: it wasn't so funny.

When the Newport News muliple radar, multiple visual from experienced observors...indicated speeds in excess of 2,000 mph in the atmosphere ...:naughty: it wasn't funny

When an Air Force test missile was disabled by a small, spherical craft sporting a laser-like weapon...:naughty: it wasn't so funny

When a SR-71 pilot returned from his mission, walked to the officers club, began drinking, and refused to ever fly again after what he had seen...abandoning his career...: it wasn't funny

When the collection of beaureaucracies of the US government managed to dance their disinformation through the years to the point that the lies have become the truth...as in many other areas of our culture.......................now that's funny...:dance: Pete.

PhantomWolf
2006-Aug-04, 01:59 AM
And you have the evidence to back up each of those claims I am hoping, or will you just point to a UFO site as your evidence?

captain swoop
2006-Aug-04, 10:22 AM
Evidence? who needs evidence of UFOs?

pvicente
2006-Aug-04, 03:12 PM
When an unknown landed at Edwards AFB in CA... it wasn't so funny.
Could you give us a description of the "unknown" at least? Or tell us why do you find it interesting?

When the Newport News muliple radar, multiple visual from experienced observors...indicated speeds in excess of 2,000 mph in the atmosphere ...:naughty: it wasn't funny
"2,000 mph in atmosphere", that's (around) mach 3 right?
Well, there's no need to look for UFO's, some airplanes could reach that speed and here's one example (http://www.wvi.com/%7Esr71webmaster/srspee%7E1.htm).

On September 1, 1974 Major James V. Sullivan, 37 (pilot) and Noel F. Widdifield, 33 (reconnaissance systems officer) (photo inset), flashed across the starting line (radar gates in New York) at approximately 80,000 feet and speed in excess of 2,000 miles per hour. Exactly 1 hour 54 minutes and 56.4 seconds later, they had set a new world speed record from New York to London England. The average speed was 1,807 statute mph over the 3,461 statute mile course, slowing to refuel one time from a specially modified KC-135 refueling tanker.
Just one more thing, I'm still curious about the "Bernie Whitman" you mentioned earlier, could you please tell us who he was and wich of the MIGs he designed?
I will be away until the next weekend, so you have plenty of time to work out a nice juicy answer with plenty of facts and information and suprise me... ;)

trinitree88
2006-Aug-06, 11:32 AM
Could you give us a description of the "unknown" at least? Or tell us why do you find it interesting?

"2,000 mph in atmosphere", that's (around) mach 3 right?
Well, there's no need to look for UFO's, some airplanes could reach that speed and here's one example (http://www.wvi.com/%7Esr71webmaster/srspee%7E1.htm).

Just one more thing, I'm still curious about the "Bernie Whitman" you mentioned earlier, could you please tell us who he was and wich of the MIGs he designed?
I will be away until the next weekend, so you have plenty of time to work out a nice juicy answer with plenty of facts and information and suprise me... ;)



pvicente. Try Vought-Sikorsky and Chance Vought Aircraft website, the section under XF7U-1 Cutlass Twin Jet Fighter. Bernie ran their shop, did design on the side, tried to convince the military to buy his design. They weren't interested. (American rationale was towards heavier fighters with better armament...slower speeds and maneuverability)...so he asked and was given permission to shop it overseas. The Russians bought it (MIG 15), and built it. Due to it's Korean War success, some folks were embarassed.For his efforts Bernie was blackballed by the industry...ended up teaching high school....and he was very good. I taught at Weymouth North for ~6 mos.
ctairand space.org/vought.html

The SR-71 story comes over a cup of coffee from the lips of a young man I met by chance. Due to JANAP 146, he'll get twenty years in jail if I give his name. He fueled SR-71's at Kirtland Air Force Base, and knew all the pilots.

The Washington air corridor story carries the same JANAP penalty for a friend who archived the gunsight photos. Have JANAP dropped, and I'll flesh out the details.

The Ubatuba Brazil incident is ancient. Samples of magnesium were retrieved by people on the beach, only to be officially collected by their authorities, and divers.I asked Mrs. Hynek at lunch at MIT, if J. Allen had ever retrieved any...and she said "No". As always, hardware is hard to come by.

The Edwards story is anecdotal from the lit....a general viewing the video is alleged to have said "What the hell is that?" The Newport News story is from "The Encyclopedia of UFOs"

captain swoop
2006-Aug-06, 11:03 PM
right so u know a guy who talked to a guy but you cant give details cos the evil gubmint will put him in jail for a long time?

colour me impressed!

PhantomWolf
2006-Aug-07, 12:04 AM
right so u know a guy who talked to a guy but you cant give details cos the evil gubmint will put him in jail for a long time?

That's what he seems to be claiming, though my own reading of the JANAP 146, as listed on the NSA website, would seem more to indicate that it was put in place to prevent pilots publically discussing missile tests, secret military planes and airforce positions and movements that they may have inadvertantly seen while in the air during the Cold War, rather than to stop them discussing real ETV's. UFO's are listed in a list of about 8 things which should be reported and the restriction is on the specfic content of that report (headings etc) rather than on the basics. From reviewing the regulation it would seem to me that it was designed simply to prevent information getting into the Soviet's hands because an airline or military pilot saw something (missile or plane test, movements) that was classified and so they would suppress the sighting until it was determined what it was and thus if discussing it could be a breach of National Security by accidently revealing information about a classified project, or troop movements, plain and simple. It also states that there is the only the option to prosecute, not that they would automatically do so, and the maximum jail term is 10 years (1-10 years), not 20, with a fine (up to $100,000) also a possiblity.

trinitree88
2006-Aug-07, 03:54 AM
right so u know a guy who talked to a guy but you cant give details cos the evil gubmint will put him in jail for a long time?

That's what he seems to be claiming, though my own reading of the JANAP 146, as listed on the NSA website, would seem more to indicate that it was put in place to prevent pilots publically discussing missile tests, secret military planes and airforce positions and movements that they may have inadvertantly seen while in the air during the Cold War, rather than to stop them discussing real ETV's. UFO's are listed in a list of about 8 things which should be reported and the restriction is on the specfic content of that report (headings etc) rather than on the basics. From reviewing the regulation it would seem to me that it was designed simply to prevent information getting into the Soviet's hands because an airline or military pilot saw something (missile or plane test, movements) that was classified and so they would suppress the sighting until it was determined what it was and thus if discussing it could be a breach of National Security by accidently revealing information about a classified project, or troop movements, plain and simple. It also states that there is the only the option to prosecute, not that they would automatically do so, and the maximum jail term is 10 years (1-10 years), not 20, with a fine (up to $100,000) also a possiblity.

Phantom. Ok, as it has been ~ 15 years since I read JANAP. I stand amended to 10 years. For most, the financial loss of possible discharge is also intimidating.

The reference to the foo fighters is also from a lunchtime conversation with "Louie" who flew P-38 Lightning fighter escorts over Germany during WW2....several of his friends saw them. I would have to say that when one collects anecdotal stories of phenomenology, the character of the teller certainly comes into play. This man put his life on the line repeatedly to do his duty as he saw fit for years, and had nothing to gain by telling me his story, as have many others. I'm pretty straight with people, tell it like it is, and "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". I respect people who are intelligent, reasonable, and have a healthy skepticism. But there is a difference between justifiable skepticism, and unwarranted ridicule...like art, morality consists of drawing the line somewhere.
With regards to Bernie Whitman, that I mentioned...here's a man who supervised the asssembly of the navy's first supersonic fighter plane....and designed another supersonic design that ended up in enemy hands through an error in military technical evaluation...not something unpatriotic that he had done. He gets blackballed, and gets to live in a country that honors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Go figure.:naughty:

ktesibios
2006-Aug-07, 11:40 PM
The claim that the MIG-15 was designed by an American engineer reminds me of a howler that the late Stephen Ambrose put into at least two of his books on WWII- the claim that the Soviet T-34 tank was "American-designed".

It wasn't. It was designed in Kharkov. The root of this mistaken belief is probably that the T-34 used the Christie suspension. This was a suspension system using large wheels instead of small bogie wheels to support the weight of the tank. The inventor, J. Walter Christie, aimed originally at producing a vehicle that could operate cross-country on tracks or run at high speed on roads by removing the tracks and running on the rubber-tired road wheels.

Christie tried to interest the US government in his designs, but had no success. He did manage to sell two prototypes to the Soviets, who saw the possibilities of his idea and set to work developing it. They developed the Christie suspension further in indigenously designed tanks such as the BT-5 and BT-7 before coming up with a real tour de force in the T-34.

"American-designed"? Not hardly. Inspired by an American inventor's idea, yes. But if I call the T-34 "American designed" on that basis, I'd also have to call my US-manufactured Honda Civic "German designed", since it uses an Otto cycle engine, and call an Otari analog tape recorder "German designed" since AC-bias magnetic recording was invented in Germany.

What little I've found about the MIG-15 indicates that it was an indigenous design, aided by aerodynamic research carried out by Germany and captured by the Soviets at the end of WWII and incorporating a Soviet copy of a Rolls-Royce jet engine.

These three pages:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig15_1.html

http://www.mig-15.com/history.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-15

All recount the history of the MIG-15 (the Air Vector page is the most detailed). Not a mention to be found of an American designer or even of American influence. There's quite a bit of info available online about Sikorsky and Chance Vought, but none of it seems to mention this claim.

Smells a bit funny to me. Got a reference to a source?

PhantomWolf
2006-Aug-07, 11:52 PM
Well apart from this thread, this (http://ctairandspace.org/vought.html) is the only page that google found that had anything relevant.

Of course there might be stuff offline, but I'm not planning to wade though hundreds of books looking for something that might or might not exist.


The last aircraft created by Chance Vought in Stratford was the XF7U-1 Cutlass. This unusual twin-jet, single seat, "tailless", swept-wing Navy fighter was the first US combat aircraft to be designed from the start to use afterburners. It was designed to operate at Mach 0.95 up to 40,000 feet. Its swept wing had "ailevator" control surfaces on the trailing edge, outboard of two wing-mounted vertical fins.

Design commenced early in 1946 on the fighter, said by the Navy in 1949 to be "capable of speeds in excess of current models of operational jets, land or carrier based." Three aircraft were built in Bernie Whitman’s experimental shop. First flight occurred on September 29, 1948. While experimental flight testing continued, the Navy ordered fourteen production F7U-1s.
Underlining added

trinitree88
2006-Aug-11, 10:07 PM
Ktesibios. "Smells a bit funny to me. Got a reference to a source?[/QUOTE]

My source was Ed Worcester, physics teacher from Weymouth North High....who had lunch with Bernie one day. Ed broke me into teaching there, and has been a friend ever since. As I recall, since 1970...he has never lied to me in 36 years, nor has his wife Marie. They retired to Paris, Maine a few years ago. Look him up. Pete.

pvicente
2006-Aug-12, 02:34 PM
The Edwards story is anecdotal from the lit....a general viewing the video is alleged to have said "What the hell is that?" The Newport News story is from "The Encyclopedia of UFOs"

Ok, I guess that this is the answer to my questions about the Edwards landing and the Newport News radar....
So something landed at Edwards and a general migth have been suprised (or angry?) when he saw a video of the event ...
And a radar picked up something flying at mach 3 (more or less)...
That's it? No dates, no details, not a even a description of the "UFO"s?
Actually, there is no reason to bring UFOs into this. Those 2 things (landing at Edwards and flying at mach 3) could have been done by good, old-fashioned airplanes.
So, tell us, why do find those stories interesting? Why should we care?

pvicente
2006-Aug-12, 02:50 PM
My source was Ed Worcester, physics teacher from Weymouth North High....who had lunch with Bernie one day. Ed broke me into teaching there, and has been a friend ever since. As I recall, since 1970...he has never lied to me in 36 years, nor has his wife Marie. They retired to Paris, Maine a few years ago. Look him up. Pete.
So, a friend of yours had lunch with someone who claimed to have designed the Mig-15, don't have anything more solid than that?

Orion437
2006-Aug-12, 04:43 PM
UFO enthusiasts present all kinds of speculative arguments to get around the inherent stupidity of a disc-shaped airfoil, none of which is anything more than wishfully trying to patch up a demonstrably absurd belief. It's even more absurd when you recall that the saucer shape was originally a misinterpretation of a popular early report. The report said the unidentified phenomenon skipped across the air like a "saucer skipping across the water", or words to that effect. It described the motion of the vehicle, not necessarily its shape.


Totally incorrect and wrong. And the only absurd thing that i see is that you are making wrong claims and calling people "stupid", doing no research at all.

They WERE flying saucers for Kenneth Arnold:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold

Shortly after his sighting Arnold landed in Yakima, Washington, where he made a routine report to a Civil Aeronautics Administration representative. When he stopped on his way back to Boise to refuel in Pendleton, Oregon, he repeated his story to a group of curious listeners which included a newspaper reporter. Several years later, Arnold claimed he told the reporter that "they flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water" and (by some misquotations by the press) that was how the term "flying saucer" was born. Another commonly used term to describe the objects arising from the Arnold sighting was "flying disks" (or "discs"). Arnold felt that he had been misquoted since the description referred to the objects' motion rather than their shape.
However the truth of Arnold's shape description is more complicated. Immediately after his sighting, he generally described the objects as thin and flat, rounded in the front but chopped in the back and coming to a point, i.e., more or less saucer- or disk-like. For example, in a radio interview two days after his sighting, he described them as looking "something like a pie plate that was cut in half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear." ([1]). In a United Press story the same day he was quoted saying, "They were shaped like saucers and were so thin I could barely see them." In the Portland Oregon Journal the following day, Arnold's quoted description was "They were half-moon shaped, oval in front and convex in the rear. ...they looked like a big flat disk."

In a written statement to Army Air Forces (AAF) intelligence on July 12, Arnold several times referred to the objects as "saucer-like."

R.A.F.
2006-Aug-12, 05:04 PM
...the only absurd thing that i see is that you are making claims and calling people "stupid", doing no research at all.

Can you point out to us the post where someone was called "stupid"?


They WERE flying saucers for Kenneth Arnold...

Because a wikipedia entry says so?? Sorry, but you'll have to do better than that.

Orion437
2006-Aug-12, 05:16 PM
Can you point out to us the post where someone was called "stupid"?



Of course.

UFO enthusiasts present all kinds of speculative arguments to get around the inherent stupidity of a disc-shaped airfoil

The "inherent stupidity".This is an elegant form of calling "stupid" to UFO enthusiast.




Because a wikipedia entry says so?? Sorry, but you'll have to do better than that.

Of course i do.

Wikipedia is the most reputable virtual enciclopedia of the net:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_press_releases/One_million_Wikipedia_articles_(US)/Print
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

Studies suggest that Wikipedia is broadly as reliable as Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Let me guess, you are going to critizice the Brittanica too ?

R.A.F.
2006-Aug-12, 05:43 PM
UFO enthusiasts present all kinds of speculative arguments to get around the inherent stupidity of a disc-shaped airfoil

This is an elegant form of calling "stupid" to UFO enthusiast.

You're kidding, right???? It's obvious from the quote..."inherent stupidity of a disk shaped airfoil", that what is being talked about is NOT the "UFO enthusiast", but the viability of using the disk shape for an aircraft...ie. the disk shape is unstable...

You're choice to interpret that as an "attack" against UFO enthusiasts is very telling.


Wikipedia is the most reputable virtual enciclopedia of the net.

Only as "reputable" as the people who contribute to it.

added on because of edit...


Studies suggest that Wikipedia is broadly as reliable as Encyclopedia Brittanica.

HUH??? That's looney. the "stuff" on wikipedia can be changed by anyone with a computer.


Let me guess, you are going to critizice the Brittanica too ?

You haven't proven your "as reliable as" is an actual truth, so there is no reason to answer that question.


Sorry, but is it you who has to do better than that.

Done and done...

Orion437
2006-Aug-12, 06:40 PM
HUH??? That's looney. the "stuff" on wikipedia can be changed by anyone with a computer.



Wrong.

Wikipedia articles can be edited. But expertise authors and administrators are continually re-chequing the changes made by "common people". There is even a quick edit function for back-up purposes.

http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/003648.php

"Dirk Riehle: What about the 'collective intelligence' or 'collective wisdom' argument: That given enough authors, the quality of an article will generally improve? Does this hold true for Wikipedia?

Elisabeth "Elian" Bauer: No, it does not. The best articles are typically written by a single or a few authors with expertise in the topic. In this respect, Wikipedia is not different from classical encyclopedias."




Only as "reputable" as the people who contribute to it.



Wrong. As reputable as NATURE says :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm?ls

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.





You haven't proven your "as reliable as" is an actual truth, so there is no reason to answer that question.

Done and done...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Awards

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trophy_box

Stop insulting inteligencies.

And stop insulting the multi-awarded and recognized work of people who put their best for common and accurate knowledge.

sts60
2006-Aug-13, 03:27 AM
Still, calling the disk shape "aerodynamically stupid" can hardly be equated by a reasonable person to calling UFO believers "stupid".

There are a couple of problems with the whole phenomenon of UFOs quite apart from the particulars of any individual sighting.

One, already pointed out on this thread, is the way the sightings follow the popular culture. Aliens didn't used to look like Greys, until somebody came up with the Grey archetype. Now they all look like Greys. UFOs used to be cigar-shaped or whatnot - then Arnold's experience was publicized; now they're almost all saucers. Night encounters used to be visits by angels and demons and succubi; now they're abductions by aliens. Typical of something which is a cultural artifact rather than a series of real encounters.

The other is that, in all this time after all these encounters, the evidence for UFOs being ET craft is still, as the late Carl Sagan put it, crummy. There is still nothing but hearsay, ambiguous images, dubious recollections, some unidentified radar echoes. No unambiguous and verifiable sightings by large groups. No unambiguous physical evidence. No explanations, except appeals to magic technologies, for the means by which these visitors overcome barriers of physical laws. Like "psychic" phenomena, astrology, dowsing, homeopathy, etc., the evidence never gets any better. That is the mark of pseudoscience rather than real encounters.

None of which is to say that ET has definitely not been here. But which does explain why the claim they have meets with such skepticism.

R.A.F.
2006-Aug-13, 12:51 PM
(From the BBC article...)"The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy."

You neglected to quote another part of that article...


But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

How do you explain this discrepancy??

As far as the Wikipedia entry...all emphasis, mine...


However the truth of Arnold's shape description is more complicated. Immediately after his sighting, he generally described the objects as thin and flat, rounded in the front but chopped in the back and coming to a point, i.e., more or less saucer- or disk-like.

Even though he states that it was "saucer/disk" like, to me it doesn't sound like he's describing of a "Flying Saucer".

...and there are other examples in the Wiki entry...


...in a radio interview two days after his sighting, he described them as looking "something like a pie plate that was cut in half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear."

...and...


In the Portland Oregon Journal the following day, Arnold's quoted description was "They were half-moon shaped, oval in front and convex in the rear. ...they looked like a big flat disk."

Most confusing...Arnold describes the "objects" as saucer or disk shaped but that doesn't completely "jive" with his own description.

How is one to reconcile these "differences"??


Stop insulting inteligencies.

And stop insulting the multi-awarded and recognized work of people who put their best for common and accurate knowledge.

It is not an "insult" to question the validity of something found on the web...and that's all I was doing...

However...speaking of "insults"...


Totally incorrect and wrong. And the only absurd thing that i see is that you are making wrong claims and calling people "stupid", doing no research at all.

That's rather insulting...are you now prepared to retract that statement??

GDwarf
2006-Aug-13, 01:24 PM
You neglected to quote another part of that article...
...So wikipedia has a few more errors and you should immediately discount everything in it? I mean, the difference between perfect and Brittanica is greater then the difference between Brittanica and Wikipedia, so obviously you should just ignore every encyclopedia.

R.A.F.
2006-Aug-13, 01:42 PM
...So wikipedia has a few more errors and you should immediately discount everything in it? I mean, the difference between perfect and Brittanica is greater then the difference between Brittanica and Wikipedia, so obviously you should just ignore every encyclopedia.

I see I was misunderstood because of the way I quoted the BBC article...

I wasn't using the quote to point out the differences between Brittanica and wikipedia. I was using it to show that there were mistakes made that Orion "neglected" to included in his post.

...and it doesn't even matter...even if we take the wikipedia entry as accurate, it does nothing to bolster Orion's argument, as I pointed out in my previous post...

Orion437
2006-Aug-13, 03:29 PM
You neglected to quote another part of that article...

How do you explain this discrepancy??

But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."



Excuse me. The Britannica is one of the most (if not the most) respected encyclpedia of our time (do you deny this too?). If someone founds 123 errors in Britanica and 162 in Wikipedia, i found that awesome for Wikipedia. .And if that "someone" is the highly respected "Nature", there is nothing more to say.

However the truth of Arnold's shape description is more complicated. Immediately after his sighting, he generally described the objects as thin and flat, rounded in the front but chopped in the back and coming to a point, i.e., more or less saucer- or disk-like.

In the Portland Oregon Journal the following day, Arnold's quoted description was "They were half-moon shaped, oval in front and convex in the rear. ...they looked like a big flat disk."




Most confusing...Arnold describes the "objects" as saucer or disk shaped but that doesn't completely "jive" with his own description.

How is one to reconcile these "differences"??



Because, in the end, he described them several times as "shaped like saucers"!!! And he described them at United Press and in a written Statement to the USA Air Force!!!

In a United Press story TWO DAYS AFTER THE INCIDENT, he said that they were shaped like saucers !!!!!!!!!!! :


"In a United Press story the same day he was quoted saying, "They were shaped like saucers and were so thin I could barely see them."


And in a AAF WRITTEN STATEMENt ,just a few days after the sighting, he refered several times to the objets as "saucer like" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"In a written statement to Army Air Forces (AAF) intelligence on July 12, Arnold several times referred to the objects as "saucer-like"

Here is the original report to the AAF (what probes the article of Wikipedia as totally correct) :

http://www.nicap.org/arnoldka.htm

"As I was flying in the direction of this particular ridge, I measured it and found it to be approximately five miles so I could safely assume that the chain of these saucer like objects were at least five miles long." "Some descriptions could not be very accurate taken from the ground unless these saucer-like disks were at a great height"


He reported the "saucer like shape" to the United Press and to the USA Air Force !!!! You can´t block the sun with your hand!




However...speaking of "insults"...

"Totally incorrect and wrong. And the only absurd thing that i see is that you are making wrong claims and calling people "stupid", doing no research at all."

That's rather insulting...are you now prepared to retract that statement??

Yes i am, my friend. Maybe i did not interpret correctly JayUtah`s claim, because of my language issue. I apologise, it wasn´t my intention.



...So wikipedia has a few more errors and you should immediately discount everything in it? I mean, the difference between perfect and Brittanica is greater then the difference between Brittanica and Wikipedia, so obviously you should just ignore every encyclopedia.

Thats totally right my friend.


I see I was misunderstood because of the way I quoted the BBC article...

I wasn't using the quote to point out the differences between Brittanica and wikipedia. I was using it to show that there were mistakes made that Orion "neglected" to included in his post.

...and it doesn't even matter...even if we take the wikipedia entry as accurate, it does nothing to bolster Orion's argument, as I pointed out in my previous post...

I didnt "neglect" nothing. Obiously, every enciclopedia has errors and omisions! Are you serious ??? Clearly, it is you who is macking a mock of Wikipedia,Britanica, Nature and God´s know what more.

And of course i take Wiki as accurated. I´m sure everybody would take it. I dont have to take this Kenneth Arnold article as incorrect , at all. You have a better source than Nicap, Wikipedia.... about Kenneth Arnold ? Show it.

Sorry for my english.

R.A.F.
2006-Aug-13, 04:35 PM
I admit to being "stubborn" about this, but when trying to evaluate events happening almost 60 years ago it can be difficult determining exactly what happened particularly when there are different "takes" on the story.

I just can't help but wonder what would have been the result if Arnold (or the reporter, or whoever) had described the "objects" differently...

Would there be as many "saucer sightings"?

GDwarf
2006-Aug-13, 04:47 PM
I see I was misunderstood because of the way I quoted the BBC article...

I wasn't using the quote to point out the differences between Brittanica and wikipedia. I was using it to show that there were mistakes made that Orion "neglected" to included in his post.

...and it doesn't even matter...even if we take the wikipedia entry as accurate, it does nothing to bolster Orion's argument, as I pointed out in my previous post...
Fair enough, my appologies then.

R.A.F.
2006-Aug-13, 05:16 PM
Fair enough, my appologies then.

No worries...:)

...and while I'm at it...


Maybe i did not interpret correctly JayUtah`s claim, because of my language issue. I apologise, it wasn´t my intention.

I salute you for that! IMO, respect is important on this board...your admission has increased my respect for you.

Goblin
2006-Aug-14, 12:34 AM
I admit to being "stubborn" about this, but when trying to evaluate events happening almost 60 years ago it can be difficult determining exactly what happened particularly when there are different "takes" on the story.

I just can't help but wonder what would have been the result if Arnold (or the reporter, or whoever) had described the "objects" differently...

Would there be as many "saucer sightings"?

I have no doubt there would be fewer saucer sightings.
There would still be sightings, the percentage of ones called "saucers" would be lower. Some people describe things a two plates stuck together without calling it a saucer. Flying plates might have been buzz description but saucer just seem to stick.

People (media) love giving names to things.

pvicente
2006-Aug-16, 06:40 PM
About the Mig 15 being a Vought design, I started a thread in rec.aviation.military (http://groups.google.pt/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_frm/thread/f98c2533b8f0e624/9e3d92f3e59d9c1a?lnk=raot#9e3d92f3e59d9c1a) asking for opinions, information, details, etc...
And one the answers mentioned this:

It sounds a bit too like the "Zero Myth" - that the Mitsubishi A6M was
actually a copy of the Vought V.143 fighter prototype that had been
rejected by the U.S.N, and bought by Japan (And secretly flown onto a
Japanese Aircraft Carrier lurking off the California coast).
It seems to be another version of this story, but this time Vought's airplane ends up in Japanese hands instead of the Soviets.
It looks like the "American Mig" is one of several myths involving copied or stolen airplanes/tanks/etc.

Larry Jacks
2006-Aug-16, 09:34 PM
Howard Hughes reportedly believed that the Zero was a copy of his beautiful H-1 racing plane (http://www.wrightools.com/hughes/).

MiG began investigating swept wings in 1945 with the odd MiG-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-8) design. Soviet designers had pretty much the same captured German data on the benefits of swept wing design as American designers. They also had the benefit of British government officials gullible enough to give them a state-of-the-art Nene engine to copy. Put a good engine in a rugged but lightweight airframe designed by talented engineers and you can get a terrific design like the MiG-15.

captain swoop
2006-Aug-17, 09:25 AM
Its the myth that anly 'we' can design things so any other good design must be a copy of one of ours.

Larry Jacks
2006-Aug-17, 01:03 PM
In some cases, there is basis for the claim. The Soviet Tu-4 was a near exact copy of the B-29. Three B-29s made emergency landings in the Soviet Union during WWII. Stalin ordered copies and a massive reverse engineering effort was undertaken. By some estimates, it increased the level of technology in the Soviet Union by many years, especially in propulsion, avionics, and advanced structures.

Likewise, the British government (post Churchill) was guillible enough to let the Soviets have some of their state-of-the-art Nene turbojets. The Soviets copied that engine and used it to power the MiG-15. However, the MiG-15 itself was an original design that had to meet very stringent Soviet requirements such as the ability to operate off of rough fields, high firepower, high climb rate and ceiling, and maneuverability. In many of those parameters, the MiG-15 exceeded the performance of the F-86.

When looking at aircraft designed for particular performance parameters, it's very common for planes built by different companies and countries to end up looking quite a bit alike, at least at a superficial level. After all, how different in appearance is any of the twin-engined airliners build by Boeing, Airbus, Tupolev, etc.?

publiusr
2006-Aug-17, 08:10 PM
OTRAG could launch very wide craft--were it to have flown.

PhantomWolf
2006-Aug-17, 09:48 PM
The Soviet Tu-4 was a near exact copy of the B-29.

I have a feeling that Jay pointed out that these were so well copied that they even included the Boeing logo on the rudder controls.