Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: Us Air Force’S 1950S Supersonic Flying Saucer Declassified
Source:
Extreme Tech
URL Source: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/ ... nic-flying-saucer-declassified
Published: Oct 9, 2012
Author: Extreme Tech
Post Date: 2012-10-09 12:29:32 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 9043
Comments: 18
Tighten the strap on your tinfoil hat: Recently declassified documents show that the US Air Force was working on, and perhaps had already built, a supersonic flying saucer in 1956. The aircraft, which had the code name Project 1794, was developed by the USAF and Avro Canada in the 1950s. One declassified memo, which seems to be the conclusion of initial research and prototyping, says that Project 1794 is a flying saucer capable of “between Mach 3 and Mach 4,” (2,300-3,000 mph) a service ceiling of over 100,000 feet (30,500m), and a range of around 1,000 nautical miles (1,150mi, 1850km). These images (two more at the end of the story) come from the US National Archives, which is tasked with preserving important records and documents — including declassified military documents. It isn’t clear why it has taken some 64 years for Project 1794 to be declassified, though it does follow on from the declassified news in 2008 that the US government has been monitoring UFO activity for more than 30 years. There are apparently two whole boxes of Project 1794 documents — but only the four images shown here have been digitized. Without a deeper look inside those boxes, we can’t be sure that Project 1794 ever made it off the ground. It’s worth noting that Avro Canada also worked on the VZ-9 Avrocar, though — which is basically the same as Project 1794, but a lot smaller. The Avrocar was originally specified for a max speed of 300 mph and a service ceiling of 10,000 feet — but in practice, it never got more than three feet off the ground or flew faster than 35mph. Despite the Avrocar’s failures, it is clear that the US government was indeed working on aircraft in the 1950s that resembled flying saucers. Suffice it to say, the US might also have been working on flying saucers back in the ’40s, around the same time as the Roswell UFO incident. Ultimately, though, the fact that we use fixed-wing aircraft today is a good indicator that flying saucers, while cool, just aren’t that functional. If flying saucers were somehow faster or more efficient or capable of lifting heavier loads, we would almost certainly see them in a commercial setting. Sadly, while some UFO sightings may have indeed been Project 1794, it’s unlikely that they were anything more than experiments carried out by humans, not aliens. #gallery-1 { margin: auto; } #gallery-1 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-1 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-1 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } N
As far as we can tell, the supersonic flying saucer would propel itself by rotating an outer disk at very high speed, taking advantage of the Coand effect. Maneuvering would be accomplished by using small shutters on the edge of the disc (similar to ailerons on a winged aircraft). Power would be provided by jet turbines. According to the cutaway diagrams, the entire thing would even be capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Sadly, while some UFO sightings may have indeed been Project 1794, it’s unlikely that they were anything more than experiments carried out by humans, not aliens. LOL. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics will recognize this article as complete crap. Nice try, Baghdad bri-bri... what's your motivation for posting such obvious trash?
Are you saying this program didn't exist?
It is not easy reconstructing 'molded minds'...
Get educated, dipshit.
Not all of us have advanced degrees in aeronautical engineering. Does that mean we can't ask questions? And do YOU have an advanced aeronautical engineering degree?
"It is impossible to talk reason with those who can only parrot Party Slogans." sneakypete Sept 2011 Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs Steve Jobs,life-long Dim,and major Barry Soetoro supporter.
Hopefully.... not.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
You didn't answer my question so I'll try again. Are you saying this program didn't exist?
It is not easy reconstructing 'molded minds'...
I did answer your question. That you're incapable of understanding the answer is not my problem.
That you're incapable of understanding the answer is not my problem. No you didn't. With that, I'm sick of reading your tripe and off to the kill file for you. See ya later, asshole.
It is not easy reconstructing 'molded minds'...
Oh please... This thing never flew at Mach 3 or 4. It was designed to be a higher performance helicopter. But it failed miserably: In flight testing, the Avrocar proved to have unresolved thrust and stability problems that limited it to a degraded, low-performance flight envelope; subsequently, the project was cancelled in September 1961... Look at the pic... This is not a craft capable of Mach speeds or operation at 100,000 feet. By the way, the URL you posted does not exist. Did you actually find this on the Extreme Tech site, or did you find this on some nut site which had a bad link to Extreme Tech???
Nope. Never claimed to. OTOH, I have a fundamental understanding of aerodynamics, and recognize this article for the complete bullshit it really is. For example, the VZ-9 Avrocar had no external yaw control, which would automatically result in control & stability problems. Were you to bother researching this for yourself, you'd already know that I was correct in my initial response to baghdad bri-bri... All I had to do was look at the picture, to recognize it for wishful-thinking. [BTW, these were two different craft that they played with.... Project 1794 was not the same as Project Y-2, which later became WS606A.] OTOH, the USAF experimented with a variety of different concepts. The flying wing concept was toyed with in several craft, but never made it past the testing stages, due to instability problems. The Vought V-173 Flying Pancake Northrop XB-35 Flying Wing There were others, but I think the point has been sufficiently made. As to Baghdad bri-bri's article, the implication is that "you may have seen flying saucers, but this is what you REALLY saw..." And then deep in the article, oh, BTW, they never actually FLEW, because they suffered from inherent instability... [Like that's a fuckin' suprise.] Thus, the article is disinformation, pure and simple. Again, no surprise... since that's what Baghdad bri-bri does, for his daily bread.
I'll have to remember to use simpler words, so that you'll understand.... REALLY??? Oh, please don't throw me in that briar patch!!!!!!! LMAO.
Ok,fair enough. So....,what do you think the reason is to publish this disinformation? BTW,I was under the impression there was going to be a flying wing stealth bomber put into service several years ago. What happened to it? BTW-2,I can see a saucer-shaped vehicle being feasible,but not one powered by a prop or a jet engine. They just don't produce the power that would be necessary. AND....,in the interest of full-disclosure,I have personally seen UFO's twice,and on the one night my father and the neighbor that owns the farm fields around my father's house saw at least one of them at a distance of about 50 feet as it hovered over his house and blocked out the stars before disappearing in the blink of an eye in total silence. My farm girl saw it while checking on her cattle,and came screaming up to the house and pounded on the door to get my father to let her in. It followed her to the house and just hovered above it. My father standing out in the yard in his drawers with his 12 gauge didn't seem to impress it very much.
Being young and foolish was a LOT more fun that being old and foolish. sneakypete 2012
ping to my post above.
Being young and foolish was a LOT more fun that being old and foolish. sneakypete 2012
I don't know. BTW,I was under the impression there was going to be a flying wing stealth bomber put into service several years ago. What happened to it? Back in the 1950s, the technical and stability problems made the flying wing a less-than-ideal approach for aircraft design. However, the potential for stealth-technology lead directly to the B-2 bomber. It's not as stable as a conventional layout... making it slower and more difficult to control. From wiki: In order to address the inherent flight instability of a flying wing aircraft, the B-2 uses a complex quadruplex computer-controlled fly-by-wire flight control system, that can automatically manipulate flight surfaces and settings without direct pilot inputs in order to maintain aircraft stability.[79] The flight computer receives information on external conditions such as the aircraft's current air speed and angle of attack via pitot-static sensing plates, as opposed to traditional pitot tubes which would negatively affect the aircraft's stealth capabilities.[80] The flight actuation system incorporates both hydaulic and electrical servoactuated components, it was designed with a high level of redundancy and fault-diagnostic capabilities. Yeah,but it would have an insane amount of lift.
Being young and foolish was a LOT more fun that being old and foolish. sneakypete 2012
My father standing out in the yard in his drawers with his 12 gauge didn't seem to impress it very much. The only detail missing from this story is "WHO" got abducted that night...
“We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.”
Speaking of needing a computer just to get it off the ground....... The X-29A demonstrated high maneuvering and control in flight testing. A maximum angle of attack of 67° was reached.[3] The configuration, combined with a center of gravity well aft of the aerodynamic center, made the craft inherently unstable. Stability was provided by the computerized flight control system making 40 corrections per second. The flight control system was made up of three redundant digital computers backed up by three redundant analog computers; any of the three could fly it on its own, but the redundancy allowed them to check for errors. Each of the three would "vote" on their measurements, so that if any one was malfunctioning it could be detected. It was estimated that a total failure of the system was as unlikely as a mechanical failure in an airplane with a conventional arrangement.[4] “We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.”
Nobody.
Being young and foolish was a LOT more fun that being old and foolish. sneakypete 2012
Tighten the strap on your tinfoil hat...
"I am relying on my personal experience with Morons, which have been universally positive." -jwpegler
#2. To: Capitalist Eric (#1)
#3. To: Brian S (#2)
"I am relying on my personal experience with Morons, which have been universally positive." -jwpegler
#4. To: Capitalist Eric (#3)
Get educated, dipshit.
#5. To: sneakypete (#4)
And do YOU have an advanced aeronautical engineering degree?
#6. To: Capitalist Eric (#3)
#7. To: Brian S (#6)
You didn't answer my question...
"I am relying on my personal experience with Morons, which have been universally positive." -jwpegler
#8. To: Capitalist Eric (#7)
I did answer your question.
#9. To: Brian S (#0)
(Edited)
capable of “between Mach 3 and Mach 4,”
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#10. To: sneakypete (#4)
And do YOU have an advanced aeronautical engineering degree?
"I am relying on my personal experience with Morons, which have been universally positive." -jwpegler
#11. To: Brian S (#8)
I'm sick of reading your tripe...
...and off to the kill file for you. See ya later, asshole.
"I am relying on my personal experience with Morons, which have been universally positive." -jwpegler
#12. To: Capitalist Eric (#10)
(Edited)
OTOH, I have a fundamental understanding of aerodynamics, and recognize this article for the complete bullshit it really is.
#13. To: All, *Science and technology*, *Space News* (#12)
#14. To: sneakypete (#12)
So....,what do you think the reason is to publish this disinformation?
Flight controls
"I am relying on my personal experience with Morons, which have been universally positive." -jwpegler
#15. To: Capitalist Eric (#14)
. It's not as stable as a conventional layout... making it slower and more difficult to control. From wiki:
#16. To: sneakypete (#12)
AND....,in the interest of full-disclosure,I have personally seen UFO's twice,and on the one night my father and the neighbor that owns the farm fields around my father's house saw at least one of them at a distance of about 50 feet as it hovered over his house and blocked out the stars before disappearing in the blink of an eye in total silence. My farm girl saw it while checking on her cattle,and came screaming up to the house and pounded on the door to get my father to let her in. It followed her to the house and just hovered above it.
#17. To: Capitalist Eric, sneakypete (#14)
#18. To: CZ82 (#16)
The only detail missing from this story is "WHO" got abducted that night...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]