Disk-shaped flying vehicles
The following text is from a posting to uk.rec.ufo,alt.paranet.ufo by Roger Cook.
It is unedited appart from emphasizing the references and links. (The link http://www.mmsaucers/ was edited to http://www.mmsaucers.com/)
Christopher, I find it strange how the "flying saucer aircraft" mis-information seems to have a life of it's own, and never goes away. It is enough to make one believe that the U.S. Air force (or CIA) are indeed flying man-made "flying saucer aircraft", and actively keeping the lid on the concept via un-tiring efforts by a legion of de-bunkers!!! > You've accurately stated the advantages of a disc wing--but circular > wings also display vicious stall characteristics, poor high speed > performance, and poor manoeuverability-- Really? I guess that is why NASA and the Air Force have been investigating them over the past many years for flyable reentry vehicles. At every level from reentry, down to subsonic flight ..... in wind tunnel testing, et al. Don't take anybody's word for this, check it out! Here are a few NASA report citations to start you off:
If your local Technical & Engineering schools do not have copies of any of these, use the Link below to order from AIAA copy fufillment service:http://www.lhl.lib.mo.us/pubserv/AIAA/dispatch.htm
Some of the above refer to NASA's Apollo alternative Lifting-Body capsules, one of which was called the "Langley Lenticular". Click on the Link below to view this proposed Lifting-Body Apollo reentry vehicle:http://www.mmsaucers.com/gallery/nasa-llb.jpg
Really odd, is it not? The one in the lower right corner bears an un-canny resemblance to a circular-winged reentry vehicle..... BTW, you may not be up on NASA report nomenclature, so let me explain the usage of the item -(declassified)- above. Yes, our tax money pays for NASA, and it was touted as a public thing.... but does not mean that we get to wander around in their databases or read ALL their reports. Those reports were TOP SECRET until declassified in the 1990's. NASA has a "Cloak of Secrecy" which is every bit a good as the USAF or CIA. > ----- which is why neither the Army > Air Corps or the US Navy (both of whom experimented with this > configuration) never put a disc wing aircraft into service. Actually, that turns out not to be the case -- in either example. The on-coming advent of the JET ENGINE, and the lateness of the concept & building program, killed Zimmerman's Navy XF5U-1. Assuming a time-warp, WWII fighter pilots would have been in "The cat-bird's Seat" flying F5U's against Zero's, instead of the slower F4U's of that day. By the time the XF5U prototypes were ready for testing, the decision had already been made to convert to an All-Jet (fighter-aircraft) Navy. As to the AVRO VZ-9AV Avrocar, it is no secret that this craft was un-stable in it's "ground-effect" surface travel. It is also a widely diseminated fact that it never flew out of "ground-effect". What is not spoken of, is the fact that it could have flown..... under certain circumstances. The official testing was done by the U.S. Air Force, and the following report details it.
After detailing the two seperate test sessions (both in surface travel), they listed requirements before any more testing (including free-flight) would take place. The two major ones; were that the cockpit be moved to the front of the aircraft, and that suitable flight control surfaces be added to the craft (fyi: those same control surfaces might even have prevented the "hub-capping" of the craft, thereby making it stable even in surface travel in "ground -effect"). Sadly, the program was cancelled before this could be done. Still find yourself doubting the stability of cicular-planform aircraft/reentry vehicles? Try this then: circular-winged (with suitable control surfaces) have been around in Model-Aircraft flying as far back as I can remember. In Control-Line flying, and Radio-Control models both. Here is a citation to one I have handy: Skip Ruff's V-173 (concept A/C for Zimmerman's XF5U-1) radio-control flying model has a wingspan of 66 inches and weighs 15 pounds. Skip's V-173 won First Place in the R/C Sport/Scale/Military category at the 1980 Pasadena modeler's convention. Want more? How about Inventor James M. Jones who has patented a variant of the Zimmerman concept, which works both for propellor-propelled and jet-propelled cicular-planform aircraft. (The Zimmerman concept only worked for propellor-driven aircraft, with large diameter propellors (2) being required to stabilize the craft). Inventor Jones has a website:http://www.mmsaucers.com/jmjonesgallery.htm
Visit the website, and he will explain it all to you. Or, if you still have doubts even then ..... he will make it possible for you to join the ranks of R/C model aircraft flyers, by selling you the plans to build and fly one of his proof-of-concept model aircraft. That should be the final PROOF, indeed. Eh? You, and a lot of other people, have hood-winked into believing that the circular-planform aircraft is inherently un-stable.... by people with an un-stated Agenda. I will let you form your own opinion as to why they wanted you to have this false-to-facts belief. BTW, after seeing the pics showing the elongation of the cicular-wing of the Lenticular Reentry Vehicle into the cicular-planform craft(complete with well thought-out control surfaces), I believe that it could have been stable in flight (based on my understanding of the Jones concept). However, at this time, I have not verified my belief by asking Mr. Jones for his own opinion. Later, Roger Cook, firstname.lastname@example.org Webmaster, Man-Made Flying Saucers Archiveshttp://www.mmsaucers.com/