Disk-shaped flying vehicles

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:

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:

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.

• Avrocar Flight Evaluation, W H Deckert, W J Hodgson,
  Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, CA. FTC-TDR-6l-56,
  January 1962. (27 pgs)

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:

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,   rdcook@mmsaucers.com
Webmaster,  Man-Made Flying Saucers Archives

"Christopher"  wrote in message
news:3a1da74e.61291521@news.onix.com...
>
> Jan...
>
> The primary reference is kind of subjective--"an odd-looking curved
> wing that blended into its fuselage. "
>
> That doesn't necessarily describe a disc shape--it could just as
> easily refer to one of the many Horten/Gotha flying wing interceptors
> in design phase toward the end of the war.
>
> You've accurately ststed the advantages of a disc wing--but circular
> wings also display vicious stall characteristics, poor high speed
> performance, and poor maneuverability--which is why neither the Army
> Air Coirps or the US Navy (both of whom experimented with this
> configuration) never put a disc wing aircraft into service.
>
> --Christopher
> Remove "SPAMNOT" from address to reply...