Flying Saucers
Discussion
Extremetech said:
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).
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).
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/137505-us-air-f...
This actually happened too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_flying_s...
dr_gn said:
Eric Mc said:
Wasn't all that top secret really -
That picture is included in the linked story - the article isn't about that aircraft.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avro...
Oakey said:
Extremetech said:
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).
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).
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/137505-us-air-f...
Also, when you read about the control issues Lockheed had with the A-12/SR-71 at only "mach 3 plus in the mid 1960's (airframe cleared to M3.3 in extremis during operational entry into denied areas), and that was a fairly conventional aerodynamic/aerothermal package, which broadly speaking had passive stability in all threes axis (ok, it was marginal in Pitch, but i digress) i can't see how you could have ever got a high mach saucer to ever fly in the mid 1950's??
Hmm, I initially thought (through reading) that the Avrocar was a cover story for Silver Bug, but I can see it's useful as a research tool on coanda effect craft. I've never had the time to go looking for in-depth info on the silverbug but, the coanda effect is something of a research interest for me - hence the name - so I'll need to go looking at some point. Not sure if there'll be detailed enough info out there yet to be of use.
Some points though.....
Some points though.....
- A non-spinning disc is unstable in forward flight at any angle of attack other than 0.
- They planned to use a lot of engines to do this - not really that efficient considering the amount of fuel required to power five or six engines (the high speed proposal). Some of the fuel burn is offset by the lower drag in forward flight, but not enough to cancel it all out. These are fairly crappy (in terms of fuel burn) 60s era engines after all.
- Linked to the above will be the large friction losses experienced by the ducting required to get thrust from the engines to the vents - again, for the high speed proposal, but it also applies to the Avrocar.
- Good solution on the Avrocar - tip driven fan removes the need to deal with torque effects. On the down side, it's harder to control the speed of the fan, and thus the lift generating capacity of the machine. There's a lag between the crew changing the throttle setting on the engines and the speed of the fan adjusting to the new jet efflux speed. It could be quite a bit actually, considering the high inertia of the fan rotating at speed. You couldn't use a rotor brake because you'd have to deal with the torque effects on the rest of the vehicle, and it would wear out pretty fast!
Reminds me of some of my favourite bits of fakery:
Lots more what-if renderings f the K-7 here:
http://englishrussia.com/2009/01/25/russian-flying...
mrloudly said:
dr_gn said:
AndyNetwork said:
Eric Mc said:
Needless to say, the Brits got there first -
Any idea where this photo was taken - looks like a Camo painted victor in the background.
Anyone know what it is?Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff