Curious...

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Curious...

Postby torbjon » Thu May 08, 2008 10:32 pm

AD

Frisbees and the discus fly GREAT... Very little energy input for distance gained... media fabrication or no...

Now admittedly if you stuck Me inside a giant frisbee I'd be vomiting my guts out, but for a robotic drone? The classic saucer shape could be viable option for unmanned flight...

====

Radar target, ey? okay.. cool...

Although it would have been 'exciting' if they had just given you 'that look' and nothing more *laughs*

rock on
twj
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey


Re: Curious...

Postby suspicioso » Thu May 08, 2008 11:11 pm

Inconceivable wrote:Yes. That's what they WANT you to believe.

But did they mention anything about the secret underground base below your complex where they keep the real saucers? Of course not! See?

:wink:


Oh come on - don't you know its a secret underground submarine base connected to the hidden marine caverns under the USA? It must be so - John Lear said it on OMF :wink:
Too Dangerous For Open Minds Forum!
User avatar
suspicioso
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 11:11 pm

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Sun May 11, 2008 5:14 am

Access Denied wrote:
Inconceivable wrote:Didn't the air force do experiments in the '50s with a saucer prototype shape that was discovered to be inherently unstable? Of course, the one I saw pictures of were using conventional technology.

If God had interned saucers (and pigs) to fly he would have given them wings...

...of course the Nighthawk (RIP) is inherently unstable too.


If you're talking about the Avro Car, then yeah that was unstable mainly because if it's design, IMO. However, the discoidal or 'saucer' shape in general is not an inherently unstable shape in and of itself. For instance ever remember seeing a well thrown Frisbee fall out of the sky in mid-flight?

Of course this has nothing to do with UFOs/UAP because the interactions of 'UFOs/UAP ' with Fields rather than aerodynamics is apparently being observed.






Access Denied wrote:If it was a good idea everybody would be doing it...


You mean like how almost everyone has thrown a Frisbee before?


Access Denied wrote:and besides, flying suacers were invented by the press in 1947.


And here you do mean only the phrase "Flying Saucer" as it was coined by the Media?

You see, AD, initially it was fairly clear that the 'unknown aerial phenomena' (Foo Fighters) that had been prevalent in Europe and Asia were now also being observed in the U.S.! By the time of Kenneth Arnold's sighting the 'phenomena' was referred to as "Disks"/"Discs" by the Military. Clearly the Media can not be responsible for the Military use of "Disk/Disc" as a reference to a 'phenomena' thought to be the same thing as the "Foo Fighters" of WWII.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sun May 11, 2008 3:50 pm

If you wanna talk air vehicle stability, you came to the right place! 8)

lost_shaman wrote:However, the discoidal or 'saucer' shape in general is not an inherently unstable shape in and of itself. For instance ever remember seeing a well thrown Frisbee fall out of the sky in mid-flight?


Put that way, LS, you could claim that ANY body is not inherently unstable. The issue with stability is that you need to define the reference with which you are measuring stability. With air vehicles this is generally selected to be an intertial flight path, but need not be. For instance an airplane that may be dynamically unstable with respect to an "above ground level" altitude hold could be dynamically stable with respect to a pressure altitude hold...if the airmass is "just right". So your statement, while in general it may be correct, is trivial without a definition of stability.

In reality, the body has not changed at all in your frisbee example. All that has changed is the means by which you fly it. So you have taken an inherently unstable body and, by spinning it, you have stabilized its otherwise unstable airmass flight path. A bullet is also an inherently unstable body with respect to a constant airmass. But by imparting spin on the bullet in the barrel of the gun, the bullet's flight path is stabilized.

So, I'd have to say your point is a bit moot. The disc shape is inherently unstable with respect to a constant airmass. The action of spinning it is what makes it stable, not the shape itself. I can stabilize an irregular shape by spinning it too. Does that make an irregular shape inherently stable?

:wink:
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Curious...

Postby Access Denied » Sun May 11, 2008 4:17 pm

Two words: flow separation.

[as it relates to sub/supersonic aerodynamic efficiency]

LS, can you cite some examples of the military’s use of the term "disc" in the press in regards to sightings before Kenneth Arnold's and the resulting mass hysteria?
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Sun May 11, 2008 6:04 pm

Access Denied wrote:
LS, can you cite some examples of the military’s use of the term "disc" in the press in regards to sightings before Kenneth Arnold's and the resulting mass hysteria?


No, because there were not any sightings discussed in the Press before Kenneth Arnold's sighting. However, "Disk/Disc" is used by Military in the Press and in Military documents as if it had already been established as a reference to the phenomena.

Col. Kalberer, on July 1st, makes an interesting statement in the Press (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 2).
"They're such friendly little discs," he laughed. "They seem to flip around and do all sorts of kittenish antics, at varying altitudes in daytime and by the light of the moonlight and in formation at that, at supersonic speeds of 1,200 miles an hour or more."


It's interesting because he's apparently describing "antics" of "discs" other than those reported by Ken Arnold. How would he know about other "discs" at "varying altitudes in daytime and (night)" and assume that these other observations have anything to do with Ken Arnold's sighting also referenced in the quote above?

Brig. Gen. George Schulgen and others early on considered the phenomena to be similar to the "Ghost Rocket" invasion of Europe just one year earlier. If it was considered to be a similar phenomena then one could speculate that the term "Disk/Disc" had originated from that investigation one year earlier. (If not from investigations of the "Foo Fighters" during and immediately after WWII.)
Last edited by lost_shaman on Sun May 11, 2008 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Sun May 11, 2008 9:48 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:If you wanna talk air vehicle stability, you came to the right place! 8)

lost_shaman wrote:However, the discoidal or 'saucer' shape in general is not an inherently unstable shape in and of itself. For instance ever remember seeing a well thrown Frisbee fall out of the sky in mid-flight?


Put that way, LS, you could claim that ANY body is not inherently unstable. The issue with stability is that you need to define the reference with which you are measuring stability.


I agree that would make a great starting point to discuss 'stability'. However, why should I define the reference when I'm not the person comparing the 'saucer' shape to 'Pigs' in the first place?

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:With air vehicles this is generally selected to be an intertial flight path, but need not be. For instance an airplane that may be dynamically unstable with respect to an "above ground level" altitude hold could be dynamically stable with respect to a pressure altitude hold...if the airmass is "just right". So your statement, while in general it may be correct, is trivial without a definition of stability.

In reality, the body has not changed at all in your frisbee example. All that has changed is the means by which you fly it. So you have taken an inherently unstable body and, by spinning it, you have stabilized its otherwise unstable airmass flight path. A bullet is also an inherently unstable body with respect to a constant airmass. But by imparting spin on the bullet in the barrel of the gun, the bullet's flight path is stabilized.


I could say a 'Helo' requires a rotor, or aircraft with wings typically require flaps, slats, stabilizers, rutter control, and Humans/computers etc. (Lest these airframes would be spinning on their way to the ground.)

So you agree with AD that 'saucer' shapes, like Pigs, will never fly?

(I might have to reconsider all that fun I had flying the Disk shaped RC toy my Dad got last Christmas to play with just for kicks and how stable it was even after my Nieces had crashed it a couple dozen times before I got my chance to play with it. Must have just been Mass Hysteria caused by Kenneth Arnold's sighting in 1947!)



You Can Call Me Ray wrote:So, I'd have to say your point is a bit moot. The disc shape is inherently unstable with respect to a constant airmass. The action of spinning it is what makes it stable, not the shape itself. I can stabilize an irregular shape by spinning it too. Does that make an irregular shape inherently stable?


Yes, you are right in reference to the point being moot. I've already acknowledged that the whole point here was moot when I stated...

Of course this has nothing to do with UFOs/UAP because the interactions of 'UFOs/UAP ' with Fields rather than aerodynamics is apparently being observed.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby Access Denied » Tue May 13, 2008 6:25 am

lost_shaman wrote:It's interesting because he's apparently describing "antics" of "discs" other than those reported by Ken Arnold. How would he know about other "discs" at "varying altitudes in daytime and (night)" and assume that these other observations have anything to do with Ken Arnold's sighting also referenced in the quote above?

Because that’s what people were reporting they were seeing (regardless of what it really was) as a result of Arnold’s sighting… it means the same thing as “flying saucer”. Never underestimate the power of suggestion… and as I know you know, many “disc” sightings in the press were attributable, ironically enough and not to change the subject, to weather balloons with radar targets.

BTW “foo fighters” were BOL (balls of light).

lost_shaman wrote:So you agree with AD that 'saucer' shapes, like Pigs, will never fly?

(I might have to reconsider all that fun I had flying the Disk shaped RC toy my Dad got last Christmas to play with just for kicks and how stable it was even after my Nieces had crashed it a couple dozen times before I got my chance to play with it. Must have just been Mass Hysteria caused by Kenneth Arnold's sighting in 1947!)

[sigh]

I suspect Ray (wisely) chose not to answer that because it’s a silly question but for the benefit of others…

LS, you’re not getting it. Maybe this will help you understand the issue a little better...

FLYING SAUCERS FROM CANADA!
THEY’RE A STAPLE OF B MOVIES AND pulp magazines, but in the late 1950s the U.S. government was seriously interested

http://www.americanheritage.com/article ... 3_58.shtml

Will the circular planform ever be resurrected as a shape for aircraft? Its aesthetically pleasing profile certainly continues to bewitch inventors. A Russian company has exhibited a saucer-shaped lighter-than-air craft that can supposedly lift 650 tons. A Florida engineer recently patented a helium-assisted heavier-than-air saucer with eight turbojet engines that he says could transport eight hundred passengers with ease. Whether these will be successful or go the way of the Avrocar—and dozens of other saucer designs through the years that never got past the paper stage —remains to be seen. As with the flying wing, the birdshaped aircraft, and other flights of fancy, the flying saucer all too often is an attempt to make the laws of aerodynamics conform to a design idea, instead of the other way around. The idea of U.S. Air Force pilots skittering into the space age in silvery saucers may have died in 1961, but it seems safe to say that the form’s classic simplicity will lure inventors as long as humans dream of flight.

[good article BTW, check it out]

The problem with your RC example is it’s not really “flying” it’s basically hovering… the “flying saucer” shape may be OK for subsonic flight but once you try to go super or especially hypersonic (like in order to reach escape velocity) it’s inefficient and impractical… especially if it’s spinning like a frisbee for aerodynamic stability (steering becomes an issue without a vertical control surface). There is no advantage over using a more efficient conventional airfoil so why bother? Take a look at the B-2 from the side for example, it’s shaped sort of like a “teardrop” for a reason…

Image

In fact, the faster you want to go, the sharper and more angular (less round) the better (not so great for the low observable folks though). Take a look at all the designs for hypersonic aircraft currently floating around…

Image

Now if you want to talk “antigravity” propulsion it makes even less sense… how many “flying saucers” have you seen tilt 45-90° to reduce the frontal surface area and maintain the proper aerodynamic “angle of attack” while simultaneously “refocusing” their “antigravity beam” to the rear as they shoot off into outer space? Take a look at all the designs for antigravity machines currently floating around…

Image

Of course if you’ve got unlimited “free energy” and incredibly high temperature materials to work with then you might as well build it in the shape of a brick.

[Disclaimer: I am not an aerospace engineer nor do I play one on TV]
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue May 13, 2008 3:16 pm

Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:So you agree with AD that 'saucer' shapes, like Pigs, will never fly?

(I might have to reconsider all that fun I had flying the Disk shaped RC toy my Dad got last Christmas to play with just for kicks and how stable it was even after my Nieces had crashed it a couple dozen times before I got my chance to play with it. Must have just been Mass Hysteria caused by Kenneth Arnold's sighting in 1947!)

[sigh]

I suspect Ray (wisely) chose not to answer that because it’s a silly question


You suspect correctly, AD. And did I not already admit that, with today's technology, that the wiggly Avrocar could indeed be stablized? The point is LS, you wish to throw-out an example of a "disc flying" but do you want to examine the details of HOW it flies...and if that could possibly be congruent with what people have "reported"? Why not point me to a page with this RC toy...so I can examine HOW it flies. Does it hover, as AD suggests? I can put a fan in the center of a disc and make it fly that way. So it is trivial to say "a disc can fly". I can make a brick-shaped object fly too, with enough power. Can it (disc) fly in a manner that alleged UFOs fly...and moreover, is it the DISC SHAPE that is the key to doing so? All that we know about aerodynamics is that the answer is no.

I will say it again. A disc flown rectilinearly is inherently unstable. If I spin the disc at a minimum RPM while flying it rectilinearly, I can stablize it across SOME flight maneuvers. So what?

[Disclaimer: I am not an aerospace engineer nor do I play one on TV]


I *am* an aerospace engineer, and I don't need to "pretend" that I am one on TV! :mrgreen:

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Wed May 14, 2008 1:37 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
You suspect correctly, AD. And did I not already admit that, with today's technology, that the wiggly Avrocar could indeed be stablized? The point is LS, you wish to throw-out an example of a "disc flying" but do you want to examine the details of HOW it flies...and if that could possibly be congruent with what people have "reported"?


Now hold on... I do not argue that what people report is actually some Alien craft in Earth's atmosphere conforming to aerodynamics! I've already said that I think the point here was moot because 'UAP' seem to consistently conform to 'Fields' rather than aerodynamics in the first place.

BTW, can you predict how a Plasma will 'fly' and "if that could possibly be congruent with what people have "reported"?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 14, 2008 2:58 am

lost_shaman wrote:
You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
You suspect correctly, AD. And did I not already admit that, with today's technology, that the wiggly Avrocar could indeed be stablized? The point is LS, you wish to throw-out an example of a "disc flying" but do you want to examine the details of HOW it flies...and if that could possibly be congruent with what people have "reported"?


Now hold on... I do not argue that what people report is actually some Alien craft in Earth's atmosphere conforming to aerodynamics! I've already said that I think the point here was moot because 'UAP' seem to consistently conform to 'Fields' rather than aerodynamics in the first place.


Well then I am totally baffled why you continued to argue the "disc" point. We (myself and AD) have never argued that a disc can be made to fly, only that it has NOTHING to do with the disc shape that makes it fly...and that the Avrocar experiments clearly showed that trying to fly such a shape in a manner that a living being could withstand (i.e. no spinning) has serious stability problems.

BTW, can you predict how a Plasma will 'fly' and "if that could possibly be congruent with what people have "reported"?


I sense you are being fascetious but... I can predict plasma formations around the stagnation points of a re-entry vehicle (with the help of CFD codes). I admit to not knowing enough about plasma outside this specific aerodynamic heating realm.

So I guess I don't know where we are with this issue...done perhaps?
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Thu May 15, 2008 3:09 am

Access Denied wrote:Because that’s what people were reporting they were seeing (regardless of what it really was) as a result of Arnold’s sighting… it means the same thing as “flying saucer”.


The only real result of Kenneth Arnold's sighting was that the Public in general became aware of the phenomena. Before that there was zero Media attention given to sightings even though sightings were happening all the time across the globe. If you look at sightings over time nothing has changed, people are seeing the same things over and over for hundreds of years.

Access Denied wrote: Never underestimate the power of suggestion… and as I know you know, many “disc” sightings in the press were attributable, ironically enough and not to change the subject, to weather balloons with radar targets.


Sorry AD, but I can only think of less than a handful of "weather balloons with radar targets" called 'Discs' in the Press and only concentrated around Wright Field and Ft. Worth.

Access Denied wrote:BTW “foo fighters” were BOL (balls of light).


Not everything 'labeled' "Foo Fighter" was a BOL, elliptical shaped objects were reported as well.



Access Denied wrote:LS, you’re not getting it. Maybe this will help you understand the issue a little better...

FLYING SAUCERS FROM CANADA!
THEY’RE A STAPLE OF B MOVIES AND pulp magazines, but in the late 1950s the U.S. government was seriously interested

http://www.americanheritage.com/article ... 3_58.shtml

Will the circular planform ever be resurrected as a shape for aircraft? Its aesthetically pleasing profile certainly continues to bewitch inventors. A Russian company has exhibited a saucer-shaped lighter-than-air craft that can supposedly lift 650 tons. A Florida engineer recently patented a helium-assisted heavier-than-air saucer with eight turbojet engines that he says could transport eight hundred passengers with ease. Whether these will be successful or go the way of the Avrocar—and dozens of other saucer designs through the years that never got past the paper stage —remains to be seen. As with the flying wing, the birdshaped aircraft, and other flights of fancy, the flying saucer all too often is an attempt to make the laws of aerodynamics conform to a design idea, instead of the other way around. The idea of U.S. Air Force pilots skittering into the space age in silvery saucers may have died in 1961, but it seems safe to say that the form’s classic simplicity will lure inventors as long as humans dream of flight.

[good article BTW, check it out]


This actually is a great example AD. You see the Author is discussing "Flying Saucers" in terms of conforming to the "laws of aerodynamics", despite what people consistently report, as a flight of Fancy. It's circular reasoning considering that people are not reporting "Flying Saucers" or BOL's as conforming to the "laws of aerodynamics" in the first place.


Access Denied wrote:The problem with your RC example is it’s not really “flying” it’s basically hovering… the “flying saucer” shape may be OK for subsonic flight but once you try to go super or especially hypersonic (like in order to reach escape velocity) it’s inefficient and impractical… especially if it’s spinning like a frisbee for aerodynamic stability (steering becomes an issue without a vertical control surface).


I'm not sure what you are saying. Most spacecraft are actually stabilized by 'spinning' once outside the Earth's Atmosphere. You don't have to have a vertical control surface to 'steer' an airframe (Reference the Helicopter, B-2, or VTOL technology).

As for the Avrocar, it NEVER was even intended to 'Fly' in the atmosphere! How can you guy's even consider it as an example of a failure of a general shape to be stable or unstable in atmospheric flight? The Avrocar never even rose above Ground Effect right?

It did lead to the development of the Hovercraft however so the Avrocar wasn't even a failure. It just wasn't a good example to show that an 'ellipsoid' as a general shape for an airframe would be unstable.





Access Denied wrote: There is no advantage over using a more efficient conventional airfoil so why bother? Take a look at the B-2 from the side for example, it’s shaped sort of like a “teardrop” for a reason…


Was the Avrocar an Airfoil?

Was the Avrocar meant to be a test of the 'ellipsoid' shape as an 'Airfoil'?





Access Denied wrote:Now if you want to talk “antigravity” propulsion it makes even less sense… how many “flying saucers” have you seen tilt 45-90° to reduce the frontal surface area and maintain the proper aerodynamic “angle of attack” while simultaneously “refocusing” their “antigravity beam” to the rear as they shoot off into outer space? Take a look at all the designs for antigravity machines currently floating around…


Well you lost me, true to my handle. lost_shaman.

How can you seriously consider Field 'propulsion' and "proper aerodynamic “angle of attack”" in the same thought?

The use of Fields itself negates the need to conform to aerodynamics.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Thu May 15, 2008 3:46 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Well then I am totally baffled why you continued to argue the "disc" point. We (myself and AD) have never argued that a disc can be made to fly, only that it has NOTHING to do with the disc shape that makes it fly...and that the Avrocar experiments clearly showed that trying to fly such a shape in a manner that a living being could withstand (i.e. no spinning) has serious stability problems.


Then you and I have the same problem that I have with AD. That is that the Avrocar wasn't even designed to test the viablity of the 'disc shape' as an Airframe in general in the first place. Yet you two seem to think the failure of the Avrocar, to be mass produced by the Military as a troop transport due to it's inadequecies as a troop transport, show the 'ellipsoid' shape itself is too unstable as a potential airframe!?

O.k. Whatever...


You Can Call Me Ray wrote:I sense you are being fascetious but... I can predict plasma formations around the stagnation points of a re-entry vehicle (with the help of CFD codes). I admit to not knowing enough about plasma outside this specific aerodynamic heating realm.

So I guess I don't know where we are with this issue...done perhaps?
Ray


I really wasn't being 'fascetious'. The truth is that the leading hypothesis now is that 'exotic plasmas' are responsible for the vast majority of the 'Unknowns' people have reported over the years.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu May 15, 2008 4:16 am

lost_shaman wrote:How can you seriously consider Field 'propulsion' and "proper aerodynamic “angle of attack”" in the same thought?

The use of Fields itself negates the need to conform to aerodynamics.


Regardless of what technology may be used for propulsion, this does not mean the vehicle is free from aerodynamic forces when flying in the atmosphere. So angle of attack DOES still matter, and asymmetric forces produced when flying at any angle of attack must still be considered and compensated for. As such, if the same propulsion tech is going to be used to produce stabilizing forces and moments, they must also be able to counter buffet and airmass irregularities (gusts, winds).

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu May 15, 2008 4:31 am

lost_shaman wrote:Then you and I have the same problem that I have with AD. That is that the Avrocar wasn't even designed to test the viablity of the 'disc shape' as an Airframe in general in the first place.


Incorrect. And as a side note, it is a bit annoying that you continually ignore or otherwise do not address when I point out your statements do not fit with what we know about aerodynamics. I'd respect you more if you just admit you were wrong, and then we can move on. The Avrocar was, by design, based on a ducted fan engine. That means it would never work exo-atmospherically. Hence, it most certainly WAS designed to test the viability of the disc shape as an Airframe.

Yet you two seem to think the failure of the Avrocar, to be mass produced by the Military as a troop transport due to it's inadequecies as a troop transport, show the 'ellipsoid' shape itself is too unstable as a potential airframe!?


But at that time, it most certainly WAS too unstable as a potential airframe. Furthermore, I have mentioned to you that using today's computer technology which can use feedback to close control loops extremely quickly (frame rates of 100 Hz and more), that it is very likely we could develop artificial stability for the Avrocar configuration. This is my specialty.

Also, the reason the Avrocar was never flown out of ground effect is due to good flight test practice called the envelope expansion technique. With a hovering vehicle you do not leave ground effect until you verify adequate stablity and control margins. Given the Avrocar had negative stability and control margins, it was not permitted to leave the safety of ground proximity.

I really wasn't being 'fascetious'. The truth is that the leading hypothesis now is that 'exotic plasmas' are responsible for the vast majority of the 'Unknowns' people have reported over the years.


Got references that back this claim that it is the leading hypothesis? I'd like to check them out.

Thanks,
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

cron