US Air Force UFO plans - cancelled

[Unisaw]

Plans to build UFO by Canadian company - Avro Aircraft for USAF abruptly cancelled in 1956.

[scared?]

Old...

[obsidian]

Yup, we Canadians have been sending these fuckers zipping across U.S. skies for decades to soak the pants of many a yank, all for the lulz. We have pics of Goof coloured yellow many a time.

[seremtan]

at least, in your imagination

these saucer-shaped things never fly

[GONNAFISTYA]

Yup, we Canadians have been sending these fuckers zipping across U.S. skies for decades to soak the pants of many a yank, all for the lulz. We have pics of Goof coloured yellow many a time.

I guess you never saw the ones we took of the probe sticking out of his ass?

[Unisaw]

Old...

Actually not old. From Kurzweil today:

The National Archives has recently published never-before-seen schematics and details of a 1950s military venture, called Project 1794, which aimed to build a supersonic flying saucer, Wired Danger Room reports.

In a memo dating from 1956, the results from pre-prototype testing are summarized and reveal exactly what the developers had hoped to create.

The saucer was supposed to reach a top speed of “between Mach 3 and Mach 4, a ceiling of over 100,000 ft. and a maximum range with allowances of about 1,000 nautical miles,” according to the document.

[DTS]

The difference between a flying saucer and a UFO is; a flying saucer has actually been identified, as a flyting saucer, whereas a UFO is just an object that flies and no-one know what it is. I.e it hasn't been identified, it's an Unidentified Flying Object, that's what UFO stands for. That news article is about a flying saucer: We know what that is! We have identified it! ...

[GONNAFISTYA]

also, surely flying saucers are saucer shaped for a reason. why are these morons trying to copy the shape of a craft with no clue why the craft is that shape?

It certainly cannot be anything regarding aerodynamics as I'm quite sure that a SPACEcraft was designed to mostly work in the vacuum of space...so it makes perfect sense to try to reverse-engineer something and use it in the completely wrong way.

Seriously though...why would you create an aircraft that flies "mach 3 or 4" yet only has a range of 1000 miles? Why would you create something that can only be flown for just over 20 minutes before it needs refueling? Why design something that takes longer to fuel than to fly?

[Doombrain]

flying saucer UFO flying saucer flyting saucer UFO UFO flying saucer

[Ryoki]

Seriously though...why would you create an aircraft that flies "mach 3 or 4" yet only has a range of 1000 miles? Why would you create something that can only be flown for just over 20 minutes before it needs refueling? Why design something that takes longer to fuel than to fly?

Because we have invented in-air-refueling - if i'm not mistaken most modern jets burn through their fuel at an astonishing rate. The U2 spyplane from the seventies used up all it's fuel just to get airborne, lols.

I guess what i'm trying to say is we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that DTS is a moron.

[MKJ]

Seriously though...why would you create an aircraft that flies "mach 3 or 4" yet only has a range of 1000 miles? Why would you create something that can only be flown for just over 20 minutes before it needs refueling? Why design something that takes longer to fuel than to fly?

proof of concept bro. look at the Veyron. yes is makes 407km/h but not for very long. doesn't stop them from making yearly revisions that can last a bit longer. you could even say those limitations is what drives the engineers.

[Whiskey 7]

Funny reading this topic reminded me of a school mate, look, it has got to be 1973 and my last year of high school.

Stephen Kayser was his name. Doubt he is still about Anyway, I recall the day vividly when he produced a drawing much like one of these.



source

or this



source

.... and said that one day he'd build it. I wonder sometimes if he did

if you are on this sphere.