Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Why do you believe in UFO's and aliens?


  • Please log in to reply
257 replies to this topic

#166    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:00 PM

The Flying Wings had control and stability problems and one of them crashed on a test flight at Muroc, California in June 1948 killing all five crew members.  

http://www.google.co...1ihjK4kMyKsDWSQ

Another one crashed on take-off in 1950.

All of the remaining ones were cut up and sold for scrap, although it's too bad that they didn't even save one for a museum or something.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 22 October 2012 - 03:02 PM.


#167    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:03 PM

At any rate, the first jet-powered Flying Wing was tested in October 1947 so it could not have been what Arnold saw in June.

Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington ordered the cancellation of all flying wing programs in 1950, and refused to make even one of them available to the Smithsonian museum.

In many ways it was a very impressive aircraft for its time, but the whole program seems to have been dogged by accidents and mishaps, and some people even suspected sabotage.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 22 October 2012 - 03:10 PM.


#168    synchronomy

synchronomy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario Canada

  • Facinating

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:12 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 22 October 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

The Flying Wings had control and stability problems and one of them crashed on a test flight at Muroc, California in June 1948 killing all five crew members.  

http://www.google.co...1ihjK4kMyKsDWSQ

Another one crashed on take-off in 1950.

All of the remaining ones were cut up and sold for scrap, although it's too bad that they didn't even save one for a museum or something.
The flying wing design at low speed is very unstable aerodynamically.  I spent many of my younger years building and flying r/c planes.  I toyed around with flying wings for quite a while as did other club members.  They very easily fall prey to the dreaded flat spin (like a frizbee) in low speed turns or approach/landing.
Too much wing plus not enough tail.

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan

#169    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:15 PM

View Postsynchronomy, on 22 October 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

The flying wing design at low speed is very unstable aerodynamically.  I spent many of my younger years building and flying r/c planes.  I toyed around with flying wings for quite a while as did other club members.  They very easily fall prey to the dreaded flat spin (like a frizbee) in low speed turns or approach/landing.
Too much wing plus not enough tail.


That was a big problem with the early flying saucer designs, too, the tendency to flip over because they had no tail or stabilizer.


#170    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:16 PM

View Postsynchronomy, on 22 October 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

The flying wing design at low speed is very unstable aerodynamically.  I spent many of my younger years building and flying r/c planes.  I toyed around with flying wings for quite a while as did other club members.  They very easily fall prey to the dreaded flat spin (like a frizbee) in low speed turns or approach/landing.
Too much wing plus not enough tail.

Seems rather consistent with Arnold's description though doesn't it?  Arnold said "the objects weaved from side to side."

Might be expected in a somewhat unstable design I think.


#171    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:20 PM

View Post747400, on 22 October 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

That looks like the YB-35 line at Northrop, laid up waiting for jet conversion (which except for two never happened).

Yes, however we are assuming that these may have never flown, or that others may not have.  Is it reasonable to assume that every flight was logged?  One would hope so and could legitimately expect them to be, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were.

And remember, I'm not claiming this aircraft was definitely what was observed.  I just can't shake the striking similarities between Arnold's description and the flying wing designs that were in development around the same time.  Seems a dubious coincidence if that's all it is.


#172    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:24 PM

The first jet version of the flying wing was tested in California on October 21, 1947, so that could not have been what Arnold saw in Washington state in June.

http://www.google.co...oiGMDuJVEgxW1lA


The earlier version with the four piston engines was test flown in California in June 1946, although Arnold did not report seeing engines and propellers like this on his UFO.  I don't know that any of them ever were being flown in Washington state in any case.  


Posted Image


#173    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:43 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 22 October 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

The first jet version of the flying wing was tested in California on October 21, 1947, so that could not have been what Arnold saw in Washington state in June.

http://www.google.co...oiGMDuJVEgxW1lA

That's not entirely true McG.  The Ho-229 used a Junkers Jumo 004, and it's first test flight was February 2, 1945...  albeit this took place in Oranienburg Germany, nowhere near Washington.  The point this establishes is that the concept of putting a jet engine into a flying wing design was around well before Arnold's sighting.

That said, nobody I'm aware of is claiming that the aircraft observed had to be jet powered.



View PostTheMacGuffin, on 22 October 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

The earlier version with the four piston engines was test flown in California in June 1946, although Arnold did not report seeing engines and propellers like this on his UFO.  I don't know that any of them ever were being flown in Washington state in any case.  


Posted Image

Depending on the distance would it be expected to see the propellers in the first place?  Especially if one is anticipating a propeller to be at the front of the aircraft instead of at the rear?

I'm afraid the door isn't completely closed on the idea that he could have seen some kind of flying wing.  I'm not saying that's definitely what he saw, but these points you are raising don't suffice to rule it out.


#174    synchronomy

synchronomy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario Canada

  • Facinating

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:45 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 October 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Seems rather consistent with Arnold's description though doesn't it?  Arnold said "the objects weaved from side to side."

Might be expected in a somewhat unstable design I think.
All aircraft's center of gravity changes with airspeed, and without a tail it's a b**** to correct.
I know the Concorde as it shifted to supersonic and back it had the ability to shift fuel rapidly from forward to aft tanks and vice versa within the wings.
It was highly unstable at low speed necessitating a severe angle of attack on landing approach.  The design had to incorporate the dropping nose cone so the pilots could see where they were going since the angle was so steep.

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan

#175    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,105 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:51 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 October 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Seems rather consistent with Arnold's description though doesn't it?  Arnold said "the objects weaved from side to side."

Might be expected in a somewhat unstable design I think.
There  were nine of them. There were only ever two of the Northrops flying at any one time, and with all the problems as mentioned, they never went that far from the test bases at either Northrops' factory or at Muroc, so why would they go on a sightseeing trip to the Cascade Mountains? And so far as I can ascertain*, the Hortens were never actually flown in the US; and certainly not nine of them flying around in formation.  Therefore, I think the "secret Flying Wing aircraft" theory can be fairly safely put to bed.


* word of the day

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#176    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 22 October 2012 - 03:52 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 22 October 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

Depending on the distance would it be expected to see the propellers in the first place?  Especially if one is anticipating a propeller to be at the front of the aircraft instead of at the rear?

I'm afraid the door isn't completely closed on the idea that he could have seen some kind of flying wing.  I'm not saying that's definitely what he saw, but these points you are raising don't suffice to rule it out.


I will give you credit for absolutely dogged persistence once you get an idea in your head.

I can find evidence that the flying wing only left its test area in California one time, and that's when it was flown to Washington DC in February 1949, at President Truman's request.

http://www.google.co...lk87oO8Kw1gc50g

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 22 October 2012 - 04:07 PM.


#177    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:11 PM

Jack Northrop said that the flying wing program was actually cancelled arbitrarily in October 1949, because he refused to follow Stuart Symington's instructions to merge his company with another one.

"According to Northrop, when he refused Symington's demand that he merge his company with Convair, builder of the B-36, Symington shut down the Flying Wing program, despite the revolutionary design and often extraordinary performance of the XB-35s and, later, the YB-49s. Northrop died on Feb. 18, 1981 at 85, convinced until the end that his design had been stymied by short-sighted political machinations."


#178    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:17 PM

The B-2 Stealth bomber is of course a direct descendant of the Northrop Flying Wing.


#179    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,602 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:33 PM

were there any other witnesses to the 'non-disk' / 'wing' object which arnold had observed?

this was part of some flap right?

Posted Image

:o


#180    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:35 PM

View Post747400, on 22 October 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

There  were nine of them. There were only ever two of the Northrops flying at any one time, and with all the problems as mentioned, they never went that far from the test bases at either Northrops' factory or at Muroc, so why would they go on a sightseeing trip to the Cascade Mountains? And so far as I can ascertain*, the Hortens were never actually flown in the US; and certainly not nine of them flying around in formation.  Therefore, I think the "secret Flying Wing aircraft" theory can be fairly safely put to bed.


* word of the day

For someone who normally seems quite ready to entertain some pretty wild speculations at times, you seem uncommonly closed off to considering them if the subject of speculation is prosaic in nature.  Rather inconsistent isn't it?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users