It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Read this just today - plane w/o flaps!

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:59 AM
So what's the big flap about anyway, you might ask?

Check this site out:

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:04 AM
Please visit the above site and tell me it doesn't match the description (or at least comes close) that some UFO sitings offer.

Won't explain them all, but there be many secrets held by many men with too much time and too much money to spend during that time...

Imagine the power to create technology based on people's fear AS WELL AS based on their endless ability to dream up explanations for those fears.

I believe the institution responsible for such activities is called the GOVERNMENT.

Just an observation.

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:33 AM
This is something a few of us on here have been researching ad-hoc for a while. It's a British program which will have relevance in stealth technology.

BUT, the aircraft themselves look very everyday - simply have a form of thrust vectoring instead of conventional control surfaces - so there is no real likelihood that they could account for any UFO sitings, especially since the only aircraft yet to fly using fluid thrust vectoring is a modified one of these:

EDIT: Also, these aircraft will appear to fly just like any other - no inherent abilities to perform any unusual maneuvers etc.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by planeman]

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:46 AM
It doesn’t really match any traditional characteristics of any UFO sighting I’ve ever heard of. The FLAVIIR vehicle won’t fly until 2009 for a start, initial demonstrators have flown but these were in 2004/2005 and limited to very small figure of eight loops and take offs/landings. The manoeuvrability of the end vehicle will not likely be any greater than current aircraft if not worse. Though one vehicle was a delta wing vehicle it was a small, model aircraft airframe that I doubt anyone could mistake for anything but a fairly conventional aircraft.

The concepts being developed by FLAVIIR (Flapless Air Vehicle Integrated Industry Research) are quite interesting with the main benefits being increased stealth (limited to no external moving parts), ease of maintenance and higher reliability thus leading to a cheaper vehicle to operate.

Up to now three demonstrators have been flown, two based on COTS model aircraft and one developed by the FLAVIIR team. The first aircraft was based on an IRVINE Tutor-40 model aircraft trainer (the one in the pic posted by planeman); it demonstrated circulation control as an alternative to conventional ailerons. The system works by directing a secondary jet through the wing and out of a thin slat along the top of a rounded trailing edge of the wing. The jet entrains the upper surface air flow and due to the rounding of the trailing edge the air flow is deflected down and so mimicking the effects of a conventional aileron. The secondary jet must be travelling at a greater velocity than the ambient flow.

The second vehicle was based on a Vector II ducted fan model aircraft. This demonstrated fluid thrust vectoring which uses much the same principles as circulation control in that a secondary jet flow coming from one of two thin slats mounted above and below the main jet entrains the main jet and deflects it up or down due to the coanda effect. This of course allows pitch control.

The third demonstrator is a new build vehicle based on an X-45A planform, the vehicle integrates both CC and FTV systems meaning it can fly without any conventional control surfaces however the vehicle does have a detachable tail fin (may be two, I’m not sure) in order to provide yaw control in emergencies, I’m not sure whether the vehicle could provide yaw control without the tail fins but I don’t see how it could unless the FTV system had four secondary jet slats. This vehicle was to fly in November 2005 but whether it did has not been made clear, there’s no reason to believe it didn’t.

The project will also develop new manufacturing techniques, materials, and yet more control techniques including the use of synthetic jets, and wing surface deforming. FLAVIIR will conclude in 2009 with the flight of the final demonstrator which will integrate all the technologies developed through the programmes life between 2004 and 2009, this vehicle will be a subscale system of around 2m wingspan and a MTOW of about 50kg; it will be based on the BAE/Cranfield Eclipse UAV. A full scale ground based demonstrator will also be built to validate technologies that cannot be demonstrated on a subscale vehicle, this will include advanced materials, structures and manufacturing techniques.

All in all a very exciting programme and definitely one to keep an eye on, it’s just unfortunate that the technology probably won’t be mature enough to put on the BAE UCAV demonstrator in 2010/2011. Of course a potential operational system could certainly incorporate it post 2020.

Planeman, did you get the pdf I sent you?

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Mike_A]

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Mike_A]

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:11 AM
Mike, yes I did thanks! Sorry I didn't reply, I thought I'd digest it first. There is one particularly intriguing FLAVIIR related picture which hints at the stealth reasons behind the project, which I suspect outweigh the other "excuses" for researching this technology:

The chronology you have put together is pretty much spot on from what I can tell.

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:19 AM
I wouldn't count myself among the studied and truly geek-ified of those who know the details of technologies such as this. When a relative stand-out among applied designs strikes me, I tend to get "Holy crap! What an amazing bit of invention going on here." Just wanted to point out that some high tech is amazing enough to account for people's misconception of what they're really looking at (i.e., a UFO? alien technology applied by collaborating scientists, etc.)
The human spirit as expressed from the very start of human air flight (please read Wright Bros., Sikorsky, Goddard, et al) should never be found as surprising or even out of this world.

In all seriousness, thank you for humoring my curiosity, though I am sure I could have presented the issue in somewhat less enigmatic fashion.


posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:29 AM
Well I was talking to Phillip Woods (the project manager) a couple of months ago for a website I'm setting up about the UK UAV industry (shameless plug there!), and the subject of stealth came up quite a bit or at least I brought it up a lot! The original sketchy reports from 2004 that appeared in University publications and such, particularly Cranfield U's, talked about FLAVIIR being a UCAV. Most stated the main aim was to produce a maintenance free UCAV, needless to say that intrigued me. However later discussions with Mr Woods set this straight, the aim of the project is to produce a range of technologies and foster a better relationship between industry and academia, the actual airframe is of limited importance, the whole project could be done with things like the Tutor. However many demonstrators, including the final one will have airframes that are representative of real world aircraft types, for example the Integrated Demonstrator flown last year was based on the X-45A because it represented an airframe that might actually use the FTV and CC systems.

Stealth will be covered but access to BAE System’s work on the area will not be granted and it seems likely that stealth will only be there in that the aircraft will have few moving parts, will use more precise manufacturing techniques and maybe some advanced materials, I wouldn’t expect to see anything in the F117 league of low observability.

I hoped I’ve explained that alright.

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:35 AM
The flapless technology is definately only going to appeal to the geeks though. i guess that makes Mike and I geeks, lol.

the problem with UFO sightings, and I have to be careful saying this on a conspiracy site, is that so few of them have any real credibility. i'm sure that a large portion of them are made up, and many more are poorly described by the witnesses. People tend to see what they want to see, and they tend to be influenced by popular culture - in the 1950s most UFOs were "flying saucers", now "black triangles" are the fashion...

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:50 AM

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:55 AM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
An early flapless aircraft.
Lol! "flapless" in the current jargon really means "Fluid Thrust Vectoring control" which replaces the movable control surfaces.

Mike, I just sent you a PM.

On a side note, I'm surprised BAE Systems are leaving it up to an accademic group to develop the technology in public and over an extended period of time - given the significance to stealth, and the desire to ensure others don't get there first, you'd think it'd get made "black" like CORAX was.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by planeman]

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:01 PM
I'd imaging that they're patenting everything as they go along. Though they have a website and the odd article does pop up now and then they are still far from being public with it.

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Mike_A
I'd imaging that they're patenting everything as they go along. Though they have a website and the odd article does pop up now and then they are still far from being public with it.
My limited understanding of patenting is that they'll have difficulty where they've already made information "public knowledge".

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:16 PM
From what handwriting I've seen on the wall, the American patent process is burgeoning under the weight of all the applicants seeking to merchandise rather than protect intellectual property (this is a legal wonk's point of view.)

A particular area of the patent office that is no doubt being run in with useless junk (at least in my humble estimation) is the design patent area, of which I believe the greater portion of an invention like this is comprised. There may be a small percentage of truly unique, science based (rather than design or artistically based) inventions to claim, however the unfortunate truth is that too many people are asking too much of an American Patent system right now that is way, way, way in the back of the line as far as our current budget is concerned - waiting for funding that isn't there. An overhaul is decades away while people are coming up with brilliant technology that may have to be kept locked away in university archives or possibly never be seen again.

So, enjoy the look while you can and burn as many CD's as possible. Some may even make great comic book reading someday....


posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:12 PM
In the UK you're advised to keep things quite until you've got a patent pending status. I very much doubt that the FLAVIIR team has gone ahead with there website and all that before getting this status, remember FLAVIIR began in 2004 but information only really became public in 2005.

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:55 PM
Well, that may very well be the way UK companies conduct business, and personally I fully agree with the philosophy, however, foreign interests have been known to control research and development strange as that may seem to the often-times superior tech labs and scientists in the UK.

Prudence in disclosure is not universal and, just as my generalizations should be held suspect, don't ever afford any entity anything but the greatest lattitude in the possibility of their actions. In other words, stranger things have happened...

But alas, I digress. The point was, the US patent system, which does exert quite a bit of international influence, is part of a larger system. If it truly is a weak link in the larger scheme of getting concepts from prototype to working product, no matter what the scale of technical complexity, then the US patent office will eventually affect the ultimate path of an invention.

Or am I over-inflating our importance on the global scheme of things? It wouldn't be the first time, and I blame the media. They have poisoned my mind and are selling the antidote under a name encrypted through the jumbled mess of the internet. (kidding :-) )))



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 11:10 AM

uses air?? how does that work in a force10?

posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 03:56 AM
reply to post by ashwhy

Hereby nominated for the Necromancer of the Day award. Forum zombies won't spawn themselves, you know.

Sorry - had to poke some fun.

Anyway - the idea is not all that new. By blasting jets of air along the trailing edges of a lifting surface, you adjust all manner of things and can control the chaotic boundary layer. In theory - you can maintain control through an angle of attack at 90 degrees. Reality will knock that down to a lower number around 75-80, however.

It all has to do with air pressure and fluid mechanics. In normal lifting surfaces, air along the curved surface begins to slow down and 'sluff' off of the wing surface. This is, generally, bad for more than a few reasons. First, it radically impacts lift. Second, since most of your control surfaces are at the rear of your lifting surface (wing), you want air flowing smoothly over those surfaces to impart reliable, consistent forces to control your aircraft.

Several methods have been used to control this - 'belted' wing surfaces have been tested - essentially a conveyor belt built into the top of a wing. This helps bleed off low-energy air and keep higher energy laminar flow close to the wing. A fluid dynamics book I have details some studies where some very high angles of attack were achieved with no departure from laminar flow. Granted - actual incorporation into servicing aircraft was implausible.

Other ideas included porous materials that would generate a negative pressure and thereby siphon off problematic pockets of air. The book indicated there were studies and even military applications of this sort of thing - but I do not recall any direct citations or coming across any similar studies.

This is just a little different twist to the same concepts. By artificially inducing departure at specific areas of the wing, you can very efficiently influence the flight of the aircraft. It's not thrusting with the jets of air, it is merely disrupting the standard airflow, and when that happens, the aircraft behaves very similarly as though a control surface was moved or the wing, itself, changed shape.

A similar system was dreamed up by myself using electro-active polymers to create an entirely adaptable airframe (though far more extreme of an idea than puffs of air). I later came across a similar idea in Dale Brown's Air Battle Force series utilizing micro-hydraulics embedded in the skin of an aircraft, allowing it to 'swell' and 'shrink' its wing surfaces, and achieve a wide range of control and trim efficiently.

Anyway - the point is that there's a lot of ideas floating around out there on how to control a plane without flaps/elevators/ailerons/etc. Good find on this one, I never would have thought we would see this method of flight control prior to the others - well, aside from strategic placing of jet engines or some crazy idea of venting jet-blast through the trailing edges of a wing (the type of thing I think about trying). Though I contend this would have been fine started in a new topic - it is no biggie.

new topics

top topics


log in