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.


Request help identifying all govt. & civilian saucer-related projects!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 01:21 PM
In another thread titled, The USAF and the Saucer Project, ATS'ers debated whether or not all UFO sightings could be chalked up to government projects. To help I pointed out a number of saucer projects the US military worked on from the mid-50s up through the late-70s.

Projects like:
  1. Avrocar (AKA Project Silverbug)
  2. LRV - the Lenticular Reentry Vehicle.

  3. Pye Wacket
While on the other side of the pond, in Germany, the Horten Brothers came up with the first jet-powered flying wing (which was, obviously, of huge interest to US intelligence). There's also enough official CIA documentation to support the idea that Germany was working on Nazi saucer projects (called "Schriever discs" AKA "Flugkreisel").

On the civilian front Dr. Paul Moller had been working on personal flying cars as far back as 1962 and still is to this day. His first few designs were saucer in shape (scrape to 1:40).

So what other projects have I missed or left out?

To clarify when I say "saucer project" I mean anything that could be perceived as an unidentified flying object. That includes flying wing designs, saucer shapes, or anything out of the ordinary.

All input is appreciated!

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Xtraeme]
edit on 14/6/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by Xtraeme

The programs I have seen about the saucer type projects was that the disks were extremely unstable. They could not get higher than a few feet off the ground. The avionics computers were not capable as they are today, so many of the shapes were mothballed.

The Nazis had many projects, but little money to develop any of them thoroughly. They had hundreds of these projects going on at once, and that was a big reason why they failed most of the time.

The search button can help you find many programs about saucers and secret projects.

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 09:10 PM

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Xtraeme

The programs I have seen about the saucer type projects was that the disks were extremely unstable. They could not get higher than a few feet off the ground. The avionics computers were not capable as they are today, so many of the shapes were mothballed.

I've heard much the same. The Avrocar had a number of deficiencies,

The first untethered flight occur[r]ed on 12 November 1959. Formal Air Force flight evaluations occur[r]ed at Avro in April 1960 and June 1961 - tests showed that the maximum speed was 35 mph and resea[r]ch at NASA showed that the Avrocar was aerodyn[a]mically unstable. (source)

Lenticular Defense Missile (LDM) projects like Pye Wacket also have apparent drawbacks (likely explaining why the project was canceled),

Originally posted by ch1466
The edge area will be lower and there won't be any native vortice flow spiraling off the tip as with a conical or ogival radome.

But your total aspect ratio and certainly ruling factors are going to be adversely effected. As will the area that is heated, both as a 'leading edge' (if it can truly be launched 'in any direction') function and as a an element of total surface area behind a very acute shock.

Even the notion of 'systems density' spreads seems counter intuitive since surely the motors must all be grouped along a common plenum if not thrust line and significant differences between the guidance/warhead/motor sections would arise, both before, during and after burnout.

About the only real justification I can see for this weapon is (in a bomber fuselage width weapons bay) the option of 'stacking' the rounds like a records in a jukebox. So that you had maximum packing density from minimum total volume.

Speaking of processing power as it relates to the ability to compute shaping to produce small radar cross sections and other favorable flight characteristics, the F117A & the B2 possess a small number of surfaces simply because the processing power of the time wasn't powerful enough to calculate additional faces. Just look at the more recent F-22 or F-35 stealth designs. Another reason to avoid flying wing designs (even though they're theoretically the most aerodynamically efficient [lowest drag] design configuration for a fixed wing aircraft) is because,

it lacks conventional stabilizing surfaces or the associated control surfaces, in its purest form the flying wing suffers from the inherent disadvantages of being unstable and difficult to control. These compromises are difficult to reconcile, and efforts to do so can reduce or even negate the expected advantages of the flying wing design, such as reductions in weight and drag. (source)

The Nazis had many projects, but little money to develop any of them thoroughly. They had hundreds of these projects going on at once, and that was a big reason why they failed most of the time.

Indeed, I was a bit shocked at how many designs predating the 1940s did away with, wholly or partially, the idea of a fuselage. For instance the 1919 JG1 design and the 1931 Junkers G-38 (34-seater) Grossflugzeug.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:06 PM
Talking with my friends in the aviation industry, one of them suggested that the Lockheed-Martin "Skunk Works" P-791 LTA ACLS dynamicpara could easily be misidentified as a UFO.

He also mentioned the X-47 series specifically calling out the the X-47A Pegasus:

Doing a little searching myself I pulled up the X-45 series:

[edit on 29-3-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 03:27 AM
And a few more non-standard aircraft designs ...

Here's the X-50A demonstrating that a helicopter's rotor can be stopped mid-flight and act as a fixed wing:

Now for something completely different ― airborne vehicles that look somewhat like cigars.

The research X-15 rocket-powered aircraft (capable of Mach 6), currently holds the world record for the fastest speed ever reached by a manned aircraft.

The X-3 Stiletto looks more like a dart than a cigar. However, due to the small wingspan it would look like a wingless body from a great enough distance.

The X-38 CRV prototype was a wingless lifting body reentry vehicle that was intended to be used as a Crew Return Vehicle for the International Space Station (ISS). It was tested in 1999.

The Boeing X-40A Space Maneuver Vehicle successfully demonstrated glide capabilities of the fat-bodied, short-winged design and validated the proposed guidance system. It is reported to be the first ever test of a fully autonomous space vehicle.

X-37 Future X first flew on 04/07/2006. The idea was to create a reusable robotic spacecraft from a 120%-scaled derivative of the X-40A.

And a number of scramjet designs bear an obvious striking resemblance to a rocket chassis. A good example of this is the X-51 waverider slated to be flown sometime in 2009.

edit on 14/6/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 12:49 AM
A recent Popular Mechanics article postulates that the following declassified aircrafts have been the cause for most, if not all, of the UFO sightings over the last several decades. There's another thread discussing this Popular Mechanics article, but since I'm attempting to track all known manned aircrafts that have been identified as UFOs I'm posting here instead of there.

The RQ-3 Darkstar is a strange craft to be certain! It's an unmanned aerial vehicle that was terminated in 01/1999 due to aerodynamic stability, cost, and performance issues.

Then there's of course the old Lockheed U-2, designed by Kelly Johnson, which the CIA claims was cause for nearly all the unknown unidentified aerial sightings through the 50's and 60's. What's particularly telling is a CIA report suggesting Blue Book was little more than a PR cover for classified US air projects:

The early U-2s were silver (they were later painted black) & reflected the rays from the sun, especially at sunrise and sunset. They often appeared as fiery objects to observers below. Air Force BLUE BOOK investigators aware of the secret U-2 flights tried to explain away such sightings by linking them to natural phenomena such as ice crystals and temperature inversions. (source)

Another classic oldie, but goody, the SR-71 Blackbird.

The SR-71 was first tested in '64, deployed through '66 - '90', 95' - 98', declassfied in '64, and like the U-2 designed by the legendary Clarence "Kelly" Johnson. It's worth noting Mr. Johnson reported seeing a UFO himself 12/16/1953 and formally reported it to the USAF (watch the vid).

I've already mentioned the P-791 so I'll skip that one.

Next on the list is the F-117A Nighthawk (107 ft long; 56-ft wingspan). The classic flying triangle. First tested in 1981, deployed 1983 to 2008, and declassified 1988. Note the difference in appearance of the object photographed during the Belgium flap, in '89, from that of the Nighthawk.

F117-A TOP (rotated to mimic orientation of object in '89 Belgium flap picture)

F117-A BOTTOM (rotated to mimic orientation)

Picture from the '89 Belgium Flap

Another common and popular flying wing design is the B-2 Spirit (First Test Flight: 1989. Deployment: 1997 to present. Declassified: 1988 Size: 69 ft long; 172-ft wingspan)

(rotated to mimic orientation)

You be the judge. If the F-117A was the best we had in the 80's what's the chance it's the same thing pictured in the Belgium photograph?

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:55 AM
I want to keep this thread as focused on provable real-world aircrafts that the government has worked on, but ... I'm remiss to not mention the TR-3B.

It's been rumored in many places, ATS included, that the USAF has mastered creation of a gravity-defying, triangular craft that's nuclear powered to boot!

Some people suggest the Belgian picture is one example of the TR-3B others think this newer snapshot from Scotland is the real McCoy.

And in South Carolina there was another sighting:

Another, slightly more credible craft is the Aurora project. According to,

The first suggestion that these studies might be translated into operational hardware appeared in the Fiscal Year 1986 procurement program document, colloquially known as the P-1, dated 4 February 1985. A line item in this document, labeled "Aurora," was slated to receive $80 million in 1986, and over $2.2 billion in 1987. Since this line item appeared next to the line funding the TR-1 reconnaissance aircraft, it stirred up a hornet's nest of conjecture that a secret aircraft was being developed to replace the aging SR-71.

The Air Force quickly denied the existence of a secret program, and said the "Aurora" budget line was simply one site for B-2 bomber funds when that program was highly classified. One Air Force official commented, "I wish I could say it is (an SR-71 follow-on), because we'd love to have it. But it's just accounting, I'm afraid."

And of course people have theories about what this craft might look like. Here's one model made by Byron Salisbury.

And on the more extreme end a picture from 'The Big UFO Picture Book':

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:15 PM
Thanks to a post by Crakeur I can add another odd craft to the list, the GoldenEye 80, developed by Aurora Flight Sciences. It's a three stage UAV and ground control system. It's capable of free-floating (VTOL technology), going high-speed as a wingborne craft, and has a Ground Control System that's made up of a stabilized electro-optical/infrared gimbaled turret with laser designator/laser rangefinder payload and support equipment.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:31 AM
Next up the V-173 (AKA "Flying Flapjack"). The first flight was 23 November 1942, piloted by Boone Guyton, and the project was canceled 15 March 1947. Total built? One! The craft had a 26'8" length and a 23'4" wingspan. For more information see this ATS post here.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:27 PM
I have a few new crafts that I want to add including the X-33 VentureStar, X-43 Hyper-X, X-45, and a bunch of experimental aircrafts. However before I dive in to those I'd like post this rather amazing picture of a B-2 Spirit viewed edge on.

Amazing no?

And now on to the X-33 VentureStar.

The idea for the X-33 was born on July 2, 1996 when NASA selected Lockheed Martin for a government-industry partnership to design, build and fly the experimental X-33 rocket plane. Some vitals: the X33 had a length of 69 ft, a width of 77 ft, a takeoff weight: 285,000 lbs, take-off thrust of 410,000 lbs, and a whopping maximum speed of Mach 13+. Sadly the program was canceled by NASA in 2001, after a long series of technical difficulties including flight instability and excess weight. Construction of the prototype was some 85% assembled with 96% of the parts and the launch facility 100%.

The X-29 ( is a bizarre craft to say the least. The X-29 almost looks like it's flying backwards.

This aircraft explored a number of new technologies; the most obvious being the forward-swept wings and canard control surface. 1977 DARPA and the Air Force Flight Dynamics Lab issued proposals for a research aircraft designed to explore the forward swept wing concept. Grumman Aircraft Corporation was chosen 12/1981 to receive an $87 million contract to build the aircraft. The first flight was 1984. Only two were ever built. The wingspan of the craft is 27'2", height 14'9", length 48'1" and it has a maximum speed of Mach 1.8 (1100 mph) /w a service ceiling of 55,000 feet.

The X-31 ( explored thrust vectoring allowing the craft to fly in a direction other than where the nose was pointing.

Only 2 were built and the first flight was 10/11/1990. A total of 500 test flights were carried out between 1990 and 1995. It has a length of 44'4", a wingspan of 23'10", height of 14'5", a maximum speed of mach 1.28 (975 mph) and a service ceiling of 40,000 ft.

The most noteworthy aspect of this craft is its ability to execute a rapid-minimum radius 180-degree turn using a post-stall maneuver (flying well beyond the aerodynamic limits of any conventional aircraft). Note the mongoose maneuver ...

Next up the X-43A ( is a scramjet capable of Mach 7. Unlike rockets, scramjet-powered vehicles do not carry oxygen onboard for fueling the engine. Removing the need to carry oxygen significantly reduces the vehicle's size and weight. The hope is that in the future, such lighter vehicles could bring heavier payloads into space or carry payloads of the same weight much more efficiently.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Xtraeme]
edit on 14/6/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:52 PM
What an enjoyable and great thread! I have had the pleasure of seeing some of the newer unmanned crafts (and a small scale version of a possible future manned craft as well) and can tell you, although none of them have been pictured here, they are along the same design lines and if you follow the evolution in the pictures posted in this thread you would end up with something close to what I have seen for sure.

Xtraeme, perhaps you should take a look at the advanced aircraft forum and get some opinions over there as well.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:25 AM

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
What an enjoyable and great thread! I have had the pleasure of seeing some of the newer unmanned crafts (and a small scale version of a possible future manned craft as well) and can tell you, although none of them have been pictured here, they are along the same design lines and if you follow the evolution in the pictures posted in this thread you would end up with something close to what I have seen for sure.

Sounds like that was one heck of a show
. If you're allowed to discuss this are you a defense contractor, USAF, NASA, or something else I'm unaware of? I have a few friends in the business, but they typically only have access to details as they specifically relate to their projects.

One thing I'm very curious about, did you see any hemispherical or saucer shaped designs? Would you be at liberty to describe the most innovative blended-wing design?

Xtraeme, perhaps you should take a look at the advanced aircraft forum and get some opinions over there as well.

I think I'll do that. Thanks for leaving the note and I appreciate the kind words


[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 12:26 AM
I didn't get to add in all the details for the X-43A. Some other details. The X-43A is the fastest free flying air-breathing craft in the world. It's first test flight was 06/2001. The size is approximately 12 ft with a top speed of Mach 7 - 10.

Now for some British oddities. The Avro - Vulcan B.2 XM597 could easily be mistaken for a flying triangle.

The B.1 / B.2 has had a long history. The first flight was 1952/08/30 and was introduced in to operational usage in 09/1956. It had a wingspan of 99'5" (30.3 m), length of 99'11" (30.5m), height of 26'6" (8.1m), max speed of Mach 0.93 (632 mph), service ceiling of 55,000', and a range of 3910 miles. This plane was particularly scary as it was equipped with thermonuclear warheads. 136 were produced between 1956 and 1965. The craft was eventually retired 03/1984.

Going further back in time to 1920s we have the HAC.3 (Meteor). The craft had a 43.93 ft wingspan and max speed of 120 mph. The RAF School of Technical Training, Halton, designed the small tailless monoplane, the Archaeopteryx. The prototype, G-ABXL, made a successful first flight in October 1930.

In Canada the Canadian Car & Foundry's manufactured the B-2000B Super Bomber as a response to a 1942 B-36 design competition. It had a 222 ft wingspan, range of 4000 miles, and top speed of 300 mph.

A total of 8 were built. The last, the Loadmaster I, was manufactured 1946. The Loadmaster next appeared in 1957 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, when the U.S. Army was exploring potential for a new troop carrier. During a demonstration, the Loadmaster made a forced landing, and was removed to Beacon Field, Alexandria, Virginia.

Next, the BAC MUSTARD. In a 1966 lecture to the Royal Aeronautical Society, Lord Caldecote, managing director (guided weapons) of British Aircraft Corporation, described a fully recoverable multi-stage aerospace vehicle which was believed capable of putting Western Europe into the space age within 10 to 15 years.

BAC evolved the scheme around one basic airframe and one basic engine type to give the greatest production economies. Further study was proposed, using a 13-ft. (3.96 m.) long model launched by the first stage of a projected Westland Black Arrow rocket. They also recommended a manned lifting body research glider be built.

The project was regarded as a suitable one for joint development by European aerospace companies. Its cost was estimated to be around "20 to 30 times cheaper" than that of the expendable rocket launch systems of the time.

The Northrop M2-F2 is one of the first of its kind. Mid-1964 NASA contacted Northrop to produce 2 all-metal wingless lifting body re-entry research vehicles based on experienced gained in their M2-F1 wooden glider (500 flights over 1963-64).

The M2-F2 first flew as a glider on 1966/07/12, dropping from beneath the wing of a Boeing B-52 (45,000 ft). It flew again 05/1967 and was badly damaged and rebuilt as a M2-F3 for it's first powered flight 1970/06/02. It reached a ceiling of of 90,000 ft and speed of Mach 1.7.

The M2-F2 was nearly identical in physical shape to the HL-10. the HL-10 attained Mach 1.9 and an altitude of 90,000 ft. Both test projects were ended in 1973. The Marietta X-24 has largely the same lifting body design and was first flown March 1970.

The Martin Marietta X-24B on the other hand, though using the same lifting-body concept was extensively remodeled.

It flew from 1972/02/01 until 1975/11/26 making 10 glide and 26 powered flights. It's first real flight was 1973/08.

Returning to a few more saucer designs. It recently came to my attention that there were two saucer designs predating Avrocar. In 1911 there was something called the Vought "umbrella plane." The inventor was Chance Vought. According to those who have researched the matter the project went nowhere. However Vought went on to produce a famous line of aircrafts in the USA.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Xtraeme]
edit on 14/6/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:39 AM
reply to post by Xtraeme

Wow, great thread! I can not believe that it hasn't got more attention than it has. Star and flag from me. Good research and pictures. This should help people weed out the military "UFOs".

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

Appreciate the kind words
. One thing I didn't mention before that I probably should have is that I'm looking to build a database of "UFO-like aircrafts," including the following characteristics:
  1. general shape / lifting body
  2. as evidenced by some sort of photographic evidence (video is nice too) or trustworthy documentation,
  3. first test flight,
  4. deployment / decommission dates,
  5. declassification date,
  6. size (length, wingspan, height),
  7. top speed,
  8. service ceiling,
  9. range,
  10. total manufactured,
  11. and any interesting or bizarre flight characteristics (ie/ the X-31s thrust vectoring technology or the X-50A fixed-wing helicopter).

I've already accounted for (in order of apperance):
  1. Avrocar (aka Project Silverbug)
  2. Lenticular Reentry Vehicle (LRV)
  3. Pye Wacket
  4. Schriever discs (aka Flugkreisel)
  5. Moller's disc designs
  6. 1919 JG1
  7. 1931 Junkers G.38 Grossflugzeug
  8. Lockheed-Martin's P-791 LTA ACLS dynamicpara
  9. X-47A Pegasus
  10. X-45
  11. X-50A
  12. X-15
  13. X-3 Stiletto
  14. X-38 CRV
  15. X-40A
  16. X-37 Future X
  17. X-51 waverider
  18. RQ-3 Darkstar
  19. Lockheed U-2
  20. SR-71 Blackbird
  21. F-117A Nighthawk
  22. B-2 Spirit
  23. TR-3B
  24. Aurora
  25. GoldenEye 80
  26. V-173 (aka "Flying Flapjack")
  27. X-33 VentureStar
  28. X-29
  29. X-31
  30. X-43A
  31. Avro Vulcan B.2 XM597
  32. HAC.3 (Meteor) (aka G-ABXL)
  33. B-2000B Super Bomber (aka Loadmaster)
  35. Northrop M2-F2
  36. HL-10
  37. Marietta X-24B
  38. Vought "umbrella plane"

Even if people don't want to contribute a whole entry, I would appreciate recommendations of other planes or designs by project name or code designation. That would be extremely helpful.


[edit on 27-5-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 07:14 PM
I mentioned the Avrocar before, but I didn't mention the number of variations of design.

The most commonly recognized iteration is the VZ-9.

The general shape is that of a standard "flying saucer." Design for this craft started in 1953, as Project Y-2, under J.C.M "Jack" Frost of Avro Aircraft, Canada, and the goal was to create a supersonic VTOL aircraft using a circular wing design.

According to Bernard Lindenbaum and William Blake, "VTOL capability was to be achieved by ducting fan air and engine exhaust to the periphery of the planform and deflecting the air flow downwards. Close to the ground, this provides a cushion effect where the lift exceeds the thrust due to increased pressure on the underside of the aircraft."

The Canadian government scratched the project in 1954, but the USAF contracted Avrocar in 1955 for further study. A prototype was made and at least semi-operational by 1956 resulting in additional funding. In March 1957, additional AF funding was provided and the aircraft became "Weapons System 606A." The project remained classified until July 1960.

It was in 1958 that Avro, after getting USAF & Army sign-off, started working on the VZ-9. The VZ-9 was 18' in diameter and 3 feet thick. According to Bernard Lindenbaum and William Blake, "At rollout, projected performance was far in excess of the requirement, with a 225 Kt maximum speed, 10,000 ft ceiling, 130 mile range with 1,000 lb payload, and hover out of ground effect with 2,428 lb payload. Maximum takeoff weight with transition to forward flight out of ground effect was calculated to be 5,650 lb, maximum weight with a transition in ground effect (GETOL) was 6,970 lb."

The 2nd manufactured Avrocar rolled out August 1959 and its hover capabilities were tested, while tethered to the ground, September 29, 1959. Unfortunately this revealed a problem "hubcapping" and the problem was never fully solved.

Lindenbaum and Blake elaborate, "Hubcapping was a rapid, unpredictable oscillation in pitch and roll. It resulted from an unstable ground cushion if the vehicle exceeded a critical height ... . The critical height was found to be about two feet from the ground. Control inputs were ineffective in damping the oscillation. Fifty two holes were drilled in the bottom of the vehicle, located radially three feet from the center. These were to provide a central jet to stabilize the ground cushion."

The first free flight occurred November 12, 1959, but the nozzle spoiler control system proved unacceptable. After 5 flights, testing was temporarily halted 12/5/1959, after logging 18.5 hours of test time in both tethered and free flight. Flight tests resumed 01/1960 and a USAF flight evaluation was held 4/4/160. During this evaluation Max airspeed was 30 kts, above this an uncontrollable oscillation in the pitch was discovered. It was also reported to be cramped, noisy, and excessively hot in the cockpit after just 15 mins of flight.

Further tests at NASA Ames wind tunnel found, "focussing ring control system provided insufficient thrust for forward flight out of ground effect, and large angles of attack were required to generate aerodynamic lift. This was because the flow on the underside of the vehicle diminished the wing circulation, reducing lift."

End of 4/1960 the project was canceled and shortly thereafter declassified by HQ USAF.

Following this a new design was pitched that received funding through 7/1960 to 7/1961. A wind tunnel test conducted by NASA Amex in 04/1961 found sufficient control to transition to about 100 kts and "trimmed flight (thrust = drag, zero net moment was possible at this speed." It was hoped that the change in flow over the aft portion of the vehicle would increase lift due to a jet flap effect and decrease the nose-up moment, reducing the instability." The 'T' tail that was added was completely ineffective.

June 9, 1961 the final USAF evaluation of Avrocar was conducted. It reached a maximum speed of 20 kts and could traverse a 6' wide and 18" deep ditch. "Flight above the critical height was impossible. The flight test report summarized a litany of control problems. For example, a large asymmetry in directional control was present. Five seconds were required to turn the aircraft 90 degrees to the left, while eleven seconds were required for a 90 degree right turn." The project was canceled and further designs were rejected.

Two aspects of the projects managed to live on despite the scrapping of Avrocar.

The Air Cushion Landing System was proven in 8/1967 and much later tested on a DeHavilland CC-115, given the designation of XC-8A, flying with ACLS in 3/1975. Also the lift fan driven by a turbo jet engine lives on as a key component of the Lockheed X-35 Joint Strike Fighter contender.


Preceding the VZ-9 design, in 1952, the Canadian Defense Research board funded Project Y (ATS thread), a tail-sitter type VTOL design. Also sometimes referred to as "Spade" or "Omega."

By 1953, a wooden mock-up of Project Y was completed, of which only images remain (see above). It appears the project was considered too costly within the military establishment, which was at the time involved in several extremely expensive air defense projects. Despite several stunts (releasing details to the press), funding was not forthcoming.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 07:34 PM
reply to post by Xtraeme

Well I will TELL YOU WHAT my friend....


You surely believe in the 'ongoing thread'.........If you would have added all this in your OP you would have got 100 flags and stars! Unfortunately many will not see this new post, but if I was a FSME or MOD I would applaud this last post. What detail.....What research........... This is what separates ATS from other sites......... WOW, once again. This is the reason I joined ATS....I do not have much more to add, just wanted to praise your great work, and I have added you as a friend BTW.

PS:I hope it is okay if I send people your way who might have seen a government craft!

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 07:46 PM
I just wanted to say thanks for posting all these pictures very interesting and amazing how you can see the evolution in the crafts, the older ones very much remind me of the up side down soup bowl types of UFO that were around back in the day.

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:11 PM
I'd say the only UFO being made in US, Canada and UK and
Germany is the Triangle seen in the Belgian Triangle event.

Old saucers just don't work any more.
Check out some old VW Bugs to see if they were ever modified.
That might be an old Foo/Phoo sparky craft.

ED: The Belgian Event is on youtube as well as an episode with
a flying wing with a central red dot like the Arnold wing.
A modified existing plane was used.

[edit on 6/6/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:16 PM
Northrop has made a series of flying wings from back in the 40s.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in