no I don't think plasma weapons are possible or practical. You need to create an electromagnetic field that encases and follows the plasma to it's target, which is just ridiculous
@@pleaseenteranamelol711 US Army has an Electrolaser operational and I'm gonna be 'that guy' and say that the ionized path to the target being plasma counts as a plasma weapon. And If you use a positively charged capacitor or + DC power supply the ion drift is opposite to the flow of electrons in the air, which accelerates it to the target as a dense ion wind.
Yeah the US military is said to be 30 years ahead of its civilian tech. But that was in the 60’s imagine how far ahead they are now. US military had internet in the 60’s and civilians got it and thought it was brand new in 1988/1990’s it’s crazy . I wonder what the, I think it’s black box project has now. It may not be called that but the project where they spend more money then some other nations do on their normal military . The project is super secret stuff . Area 51 and more secret then that .
@@pleaseenteranamelol711 maybe not like a bolt or bullet shape field but possibly a long narrow pipeline being solidly projected. Almost like a beam of light. Then maybe sling the plasma through that beam.
at that time he was a genius. you cannot compare with a modern technology today. It is still a good concept and human just gotto keep up with a better engineering that's all. TR-3B was a success. This is just a history of technology. One day we will be reached to the speed of Alien spaceship for sure.
Pretty sure they only declassified this in 2012 because one could easily relate this technology to the one used on the hovercrafts the US marines and NAVY use ;) By the late 50's they already had all their efforts towards reverse engineering of real space crafts. Even in 1960, 2 million for a military program is nothing. Peanuts literally. They paid even more for a pencil in space. People think all that money was stolen, some of it, most likely, but back than everything was of quality and not cheap if you wanted precise engineering. Today we can build 3d models and virtualizations, back then you had to build the model before even beginning to think. Today a thousand dollar computer can replace possibly millions and millions in materials, work hours, calculations, etc. Back then everything, EVERYTHING almost was men powered. We only had tools.Not AI. This is why our technology growth is so exponential since the discovery of computers and we will most likely see that future we all dreamed of, possibly before dying of old age. If so.
@@エネ-n1c Well just the fact his military "challenge" was to pass a 18 inch ditch, shows they had other interests in his technology than mach 3.5 flight. lol. Dark docs is like a 15 yrs old kid with braces man. He sensationalises stuff and puts music on shet thats been collecting rust in museums for half a century than calls it a day. LOL
Give it rotary engines and a computer controlled system and it will work. But who wants inebriated teenagers crashing into their second story bedroom at 250 mph?
@@dancingwiththedarkness3352 No, it would not work. They failed to determine the airflow coming out of the bottom of the craft would become turbulent and the amount of lift would be disrupted. They incorrectly thought the vehicle could achieve controllable flight, I.e. become a "flying saucer". In zero gravity it would, but not the world we live in.
And the fact that the central fan system was exhaust driven only, three jet engines exhaust in this case. At it been designed using shaft driven (like a turboprop), the overall performance of the central fan would have been far superior. But the control would still have been crap once you lost ground effect.
You are misunderstanding how this worked. The thrust from the engines was originally emitted out the edge of the saucer and would induce airflow over the upper surface to generate lift using the coanda effect. The entire upper surface of the saucer was basically a wing. Having thrust come out the center was a bandaid to try and make it stable but stole thrust used to generate coanda effect lift and prevented it from being able to get out of ground effect anyway. In recent years people have built similar small drones that utilize coanda lift and the idea has been proven to actually work. The problem was that it needed computer stabilization that hadn't been invented yet. These days a commonly available flight controller with an electronic gyro can do the job easily.
It is a mystery to me how anybody with even the most rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics and engine technology could believe this design would ever fly, reach any significant speed, let alone go supersonic.
@@lostvayne104 ok, the Canadians spent a considerable amount of time and money researching this and then we spent even more money trying to get it working!!. If they wanted a decoy they'd just have to do like they do at Area51 and allow the conspiracy theorists run riot about non existent alien technology! That cost them nothing!!
This "Flying Saucer" was created where I worked for many years in Malton Ontario as a sister project to The Avro Arrow. You can see footage of the building where I manned a toll crib in the background of this footage. it was actually more of a hovercraft, but who can say what it may have morphed into had it not been cancelled.
ME: "Run of the mill failed dream aircraft..." Dark Skies: *Scary Music Intensifies, Dark Voice Begins* "in 2012, a memo titled 'project 1794'..." Me: "This is terrifying..!"
More footage of the Avrocar than i have seen before! Another good story is the AVRO Arrow. Built in Canada but cancelled for political reasons.Great history, thanks!
@@Justanotherconsumer Lots of excuses, what-ifs, politics, etc. USA and Britain were developing their own interceptors. Thus there were no markets. The Uncle SAM said " Buy the BOMARC and we will help protect you". Cheaper for Canada. They also had the CF-100 to do the work in the meantime. So with CF-100s and BOMARCs, and no cash paying customers for the CF-105 it was canned. Same issues happened years before with C-102 jetliner. USA and Britain in competition, no cash paying customers, and we need to concentrate on the CF-100, thus the C-102 goes into the can. Today they have interceptors with guided missiles for defense. They are the offspring of the CF-105 concepts. However politics was the main reason, a good way to gut the competition and snatch all that great talent from the brain bank to work in your aircraft and aerospace industry.
Feelzbad CHAI Bomarc was definitely not the greatest thing slice sliced bread. Reality was that there wasn’t enough of a market for multiple interceptors in NATO, and the performance of the Arrow wasn’t anything unusual compared to the existing F-106 (introduced 1959, the year the Arrow was canceled) and the proposed XF-108 (canceled the same year as the Arrow).
EXACTALLY the type person that these "...in the name of war..." projects attract. It is hard to believe that engineers, or should I say "management" who dictate the work of engineers, thought this concept could FLY. Does that mean young students in today's engineering colleges are smarter then the post war engineers??? Or, was something discovered and kept secret? The time spent on this project is hard to justify otherwise.
@@rogerc.roberts4705 It should be noted that this occurred during the early 1950s, where Jet engines themselves where incredibly new, and Helicopters hadn't been around for that long either. You can get your slide rule out, and do a whole lot of math which should tell you something aught to preform a certain way, build it, and find out you misjudged how air was going to behave with this. *Now* we have computers that could have told you something like this was going to have problems, but it took a lot of money and not a few dead test pilots to drive the creation of Computational Fluid Dynamics software. That said, in the Avro-Car's case, there was some sunk-cost-fallacy going on. But there where lessons learned that where later applied to other Vtol aircraft, such as the Harrier and F35B. Modern technology has allowed a few folks to make small ground effect vehicles that out-preform this thing by leaps and bounds (the human-sized quad-copters floating around the internet come to mind)
DFX2KX the area rule is definitely one of those “we didn’t understand the physics” situations. The F-102 is another example of the “didn’t do what the math claimed” situation.
Indeed. What I don't understand is could they not have made a small model - proof - of - concept version? Like 2/3ft in diameter *before* actually trying to build a full sized saucer? Any modelling would've proved they were flogging a dead horse.?
Frost was a brilliant engineer, but made too many revisions, cut-backs and short cuts to appease goal post shifting DOD goons who never wanted the project in the first place, but had to justify to select committees their Budgets. The initial design was quite a large vehicle utilising LFTR engines and computational assisted flight controls, the precursor to F117 flight controls, thanks to the pressure to deliver ‘a product’ Frost binned everything, decreasing airframe by 60% accepting traditional aviation fuel engines, and fly by cable, ultimately confining the concept to the dustbin, but then all it had been was a 2nd approach to the ‘Flux Liner’ question; anti-gravity technology.
The real flying saucers we made after getting Nazi scientists with Operation Paperclip were using electromagneticgravitic propulsion instead of thrusters. This is a way to use the saucer shape with conventional propulsion systems. We need a video on the TR-3B triangle craft that uses the “anti gravity” propulsion system, I was up close and personal with one 15 years ago. It’s about time we got more info on the real game changing craft that are still classified till this day. But you can see exactly what I saw by googling “triangle spacecraft patent”.
I have been a Dark 5 sub for a long time and I am loving the new channel additions. I am a huge aviation fan, so these videos are amazing, keep it up and thank you for the years of entertainment and quality content.
Still makes me wonder how much of NASA's experience with keeping these critters even remotely stable later benefited the development of the Apollo program's "Flying Bedstead".
My Drafting highschool teacher (last year before the school bought their 1st dedicated CAD machines). Worked on that project, he was a draftsman at Avro in Canada in the 1950's. He brought in some old blueprints in the classroom for us to look at.
Honestly, the effort put into this thing is really impressive. Sure it was a failure, but I feel that that has more to do with the technology available back then than the concept itself. We could probably make it MUCH better nowadays if we tried.
Considering it only got up to 39 knots and 3 feet off the ground... You could practically jam whatever surplus jet engines are laying around up the ass of a VW Bug and get a "MUCH better performance" out of it... I'd hate to think we couldn't do better by now with a proper focus on the airframe in question... Still doesn't necessarily make it a great idea, though... ;o)
This story is an excellent demonstration of a powerful fact: it's more important to get funding for a project than to succeed. This was an idiotic idea, but look how many people got paid.
"Suddenly ahead of me, across the mountainside... a gleaming alloy air-car shoots towards me--two lanes wide." - Red Barchetta / Rush: Moving Pictures, 1981
I think it missed its calling as it would have made an excellent lawn mower. Hole football fields mown in a matter of minutes. I believe the Germans were working on such a project during the war. Though whether or not they got passed the drawing board stage I do not know.
There's a great book that partly covers this aircraft's development - 'The Hunt For Zero Point' by Nick Cook. They basically nicked a German design that was being tested in Czechoslovakia during the war. Now you can see where all those 1950s UFO sightings came from .... I think someone came up with a more refined version that has remained classified. It strikes me that all the failures they had that are described here were the kind of engineering problems that modern CAD would have partly helped to accelerate, but back then they had trail and error.
I got to see this thing on display in Ohio when I was in college. Being a total sci-fi nut (and the fact that it looks cool as hell) I immediately went over to investigate, but was disappointed to learn from it's display plaque that it was considered a failure. I wonder what could have come of it if the military had decided to continue the project; we might have had some gnarly-looking scout vehicles or light hover tanks by now. :)
Some thoughts on other projects that might be worth covering - The “man eater” F-107. The XF-84H “thunderscreech.” The XF-103 and XF-108 exotic super-interceptor projects. Might cover them with the Avro Arrow, as they’re part of the same “what if.” The XP-79 Flying Ram (the most wtf design for an airplane I’ve seen). The Ryan FR2 Fireball (such a bad name for a plane).
This guy was a scam artist. He managed to bilk the U.S. taxpayer for millions of dollars based on a ridiculous over-estimate of the vehicle's capabilities. 100,000 feet? Try 18 inches. Mach 3? Try 20 km/h. And he had the chutzpah to continue to ask for even more money, haha.
Remember, this is just a prototype which we found out about over 50 years later. If you think they abandoned this completely, you are delusional, who knows what they have today...
This vehicle was not a flying saucer it was the first attempt at an air cushion vehicle. Its max altitude was about 10 ft and was abandoned because it was almost uncontrollable at that altitude. It used to be mounted on the root of the army transportation museum at Ft. Eustis VA before it was returned to Canada (Where it was manufactured).
A true friend of mine retired after 35 years of service in the U.S.A.F.I had known him for years and one day I got up the nerve to ask him about flying discs.His one and only reply was yes,there are flying ships,but we ourselves are doing the flying!
I remember going to the Dayton Air Force Museum when I was little and saw the flying saucer, and then the next time I went it was gone and I thought I went crazy. Funnily enough, when I took a trip to the experimental hanger it was there. I knew I wasn't crazy
Interestingly enough, the design flaw that made it unstable was its method of lift. It’s central fan was powered by 6 jet engines dumping exhaust into a tooth wheel that caused it to spin. But had they done something like the F-35 by directly hooking up the turbine to the fan then this aircraft may have been able to over perform what was intended
The X29 from DARPA had several computers making hundreds of corrections per second. A similar computer system and modern construction materials would make control and stability much more manageable.
I'll swear on a stack of bibles that I saw the same airframe (no engines or control surfaces) on said frame parked in a display and open to the public at a patch of beach near Myrtle Beach SC approximately 1968-70. It was parked on a high (6 foot tall) 45 degree inclined frame, sort of like it's operational flight profile was supposed to be. All the other aircraft were current and very dilapidated (think scrapped and stripped for parts non-flyable stuff) and there amongst the other junk was this thing. Like spotting the Batmobile in a junkyard.
I always wanted the Mythbusters to answer why this project lasted as long as it did. It's failure seems so predictable. Your video explains many of my questions.
My Dad, who was a United States Army officer, found this craft in a junkyard and had it brought to Fort Eustis in Virginia and put on display in front of the base's museum, which is the last place I saw it during the 70's.
With today's fast computers calculating the gimballing and more efficient modern jet engines and propellants this could be a handy little saucer yet! 🤔🤔🤔
Awesome video as always. The official stats for this vehicle are ridiculous. For example it never got off the ground higher than 3 feet and it was massively unstable then. Nowadays with our computer control technology we could probably make one of those and have it work but it would have no additional benefits other than vertical takeoff. And traditional fighter craft would out perform it in every other way massively.
All the best documentaries have incessant 'spooky' background noises and a narrator with a tone of voice that says, "I take myself way too seriously". You should apply for a job on one of those TV channels that people find themselves watching accidentally in the early hours of the morning.
I just learned 3 weeks ago that my grandfather worked on this in Malton (I knew he worked for Avro but always assumed/believed it was working on the Arrow). Crazy.
A true friend of mine retired after 35 years of service in the U.S.A.F.I had known him for years and one day I got up the nerve to ask him about flying discs.His one and only reply was yes,there are flying ships,but we ourselves are doing the flying!
Born I'm 1960 I remember seeing the laughable disc, it still makes me laugh, and the funny thing is Roswell was 1947, so the crashed UFOs used fan blades to blow down to fly intergalactic missions,lol, it's 2023 and we have zero knowledge of how UFOs/aliens move unimaginable distances.
I wonder if the ion lifters could be used for this. They can't lift weight but maybe at the bottom, a series of ion lifters and with enough power, something stable and a little more silent. Don't know about the 'mock speed capabilities' but it would be a great use for scouting and getting wounded troops out of a combat situation quickly.
Aerodynamically and technologically, this project could be done today. The same multiple redundant/comparing processor CCV tech used for any relaxed stability design should do the trick. Now the requirement needs formulated. As a hover "jeep" for medevac and/or delivering supplies over sodden ground, water, or mud, it could prove quite useful. For the high altitude interceptor requirement, however, using ground effect as landing gear is a really cool idea . . . but the aerodynamic transition would need carefully judged and computer aided. And the added complexity of the whole GEV system versus the standard tripod oleo landing gear arrangement might be problematic. As with any system today, it's all about engine engine engine . . . the most important qualities being high P:W, and the ability to run cool while in taxi or ground effect . . . I envision it redesigned as a "Flying Pancake" (see the Grumman XF-5U), lifting body with four canards (I'll call them Flailerons . . . hehe); one at each "corner" (45 degrees, 135 degrees, 225 degrees, and 270 degrees, or 1:30, 4:30, 7:30, and 10:30 o'clock). It should be fairly stealthy in aspect, due to the majority of curvilinear reflecting surfaces. Engine in the hull, too, with the intake on top. How would such a plane handle? Depends on the engine and CCV, doesn't it? As long as the "Flaileron" Paddles can bite enough air, what's the problem? Better still, for high AOA, Low and Slow, the Flailerons can be held parallel to the ground, forming a "Flying Flea" type of sesquiplane. All that's needed . . . lifting body and control surfaces . . . minimal aerodynamic drag. Now where to put the weapons? On drones orbiting the AWACs, of course. Your Avrocar Interceptor can just I.D. and okay the final engagement by the AWACs and drone launched Phoenix (et al) interceptor). With a cruise missile . . . it could loiter in a holding pattern, waiting for a coordinate. Hehehe. Another step might be to militarise space again . . . not that anyone is blowing that horn these days . . . Space Patrol anyone? Keep a swarm of orbiting Concrete Statues of various superheroes up there, with a control satellite armed with a long robotic arm suitable for giving each statue that little "push" it needs to enter a carefully calculated approach path. Imagine the scene in Heaven when the guy on the ground gets debriefed. "I haven't a clue why. I was just out walking my dog when Superman came flying down out of the sky. I shoulda had a V8. With Kryptonite."
*If* you believe the internet. The reason for the saucer design is it deflects/dispels or prevents radiation [from the propulsion system] enveloping "the occupants" of said saucer...
imagine if they were still working on it, with the way we've figured out thrust vectoring and improved jet engine tech, this idea can potentially work now
A total failure that canadian machine. To what extent current quadcopters, toy or full size machines, are 'inspired' in the Software allowing the P Moeller 200-X Wankel powered flying disc to operate? Watch: '1988: Manned test flight of a flying car'
This hover vehicle is no doubt much more advanced now. Circular spacecraft were common in 1930s comics. This is what they were trying to copy with the design, although the first genuine report of a similar craft in the air by private pilot Kenneth Arnold in 1947. The newspapers called his sighting a flying saucer
The German's from project paper clip have taken over & spending shed loads of American cash & guess whose paying for it Well someone payed for the houses not forgetting the rockets to the moon & the unknown space station we don't no about but our friend Gary McKinnon just so stumbled up on it , bless him & they wanted to extradite him because of a lame security breach & to think all those Trillion's spent & couldn't spend the cash wisely errrrrrm like on proper security DAH !!!
