Vril 7 at Arado Brandedburg '44/'45

[robert arndt]

http://freewebhosting.hostdepartment.com/o/otti/vril7.jpg

Interesting pic. The lady in the foreground in the Vril Gesellschaft
medium Sigurn who has been authenticated in other WW2 photos standing
in front of Fw 190 fighters.

Another photo of the Vril 7b in flight:

http://www.reformnetz.de/conspiracy/Vril7Beta.jpg

And another intersting pic of the Hanebau II DoStra in flight:

http://www.reformnetz.de/conspiracy/Dostra-Werksfoto.jpg

Rob

p.s. Please spare the conspiracy comments. It is pretty well known now
that Germany DID build various kinds of circular/disc aircraft during
WW2 and that the USAF admitted this in 1996:

Arthur Sack A.S.6
BMW Flugelrad models I-III
Schauberger Repulsin A & B motors
RFZ, Vril & Hanebau
Wiener-Neustadt Feuerball (aka Foo Fighter)

plus design work and/or wind-tunnel testing of:

Henri Coanda Lenticular Craft
Andreas Epp Omega Discus
Alexander Lippisch Circular Aerodyne
Heinrich Focke Fw VTOL
Focke Wulf VTOL

[steve gallacci]

robert arndt wrote:
>
> http://freewebhosting.hostdepartment.com/o/otti/vril7.jpg
>
> Interesting pic. The lady in the foreground in the Vril Gesellschaft
> medium Sigurn who has been authenticated in other WW2 photos standing
> in front of Fw 190 fighters.
>
> Another photo of the Vril 7b in flight:
>
> http://www.reformnetz.de/conspiracy/Vril7Beta.jpg
>
> And another intersting pic of the Hanebau II DoStra in flight:
>
> http://www.reformnetz.de/conspiracy/Dostra-Werksfoto.jpg
>
That is a fake photo.

[robert arndt]

steve gallacci > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
> >
> > http://freewebhosting.hostdepartment.com/o/otti/vril7.jpg
> >
> > Interesting pic. The lady in the foreground in the Vril Gesellschaft
> > medium Sigurn who has been authenticated in other WW2 photos standing
> > in front of Fw 190 fighters.
> >
> > Another photo of the Vril 7b in flight:
> >
> > http://www.reformnetz.de/conspiracy/Vril7Beta.jpg
> >
> > And another intersting pic of the Hanebau II DoStra in flight:
> >
> > http://www.reformnetz.de/conspiracy/Dostra-Werksfoto.jpg
> >
> That is a fake photo.


Here's more for you to browse:

A.S.6: www.luft46.com/misc/as6-1.jpg
Schauberger Repulsin B-Type: www.xpress.se/~jela0218/VSPics/repulsin2.JPG
BMW Flugelrad V-2(?): www.mental-ray.de/Mental-Ray/Wunderwaffen/wunder2.gif
JFM: http://freewebhosting.hostdepartment.com/o/otti/rfz7.jpg
RFZ-2: www.ufo.i-pila.pl/ufo/images/v03.JPG
Haunebu I:http://freewebhosting.hostdepartment.com/o/otti/haunebu1.jpg
Haunebu II: www.ufo.i-pila.pl/ufo/images/v02.JPG
Haunebu II DoStra: http://home.t-online.de/home/home-delta-press/hau.jpg
Omega Diskus: http://fun.supereva.it/arse.freeweb/omega-1.jpg
Fw VTOL test model: www.germanvtol.com/fwvtolfolder/Image6.jpg

Rob

[Andreas Parsch]

robert arndt wrote:
>
> Here's more for you to browse:
>
> A.S.6: www.luft46.com/misc/as6-1.jpg
> [other links snipped]

Just a hint: Repeating fantasies umpteen times doesn't make them any
more real ;-)!

SNCR
Andreas

[WaltBJ]

It's fake? Dang! I wanted to believe in a flying saucer with the USS
Monitor's turret up top. Twin 11 inch muzzle loading black powder
guns, too! What a shock to any fighter making a pass at it!
Walt BJ

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(WaltBJ) wrote:

> It's fake? Dang! I wanted to believe in a flying saucer with the USS
> Monitor's turret up top. Twin 11 inch muzzle loading black powder
> guns, too! What a shock to any fighter making a pass at it!

Smokescreen with every shot...

[robert arndt]

Andreas Parsch > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
> >
> > Here's more for you to browse:
> >
> > A.S.6: www.luft46.com/misc/as6-1.jpg
> > [other links snipped]
>
> Just a hint: Repeating fantasies umpteen times doesn't make them any
> more real ;-)!
>
> SNCR
> Andreas

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. In regards to what I posted
let's recap:

Arthur Sack A.S.6: Conventional piston-engined circular research
aircraft. One built and test flown, albeit not successfully. This was
a private venture with no real support. The plane was made largely of
wood, spare parts from a Me-109B, and a low hp Argus engine. It
suffered from misplaced landing gear and despite attempts by even a
Me-163 fighter pilot at Brandis only hopped and crashed a few times
before being cut-up and burned. This aircraft does not represent in
any way the nature of the diversified German disc programs.

Fw VTOL: Verified design by Heinrich Focke and patented in 1939.
Rejected as not practical. Amazing for its time because it was a
turboshaft aircraft with exhaust aux. chambers acting as afterburners.

Omega Diskus: Proposed by Andreas Epps and designed to be powered by 8
Argus engines acting as lift fans plus two rotating Pabst ramjets.
Four models were wind tunnel tested. The propulsion system was
patented by West Germany on April 22, 1956 and offered to the USAF. No
word from the USAF on whether anything came of this...

Viktor Schauberger Repulsin A&B Types: Discoid liquid vortex motors
that utilized air, water, and a crystalline substance channeled
through spiral internal membranes with centrepidal force that created
an artificial vortex of electromagnetic energy. Several models built
and tested under the supervision of the SS Technical Branch. Key
question is if a larger version was installed in the SS Projekt Saucer
program. This is the subject explored in Nick Cook's book "Hunt for
Zero Point".

WNF Feuerball (aka Foo Fighter): Heavily documented burning
spheres/discs that plagued USAAF Bomber Groups from Nov '44 until Apr
'45. Documented by 415th NFS and also observed in Japan in Aug '45,
which only strengthens the belief that therese weapons were German and
supplied to Japan via submarine in frantic technology transfers.
Basically a type of remote controlled disc launched from a modified
SAM launcher the Feuerball carried two radical devices onboard- a
plume sensor and Messerschmitt's electrical field weapon found at
Oberammergau.
The unmanned rotor disc with the fire halo(caused by the rotating
ramjet tip pods)homed onto the bombers engines with the plume & IR
sensors and then approached from behind to within 300 feet of the
bomber. At this point the electrical field weapon disrupted the
bomber's engines causing severe handling problems.
Although no casualties are reported from these incidents the notion
that they were friendly UFOs that tagged along the bombers is false.
They were launched from German-held ground and interfered with the
bombers engines. Amazingly, despite strong documentation AND reporting
in Allied newspapers in Dec '44/Jan '45 there is no official
conclusion on what these were from the USAAF/USAF.

BMW Flugelrad series: Not true flying saucers but jet rotorcraft.
These were constructed with BMW's 003 jet engines which diverted
thrust through a slotted nozzle up into the rotor ring which contained
between 16-32 variable pitch blades depending on the model. At least
three models were flight tested- the Flugelrad V-1 and V-2 plus the
Flugelrad II V-1. The Fluglerad II V-2 was under construction while
the Flugelrad II V-3 was windtunnel testing. The final Flugelrad III
was in the design phase. For the longest time these craft were denied
by the USAF until the late '90s when they were admitted. The USAF to
save face added that they were dangerous flight machines that were
unstabled and mostly tethered... yet the Germans reported that the
first Flugelrad was airborn in Aug '43 from the Czech Aerodrome at
Prag-Kbely. The V-2 flew in 1944 at the Neubiberg Aerodrome near
Munich and the last Flugelrad II V-1 flew at Prag-Kbely in Feb '45
before all the machines were destroyed by the SS prior to the Soviet
advance.

Henri Coanda Lenticular Disc: Coanda was captured in Paris under the
German ocupation and forced to work for the SS on the disc program.
His design, a large lenticular machine using 12 Jumo 004 jet engines
with forked exhaust tips was windtunnel tested by the Germans but
rejected as highly impractical with the scarcity of the Jumo engines.
His propulsion system, however, was validated postwar by the Allied
research services in 1949 and study was undertaken at Cornell
Aeronautical Laboratory with positive results. This information was
passed on by the US to Avro Canada and was incorporated in the failed
VZ-9 Avrocar. As many others now suspect the VZ-9 was designed to fail
while other more advanced military flying machines were being
explored, especially those that originated at Wright Patterson and
stored at MacDill AFB in Fl.

Now we get to the occult stuff and material that is highly
controversial. But one must remember that you cannot seperate the
occult from the Third Reich anymore than you can the holocaust. The
NSDAP(Nazi Party) originated from the Thule Society
(political/pseudo-science) which branched out into the Vril Society
(metaphysics) and which was connected to both the DHvSS (Men of the
Black Stone) and SS which had a Technical Branch (of which the E4 Unit
was a part) an Archeological Branch, and a religious Order. Before WW2
even started mediums from both the Thule and Vril societies were
channeling information from supposedly ET sources for the construction
of an "otherworld flight machine" or JFM (Jenseitsflugmaschine).

JFM: Constructed in 1922 and tested until 1924. Dismantled in 1924 and
eventually stored at Messerschmitt's Augsberg facility. Machine
disappeared and never found. No information exists suggesting that it
worked but afterwards Thule and Vril began construction of the RFZ
(RundFlugZeug) discs RFZ-1 thru 7.

After that, again the mediums channeled information of a crashed alien
craft in the Black Forest, near Freiberg in 1936. The Thule Society
recovered the craft and attempted to reverse engineer it at Himmler's
(a Thule member) castle, which served as an SS religious/occult
experimentation center. From their studies of the craft Thule
supposedly came up with the Tachyonator drive which along with the
Schumann Levitator device allowed a rotating magnetic field. These
devices as well as a mercury fueled engine were incorporated into the
RFZ, Vril, and Haunebu discs.

Some of these discs tested various armament from 7.92mm MGs to 30mm
MK-108 cannon and larger calibres. All proved impractical and no disc
aircraft were ever reported as firing on Allied aircraft.

The big question is what happened to them? This is where the wild
stories begin.

Way back in 1938/39 the Nazis sent expeditions to Tibet and Antartica.
In Antartica they renamed Queen Maud Land as NeuSchwabenland and
marked the territory by air. For years during the war U-boats made
trips to both Antartica and South America... for no rational
explanation. Several U-boats were missing at the surrender in May '45
only to surface months after the war in South America after unloading
cargo. One U-boat which was sunk along the way was carrying 33 tons of
mercury (the fuel for the Vril/Haunebu engines).

These events prompted the US to invade Antartica immediately after WW2
in 1946 with a large miltary force under Byrd. Operation Highjump had
an aircraft carrier, submarine, aircraft, helicopters, 17 supply
ships, and 4000 men. They landed in NeuSchwabenland and for weeks
tried to discover any German buried material or bunkers using aircraft
anomaly detectors. They ran into resistance early on and lost men and
aircraft. The entire operation was described to the public as a
peaceful one that ran into some weather problems and a few fatalities
that forced them to return. Similar "exercises" were carried out
against South American countries suspected of harboring Nazis and
technology.

At the close of WW2, a quarter-million Germans were missing along with
several thousand scientists, engineers, and specialists. Close to 60
U-boats were also unaccounted for. Members of the Thule Society other
than those high-profile Nazis captured were missing as well as the
Vril Society, the mediums Maria Orsitsch and Sigrun, the DhvSS, and
large portions of the SS E.4 Unit. The British captured parts of the
German disc program and Hans Coler's amazing free energy machine, but
could not replicate the German designs. They did allow Coler to build
a new free energy machine that is included in a BIOS report, but even
though it worked the British could not explain "how".

It is my firm opinion that the British handed over these material to
the USAF which replicated the German discs at Wright Patterson and
continued their development into what is flying today. That is
precisely why the German records are still classified.

If the German disc programs are fantasy Andreas please explain the
USAF need to keep thier history classified for 75 years (until 2020).
Please also explain how three different peoples in history ranging
from the ancients to the USAF describe mercury as powering a non-jet
engine to achieve flight? The ancients had the Vimana craft, the
Germans the Vril and Haunebu, and the USAF the TR-3b Astra.

Although we might disagree, as aviation fans, I think we can put aside
our nationalistic differences for the moment and both agree that it
would be nice to know the truth. If given the chance to examine the
documents still classified today would you not eagerly go through them
to discover if these craft existed or not? I would and that's all I'm
saying.

Rob

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Andreas Parsch > wrote in message
>...

>
> The big question is what happened to them? This is where the wild
> stories begin.
>
> Way back in 1938/39 the Nazis sent expeditions to Tibet and Antartica.
> In Antartica they renamed Queen Maud Land as NeuSchwabenland and
> marked the territory by air. For years during the war U-boats made
> trips to both Antartica and South America... for no rational
> explanation.

You think it irrational that U-boats would try to interdict shipping
from South America ?

The Captain of the Graf Spee didnt as I recall

> Several U-boats were missing at the surrender in May '45

Well yes that happens in war


> only to surface months after the war in South America after unloading
> cargo.

Cite please , I only know of two, U-530 which surrendered in Argentina
in July 1945 and U-977


U-530 left Horten on 3rd March 1945

We know U-977 travelled straight to Argentina from Norway as she left
Norway on 10th May after putting shore those crew who didnt want
to flee to Argentina and as a type VIIC she was hardly a cargo carrier

> One U-boat which was sunk along the way was carrying 33 tons of
> mercury (the fuel for the Vril/Haunebu engines).
>

And more to the point was vital to the Japanese war effort



> These events prompted the US to invade Antartica immediately after WW2
> in 1946 with a large miltary force under Byrd. Operation Highjump had
> an aircraft carrier, submarine, aircraft, helicopters, 17 supply
> ships, and 4000 men. They landed in NeuSchwabenland and for weeks
> tried to discover any German buried material or bunkers using aircraft
> anomaly detectors. They ran into resistance early on and lost men and
> aircraft. The entire operation was described to the public as a
> peaceful one that ran into some weather problems and a few fatalities
> that forced them to return. Similar "exercises" were carried out
> against South American countries suspected of harboring Nazis and
> technology.
>

Lets count the errors here shall we

1) The expedition


> At the close of WW2, a quarter-million Germans were missing along with
> several thousand scientists, engineers, and specialists. Close to 60
> U-boats were also unaccounted for. Members of the Thule Society other
> than those high-profile Nazis captured were missing as well as the
> Vril Society, the mediums Maria Orsitsch and Sigrun, the DhvSS, and
> large portions of the SS E.4 Unit. The British captured parts of the
> German disc program and Hans Coler's amazing free energy machine, but
> could not replicate the German designs. They did allow Coler to build
> a new free energy machine that is included in a BIOS report, but even
> though it worked the British could not explain "how".
>
> It is my firm opinion that the British handed over these material to
> the USAF which replicated the German discs at Wright Patterson and
> continued their development into what is flying today. That is
> precisely why the German records are still classified.
>
> If the German disc programs are fantasy Andreas please explain the
> USAF need to keep thier history classified for 75 years (until 2020).
> Please also explain how three different peoples in history ranging
> from the ancients to the USAF describe mercury as powering a non-jet
> engine to achieve flight? The ancients had the Vimana craft, the
> Germans the Vril and Haunebu, and the USAF the TR-3b Astra.
>
> Although we might disagree, as aviation fans, I think we can put aside
> our nationalistic differences for the moment and both agree that it
> would be nice to know the truth. If given the chance to examine the
> documents still classified today would you not eagerly go through them
> to discover if these craft existed or not? I would and that's all I'm
> saying.
>
> Rob

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Andreas Parsch > wrote in message
>...
> > robert arndt wrote:

> Way back in 1938/39 the Nazis sent expeditions to Tibet and Antartica.
> In Antartica they renamed Queen Maud Land as NeuSchwabenland and
> marked the territory by air. For years during the war U-boats made
> trips to both Antartica and South America... for no rational
> explanation.

You think it irrational that U-boats would try to interdict shipping
from South America ?

The Captain of the Graf Spee didnt as I recall

> Several U-boats were missing at the surrender in May '45

Well yes that happens in war


> only to surface months after the war in South America after unloading
> cargo. One U-boat which was sunk along the way was carrying 33 tons of
> mercury (the fuel for the Vril/Haunebu engines).
>

Cite please , I only know of two, U-530 which surrendered in Argentina
in July 1945 and U-977


U-530 left Horten on 3rd March 1945 and like U-977 its crew decided
to surrender in friendly Argentina rather than return to an uncertain
future in Germany

We know U-977 travelled straight to Argentina from Norway as she left
Norway on 10th May after putting shore those crew who didnt want
to flee to Argentina and as a type VIIC she was hardly a cargo carrier
Her crew's interrogation is available on-line at

http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-977INT.htm

A remarkable story but UFO's are not involved


Keith

[John Mullen]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Andreas Parsch > wrote in message
>...
> > robert arndt wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's more for you to browse:
> > >
> > > A.S.6: www.luft46.com/misc/as6-1.jpg
> > > [other links snipped]
> >
> > Just a hint: Repeating fantasies umpteen times doesn't make them any
> > more real ;-)!
> >
> > SNCR
> > Andreas

(snip)

> These events prompted the US to invade Antartica immediately after WW2
> in 1946 with a large miltary force under Byrd. Operation Highjump had
> an aircraft carrier, submarine, aircraft, helicopters, 17 supply
> ships, and 4000 men. They landed in NeuSchwabenland and for weeks
> tried to discover any German buried material or bunkers using aircraft
> anomaly detectors. They ran into resistance early on and lost men and
> aircraft.

Are you suggesting there were Nazis in Antarctica, fighting on after 1945?
Seems a little far-fetched...

>The entire operation was described to the public as a
> peaceful one that ran into some weather problems and a few fatalities
> that forced them to return. Similar "exercises" were carried out
> against South American countries suspected of harboring Nazis and
> technology.

Now that I seriously doubt. Apart from anything else the US, USSR and other
victorious powers had their own Nazi scientists who they were trying to pump
for knowledge. Do you have a cite for this or is it just fantasy?

>
> At the close of WW2, a quarter-million Germans were missing along with
> several thousand scientists, engineers, and specialists. Close to 60
> U-boats were also unaccounted for. Members of the Thule Society other
> than those high-profile Nazis captured were missing as well as the
> Vril Society, the mediums Maria Orsitsch and Sigrun, the DhvSS, and
> large portions of the SS E.4 Unit. The British captured parts of the
> German disc program and Hans Coler's amazing free energy machine, but
> could not replicate the German designs. They did allow Coler to build
> a new free energy machine that is included in a BIOS report, but even
> though it worked the British could not explain "how".

This I suspect is balderdash. There is no such thing as 'free energy'.

> It is my firm opinion that the British handed over these material to
> the USAF which replicated the German discs at Wright Patterson and
> continued their development into what is flying today. That is
> precisely why the German records are still classified.
>
> If the German disc programs are fantasy Andreas please explain the
> USAF need to keep thier history classified for 75 years (until 2020).

Paranoia?

> Please also explain how three different peoples in history ranging
> from the ancients to the USAF describe mercury as powering a non-jet
> engine to achieve flight? The ancients had the Vimana craft, the
> Germans the Vril and Haunebu, and the USAF the TR-3b Astra.

Coincidence?

> Although we might disagree, as aviation fans, I think we can put aside
> our nationalistic differences for the moment and both agree that it
> would be nice to know the truth. If given the chance to examine the
> documents still classified today would you not eagerly go through them
> to discover if these craft existed or not? I would and that's all I'm
> saying.

No it isn't, you're saying lots of other things, little or none of which I
suspect is true.

John

[Andreas Parsch]

<disclaimer>
WARNING: The following reply contains detectable amounts of irony and
sarcasm. If you are unfamiliar with these concepts or find them
inappropriate, please proceed to the next posting in this NG
immediately. Thank you.
</disclaimer>

robert arndt wrote:
> Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. In regards to what I posted
> let's recap:
>
> Arthur Sack A.S.6: Conventional piston-engined circular research
> aircraft. [...] This aircraft does not represent in
> any way the nature of the diversified German disc programs.

Indeed. Because it is the only one in your list which actually flew.

> [Snip lots of increasingly weird stuff, including:]

> [...] Key question is if a larger version was installed in the SS
> Projekt Saucer program. [...]
^^^^^^^

What? "Projekt _Saucer_"?!? ROTFLOL!! Why the **** would the SS name
the project "Saucer" - that isn't a German word!

>
> Now we get to the occult stuff and material that is highly
> controversial.

Only _now_ does it get controversial?!

> [More snippo ... up to stuff like:]
>
> After that, again the mediums channeled information of a crashed alien
> craft in the Black Forest, near Freiberg in 1936. The Thule Society
> recovered the craft and attempted to reverse engineer it at Himmler's
> (a Thule member) castle, which served as an SS religious/occult
> experimentation center. From their studies of the craft Thule
> supposedly came up with the Tachyonator drive which along with the
> Schumann Levitator device allowed a rotating magnetic field. These
> devices as well as a mercury fueled engine were incorporated into the
> RFZ, Vril, and Haunebu discs.

Yeah, sure ... "Tachyonator drive" - cool ;-). BTW, you forgot to
include the words "quantum" and "anti-gravity" in the description -
otherwise, your little program which concatenates UFO buzzwords with
some grammatical filler works quite well.

>
> Some of these discs tested various armament from 7.92mm MGs to 30mm
> MK-108 cannon and larger calibres. All proved impractical and no disc
> aircraft were ever reported as firing on Allied aircraft.

Aww ... that's a bit of a show-stopper here, isn't it? MGs, MK-108s ...
didn't the aliens provide any lasers, plasma guns or proton torpedoes?

>
> The big question is what happened to them? This is where the wild
> stories begin.

Ah, _finally_ the "wild stories" begin - great, I already feared the
plain vanilla b*ll**** would go on and on ...

> [As promised, the stories are wild ... snipperoo]
>
> If the German disc programs are fantasy Andreas please explain the
> USAF need to keep thier history classified for 75 years (until 2020).

The USAF classifies all sorts of old stuff for a very long time without
quoting any specific reason. Reportedly there are still some classified
WW1 documents! They're just paranoid, that's all.

> Please also explain how three different peoples in history ranging
> from the ancients to the USAF describe mercury as powering a non-jet
> engine to achieve flight?

_Three_? That's nothing! _Millions_ of different people have claimed
that they can predict the future using a deck of Tarot cards - yet,
it's _still_ bull****! And so are Hg-powered flying discs.

> The ancients had the Vimana craft, the
> Germans the Vril and Haunebu, and the USAF the TR-3b Astra.
>
> Although we might disagree, as aviation fans, I think we can put aside
> our nationalistic differences for the moment

At least the "nationalistic" differences are quite interesting: you are
an _American_ NAZI fan, and I'm a _German_ anti-fascist ;-)!

> and both agree that it
> would be nice to know the truth. If given the chance to examine the
> documents still classified today would you not eagerly go through them
> to discover if these craft existed or not? I would

It's a win-win situation for conspiracy nuts like you anyway. If the
files are kept under wraps, you cry "Cover-up!" - and when they're
finally declassified and don't confirm your claims, you cry even louder
"COVER-UP!! The files are faked, the _real_ ones are _still_ secret!"

> and that's all I'm saying.

Probably not.

Andreas

[Ron]

>> After that, again the mediums channeled information of a crashed alien
>> craft in the Black Forest, near Freiberg in 1936. The Thule Society
>> recovered the craft and attempted to reverse engineer it at Himmler's
>> (a Thule member) castle, which served as an SS religious/occult
>> experimentation center. From their studies of the craft Thule
>> supposedly came up with the Tachyonator drive which along with the
>> Schumann Levitator device allowed a rotating magnetic field. These
>> devices as well as a mercury fueled engine were incorporated into the
>> RFZ, Vril, and Haunebu discs.
>

Well some smart ass on here just had to quote Dr Strangelove "I can valk...."
here recently in regards to this, and everytime this German spaceship/UFO crap
comes up, I keep expecting to hear "Mein Fuhrer, I can valk"

Thanks a lot! :)




Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[[email protected]]

Steve Hix > wrote:

>In article >,
> (WaltBJ) wrote:
>
>> It's fake? Dang! I wanted to believe in a flying saucer with the USS
>> Monitor's turret up top. Twin 11 inch muzzle loading black powder
>> guns, too! What a shock to any fighter making a pass at it!
>
>Smokescreen with every shot...

Smells like a phart from a colon like the chunnel too (you ever
smell the smoke from black powder?.. WooHoo!)
--

-Gord.

[robert arndt]

> robert arndt wrote:
> > Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. In regards to what I posted
> > let's recap:
> >
> > Arthur Sack A.S.6: Conventional piston-engined circular research
> > aircraft. [...] This aircraft does not represent in
> > any way the nature of the diversified German disc programs.
>
> Indeed. Because it is the only one in your list which actually flew.

False. You conveniently left out the BMW Flugelrad craft ADMITTED by
the USAF in 1996 as well as the DOCUMENTED Feuerball weapons by the
415th NFS, and the Schauberger Repulsin motors.
>
> > [Snip lots of increasingly weird stuff, including:]
>
> > [...] Key question is if a larger version was installed in the SS
> > Projekt Saucer program. [...]
> ^^^^^^^
>
> What? "Projekt _Saucer_"?!? ROTFLOL!! Why the **** would the SS name
> the project "Saucer" - that isn't a German word!

That is a postwar English translation, sorry. Should be "Projekt
Flugkreisel".
>
> >
> > Now we get to the occult stuff and material that is highly
> > controversial.
>
> Only _now_ does it get controversial?!

Yes, because there is nothing really controversial about the
Flugelrads since they were jet rotorcraft. You are familiar with the
Germans other weird helicopters like the jet-tipped WNF 342, the
backpack helicopter Heliofly III, and portable helicopter NR 55? What
about the Himmelsturmer rocket pack that is still classified? All of
these were real and flew.
The patented Fw VTOL and windtunnel tested Omega Diskus and Coanda
Lenticular Disc aren't mysterious either- just odd for the time.
The only things that do make us wonder are Schauberger's Repulsin
motors, the Feuerball weapon, and of course the occult RFZ, Vril, and
Haunebu discs.
>
> > [More snippo ... up to stuff like:]
> >
> > After that, again the mediums channeled information of a crashed alien
> > craft in the Black Forest, near Freiberg in 1936. The Thule Society
> > recovered the craft and attempted to reverse engineer it at Himmler's
> > (a Thule member) castle, which served as an SS religious/occult
> > experimentation center. From their studies of the craft Thule
> > supposedly came up with the Tachyonator drive which along with the
> > Schumann Levitator device allowed a rotating magnetic field. These
> > devices as well as a mercury fueled engine were incorporated into the
> > RFZ, Vril, and Haunebu discs.
>
> Yeah, sure ... "Tachyonator drive" - cool ;-). BTW, you forgot to
> include the words "quantum" and "anti-gravity" in the description -
> otherwise, your little program which concatenates UFO buzzwords with
> some grammatical filler works quite well.
>
> > I am only describing the information provided. The Thule Triebwerke consisted of a Coler Converter coupled to a Van De Graf band generator and a large hollow sphere filled with mercury. W. Schumann, who worked with Coler, invented some form of levitator device also. All of these enabled the Haunebu and Vril discs to achieve a rotating magnetic field- supposedly.

> > Some of these discs tested various armament from 7.92mm MGs to 30mm
> > MK-108 cannon and larger calibres. All proved impractical and no disc
> > aircraft were ever reported as firing on Allied aircraft.
>
> Aww ... that's a bit of a show-stopper here, isn't it? MGs, MK-108s ...
> didn't the aliens provide any lasers, plasma guns or proton torpedoes?

As far as I understand the information recieved by the Thule/Vril
mediums they were instructed to construct a flight machine only. Some
of the RFZ and Vril photos clearly show MGs but I am not certain about
the MK-108 claims. I can't tell from the photos given if that
protruding gun is a 30mm cannon. Anyway, the Germans certainly would
have tried arming some even though their type of flight made them
useless as fighters.
>
> >
> > The big question is what happened to them? This is where the wild
> > stories begin.
>
> Ah, _finally_ the "wild stories" begin - great, I already feared the
> plain vanilla b*ll**** would go on and on ...
>
> > [As promised, the stories are wild ... snipperoo]

They aren't any more wild than stories of the Windcannon, Soundcannon,
Vortex Projector, Kugelpanzer (a round tank), etc... yet we know these
devices were built despite how absurd they were.
> >
> > If the German disc programs are fantasy Andreas please explain the
> > USAF need to keep thier history classified for 75 years (until 2020).
>
> The USAF classifies all sorts of old stuff for a very long time without
> quoting any specific reason. Reportedly there are still some classified
> WW1 documents! They're just paranoid, that's all.

Then why mention "certain developments in the Third Reich at the close
of WW2" in Project Bluebook? It is an official document and they
certainly aren't referring to a Me-262 when comparing Reich technology
to '60s sightings of alien disc craft. Second, the USAF denied the
Flugelrads for 51 years... then suddenly admitted the Germans had them
in 1996... "but that they were highly unstable". Sorry, we get the
admission but no photos of any kind or flight footage (which the USAF
certainly has).
>
> > Please also explain how three different peoples in history ranging
> > from the ancients to the USAF describe mercury as powering a non-jet
> > engine to achieve flight?
>
> _Three_? That's nothing! _Millions_ of different people have claimed
> that they can predict the future using a deck of Tarot cards - yet,
> it's _still_ bull****! And so are Hg-powered flying discs.

No, you are full of **** since Lockheed and Northrop fly such black
budget craft today. What flew over Belgium in the early '90s was a
military aircraft and it is photographed, witnesses by hundreds, and
confirmed by civilian radar, military radar, Fighter radar, and even
spy sat. Note the craft has no jet engines, so what is it flying on
Andreas?
>
> > The ancients had the Vimana craft, the
> > Germans the Vril and Haunebu, and the USAF the TR-3b Astra.
> >
> > Although we might disagree, as aviation fans, I think we can put aside
> > our nationalistic differences for the moment
>
> At least the "nationalistic" differences are quite interesting: you are
> an _American_ NAZI fan, and I'm a _German_ anti-fascist ;-)!
>
> > and both agree that it

No, I'm a German-American that enjoys history and military hardware of
all types. You are a silly native German who can't handle your own
history.

> > would be nice to know the truth. If given the chance to examine the
> > documents still classified today would you not eagerly go through them
> > to discover if these craft existed or not? I would
>
> It's a win-win situation for conspiracy nuts like you anyway. If the
> files are kept under wraps, you cry "Cover-up!" - and when they're
> finally declassified and don't confirm your claims, you cry even louder
> "COVER-UP!! The files are faked, the _real_ ones are _still_ secret!"
>
> > and that's all I'm saying.
>
> Probably not.
>
> Andreas

You lie Andreas. If you examined the files, photos, flight footage,
you are the kind of person who would STILL DENY the evidence. I pity
you.
Which person is more decieved- the one who only believes "official"
history or the one that believes we've been lied to?
Time is on my side...

Rob

[Andreas Parsch]

robert arndt wrote:

>>
>>What? "Projekt _Saucer_"?!? ROTFLOL!! Why the **** would the SS name
>>the project "Saucer" - that isn't a German word!
>>
>
> That is a postwar English translation, sorry. Should be "Projekt
> Flugkreisel".


Translating "Flugkreisel" as "saucer" ... cute. If they translated the
rest of the Nazi documents equally accurate, it would explain a lot :-(.


>
> As far as I understand the information recieved by the Thule/Vril
> mediums they were instructed to construct a flight machine only. Some
> of the RFZ and Vril photos clearly show MGs but I am not certain about
> the MK-108 claims. I can't tell from the photos given if that
> protruding gun is a 30mm cannon. Anyway, the Germans certainly would
> have tried arming some even though their type of flight made them
> useless as fighters.


High speed and manoeverability made them "useless" as fighters? Hey,
the Nazis sure set their requirements rather high, didn't they ;-)?


>
> Then why mention "certain developments in the Third Reich at the close
> of WW2" in Project Bluebook? It is an official document and they
> certainly aren't referring to a Me-262 when comparing Reich technology
> to '60s sightings of alien disc craft. Second, the USAF denied the
> Flugelrads for 51 years... then suddenly admitted the Germans had them
> in 1996... "but that they were highly unstable". Sorry, we get the
> admission but no photos of any kind or flight footage (which the USAF
> certainly has).


"certainly" has? Have you _seen_ the footage? If not, how can you say
"certainly"??


>
> No, you are full of ****


Finally!! I began to wonder how long it would take to draw a real
flame :-)!

> since Lockheed and Northrop fly such black
> budget craft today.


Again, how do you know? ... Oh yes, I know, it's "all over the
internet, so it must be true!" LOL!

> What flew over Belgium in the early '90s was a
> military aircraft and it is photographed, witnesses by hundreds, and
> confirmed by civilian radar, military radar, Fighter radar, and even
> spy sat. Note the craft has no jet engines, so what is it flying on
> Andreas?


The "best" photo, which the "UFO community" has been distributing,
shows three blobs of light in the night sky - and _nothing else! No
structures, no background to determine scale, _nothing_! So how the
**** do you know how this craft was powered?! The lights could as well
come from (and probably _did_ come from) a simple ultralight aircraft
(which is _indeed_ not jet-powered ;-) ).


> [...]
> You lie Andreas.


When?? I admit that I provoked you with sarcastic remarks, but _lies_?
No, sorry, there were none.

> If you examined the files, photos, flight footage,
> you are the kind of person who would STILL DENY the evidence.


Have you _seen_ the files, photos, etc.? How can you know they will
support your claims? Just because you say so?? Your behaviour confirms
_exactly_ what I said - conspiracy nuts like you are _so sure_ that
they are right, that _every_ evidence which doesn't fit into their
views is simply dismissed as being incomplete or faked.

And BTW, all I need to "believe" is film or photo evidence, which
several independent experts confirm as genuine and un-"doctored".

> I pity you.
> Which person is more decieved- the one who only believes "official"
> history or the one that believes we've been lied to?
> Time is on my side...


Do you live forever ;-)?


Andreas

[robert arndt]

Andreas Parsch > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
>
> >>
> >>What? "Projekt _Saucer_"?!? ROTFLOL!! Why the **** would the SS name
> >>the project "Saucer" - that isn't a German word!
> >>
> >
> > That is a postwar English translation, sorry. Should be "Projekt
> > Flugkreisel".
>
>
> Translating "Flugkreisel" as "saucer" ... cute. If they translated the
> rest of the Nazi documents equally accurate, it would explain a lot :-(.

The postwar mistranslation of course comes from Rudolf Lusar's account
in "German Secret Weapons of the Second World War (1959) and to a
greater extent W.A. Harbinson's books "Genesis", "Inception", etc...
In Germany at the time the craft were known under many different terms
for the different research. BMW's craft were "Flugelrads", the early
Thule/Vril designs were "RundFlugZeugs", and the others
"Flugkreisels". What is so hard to understand about that?
>
>
> >
> > As far as I understand the information recieved by the Thule/Vril
> > mediums they were instructed to construct a flight machine only. Some
> > of the RFZ and Vril photos clearly show MGs but I am not certain about
> > the MK-108 claims. I can't tell from the photos given if that
> > protruding gun is a 30mm cannon. Anyway, the Germans certainly would
> > have tried arming some even though their type of flight made them
> > useless as fighters.
>
>
> High speed and manoeverability made them "useless" as fighters? Hey,
> the Nazis sure set their requirements rather high, didn't they ;-)?

Their speed was straight-line acceleration and they were restricted to
maneuvering at only three different angles due to the operation of the
Thule Triebwerke. Added to this was no armament. So, what kind of
fighter could it be? AFAIK, the only disc used for a mission was the
Haunebu II that was in contact with the German raider Atlantis and the
DoStra version that was used for recon, briefly. I understand it was
escorted by conventional fighters upon take-off and landing.
>
>
> >
> > Then why mention "certain developments in the Third Reich at the close
> > of WW2" in Project Bluebook? It is an official document and they
> > certainly aren't referring to a Me-262 when comparing Reich technology
> > to '60s sightings of alien disc craft. Second, the USAF denied the
> > Flugelrads for 51 years... then suddenly admitted the Germans had them
> > in 1996... "but that they were highly unstable". Sorry, we get the
> > admission but no photos of any kind or flight footage (which the USAF
> > certainly has).
>
>
> "certainly" has? Have you _seen_ the footage? If not, how can you say
> "certainly"??

First, let me address the fact that you keep ignoring my the FACTS
that the USAF ADMITTED the Flugelrad craft in 1996. May I remind you
yet again that they denied the craft even existed for 51 years. The
USAAF that became the USAF also has plenty of documentation and
footage of the Feuerball weapon from the 415th NFS. That too is a FACT
that you can't dispute. So where are the files and disclosure on those
craft? Are you telling me the USAF admits these craft but has
absolutely no photographic proof of them or flight footage? They have
everything and if you don't think so look up the story of the two USAF
reporters that have come forward to describe the German discs that
were seen at MacDill AFB back in the '60s. They saw they them,
photographed them, and were given access to MacDill's archives which
showed the German craft in flight.
It is obvious that you don't want to accept this... for what reason I
don't know.
I think everyone here would love to see everything the USAF has under
wraps from 1945-present. The true history is way more interesting than
that out of date, misleading textbook nonsense.
>
>
> >
> > No, you are full of ****
>
>
> Finally!! I began to wonder how long it would take to draw a real
> flame :-)!

I apologize for the comment, it was inappropriate. It just bugs me the
way people are so in denial about advanced aircraft. Its that old fear
of the unknown thing. Why exactly can't we handle a technology that
produces a rotating magnetic field and one that uses gravity to do all
the work? Mankinds solution to flight thus far has been using engines
that go AGAINST nature. We use powerful explosive forces in jets and
rockets to PUSH air and spacecraft through the atmosphere and space.
Nature is the opposite and Schauberger, Coler, and the rest of the
people at Lockheed & Northrop seem to have grasped that idea and have
working craft that far exceed conventional jet aircraft.
Maybe you look at the F-22, MiG-39, Su-47, Gripen, Eurofighter,
Rafale, B-2, F-117, etc... as state-of-the-art military technolgy, but
I do not. I look at them like I would a biplane prior to WW1. These
craft are obsolete.
>
> > since Lockheed and Northrop fly such black
> > budget craft today.
>
>
> Again, how do you know? ... Oh yes, I know, it's "all over the
> internet, so it must be true!" LOL!

No, common sense tells us that there are more advanced aircraft flying
since the B-2 was unveiled in the late '80s. Do you honestly believe
the only thing we're working on now is that lame F-22 and F-35? What
has the USAF, NRO, NSA, CIA, etc... been doing covertly for over 2
decades?


> > What flew over Belgium in the early '90s was a
> > military aircraft and it is photographed, witnesses by hundreds, and
> > confirmed by civilian radar, military radar, Fighter radar, and even
> > spy sat. Note the craft has no jet engines, so what is it flying on
> > Andreas?
>
>
> The "best" photo, which the "UFO community" has been distributing,
> shows three blobs of light in the night sky - and _nothing else! No
> structures, no background to determine scale, _nothing_! So how the
> **** do you know how this craft was powered?! The lights could as well
> come from (and probably _did_ come from) a simple ultralight aircraft
> (which is _indeed_ not jet-powered ;-) ).
>
> The "UFO community" takes advantage of everything for its agenda,
agreed. But the Belgian Wave was reported all over the world and the
photos published everywhere. The photos do not just show 3 blobs of
light. They show a distinct black triangle with 3 non-jet sources of
propulsion. And there weren't just one craft but several which flew in
formation. The craft sped off as the F-16s approached and headed back
towards the UK. Can you say Bae Warton? But before you go on about
doubting electrogravitic propulsion why then has the USAF also
admitted testing of a FFX or Field-Effects demonstrator back in the
'90s? Funny how electrogravitics surfaced and then a brief pause
before the USAF admitted testing FFX. Yet a decade later, there is
still a general news blackout on this testing. We are provided no
info, no photos, nothing...
> > [...]
> > You lie Andreas.
>
>
> When?? I admit that I provoked you with sarcastic remarks, but _lies_?
> No, sorry, there were none.

You lied when you said the A.S.6 was the only circular/disc craft to
fly in the Third Reich. It is fairly obvious (at least to me) that the
Flugelrads flew as well as the Feuerball weapon that plagued the 415th
NFS. Schauberger's Repulsin motors also achieved flight in the
laboratory and may have been installed on a larger scale in one of the
other German disc programs (read "Hunt for Zero Point"). Then there
are the controversial RFZ,Vril, and Haunebu craft...
>
> > If you examined the files, photos, flight footage,
> > you are the kind of person who would STILL DENY the evidence.
>
>
> Have you _seen_ the files, photos, etc.? How can you know they will
> support your claims? Just because you say so?? Your behaviour confirms
> _exactly_ what I said - conspiracy nuts like you are _so sure_ that
> they are right, that _every_ evidence which doesn't fit into their
> views is simply dismissed as being incomplete or faked.
>
> And BTW, all I need to "believe" is film or photo evidence, which
> several independent experts confirm as genuine and un-"doctored".

I would be more satisified to check out Wright Patterson's storage
facilities because that where the US story begins. I doubt they
destroyed the German discs seeing how we have preserved the Go-229,
Ba-349, He-162, etc...
>
> > I pity you.
> > Which person is more decieved- the one who only believes "official"
> > history or the one that believes we've been lied to?
> > Time is on my side...
>
>
> Do you live forever ;-)?
>
> No, but I will probably be here in 2020 when the files are opened. Maybe you will too and we will see who was right and who was wrong. Fair enough?
> Andreas

Rob

[Andreas Parsch]

robert arndt wrote:
>
> First, let me address the fact that you keep ignoring my the FACTS
> that the USAF ADMITTED the Flugelrad craft in 1996. May I remind you
> yet again that they denied the craft even existed for 51 years.

Could you please quote the USAF report? Thanks. Anyway, even if the
Flügelrad actually flew, none of the web sources I saw (Unfortunately,
I don't have any other sources on it) mention any of the outlandish
alien or occult propulsion schemes. The Flügelrad seems to be
effectively a very fancy turbojet-powered autogyro.

> The USAAF that became the USAF also has plenty of documentation and
> footage of the Feuerball weapon from the 415th NFS. That too is a FACT
> that you can't dispute. So where are the files and disclosure on those
> craft? Are you telling me the USAF admits these craft but has
> absolutely no photographic proof of them or flight footage? They have
> everything and if you don't think so look up the story of the two USAF
> reporters that have come forward to describe the German discs that
> were seen at MacDill AFB back in the '60s. They saw they them,
> photographed them, and were given access to MacDill's archives which
> showed the German craft in flight.

I know this story. And where _are_ those photographs? Without them,
it's just a story, nothing more. I could produce a new story of this
type from scatch every week. So why should I believe it? If someone
claims they saw some extremely unusual thing, but can't produce _any_
kind of hard evidence, why should I believe the tale?

> It is obvious that you don't want to accept this... for what reason I
> don't know.

Because of complete lack of hard proof. Like provably genuine
photographs and/or reports. Just saying the USAF has it all under wraps
isn't enough for me - sorry.

>
> I apologize for the comment, it was inappropriate.

Accepted.

> It just bugs me the
> way people are so in denial about advanced aircraft. Its that old fear
> of the unknown thing. Why exactly can't we handle a technology that
> produces a rotating magnetic field and one that uses gravity to do all
> the work? Mankinds solution to flight thus far has been using engines
> that go AGAINST nature. We use powerful explosive forces in jets and
> rockets to PUSH air and spacecraft through the atmosphere and space.
> Nature is the opposite and Schauberger, Coler, and the rest of the
> people at Lockheed & Northrop seem to have grasped that idea and have
> working craft that far exceed conventional jet aircraft.

If it's so easy, and if aerospace companies employ "gravity drives" (or
"electrogravitic" ones) routinely in secret projects, why do you think
that the millions of physicists in universities and research labs
around the world haven't come up with any testable and verifiable
theory of "electrogravitics"? There are many _very_ smart theoretical
physicists, who have tried in vain for 70+ years to develop a viable
theory of quantum-gravity and to bring gravity "in line" with other
basic forces (which would presumably lead to something one could call
"electrogravitics"). Do you think, they are just too stupid, because
all the _really_ good scientists work in aerospace? Or do think, it's
all "covered-up"? The second notion is completely ridiculous - there is
absolutely _no_ way anyone, let alone the USAF which has no influence
in non-US universities, could prevent the extremely radid spread of
such a discovery in the physics community.
In short, you can't keep a law of nature a secret.

> Maybe you look at the F-22, MiG-39, Su-47, Gripen, Eurofighter,
> Rafale, B-2, F-117, etc... as state-of-the-art military technolgy, but
> I do not. I look at them like I would a biplane prior to WW1. These
> craft are obsolete.

And why the hell is the USAF investing _billions_ of $$$ into the
"obsolete" F-22?? I know that the USAF is frequently blamed for wasting
money, but what you say would really push this blame to a new level ;-)!

>
> No, common sense tells us that there are more advanced aircraft flying
> since the B-2 was unveiled in the late '80s. Do you honestly believe
> the only thing we're working on now is that lame F-22 and F-35? What
> has the USAF, NRO, NSA, CIA, etc... been doing covertly for over 2
> decades?

I can't see any real argument in that last paragraph. Just because
_you_ think that the B-2 etc. are outdated, it _must_ be true that more
advanced aircraft are developed? I'm sorry, but I'd prefer a bit more
tangible evidence.

>
> The "UFO community" takes advantage of everything for its agenda,
> agreed. But the Belgian Wave was reported all over the world and the
> photos published everywhere. The photos do not just show 3 blobs of
> light. They show a distinct black triangle with 3 non-jet sources of
> propulsion.

Please show me a photo where all this can be clearly identified. Thanks.

> And there weren't just one craft but several which flew in
> formation. The craft sped off as the F-16s approached and headed back
> towards the UK. Can you say Bae Warton? But before you go on about
> doubting electrogravitic propulsion

Indeed I doubt it, see above ;-).

> why then has the USAF also
> admitted testing of a FFX or Field-Effects demonstrator back in the
> '90s?

Did they? Please provide a source for this claim. A _USAF_ source where
they admit it.

BTW, not even Google comes up with anything on this - which is rather
unusual, because normally no claim is too weird that some nut wouldn't
post it on his website.

>
> You lied when you said the A.S.6 was the only circular/disc craft to
> fly in the Third Reich. It is fairly obvious (at least to me) that the
> Flugelrads flew as well as the Feuerball weapon that plagued the 415th
> NFS. Schauberger's Repulsin motors also achieved flight in the
> laboratory and may have been installed on a larger scale in one of the
> other German disc programs (read "Hunt for Zero Point"). Then there
> are the controversial RFZ,Vril, and Haunebu craft...

It may be "fairly obvious" to you, but it certainly isn't for me. The
A.S.6 is the _only_ aircraft in the whole collection, which undoubtedly
existed and flew (albeit not very successfully). All the other claims
range from the possible to the extremely esoteric. I didn't _lie_, I
just stated an opinion which happened to differ from yours. In the
worst case, I was mistaken - still not a _lie_.

>>
>> Do you live forever ;-)?
>>
> No, but I will probably be here in 2020 when the files are opened.
> Maybe you will too and we will see who was right and who was wrong.
> Fair enough?

Fair enough ... provided that you'll actually believe what's in the
files, even if they _don't_ contain anything on flying saucers.

Andreas

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

<snip>

>First, let me address the fact that you keep ignoring my the FACTS
>that the USAF ADMITTED the Flugelrad craft in 1996.

Exactly when in 1996? What medium? Specifically whom in the USAF?

Cite your source that I may go verify it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[robert arndt]

Andreas Parsch > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
> >
> > First, let me address the fact that you keep ignoring my the FACTS
> > that the USAF ADMITTED the Flugelrad craft in 1996. May I remind you
> > yet again that they denied the craft even existed for 51 years.
>
> Could you please quote the USAF report? Thanks. Anyway, even if the
> Flügelrad actually flew, none of the web sources I saw (Unfortunately,
> I don't have any other sources on it) mention any of the outlandish
> alien or occult propulsion schemes. The Flügelrad seems to be
> effectively a very fancy turbojet-powered autogyro.

Jim Wilson, writing for Popular Mechanics, obtained his DoD reports
through the Freedom of Information Act after certain military
documents were forcibly declassified by a congressional mandate in the
mid-to-late-90s. He wrote several articles on the US "Projects
Silverbug" and the "nuclear flying saucer", the LRV (Lenticular
Re-entry Vehicle) as well as "Roswell Plus 50" and their origin firmly
placed with the German discs of WW2. His information obtained through
the Freedom of Information Act (which the DoD frantically tried to
restrict to the defense industry)places German disc engineers at
Wright Patterson (back then Wright Field) in 1946 as well as the
Horten brothers. The Horten presence can be verified through the
declassified "Operation Paperclip" documents. The documents state that
the Hortens were released from UK custody in 1945 for work in the US
in 1946. The articles contain information on the USAF desire to
replicate German disc aircraft at Wright Patterson and the continuing
development of disc offensive systems. Horten disc models, not flying
wings, were windtunnel tested in the US in 1946. The articles also
mention German wartime construction of disc aircraft including the
Flugelrads that were in their words... "highly unstable".
I'm sure you can contact PM and request their DoD sources for their
articles, or just search for them yourself through the Freedom of
Information Act.
>
> > The USAAF that became the USAF also has plenty of documentation and
> > footage of the Feuerball weapon from the 415th NFS. That too is a FACT
> > that you can't dispute. So where are the files and disclosure on those
> > craft? Are you telling me the USAF admits these craft but has
> > absolutely no photographic proof of them or flight footage? They have
> > everything and if you don't think so look up the story of the two USAF
> > reporters that have come forward to describe the German discs that
> > were seen at MacDill AFB back in the '60s. They saw they them,
> > photographed them, and were given access to MacDill's archives which
> > showed the German craft in flight.
>
> I know this story. And where _are_ those photographs? Without them,
> it's just a story, nothing more. I could produce a new story of this
> type from scatch every week. So why should I believe it? If someone
> claims they saw some extremely unusual thing, but can't produce _any_
> kind of hard evidence, why should I believe the tale?

How exactly were the two reporters going to leave MacDill AFB with
their cameras and photographic evidence when they were seized and
kicked off base? Anyway, you can at least verify that the next month
issue of the USAF in-house magazine, the one that was supposed to
feature the prototype aircraft at MacDill AFB, was NOT published. Not
just the article... but the entire month's magazine.
>
> > It is obvious that you don't want to accept this... for what reason I
> > don't know.
>
> Because of complete lack of hard proof. Like provably genuine
> photographs and/or reports. Just saying the USAF has it all under wraps
> isn't enough for me - sorry.

I disagree based on the volume of consistant leaks of information and
declassified information through the Freedom of Information Act.
Unlike the UFO conspiracy people I do not believe the evidence is "out
there" I believe it has always been internalized, compartmentalized by
the USAF, DoD, CIA, NSA, NRO, ad infinitum...
>
> >
> > I apologize for the comment, it was inappropriate.
>
> Accepted.
>
> > It just bugs me the
> > way people are so in denial about advanced aircraft. Its that old fear
> > of the unknown thing. Why exactly can't we handle a technology that
> > produces a rotating magnetic field and one that uses gravity to do all
> > the work? Mankinds solution to flight thus far has been using engines
> > that go AGAINST nature. We use powerful explosive forces in jets and
> > rockets to PUSH air and spacecraft through the atmosphere and space.
> > Nature is the opposite and Schauberger, Coler, and the rest of the
> > people at Lockheed & Northrop seem to have grasped that idea and have
> > working craft that far exceed conventional jet aircraft.
>
> If it's so easy, and if aerospace companies employ "gravity drives" (or
> "electrogravitic" ones) routinely in secret projects, why do you think
> that the millions of physicists in universities and research labs
> around the world haven't come up with any testable and verifiable
> theory of "electrogravitics"? There are many _very_ smart theoretical
> physicists, who have tried in vain for 70+ years to develop a viable
> theory of quantum-gravity and to bring gravity "in line" with other
> basic forces (which would presumably lead to something one could call
> "electrogravitics"). Do you think, they are just too stupid, because
> all the _really_ good scientists work in aerospace? Or do think, it's
> all "covered-up"? The second notion is completely ridiculous - there is
> absolutely _no_ way anyone, let alone the USAF which has no influence
> in non-US universities, could prevent the extremely radid spread of
> such a discovery in the physics community.
> In short, you can't keep a law of nature a secret.

You can keep military projects secret even when information leaks out.
T. Townsend Brown proposed electrogravitic propulsion to the USAF back
in 1956 and had working models of his craft plus published findings. I
find it amazing that physicists on the outside can't seem to or are
reluctant to participate in this type of research. However, it is
undrstandable if they don't have the type of coordinated programs the
people at Lockheed and Northrop have. They certainly don't have the
advantage of German disc propulsion knowledge nor decades of
experimentation from Wright Patterson forward. And, most importantly,
the funding. Current costs of just one TR-3b ASTRA (if it does exist)
is said to be $3 billion!!! That's almost the cost of 3 B-2 Spirits
which by themselves are $1.3 billion and ironically enough are said to
incorporate the very technology you deny- electrogravitics!
>
> > Maybe you look at the F-22, MiG-39, Su-47, Gripen, Eurofighter,
> > Rafale, B-2, F-117, etc... as state-of-the-art military technolgy, but
> > I do not. I look at them like I would a biplane prior to WW1. These
> > craft are obsolete.
>
> And why the hell is the USAF investing _billions_ of $$$ into the
> "obsolete" F-22?? I know that the USAF is frequently blamed for wasting
> money, but what you say would really push this blame to a new level ;-)!

Hey, we agree on this too. I have voiced my opinion on the lousy F-22
and ridiculous costs to the US taxpayer many times over. It IS an
extreme waste... but conventional technology DOES form the backbone of
our arsenal. From what I gather the US suffers from the same thing the
Germans did in WW2... that these electro-magnetic-gravitic systems are
only good for designs that are used for high altitude recon and
possibly for launching a few cruise missiles. They are practically
useless as fighter/strike aircraft and the loss of just one would be
costly. The other black budget craft seemed to be all bunched up in
UCAVs and other exotics (but not electrogravitic). The SR-75, TR-3a
Blackmanta, XR-7, AX-17, etc... use PDWs, Hydrogen Scramjets, or
conventional powerplants.

> > No, common sense tells us that there are more advanced aircraft flying
> > since the B-2 was unveiled in the late '80s. Do you honestly believe
> > the only thing we're working on now is that lame F-22 and F-35? What
> > has the USAF, NRO, NSA, CIA, etc... been doing covertly for over 2
> > decades?
>
> I can't see any real argument in that last paragraph. Just because
> _you_ think that the B-2 etc. are outdated, it _must_ be true that more
> advanced aircraft are developed? I'm sorry, but I'd prefer a bit more
> tangible evidence.

What more tangible evidence do you need than history? No great
military power in the world just "gives up" on R & D. The UK for
example is nowhere near the US in airpower. Yet they have the HALO and
other stealth aircraft out of Bae Warton. The UK MoD also admitted the
HALO after years of denial. Years when near-fatal air collision with
commercial aircraft were commonly reported. HALO is a delta the size
of a Hawk... but with no visible propulsion system. Are you telling me
that the British with their limited resources have an electrogravitic
aircraft in the air while the US with vast resources has none? That's
absurd. And there is persistant talk of the German Firefly II black
triangle. Despite US pressure on MBB not to develop the original
Firefly (Lampyridae) it seems the Germans didn't just give up their
stealth development program either.
>
> >
> > The "UFO community" takes advantage of everything for its agenda,
> > agreed. But the Belgian Wave was reported all over the world and the
> > photos published everywhere. The photos do not just show 3 blobs of
> > light. They show a distinct black triangle with 3 non-jet sources of
> > propulsion.
>
> Please show me a photo where all this can be clearly identified. Thanks.
Please spare the sarcasm for a moment. I can show you hundreds of
conventional aircraft filmed at night (like the F-117 and B-2) and you
couldn't distinguish them either. What is important in the BW
incidents is that the craft photographed don't match any propulsion
system around. According to various sources the TR-3b Astra matches
these images. The 3 blobs of light (which actually looks more like
fire) are the 3 maneuvering rockets, not the electrogravitic drive
itself.
>
> > And there weren't just one craft but several which flew in
> > formation. The craft sped off as the F-16s approached and headed back
> > towards the UK. Can you say Bae Warton? But before you go on about
> > doubting electrogravitic propulsion
>
> Indeed I doubt it, see above ;-).
>
> > why then has the USAF also
> > admitted testing of a FFX or Field-Effects demonstrator back in the
> > '90s?
>
> Did they? Please provide a source for this claim. A _USAF_ source where
> they admit it.

I am trying to locate that source right now. It was back in the late
'90s, based on the LoFlyte demonstrator, but utilizing a field-effect
system.
>
> BTW, not even Google comes up with anything on this - which is rather
> unusual, because normally no claim is too weird that some nut wouldn't
> post it on his website.

Google has thousands of hits on Field Effect propulsion,
Electrogravitics, and the German discs I mentioned... so what are you
talking about? You can also look up US disc projects Silverbug, LRV,
etc...
>
> >
> > You lied when you said the A.S.6 was the only circular/disc craft to
> > fly in the Third Reich. It is fairly obvious (at least to me) that the
> > Flugelrads flew as well as the Feuerball weapon that plagued the 415th
> > NFS. Schauberger's Repulsin motors also achieved flight in the
> > laboratory and may have been installed on a larger scale in one of the
> > other German disc programs (read "Hunt for Zero Point"). Then there
> > are the controversial RFZ,Vril, and Haunebu craft...
>
> It may be "fairly obvious" to you, but it certainly isn't for me. The
> A.S.6 is the _only_ aircraft in the whole collection, which undoubtedly
> existed and flew (albeit not very successfully). All the other claims
> range from the possible to the extremely esoteric. I didn't _lie_, I
> just stated an opinion which happened to differ from yours. In the
> worst case, I was mistaken - still not a _lie_.
>
> >>
> >> Do you live forever ;-)?
> >>
> > No, but I will probably be here in 2020 when the files are opened.
> > Maybe you will too and we will see who was right and who was wrong.
> > Fair enough?
>
> Fair enough ... provided that you'll actually believe what's in the
> files, even if they _don't_ contain anything on flying saucers.
>
> Andreas

OK, deal.

Rob

[steve gallacci]

The core gimmick to all this is stringing a few factual fragments into a
larger fiction. Like the suggestion that since a simple low aspect ratio
wing test bed machine was attempted, (mostly as a feeble copy of Voight
R&D) that magic tech flying saucers were real. The drawings of the BMW
machines I've seen are clearly fakes (elements obviously cut-and-pasted
without consideration of different scales, no provision for fuel or
ancillary systems or the pilot, beyond the canopy) and in general, the
use of photos so ambiguous to be useless or clearly faked. Years ago, I
recall photos of gun turret rings being touted as proof of flying saucer
magic tech elements and since then the honesty of the "research" has not
improved.
I love "luft'46" stuff. But the elevation of "napkin designs" to
pseudo-hardware and the various overt hoax designs that have been
created post war have provided cover for crackpot material to be
created. A few of these guys are True Believers (tm), paranoid
delusionals, and the rest are simply making careers out of the gullible.

[Andreas Parsch]

robert arndt wrote:

> Jim Wilson, writing for Popular Mechanics, obtained his DoD reports
> through the Freedom of Information Act after certain military
> documents were forcibly declassified by a congressional mandate in the
> mid-to-late-90s. He wrote several articles on the US "Projects
> Silverbug" and the "nuclear flying saucer", the LRV (Lenticular
> Re-entry Vehicle) as well as "Roswell Plus 50" and their origin firmly
> placed with the German discs of WW2. His information obtained through
> the Freedom of Information Act (which the DoD frantically tried to
> restrict to the defense industry)places German disc engineers at
> Wright Patterson (back then Wright Field) in 1946 as well as the
> Horten brothers. The Horten presence can be verified through the
> declassified "Operation Paperclip" documents. The documents state that
> the Hortens were released from UK custody in 1945 for work in the US
> in 1946. The articles contain information on the USAF desire to
> replicate German disc aircraft at Wright Patterson and the continuing
> development of disc offensive systems. Horten disc models, not flying
> wings, were windtunnel tested in the US in 1946. The articles also
> mention German wartime construction of disc aircraft including the
> Flugelrads that were in their words... "highly unstable".
> I'm sure you can contact PM and request their DoD sources for their
> articles, or just search for them yourself through the Freedom of
> Information Act.


PM doesn't have the best reputation as a serious magazine. Anyway, you
say nothing on the Flügelrad except "The articles also mention German
wartime construction ...". Whether theis "mention" was also based on
USAF documents, or whether it was thrown in just for effect (which
would _not_ be untypical for PM), can't be said without further
information.

Just for the record, I know that "Project Silverbug" existed (as a
_project_, not necessarily as a flying prototype), and wind tunnel
testing of Horten design isn't a far-fetched claim by any standard. So
I have no doubt that Wilson indeed based much of his writing on
official USAF/DOD files. _Maybe_ this included the "Flügelrad" claim.

>>I know this story. And where _are_ those photographs? [...]
>
> How exactly were the two reporters going to leave MacDill AFB with
> their cameras and photographic evidence when they were seized and
> kicked off base?


First, they were allowed to see and photograph the discs, and then
they are kicked off base? Either something _is_ secret or it isn't -
you don't change your mind every few minute. Furthermore, every USAF
officier, who would have known about the flying discs, would also have
known that this subject was _extremely_ sensitive. So exlanation like
"He showed the discs, but was then stopped by his superiors" don't
make sense - you don't show your most sensitive secrets to
photographers without having made _really_ sure _in advance_ that it's
ok to do so.

Anyway, my point remains: Without any photos, it's just another story.

> Anyway, you can at least verify that the next month
> issue of the USAF in-house magazine, the one that was supposed to
> feature the prototype aircraft at MacDill AFB, was NOT published. Not
> just the article... but the entire month's magazine.


A coincidence ... which was apparently happily picked up by whoever
invented the "flying disc" story. If they just wanted to keep the
saucers secret, they had simply printed a different article.


>>Because of complete lack of hard proof. Like provably genuine
>>photographs and/or reports. Just saying the USAF has it all under wraps
>>isn't enough for me - sorry.
>
> I disagree based on the volume of consistant leaks of information and
> declassified information through the Freedom of Information Act.
> Unlike the UFO conspiracy people I do not believe the evidence is "out
> there" I believe it has always been internalized, compartmentalized by
> the USAF, DoD, CIA, NSA, NRO, ad infinitum...


"Leaks of information" are just rumours, no proof. And I have yet to
see officially declassified information, which is evidence for any of
your wilder claims.


>>["electrogravitics" ...]
>>In short, you can't keep a law of nature a secret.
>>
>
> You can keep military projects secret even when information leaks out.
> T. Townsend Brown proposed electrogravitic propulsion to the USAF back
> in 1956 and had working models of his craft plus published findings. I
> find it amazing that physicists on the outside can't seem to or are
> reluctant to participate in this type of research.


Several physicists have tried to replicate some "anti-gravity"
experiments. None has succeeded. Two reasons appear possible:
1) They are all not bright enough
2) The original claims are bogus

Make you choice. I've made mine already (influenced by the fact that I
have a university degree in physics myself).

> However, it is
> undrstandable if they don't have the type of coordinated programs the
> people at Lockheed and Northrop have. They certainly don't have the
> advantage of German disc propulsion knowledge nor decades of
> experimentation from Wright Patterson forward. And, most importantly,
> the funding.


First: Theoretical physics doesn't need so much funding - only time. I
didn't say a university has to build an "electrogravitic" machine -
they just should have come up by now with the theory _how_ to build one.

Second: Some of the "electrongravity" pioneers, including Brown, claim
that building a small demonstration device didn't take much resources.

> Current costs of just one TR-3b ASTRA (if it does exist)
> is said to be $3 billion!!! That's almost the cost of 3 B-2 Spirits
> which by themselves are $1.3 billion and ironically enough are said to
> incorporate the very technology you deny- electrogravitics!


"is said to be" ... "are said to incorporate" ... Hell, I _know_ that
these things are _said_! But I won#t believe it just because it is
_said_! Frankly, I regard specifically the claim that the B-2 has
"electrogravitic" propulsion is 100% pure bovine excrement!


>>>No, common sense tells us that there are more advanced aircraft flying
>>>since the B-2 was unveiled in the late '80s. Do you honestly believe
>>>the only thing we're working on now is that lame F-22 and F-35? What
>>>has the USAF, NRO, NSA, CIA, etc... been doing covertly for over 2
>>>decades?
>>>
>>I can't see any real argument in that last paragraph. Just because
>>_you_ think that the B-2 etc. are outdated, it _must_ be true that more
>>advanced aircraft are developed? I'm sorry, but I'd prefer a bit more
>>tangible evidence.
>>
>
> What more tangible evidence do you need than history? No great
> military power in the world just "gives up" on R & D.


Huh??? I did _not_ say that the U.S. (or anyone else) gave up R&D!! I
only said I don't believe that they successfully developed "exotic"
propulsion systems. _Of course_ R&D is continuing, but hopefully
mainly on more promising topics.

> The UK for
> example is nowhere near the US in airpower. Yet they have the HALO and
> other stealth aircraft out of Bae Warton. The UK MoD also admitted the
> HALO after years of denial. Years when near-fatal air collision with
> commercial aircraft were commonly reported. HALO is a delta the size
> of a Hawk... but with no visible propulsion system.


If you have photographs of this HALO, where it can be clearly seen
that no "conventional" propulsion system is used, please share them
with us.

> Are you telling me
> that the British with their limited resources have an electrogravitic
> aircraft in the air while the US with vast resources has none?


Neither the US nor the UK has a working electrogravitic aircraft.

> That's
> absurd. And there is persistant talk of the German Firefly II black
> triangle. Despite US pressure on MBB not to develop the original
> Firefly (Lampyridae) it seems the Germans didn't just give up their
> stealth development program either.


"Persistant talk" ... there we go again! The talk can be as persistent
as possible, it's still no evidence! Why do you think something
becomes more likely to be true the more people talk about it?!?! When
I surf the web, the opposite sometimes seems to be nearer to the truth.

>> ["Belgian Wave" UFOs]
> Please spare the sarcasm for a moment. I can show you hundreds of
> conventional aircraft filmed at night (like the F-117 and B-2) and you
> couldn't distinguish them either.


Indeed. That was my point.

> What is important in the BW
> incidents is that the craft photographed don't match any propulsion
> system around.


Is my English _that_ bad?! I asked you to show me a photograph were
you can positively see that the aircraft doesn't use a conventional
propulsion system! As you said _a single sentence earlier_, a night
time photo won't do!


> According to various sources the TR-3b Astra matches
> these images. The 3 blobs of light (which actually looks more like
> fire) are the 3 maneuvering rockets, not the electrogravitic drive
> itself.


"Various sources" ... no, I don't say it again.


>>>why then has the USAF also
>>>admitted testing of a FFX or Field-Effects demonstrator back in the
>>>'90s?
>>>
>>Did they? Please provide a source for this claim. A _USAF_ source where
>>they admit it.
>>
>
> I am trying to locate that source right now. It was back in the late
> '90s, based on the LoFlyte demonstrator, but utilizing a field-effect
> system.


I know LoFlyte, but never heard it in connection with a field-effect
propulsion system.


>
> Google has thousands of hits on Field Effect propulsion,
> Electrogravitics, and the German discs I mentioned... so what are you
> talking about? You can also look up US disc projects Silverbug, LRV,
> etc...


But nothing on "Field effects demonstrator" or many of its variations.


>>>No, but I will probably be here in 2020 when the files are opened.
>>>Maybe you will too and we will see who was right and who was wrong.
>>>Fair enough?
>>>
>>Fair enough ... provided that you'll actually believe what's in the
>>files, even if they _don't_ contain anything on flying saucers.
>>
>>Andreas
>>
>
> OK, deal.


Andreas

[The Enlightenment]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> Andreas Parsch > wrote in message >...
> > robert arndt wrote:
> > >
> > > First, let me address the fact that you keep ignoring my the FACTS
> > > that the USAF ADMITTED the Flugelrad craft in 1996. May I remind you
> > > yet again that they denied the craft even existed for 51 years.
> >
> > Could you please quote the USAF report? Thanks. Anyway, even if the
> > Flügelrad actually flew, none of the web sources I saw (Unfortunately,
> > I don't have any other sources on it) mention any of the outlandish
> > alien or occult propulsion schemes. The Flügelrad seems to be
> > effectively a very fancy turbojet-powered autogyro.
>
> Jim Wilson, writing for Popular Mechanics, obtained his DoD reports
> through the Freedom of Information Act after certain military
> documents were forcibly declassified by a congressional mandate in the
> mid-to-late-90s. He wrote several articles on the US "Projects
> Silverbug" and the "nuclear flying saucer", the LRV (Lenticular
> Re-entry Vehicle) as well as "Roswell Plus 50" and their origin firmly
> placed with the German discs of WW2. His information obtained through
> the Freedom of Information Act (which the DoD frantically tried to
> restrict to the defense industry)places German disc engineers at
> Wright Patterson (back then Wright Field) in 1946 as well as the
> Horten brothers. The Horten presence can be verified through the
> declassified "Operation Paperclip" documents. The documents state that
> the Hortens were released from UK custody in 1945 for work in the US
> in 1946. The articles contain information on the USAF desire to
> replicate German disc aircraft at Wright Patterson and the continuing
> development of disc offensive systems. Horten disc models, not flying
> wings, were windtunnel tested in the US in 1946. The articles also
> mention German wartime construction of disc aircraft including the
> Flugelrads that were in their words... "highly unstable".
> I'm sure you can contact PM and request their DoD sources for their
> articles, or just search for them yourself through the Freedom of
> Information Act.
> >

One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was this
Focke Wulf "VTOL"
http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html

I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the tilt
rotor concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted
a gas turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted
propellor in the center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being
deflected to provide forward propulsion.

Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a
helicopter or tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or
land in tight spots free of the dangers of rotor impact.

[B2431]

>From:


>One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was this
>Focke Wulf "VTOL"
>http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html
>
>I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the tilt rotor
concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted a gas
turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted propellor in the
center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being
>deflected to provide forward propulsion.
>
>Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a helicopter or
tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or land in tight spots
free of the dangers of rotor impact.


And do what? The drawing shows a vehicle that would carry a crew of one and NO
payload.

Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped
aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3 feet off
the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could not fly
and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and proved how
complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has been tried
several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify proceeding to
an operational prototype.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Pete]

"B2431" > wrote
>
> Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped
> aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3 feet
off
> the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could not
fly
> and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and proved
how
> complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has been
tried
> several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify
proceeding to
> an operational prototype.
>

I've seen that beast. Looks evil to ride.

Pete

[B2431]

>From: "Pete"

>
>"B2431" > wrote
>>
>> Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped
>> aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3 feet
>off
>> the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could not
>fly
>> and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and proved
>how
>> complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has been
>tried
>> several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify
>proceeding to
>> an operational prototype.
>>
>
>I've seen that beast. Looks evil to ride.
>
>Pete
>
>
I have seen films of it in operation. It wobbles.

Last time I was in the museum at Ft. Useless, early 1980s, they had a few
really loony devices. The strangest has to be the one man helicopter where the
guy had to stand on a platform ABOVE the rotors.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[robert arndt]

> One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was this
> Focke Wulf "VTOL"
> http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html
>
> I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the tilt
> rotor concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted
> a gas turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted
> propellor in the center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being
> deflected to provide forward propulsion.
>
> Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a
> helicopter or tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or
> land in tight spots free of the dangers of rotor impact.

Here's more information on the Fw VTOL:


http://www.germanvtol.com/fwvtolfolder/fockewulf.html

Rob

[The Enlightenment]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From:
>
>
> >One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was
this
> >Focke Wulf "VTOL"
> >http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html
> >
> >I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the
tilt rotor
> concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted a
gas
> turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted propellor
in the
> center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being
> >deflected to provide forward propulsion.
> >
> >Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a
helicopter or
> tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or land in
tight spots
> free of the dangers of rotor impact.
>
>
> And do what? The drawing shows a vehicle that would carry a crew of
one and NO
> payload.

It has one crew member. It could no doubt carry a warload or cargo in
the ring shaped fueselage or adated for more crew or passengers.


>
> Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer
shaped
> aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or
3 feet off
> the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it
could not fly
> and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and
proved how
> complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has
been tried
> several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify
proceeding to
> an operational prototype.

This Canadiarn AVRO device used the coanda induced airflow effect and
a sort of hover-craft effect which is somewhat different to this Focke
Wulf FW-VTOL concept which used a large rotor sised ducted fan in a
lenticular like body.

Most ducted fan lift concepts have worked and seem to have provided
forward speeds twice that of helicopters. A ducted fan of course is
not going to be as effective at providing lift as a full sized rotor.

Better to have a good hovering helicoper and a poor crusing vehicle
than a poor hovering VTOL craft and an average cruising vechicle.
Hence aprt from the Harrier helicopters are the only VTOLs in service.

As I pointed out however such a vehicle might have advantages in
closed approaches in rescues or landings in confined spaces or if
twich as fast as a Helicopter better survivability in battle.

Two vehicles using ducted fans are being built now in the USA and
Israel.

http://www.moller.com/
http://www.urbanaero.com/Urban_Main.htm

They both have a plausible market. (The Israeli one seems the better
to me)


If equiped with an appropriate control system of gyroscopes,
accelerometers and perhaps radar/lasers such a vehicle might be made
to hold station centimeters from a building to rescue people or to
land on someting as small as a tennis court.

The old FW-VTOL concept seems as good as the above two.



>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "The Enlightenment"
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message

>> >One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was this
>> >Focke Wulf "VTOL" >http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html
>> >
>> >I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the tilt
rotor concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted a gas
turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted propellor in the
center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being >deflected to provide
forward propulsion.
>> >
>> >Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a helicopter
or
>> tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or land in tight spots
free of the dangers of rotor impact.
>>
>> And do what? The drawing shows a vehicle that would carry a crew of one and
NO payload.
>
>It has one crew member. It could no >doubt carry a warload or cargo in the
ring >shaped fueselage or adated for more >crew or passengers.
>

Look at the fuselage, other that very small spaces everything would have to be
structural, puffer and drive ducts or fuel tanks. In any event the Nazi version
would have required technology not available until the 1960s like computers
and turbinoshaft engines with enough power to be able to divert some bleed air
for forward thrust and control.
>>
>> Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped
>> aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3 feet
off the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could not
fly and wobbled a lot.

<snip>

>Most ducted fan lift concepts have worked and seem to have provided
>forward speeds twice that of helicopters.

Name one.

<snip>
>
>Two vehicles using ducted fans are being built now in the USA and Israel.
>
>http://www.moller.com/
>http://www.urbanaero.com/Urban_Main.htm
>
You have GOT to be kidding. In over 30 years of sucking money from investors
and promising to produce a working prototype " soon" the only thing Moller has
produced other than a bunch of hot air was an unmanned hover in ground effect.

I am not familiar with the other machine you cite, but more power to them.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Pete]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote

>
> Two vehicles using ducted fans are being built now in the USA and
> Israel.
>
> http://www.moller.com/

"Built" is a matter of opinion. Has Moller actually flown one of his 'cars'?
No. Tethered, unmanned, hover is as far as it's gotten.

> http://www.urbanaero.com/Urban_Main.htm
>
> They both have a plausible market. (The Israeli one seems the better
> to me)

"Plausible market"? How so? 'Driving down to your neighborhood vertiport'
and toodling off to work? HA. The average person can't reliably handle 2D
movement, much less 3D.
Why haven't personal helicopters 'taken off'?

Moller VP says this about saucer shapes:
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/01.09.03/skycars-0302.html
"We still have it here, " Moller VP Jack Allison says about the M200X. "It's
a good test vehicle for part of the technology, but it's not a very
practical vehicle. A saucer's not a very practical shape for aerodynamic
flight and transporting people and things. It's good for takeoff and
landing."

Pics of the M200X and others here:
http://www.laesieworks.com/ifo/lib/moller.html


> The old FW-VTOL concept seems as good as the above two.

Exactly!

Pete

[The Enlightenment]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Pete"
>
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote
> >>
> >> Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped
> >> aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3 feet
> off
> >> the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could not
> fly
> >> and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and proved
> how
> >> complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has been
> tried
> >> several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify
> proceeding to
> >> an operational prototype.
> >>
> >
> >I've seen that beast. Looks evil to ride.
> >
> >Pete
> >
> >
> I have seen films of it in operation. It wobbles.
>
> Last time I was in the museum at Ft. Useless, early 1980s, they had a few
> really loony devices. The strangest has to be the one man helicopter where the
> guy had to stand on a platform ABOVE the rotors.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Dan,

you say that this AVROCAR VZ-9-AV proved that the 'flying saucer
couldn't work' despite that fact that it did fly albeit only in ground
effect and with a degree of wobble.

The results of the tests were as follows:

http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~billzuk/Flying%20Saucer%202.html
"The results of the testing revealed a stability problem and degraded
performance due to turbo-rotor tolerances. Before modifications could
be achieved, funding ran out with the final flight test program
completed in March 1961. With the problems that the contractor was
facing in the wake of the cancellation of its premier fighter program,
the Avro Arrow by the Canadian government, Avro was unable to continue
the project. "

OK so the engineering problem of turbo tollerances is corrected ( a
cinch for todays wide bodied cowling manufacturers I expect ) and the
stability problems are solved by a gyroscoep based "Fly By Wire"
stability augmentation system.
( an FBW system like this is an of the shelf cinch today )

Why wouldn't it work now?


From what I can see this system should work. An efficient VTOL device
needs large volumes of slow moving air. A helicopter achieves this
with a rotor. A "saucer" like this can do so by sucking in air at the
top and distributing it to a lip at the edge of the saucer where the
high velocity air is converted to low velocity by inducing an airflow.

When in forward fligh the vehicle will have a low drag coefficent, a
very high lift coefficient. It will be extremely unstable with
stability provided by vectoring under FBW control and perhaps the
gyroscopic effect of the central fan. This might make the device very
manoeverable due to low wing loading.

[B2431]

>From: (
>
(B2431) wrote in message

>> >From: "Pete"
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped
>> >> aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3
feet
>> off the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could
not
>> fly and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and
proved
>> how complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has
been tried several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify
>> proceeding to an operational prototype.
>
>
>The results of the tests were as follows:
>
>http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~billzuk/Flying%20Saucer%202.html
>"The results of the testing revealed a stability problem and degraded
>performance due to turbo-rotor tolerances. Before modifications could
>be achieved, funding ran out with the final flight test program
>completed in March 1961. With the problems that the contractor was
>facing in the wake of the cancellation of its premier fighter program,
>the Avro Arrow by the Canadian government, Avro was unable to continue
>the project. "
>
>OK so the engineering problem of turbo tollerances is corrected ( a
>cinch for todays wide bodied cowling manufacturers I expect ) and the
>stability problems are solved by a gyroscoep based "Fly By Wire"
>stability augmentation system.
>( an FBW system like this is an of the shelf cinch today )
>
>Why wouldn't it work now?
>
>
>From what I can see this system should work. An efficient VTOL device
>needs large volumes of slow moving air. A helicopter achieves this
>with a rotor. A "saucer" like this can do so by sucking in air at the
>top and distributing it to a lip at the edge of the saucer where the
>high velocity air is converted to low velocity by inducing an airflow.
>
However that is not how the Avro machine worked. See:

http://www.laesieworks.com/ifo/lib/avro-graph02.html

If you poke around the web you will find all kinds duct being used to hover.
You will even find a few that can transition from vertical to horizontal
flight. The closest to being practical I can recall was in the 1960s Boeing
produced on with four ducts mounted on winglets.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[The Enlightenment]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (
> >

SNIP

> proved
> >> how complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan
concept has
> been tried several times and not one vehicle had the performance to
justify
> >> proceeding to an operational prototype.
> >
> >
> >The results of the tests were as follows:
> >
> >http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~billzuk/Flying%20Saucer%202.html
> >"The results of the testing revealed a stability problem and
degraded
> >performance due to turbo-rotor tolerances. Before modifications
could
> >be achieved, funding ran out with the final flight test program
> >completed in March 1961. With the problems that the contractor was
> >facing in the wake of the cancellation of its premier fighter
program,
> >the Avro Arrow by the Canadian government, Avro was unable to
continue
> >the project. "
> >
> >OK so the engineering problem of turbo tollerances is corrected ( a
> >cinch for todays wide bodied cowling manufacturers I expect ) and
the
> >stability problems are solved by a gyroscoep based "Fly By Wire"
> >stability augmentation system.
> >( an FBW system like this is an of the shelf cinch today )
> >
> >Why wouldn't it work now?
> >
> >
> >From what I can see this system should work. An efficient VTOL
device
> >needs large volumes of slow moving air. A helicopter achieves this
> >with a rotor. A "saucer" like this can do so by sucking in air at
the
> >top and distributing it to a lip at the edge of the saucer where
the
> >high velocity air is converted to low velocity by inducing an
airflow.
> >
> However that is not how the Avro machine worked. See:
>
> http://www.laesieworks.com/ifo/lib/avro-graph02.html
>
> If you poke around the web you will find all kinds duct being used
to hover.
> You will even find a few that can transition from vertical to
horizontal
> flight. The closest to being practical I can recall was in the 1960s
Boeing
> produced on with four ducts mounted on winglets.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

There are a number of ducted fan concepts. The Piasaki flying Jeeps
worked and had advantages but were fuel hogs that had trouble landing
on uneven ground and there were concerns that they were dangerous in
gusty conditions.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avplatfm.html#m4

It seems to me that the Israeli guy (built the prototype in his
apartment and had to knok down the wall to get it out) has adressed
most of the shortcommings of these Piasaki aerial platforms.
http://www.urbanaero.com/Urban_Main.htm

Many VTOL and ducted fan concepts are documented on
http://www.vstol.org/ The 'wheel of misfortune' is interesting and
the Boeing project you refer to is I think the Bell X22A but there
were others such as the Bell model 65 ATV

In reference to the Avro canada saucer:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avplatfm.html#m4

"A wind-tunnel test model and a flying prototype were built. The test
model was sent to the NASA Ames Center in California for wind-tunnel
tests. First tethered flight of the flying prototype was at Malton on
29 September 1959, followed by the first untethered flight on 5
December 1959. Although Frost and his staff recognized that the
Avrocar was inherently unstable and had incorporated an
electromechanical stabilization system, it wasn't up to the job, and
once the Avrocar picked itself up to above chest height and got out of
ground effect, it bobbled around drunkenly.

An improved stabilization system was considered, but Avro was in chaos
due to the cancellation of the "CF-105 Arrow" interceptor program. The
chaos filtered down to the Avrocar program, and the US backers of the
program lost interest. The program was axed in December 1961. Whether
it would have ever flown right remains an open question. "

The "Electromechanical" stabalisation sytem was surely no more than a
single gyroscope and some microswitches mounted on the gimballs to
opperate shutters in the air-stream. A 3 axis multi-input
multi-output non linear or state space controller was probably needed
to achieve rock steady stabillity and that needs to be put together by
specialist control theorotecians.