American disc aircraft

[B2431]

The U.S. built and flew a few disc aircraft during WW2. The Chance Vought V-173
first flew 23 November 1942, which had excellent STOL capabilities and was
apparently impossible to stall. The Navy ordered two XF5U-1 which didn't get
their propellers until 1947 and were not proceded with since the Navy decided
jets were the way to go.

This brings 2 questions to mind.

1) if jets hadn't been successful that early would the aircraft have found a
militarily justifiable purpuse?

2) as thin as the saucer was what kind of useful payload could be expected?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Krztalizer]

>
>This brings 2 questions to mind.
>
>1) if jets hadn't been successful that early would the aircraft have found a
>militarily justifiable purpuse?
>
>2) as thin as the saucer was what kind of useful payload could be expected?
>

Dan, by luck I happen to have my V-173 file out on my scanner to copy for a
Brit making a 1/2 scale flying model. One thing to note is that the disc was
NOT thin at all and there was a vast amount of internal space - plenty of room
for a decent bomb-bay or weapons if a warplane variant was to be coaxed out of
this technology study. What I always wondered is why this design wasn't
altered to use Jumo 004s embedded in the wings like the Horten?

Oh, yeah, thats because Jumos sucked :)

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[B2431]

>(Krztalizer)
>Date: 2/20/2004 12:33 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>This brings 2 questions to mind.
>>
>>1) if jets hadn't been successful that early would the aircraft have found a
>>militarily justifiable purpuse?
>>
>>2) as thin as the saucer was what kind of useful payload could be expected?
>>
>
>Dan, by luck I happen to have my V-173 file out on my scanner to copy for a
>Brit making a 1/2 scale flying model. One thing to note is that the disc was
>NOT thin at all and there was a vast amount of internal space - plenty of
>room
>for a decent bomb-bay or weapons if a warplane variant was to be coaxed out
>of
>this technology study. What I always wondered is why this design wasn't
>altered to use Jumo 004s embedded in the wings like the Horten?
>
>Oh, yeah, thats because Jumos sucked :)
>
>v/r
>Gordon

All jet engines do.

Actually the prop wash was supposed to help its STOL characteristics.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Ed Majden]

"B2431"
> The U.S. built and flew a few disc aircraft during WW2. The Chance Vought
V-173
> first flew 23 November 1942, which had excellent STOL capabilities and was
> apparently impossible to stall.

AVRO Canada experimented with a flying saucer type design in the 1950s.
This was funded in part by the USAF. It was known as the Avrocar. It was
abandoned as I guess technology had not been developed (i.e. computer flight
control systems etc) for controlling successful flight. Do a search with
'google' for "AVRO Flying Saucer" if you want to read more about this
project.
Ed Majden

[Ron]

>"B2431"
>> The U.S. built and flew a few disc aircraft during WW2. The Chance Vought
>V-173
>> first flew 23 November 1942, which had excellent STOL capabilities and was
>> apparently impossible to stall.

Thats impossible, since WW2 had not ended yet, and therefore we had not had the
chance to steal the Nazi Uber-technology, which was of course the only way us
American simpletons could have ever had developed it.

:)


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Dav1936531]

>From: (Ron)
>

>>>"B2431"
>>> The U.S. built and flew a few disc aircraft during WW2. The Chance Vought
V-173 first flew 23 November 1942, which had excellent STOL capabilities and
was apparently impossible to stall.<<<

>Thats impossible, since WW2 had not ended yet, and therefore we had not had
the chance to steal the Nazi Uber-technology, which was of course the only way
us American simpletons could have ever had developed it. :)
>Ron

Hah!!! You fool!!! You forgot that the secret cabal of Illuminati, that has
bent the US government to their own evil purposes, has its own group of pyschic
channelers who were working at that time to divine the saucer secrets from the
Aryan aliens of Aldebaran. Several of racially impure sub-human types amongst
the aliens let the saucer secrets slip to the US channelers. But fortunately,
they were all caught and hung on meat hooks by the Aldebaran Gestapo before
leaking enough information to bring the US into technical parity with the Nazi
supermen.
Dave

[Pete]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:p8tZb.579658$ts4.461106@pd7tw3no...
>
> "B2431"
> > The U.S. built and flew a few disc aircraft during WW2. The Chance
Vought
> V-173
> > first flew 23 November 1942, which had excellent STOL capabilities and
was
> > apparently impossible to stall.
>
> AVRO Canada experimented with a flying saucer type design in the 1950s.
> This was funded in part by the USAF. It was known as the Avrocar. It was
> abandoned as I guess technology had not been developed (i.e. computer
flight
> control systems etc) for controlling successful flight. Do a search with
> 'google' for "AVRO Flying Saucer" if you want to read more about this
> project.
> Ed Majden

One of those is on display at the Ft. Eustis, Virginia, Transportation
Museum.
http://www.avroarrow.org/Avrocar/Avrocar3.html
http://www.davidpride.com/Army/us_ft_eustis_04.htm

Pete

[Eugene Griessel]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >
> >This brings 2 questions to mind.
> >
> >1) if jets hadn't been successful that early would the aircraft have found a
> >militarily justifiable purpuse?
> >
> >2) as thin as the saucer was what kind of useful payload could be expected?
> >
>
> Dan, by luck I happen to have my V-173 file out on my scanner to copy for a
> Brit making a 1/2 scale flying model. One thing to note is that the disc was
> NOT thin at all and there was a vast amount of internal space - plenty of room
> for a decent bomb-bay or weapons if a warplane variant was to be coaxed out of
> this technology study. What I always wondered is why this design wasn't
> altered to use Jumo 004s embedded in the wings like the Horten?

Nice article in the Air Enthusiast of June 1973 (Vol 4 No 6) of the program.

Eugene

[B2431]

>From: (Dav1936531)

>
>>From: (Ron)
>
>
>>>>"B2431"
>>>> The U.S. built and flew a few disc aircraft during WW2. The Chance Vought
>V-173 first flew 23 November 1942, which had excellent STOL capabilities and
>was apparently impossible to stall.<<<
>
>>Thats impossible, since WW2 had not ended yet, and therefore we had not had
>the chance to steal the Nazi Uber-technology, which was of course the only
>way
>us American simpletons could have ever had developed it. :)
>>Ron
>
>Hah!!! You fool!!! You forgot that the secret cabal of Illuminati, that has
>bent the US government to their own evil purposes, has its own group of
>pyschic
>channelers who were working at that time to divine the saucer secrets from
>the
>Aryan aliens of Aldebaran. Several of racially impure sub-human types amongst
>the aliens let the saucer secrets slip to the US channelers. But fortunately,
>they were all caught and hung on meat hooks by the Aldebaran Gestapo before
>leaking enough information to bring the US into technical parity with the
>Nazi
>supermen.
>Dave
>
Geeze, now the SS from the secret underwater antarctic base will hunt you down.
They will take you to Area 51, remove your tinfoil hat and force you to read
"Catcher in the Rye." You are doomed, DOOMED.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[The CO]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...

> Oh, yeah, thats because Jumos sucked :)

Well, you're sorta right Gord.

The problem with Jumos was that after about 5 hours or so they *stopped*
sucking..... :^)

The CO

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Pete" > writes:
>
> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> news:p8tZb.579658$ts4.461106@pd7tw3no...
>>
>> "B2431"
>> > The U.S. built and flew a few disc aircraft during WW2. The Chance
> Vought
>> V-173
>> > first flew 23 November 1942, which had excellent STOL capabilities and
> was
>> > apparently impossible to stall.
>>
>> AVRO Canada experimented with a flying saucer type design in the 1950s.
>> This was funded in part by the USAF. It was known as the Avrocar. It was
>> abandoned as I guess technology had not been developed (i.e. computer
> flight
>> control systems etc) for controlling successful flight. Do a search with
>> 'google' for "AVRO Flying Saucer" if you want to read more about this
>> project.
>> Ed Majden
>
> One of those is on display at the Ft. Eustis, Virginia, Transportation
> Museum.
> http://www.avroarrow.org/Avrocar/Avrocar3.html
> http://www.davidpride.com/Army/us_ft_eustis_04.htm

That's also the furthest that thing's ever been from the surface.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[robert arndt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> The U.S. built and flew a few disc aircraft during WW2. The Chance Vought V-173
> first flew 23 November 1942, which had excellent STOL capabilities and was
> apparently impossible to stall. The Navy ordered two XF5U-1 which didn't get
> their propellers until 1947 and were not proceded with since the Navy decided
> jets were the way to go.

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Actually, the idea was researched in the US since 1932 (Patent
2,108,093). It was based om the theories of physicist Charles H.
Zimmermann, compiled in technical report NACA 431. In 1939, The US
Navy provided the funding for the prototype which flew on 11/23/42 as
the Chance-Vought V-173.
Previous aerodynamic tests had already revealed the instability and
low maneuverability of the plane, so the designers were forced to
install big conventional empennages, spoiling the very concept of the
circular wing aircraft (hint: not a true disc).
Low speed performances were considered worse than in other models in
service of the time. So, the next step was a proposal for a VTO recon
plane with tilting rotors repacing the prop blades.
Other protoypes were made (series XF5U-1) equipped with 1359 hp
engines but their performance was also inadequate for the postwar
needs of the US Navy and the project was cancelled in the spring of
1948.
The Soviets also tested two circular gliders based on the German
A.S.6- the Diskoplan I with a Kreisflugel J1253 wing (investigated by
Dr. Alexander Lippisch in 1940-41 at the AVA Gottingen wind tunnel and
Messerschmitt AG laboratories). It was presented at the Moscow Airport
at Tushino in 1958. A Diskoplan II flew in 1962, but no data is
available for a powered version. It is not known if a high-performance
powered version was ever built.

Rob

[robert arndt]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message news:<p8tZb.579658$ts4.461106@pd7tw3no>...
> "B2431"
> > The U.S. built and flew a few disc aircraft during WW2. The Chance Vought
> V-173
> > first flew 23 November 1942, which had excellent STOL capabilities and was
> > apparently impossible to stall.
>
> AVRO Canada experimented with a flying saucer type design in the 1950s.
> This was funded in part by the USAF.
and US Army since it was really a GETOL (Ground Effect Takeoff and
Landing) aircraft.

It was known as the Avrocar. It was
> abandoned as I guess technology had not been developed (i.e. computer flight
> control systems etc) for controlling successful flight. Do a search with
> 'google' for "AVRO Flying Saucer" if you want to read more about this
> project.
> Ed Majden

Ed, it was a farce. The mock-up and two prototypes were demonstrated
as purpose failures to mislead the Soviets into believing this was the
direction the US was going with disc technology. Despite the AVROCAR,
the US had already aquired disc technology from Germany via AVRO
Canada and the immense documentation from Wright Field. AVRO, Lockheed
and Northrop all had disc projects way beyond the VZ-9V and some of
those designs and photos are now coming to light: Silverbug, WS 606A,
AVRO Ace/Spade, the LRV (Lenticular Reentry Vehicle), Northrop NS-97,
etc...
Meanwhile the Soviets dropped the disc plans and proceeded with the
T-60S bomber which is based on the German Sanger spaceplane. That
program and prototype(s) are still active in Russia.

Rob

[Ken Duffey]

robert arndt wrote:

> (B2431) wrote in message >...
> > The U.S. built and flew a few disc aircraft during WW2. The Chance Vought V-173
> > first flew 23 November 1942, which had excellent STOL capabilities and was
> > apparently impossible to stall. The Navy ordered two XF5U-1 which didn't get
> > their propellers until 1947 and were not proceded with since the Navy decided
> > jets were the way to go.
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Actually, the idea was researched in the US since 1932 (Patent
> 2,108,093). It was based om the theories of physicist Charles H.
> Zimmermann, compiled in technical report NACA 431. In 1939, The US
> Navy provided the funding for the prototype which flew on 11/23/42 as
> the Chance-Vought V-173.
> Previous aerodynamic tests had already revealed the instability and
> low maneuverability of the plane, so the designers were forced to
> install big conventional empennages, spoiling the very concept of the
> circular wing aircraft (hint: not a true disc).
> Low speed performances were considered worse than in other models in
> service of the time. So, the next step was a proposal for a VTO recon
> plane with tilting rotors repacing the prop blades.
> Other protoypes were made (series XF5U-1) equipped with 1359 hp
> engines but their performance was also inadequate for the postwar
> needs of the US Navy and the project was cancelled in the spring of
> 1948.
> The Soviets also tested two circular gliders based on the German
> A.S.6- the Diskoplan I with a Kreisflugel J1253 wing (investigated by
> Dr. Alexander Lippisch in 1940-41 at the AVA Gottingen wind tunnel and
> Messerschmitt AG laboratories). It was presented at the Moscow Airport
> at Tushino in 1958. A Diskoplan II flew in 1962, but no data is
> available for a powered version. It is not known if a high-performance
> powered version was ever built.
>
> Rob

Is that the one hanging from the ceiling in the hangar at Monino ???

Scroll down to the bottom of :- http://mysite.freeserve.com/visits_pages/moscow_day08.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

[robert arndt]

Ken Duffey > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
>
> > (B2431) wrote in message >...
> > > The U.S. built and flew a few disc aircraft during WW2. The Chance Vought V-173
> > > first flew 23 November 1942, which had excellent STOL capabilities and was
> > > apparently impossible to stall. The Navy ordered two XF5U-1 which didn't get
> > > their propellers until 1947 and were not proceded with since the Navy decided
> > > jets were the way to go.
>
> > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> > Actually, the idea was researched in the US since 1932 (Patent
> > 2,108,093). It was based om the theories of physicist Charles H.
> > Zimmermann, compiled in technical report NACA 431. In 1939, The US
> > Navy provided the funding for the prototype which flew on 11/23/42 as
> > the Chance-Vought V-173.
> > Previous aerodynamic tests had already revealed the instability and
> > low maneuverability of the plane, so the designers were forced to
> > install big conventional empennages, spoiling the very concept of the
> > circular wing aircraft (hint: not a true disc).
> > Low speed performances were considered worse than in other models in
> > service of the time. So, the next step was a proposal for a VTO recon
> > plane with tilting rotors repacing the prop blades.
> > Other protoypes were made (series XF5U-1) equipped with 1359 hp
> > engines but their performance was also inadequate for the postwar
> > needs of the US Navy and the project was cancelled in the spring of
> > 1948.
> > The Soviets also tested two circular gliders based on the German
> > A.S.6- the Diskoplan I with a Kreisflugel J1253 wing (investigated by
> > Dr. Alexander Lippisch in 1940-41 at the AVA Gottingen wind tunnel and
> > Messerschmitt AG laboratories). It was presented at the Moscow Airport
> > at Tushino in 1958. A Diskoplan II flew in 1962, but no data is
> > available for a powered version. It is not known if a high-performance
> > powered version was ever built.
> >
> > Rob
>
> Is that the one hanging from the ceiling in the hangar at Monino ???

Yes. Here's more:

http://www.ufx.org/soviet/sukhanov.htm

Rob

[Ed Majden]

"robert arndt"
> Ed, it was a farce. The mock-up and two prototypes were demonstrated
> as purpose failures to mislead the Soviets into believing this was the
> direction the US was going with disc technology. Despite the AVROCAR,
> the US had already aquired disc technology from Germany via AVRO

Perhaps! With a little bit more imagination, they should have added a
ground effect skirt and perhaps they would have had a proto type of a
hovercraft, although a very small one. Does anyone know when the first
hovercraft was designed? The UK is generally given credit for the first
practical in use models I believe.
Ed