4 ms·

"...In 2001, U.S. Air Force personnel cleared the document cache for public release...But it took 11 years to crack open the boxes in College Park and glimpse t

"...In 2001, U.S. Air Force personnel cleared the document cache for public release...But it took 11 years to crack open the boxes in College Park and glimpse the saucer secrets within..." So for things the government wants to declassify, there's over an eleven-year waiting period. Wow.

cpleppert 14y ago
Considering this is for a vehicle that never came close to working in its prototype form and was based on an ill-conceived fascination with a saucer design that required it to be nothing but an ensemble of jet engines with thrust redirection required in every direction it makes one wonder how anything ever gets released to the public.
- nobodysfool 14y ago
  Never came close to working? I read that it achieved Mach 3, well before the first reported Mach 3: The first flight at faster than three times the speed of sound occurred on 27 September 1956. The aircraft was the Bell X-2 and the pilot was Captain Milburn Apt. The Bell X-2 was launched from a specially-modified Boeing B-50 at 31,800 feet. It achieved a speed of Mach 3.196 (2,094 mph). However, the flight then encountered problems known as inertia coupling and Apt jettisoned the cockpit capsule. For some reason, he was unable to use his parachute and was killed - it was his first flight in the X-2. The aircraft itself crashed of course and was scrapped. So, if it did achieve Mach 3, I see no reason why they would have considered scrapping it, since apparently it did better than the Bell X-2 could have done, earlier than the Bell X-2 experiment even.
elorant 14y ago
If you read it the other way around this means that top-secret technology the military is using is at least a decade ahead of its time.
- jff 14y ago
  If the military is using it, isn't it by definition not ahead of its time?
- gknoy 14y ago
  I think one might instead say that the military is trying to develop technology about two decades before it will actually see any use -- which means that stuff which is actually being used is nearly always using 10-20 years old technology. The YF-22 development/demo contract was awarded in 1986. F-22s were deployed in war games in 2005 (19 years later), and saw combat in 2007 (21 years later). [1] So, there's about a 20 year lead between when we come up with a concept and finally work enough of the bugs out to have it deployed. The F-35 is newer, and seems to be making progress. Its first planned deployment is 2017, and the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) development contract was awarded in 1996. Lockheed Martin's X-35 beat Boeing in 2001, as the X-35 had less risk [2]. So, the F-35 is likely to have a similar two decade span between prototype and initial concepts and deployment. In that time, of course, there will be advancements in electronics, stealth technology, and weapons -- and the new craft will be testing them. (That's why we have Edwards AFB.) So not all of the tech on these planes is 20 years old -- but I still don't think we can call that "ahead of its time". 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...
beambot 14y ago
I've seen that thing flying in documentaries well before 2012. It certainly didn't take 11 extra years to learn of it. IIRC, it's called the Avrocar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar (Or am I missing something obvious?)
- joshwa 14y ago
  This project is mentioned in the Wikipedia page ("Project 1794")--it actually predates the Avrocar. The attitude/flight control design was slightly different: where the Avrocar had an asymmetrical rotating ring around the edge to provide attitude control, the earlier design used thrust vector nozzles like those used in the Harrier and F-35. It seemed the project failed due to engineering problems unrelated to the design: it had oil leaks, and at one point an engine broke free from the aircraft and launched off on its own, endangering the test engineers. Had these unrelated problems not occurred, it's possible that they could have succeeded where the later Avrocar failed, since the control principles in the earlier project were sound and eventually successfully used in modern VTOL aircraft.

cpleppert 14y ago

Considering this is for a vehicle that never came close to working in its prototype form and was based on an ill-conceived fascination with a saucer design that required it to be nothing but an ensemble of jet engines with thrust redirection required in every direction it makes one wonder how anything ever gets released to the public.

nobodysfool 14y ago
Never came close to working? I read that it achieved Mach 3, well before the first reported Mach 3: The first flight at faster than three times the speed of sound occurred on 27 September 1956. The aircraft was the Bell X-2 and the pilot was Captain Milburn Apt. The Bell X-2 was launched from a specially-modified Boeing B-50 at 31,800 feet. It achieved a speed of Mach 3.196 (2,094 mph). However, the flight then encountered problems known as inertia coupling and Apt jettisoned the cockpit capsule. For some reason, he was unable to use his parachute and was killed - it was his first flight in the X-2. The aircraft itself crashed of course and was scrapped. So, if it did achieve Mach 3, I see no reason why they would have considered scrapping it, since apparently it did better than the Bell X-2 could have done, earlier than the Bell X-2 experiment even.

elorant 14y ago

If you read it the other way around this means that top-secret technology the military is using is at least a decade ahead of its time.

jff 14y ago
If the military is using it, isn't it by definition not ahead of its time?
gknoy 14y ago
I think one might instead say that the military is trying to develop technology about two decades before it will actually see any use -- which means that stuff which is actually being used is nearly always using 10-20 years old technology. The YF-22 development/demo contract was awarded in 1986. F-22s were deployed in war games in 2005 (19 years later), and saw combat in 2007 (21 years later). [1] So, there's about a 20 year lead between when we come up with a concept and finally work enough of the bugs out to have it deployed. The F-35 is newer, and seems to be making progress. Its first planned deployment is 2017, and the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) development contract was awarded in 1996. Lockheed Martin's X-35 beat Boeing in 2001, as the X-35 had less risk [2]. So, the F-35 is likely to have a similar two decade span between prototype and initial concepts and deployment. In that time, of course, there will be advancements in electronics, stealth technology, and weapons -- and the new craft will be testing them. (That's why we have Edwards AFB.) So not all of the tech on these planes is 20 years old -- but I still don't think we can call that "ahead of its time". 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...

beambot 14y ago

I've seen that thing flying in documentaries well before 2012. It certainly didn't take 11 extra years to learn of it. IIRC, it's called the Avrocar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar (Or am I missing something obvious?)

joshwa 14y ago
This project is mentioned in the Wikipedia page ("Project 1794")--it actually predates the Avrocar. The attitude/flight control design was slightly different: where the Avrocar had an asymmetrical rotating ring around the edge to provide attitude control, the earlier design used thrust vector nozzles like those used in the Harrier and F-35. It seemed the project failed due to engineering problems unrelated to the design: it had oil leaks, and at one point an engine broke free from the aircraft and launched off on its own, endangering the test engineers. Had these unrelated problems not occurred, it's possible that they could have succeeded where the later Avrocar failed, since the control principles in the earlier project were sound and eventually successfully used in modern VTOL aircraft.