Foo Fighters

[Bronc]

For those who might not have heard the term: Foo fighter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, if anyone has a plausible theory as to what they were, it's going to be someone on WW2Aircraft.net.

They were seen in all theatres of the war, but not so much in Korea, and rarely if ever today. So what were they?

Bronc

 

[vanir]

Likely explanation is a variety of phenomenae being reported as the same thing. As technology and scientific familiarity in standard education curriculums increased various elements contributing to these reports have been eliminated from continuing reports, such as ball lightning for example, of which little was known until the seventies. Ufoe reporting still continues, mostly among commercial airliners and military (whether it is not often reported by civilian pilots due to ridicule or because they rarely fly very high performance craft in unusual and all weather conditions day and night is open to speculation), also by astronauts.

Project Blue Book reports are interesting to read, there is one very good incident supported by interceptors, a commerical airliner and ground stations in the sixties of a ufoe reported by a commercial airliner in US airspace, which was then observed by ground stations and finally by a pair of F4 Phantoms sent to intercept, a giant glowing ball which accelerated well beyond the capabilities of the Phantoms to continue pursuit, although they had been within visual range of it for some time before it did this.

The USSR also spent official subsidy investigating supernatural phenomenae, somewhat similar to the US Project Blue Book, theirs included investigating claims of paranormal activities among the community. There is quite of bit of footage taken by KGB agents who would interview people who claimed to have such powers as telekinesis. None were proved however.

Wartime, whether World War or Cold War is a weird time. I'd say put that with people doing things our psychology was probably never intended to handle like flying through the air at 500mph plus in the dark...

 

[stan reid]

In a somewhat related field, the battle of Los Angeles was the other real time big "flying sauce" incident of WWII.

 

[stona]

A UFO is just that, an Unidentified Flying Object. For me the least rational of all possible explanations is that they have come from another planet/galaxy/time (delete as you like).
Cheers
Steve

 

[pattle]

Flying saucers in America? I think these were more to do with Jack Northrop than Ming the Merciless myself.

 

[stona]

Flying saucers in America? I think these were more to do with Jack Northrop than Ming the Merciless myself.

Indeed. We tend to explain things that we don't understand in the most odd ways. I suppose it was perfectly logical for the Norsemen to imagine that thunder was caused by some big bloke in the sky with a big hammer
Cheers
Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

In a somewhat related field, the battle of Los Angeles was the other real time big "flying sauce" incident of WWII.

The "Battle of Los Angeles" was nothing more than a nervous population that was triggered by a series of events that escelated into a panic.

At the time, everyone thought the Japanese were right off the coast, preparing to send over bombers ahead of an invasion force.

When one itchy AA battery opened up, it started a chain reaction that eventually killed several people and destroyed a few buildings.

As far as flying saucers go...there really were. In a way.

Here's a couple of examples:

The Sack As6:

The Vought XF5U-1 (there was a later, jet assisted version also):

 

[stona]

RAF bomber crews reported that the Germans were firing pyrotechnic shells they called "scarecrows" to simulate bombers going down which might demoralise other crews. The RAF itself perpetuated the myth. There were no pyrotechnics, those really were bombers going down.

Here's another real flying saucer.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

As far as flying saucers go...there really were. In a way.

Here's a couple of examples:

Here is the Vought XF5U-1

What look like jet engine intakes are the intakes/cowls for the 2 × Pratt Whitney R-2000-7 engines.

Your second picture is of a V-173 proof of concept aircraft.

There may have been an even later version with a jet engine assist?

 

[John Frazer]

In the US in the early-mid '30s, the Arup planes from Indiana flew airshows for several years. Could not attract interest, despite successful performance and safety. S-2 was ~800lb, 84 kts on 37HP, landing speed 19kts. Difficult to stall, impossible to spin.
One of them flew for NACA and impressed them with it's speed and its phenomenally low landing speed. It was after that, Vought and the former NACA engineer Zimmerman came up with his V-173, under the mistaken apprehension that they needed the props to spin down-at-the-tips to counter supposedly high drag. Not true, and NACA Langley tests showed that there was no particular gain, and it is shown that the props and their gearing system killed the XF5U. It never took off because of vibrations from the powertrain.

Meanwhile the Boeing "Flapjack" plane would have been like a Bearcat, but with more speed, range, payload, and <30kts landing speed.
Its not clear why the Navy ignored it for the Vought monstrosity.
Sergei Sikorsky design for a jet version.

 

[GrauGeist]

The top speed of the Arup S-2 was 97 mph. The top speed for the Arup S-4 was 115 mph.
Neither Arup designs had the ability to be more than a novelty and the designer of the S-2, Hoffman, went on to design his own flying wing which crashed and killed the pilot.
The Boeing projects were conceptual and were never realized nor tested - much like the Horton Brother's projects beyond the Ho.IX

Ford Motor Company's model 15-P held more promise than the Boeing wing (and 306) concepts.

 

[nuuumannn]

A UFO of course, as per Steve's definition back in 2013, doesn't have to have been extra-terrestrial.

the term was also commonly used to mean any UFO sighting from that period. Formally reported from November 1944 onwards, witnesses often assumed that the foo fighters were secret weapons employed by the enemy.

It could have been a band started by ex Nirvana drummer Dave Grohl...

This article is about the aerial phenomenon. For the rock band, see Foo Fighters. For the homebuilt aircraft, see Stewart Foo Fighter.

I suspect what these guys saw will go with them to their graves. There is probably no plausible explanation that fits every account.

 

[John Frazer]

Neither Arup designs had the ability to be more than a novelty

The Navy later thought enough of it to fund Zimmerman's abortive attempt, though for some reason they confused the high drag at low speed-high-A flight with cruise performance. Not true, as proven by the Arup which flew for NACA, and established the utility of the low-aspect ratio planform.
What standard would be used to say they were worth no more than novelty? Good speed and efficiency, safe routine operation put into practice, what more?
Hoffman moved on after the S-3 was destroyed after being damaged by apparent arson, and another worked with Snyder on the S-4. Hoffman built his for Younghusband, and it was well into successful trials when the fatal crash occurred. A fuel leak and fire isn't a damning statement against the type and concept, nor is market apathy to the Arups. They flew, and did so very well.

Ford Motor Company's model 15-P held more promise than the Boeing wing (and 306) concepts.

Not true by any means that it compared to the Arups. The Arups flew dozens of sorties, several seasons, multiple pilots and were proven. 15p made a handful of hops with only one pilot and was always problematic. Not at all in the same category of proven exhibited performance.
Arup never tried to build tail-less. Most designers of such planes like Fauvel, Cheranovsky and Canova also tried to go tail-less and all eventually resigned to a fin at least because of poor control and stability. The Navy's plane also used fins, and found that the separated elevons hung behind the wing were far better than the tailing edge ailerons or wingtip-flippers of the Arups. (No significant advantage to the out-ward rotating props in the Vought plane, though. Less stability)
The little Boeing test plane would have been a true study of the Arups, so why doubt that Boeing for the Navy couldn't repeat the usefulness?

 

[PWR4360-59B]

If a person has done a bit of study on the subject and read some of the old information of years ago, it shows an interesting picture. Part of the sightings of UFO's show a development picture, and comparing then to now sightings it proves a development has gone on with some of them.
If you do the search, into the beginnings of flying saucers (that are not aircraft meaning don't use aerodynamics to fly) of modern times, started in Germany, why not as it seems most all modern inventions began there. In the beginning days they looked like riveted together metal, and smoked and sometimes made clanking noises along with humming etc. Then they progressed to very smooth surfaces and still had mechanical problems at times, in Vietnam war days some folks thought they heard a locomotive when they saw a flying saucer, made me think of what I remember as a kid when I heard an EMD locomotive running. I remember reading other such descriptions of people that saw a flying saucer in I think it was the Portland Oregon area, back in the 50's or 60's, the sound of a diesel engine and black smoke ! Maybe a generator set? The main thing that makes the UFO thing something to be ashamed of is the constant talk of aliens, and how that is so perpetuated when the topic comes up. It instantly throws the poo poo on the subject. That is why I have always wished we could just talk about the machines and not the what some folks would call the out there part, the alien topic. To go on to the other UFO's that are not metal, you would need to be a believer in the Almighty.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Hey, man, I've been to Roswell. I've seen the museum. I've even got the comic mini-series Roswell, Little Green Man, bought at the comic book store in Roswell, in 1997.
You're telling me its BS?!!!!

 

[GrauGeist]

The Navy later thought enough of it to fund Zimmerman's abortive attempt, though for some reason they confused the high drag at low speed-high-A flight with cruise performance. Not true, as proven by the Arup which flew for NACA, and established the utility of the low-aspect ratio planform.
What standard would be used to say they were worth no more than novelty? Good speed and efficiency, safe routine operation put into practice, what more?
Hoffman moved on after the S-3 was destroyed after being damaged by apparent arson, and another worked with Snyder on the S-4. Hoffman built his for Younghusband, and it was well into successful trials when the fatal crash occurred. A fuel leak and fire isn't a damning statement against the type and concept, nor is market apathy to the Arups. They flew, and did so very well.

First of all, "Good Speed"? I'm not sure how you define good speed, but the Arups were not fast.
The Arup S-1 was slow and uncontrollable.
The Arup S-2, which is the one that was demonstrated for NACA and the military, had a top speed of 97 miles an hour. The S-2 eventually crashed.
The Arup S-3, which had poor flight characteristics was the one that was eventually destroyed by arson.
The Arup S-4 had a top speed of 115 miles an hour - which was not impressive even by 1935 standards.
The Hoffman wing had an impressive speed of 135 miles an hour, but caught fire during a flight and crashed.

Not an impressive track record, to be honest.

Not true by any means that it compared to the Arups. The Arups flew dozens of sorties, several seasons, multiple pilots and were proven. 15p made a handful of hops with only one pilot and was always problematic. Not at all in the same category of proven exhibited performance.
Arup never tried to build tail-less. Most designers of such planes like Fauvel, Cheranovsky and Canova also tried to go tail-less and all eventually resigned to a fin at least because of poor control and stability. The Navy's plane also used fins, and found that the separated elevons hung behind the wing were far better than the tailing edge ailerons or wingtip-flippers of the Arups. (No significant advantage to the out-ward rotating props in the Vought plane, though. Less stability)
The little Boeing test plane would have been a true study of the Arups, so why doubt that Boeing for the Navy couldn't repeat the usefulness?

The Ford Motor Company, by way of the Stout Metal Aircraft Division, had a great deal of success with aircraft building and the Model 15-P held solid promise, but the War sidelined the project. If the Arups held so much promise, where are they today?

The Vought V-173 had a top speed of 138 miles an hour and had reasonable performance.
The Vought XF5U never was able to get airborne because of technical problems.
So while the Arup types were viewed by Zimmerman, who went on to design the two types for Vought, there was no physical connection.

To expand a little, the Sach AS-6 was also problematic. So it appears that disc or heel shaped aircraft held little promise HOWEVER, the Ford Model 15-P was a Flying Wing, not a full or half disc planform.

The Boeing 306 concepts were nothing more than just concepts and there's a big, fat book of "Luft '46" concepts that promised a great many things, too.

 

[Zipper730]

I remember reading about the F5U, and posted it in another thread regarding aspect ratio: I'm not sure how much performance was lost by spinning the propellers the opposite way. From what I remember reading it was anywhere from a few percent to 30-50 at high AoA

 

[GrauGeist]

The XF5U had far too many issues that were never able to be ironed out.

One of the largest problems, was the severe vibration (regardless of engine rotation) that was experienced when the engines were run up to taxi speed. This is one of the reasons it never got airborne.

One a couple of trials, it did make short hops, but the Hughes H-4 flew further than the XF5U ever did.

 

[John Frazer]

S-2 was 97mph on 30 horsepower, which impressed many, including NACA.
S-2 and S-4 were working planes, not hangar queens and gingerly-handled test planes. They earned their living, and flew on until the age of the airframe ended them. S-2 was sold to a stunt performer who crashed planes, though it's not clear how specifically, it ended.

The Ford plane had nothing like their record of experience, and nothing said above speaks against the Arup type.

Hatfield in the '80s built his "Lttle Bird" series, and the 2 and 3 model validated everything the Arup's claimed: good speed for their horseppower, stall-proof and stable while being controllable and nimble if not exhibited aerobatics.

The whole question of "if they were good, where are they today" is a red herring. "The market" had no interest in a good thing. It's not the first time in aviation history that a good idea withered on the vine because of customer inattention. Again, that doesn't speak against the concept or model type.
Let's ask fans of he XB-70, the Acro-Canada "Arrow", and the BAC TSR-2 "if it was a good thing, where is it now? Simple lack of sales record means it had nothing to offer. Case closed."
Concorde was celebrated, though not many flew, and not for long, and not profitably and removed from service after a crash. By the metric of "where are they now", they were solid failures.
Same might go for the Space Shuttle: Graft and collusion forcing a "fleet" of 5 to fly when they sholdn't have been more than a seldom-used test plane, does not make a successful flying machine or a good career. Points is that "the market" doesn't determine science. Often goes against good science of what works.

Langley history says that after seeing the S-2, Zimerman published his patents, using the identical planform with his props design.
V-173 could have gotten more speed with normal props that didn't limit it, by being designed to interact with the wing-tip vortex.
Langley tests showed that they didn't help with drag reduction, or controllability or stability -hampered stability a bit.
With normal sorts of props driven by the 2 80hp engines it should have been faster, but for Zimmerman's hobby of the exaggerated props.
XF5U never was able to fly because of "Zimmerman's folly", those silly geared flapping props. It failed specifically because of that mechanical extravagance which was not necessary to flight.
Simple twin-engine arrangement would have been good, by all available information.

And again, the Ford all-wing never was a successful aircraft.

4 or so models of the Rowe "UFO" flies just fine. Virtually copy of Boeing 396 or the Sack plane. Makers of the Sack plane did something wrong, that's all. Arup/Hoffman, Hatfield and others prove that the concept can work, and very well.
Wainfan Facetmobile also shows that extremely short aspect-ratio unitary wing/body can work very well. Carburetor trouble forcing it to emergency land through a fence, is not a point against the concept or the model type. For all we know, the short aspect ratio qualities, is what made it survivable.

 

[Zipper730]

The Arup S-2, which is the one that was demonstrated for NACA and the military, had a top speed of 97 miles an hour. The S-2 eventually crashed.

What caused the crash? Given enough time almost any airplane will crash...

The Arup S-3, which had poor flight characteristics was the one that was eventually destroyed by arson

Was the arson a way to collect on insurance?

The Ford Motor Company, by way of the Stout Metal Aircraft Division, had a great deal of success with aircraft building and the Model 15-P held solid promise, but the War sidelined the project.

Do you think it would have worked as well as intended?