Wichita UFO

dlgoff

Being from Kansas, I thought a little discussion on this one might be appropriate. Looks like the space shuttle piggy-backed to me.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/break...y/1025246.html

russ_watters

It does look like the space shuttle (or something else) piggybacked, or a similar configuration to a ground-effect craft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wig18.gif

I can't think of any high performance aircraft with an over-tail engine nacelle, though. It would be a possible configuration for a UAV, though.

Ivan Seeking

I think it's an E-3 AWACS or similar.

dlgoff

Why would the Air Force not want to comment on the subject if it was just a well know airplane?
Maybe just a waste of time for them?

Ivan Seeking

I don't know anything about this particular report, but the military often takes a few weeks to figure out what they were doing. Recall that the Phoenix Lights - the second event that night that made the evening news - was only explained [IIRC] weeks later. [it may have been much longer than that].

Also, it might have been a test flight of some kind - perhaps a new AWACS aircraft?

dlgoff

Okay. Then I'll be waiting to hear what they have to say.

DaveC426913

I think it looks like a Saab Drakken (with its air scoops way forward)
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avj35_2.gif

with a tail-mounted prototype engine in testing.

DaveC426913

Ohhhhhh! I've been looking at it as if the craft is advancing. It makes a lot more sense if it's receding. It almost looks like Ivan's AWACS.

russ_watters

It looks like a right rear quarter aspect to me, Dave. I think the fuselage looks too thick and short to be an E-3, but it could be something similar. The report implies a high performance aircraft, though (not that the report is necessarily completely accurate...).

Note to UFO enthusiasts: except that we're missing some context info that presumably the photographer provided when he reported it (specifically, camera/lens info, if the photo is cropped), the tree in the foreground is very helpful. Unless the plane is absolutely huge and/or the camera on a long lens, the plane must be inside of a mile away and only a few hundred feet off the ground. But either way, with a tape measure between the location the photo was shot and the tree, you can get a range of potential sizes and distances.

DaveC426913

Yep. When I was first looking at it I thought it was right front quarter, but right rear works much better.

The report says he was facing East but doesn't say whether the craft is shown advancing or receding.

Ivan Seeking

The angle of the shot might account for distortions in the appearance of the fuselage.

russ_watters

Possible, not sure. Tough to pin down the exact angle we're looking at it. I don't see any under-wing engine nacelles, though. That's the main reason I'm thinking what's above is an engine.

Ivan Seeking

Hmmmmmm, you're right. It seems that we should be able to see the outline of at least one engine under the wing projected towards our left [as viewed in the photo].

Ivan Seeking

This is close to the view that I imagined but with the camera closer to the line along the length of the aircraft - closer to a frontal view.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry

DaveC426913

Googling, I've found some AWACS dishes mounted on some odd choices for craft. Perhaps this is a dish mounted on a Vulcan or HP Victor other such craft that has in-fuselage engine(s).

nottheone

AWACS? I think it was a modifed 57 Studebaker. Which makes as much sense as the stuff other people have been saying. It doesn't look anything like anything that has been suggested so far. More likely a doctored photo if it was digital. If it was actually taken with film then I might be impressed. But whatever camera he had I don't buy the slow lens excuse, he would have had plenty of time to take more than one picture. Also a slow lens implies a longer exposure if anything, nothing to do with how quickly you can take a second shot. I don't see much blurring so the shutter speed couldn't have been too slow.

DaveC426913

Lots of rhetoric here, but surprisingly devoid of useful content.

You don't think it looks like what people have been saying.
You apparently know how long he had to take the shot.