Register to reply

Wichita UFO

by dlgoff
Tags: wichita
Share this thread:
dlgoff
#1
Feb11-09, 07:38 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
dlgoff's Avatar
P: 2,720
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

Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
What lit up the universe?
Sheepdogs use just two simple rules to round up large herds of sheep
Animals first flex their muscles
russ_watters
#2
Feb11-09, 08:14 PM
Mentor
P: 22,292
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
#3
Feb11-09, 08:23 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
I think it's an E-3 AWACS or similar.

dlgoff
#4
Feb11-09, 08:31 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
dlgoff's Avatar
P: 2,720
Wichita UFO

Why would the Air Force not want to comment on the subject if it was just a well know airplane?
McConnell Air Force Base declined to comment.
Maybe just a waste of time for them?
Ivan Seeking
#5
Feb11-09, 08:34 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
Quote Quote by dlgoff View Post
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?
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
#6
Feb11-09, 08:38 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
dlgoff's Avatar
P: 2,720
Okay. Then I'll be waiting to hear what they have to say.
DaveC426913
#7
Feb11-09, 08:41 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
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
#8
Feb11-09, 08:47 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
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
#9
Feb11-09, 10:02 PM
Mentor
P: 22,292
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
#10
Feb11-09, 10:07 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
It looks like a right rear quarter aspect to me, Dave.
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
#11
Feb11-09, 10:10 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
The angle of the shot might account for distortions in the appearance of the fuselage.
russ_watters
#12
Feb11-09, 10:16 PM
Mentor
P: 22,292
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
The angle of the shot might account for distortions in the appearance of the fuselage.
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
#13
Feb11-09, 10:30 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
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.
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
#14
Feb11-09, 10:54 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
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
#15
Feb12-09, 09:50 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
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
#16
Feb15-09, 06:46 AM
P: 94
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
#17
Feb15-09, 10:59 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by nottheone View Post
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.
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.
nottheone
#18
Feb15-09, 03:30 PM
P: 94
I was in the Air Force and I'm a photographer, both film and digital, amongst other things. I don't think it looks like any of the suggested things because I have seen them in real life. I would have had plenty of time to take at least 3 to 10 pictures with a 35mm unless that thing was going mach 8 and I still would have got off more than one. I have photographed fighters doing an FCF (functional check flight). They go full afterburner, sit on their tail at the end of the runway and straight up until they are out of sight, it takes a couple of minutes afterburner the whole way. You might notice in the other picture the sky wasn't overcast so the cloud ceiling wasn't low. Maybe I am missing something with the slow lens excuse, feel free to explain it to me, I've been known to be wrong.


Register to reply