Wichita UFO

  1. dlgoff

    dlgoff 3,136
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    It does look like the space shuttle (or something else) piggybacked, or a similar configuration to a ground-effect craft:
    [​IMG]
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2009
  4. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,538
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    dlgoff 3,136
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    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?
     
  6. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,538
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  7. dlgoff

    dlgoff 3,136
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    Okay. Then I'll be waiting to hear what they have to say.
     
  8. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 16,374
    Gold Member

  9. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 16,374
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  10. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2009
  11. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 16,374
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  12. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,538
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  14. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,538
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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].
     
  15. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,538
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Last edited: Feb 12, 2009
  16. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 16,374
    Gold Member

    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).
     
  17. 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.
     
  18. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 16,374
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2009
  19. 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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2009
  20. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,538
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How is this different from seeing them in a photo? Beyond that, most people here have probably seen many of these aircrafts.
     
  21. Office_Shredder

    Office_Shredder 4,499
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I would argue seeing them in real life is less useful than having seen them in a photograph here
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Similar discussions for: Wichita UFO
  1. Ufo

Loading...