Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Wichita UFO

  1. Feb 11, 2009 #1

    dlgoff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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/breaking_news/story/1025246.html" [Broken]

    http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2009/02/09/13/ufo2.embedded.prod_affiliate.81.jpg [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 11, 2009 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It does look like the space shuttle (or something else) piggybacked, or a similar configuration to a ground-effect craft:
    Wig18.gif
    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. Feb 11, 2009 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think it's an E-3 AWACS or similar.
     
  5. Feb 11, 2009 #4

    dlgoff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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. Feb 11, 2009 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    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. Feb 11, 2009 #6

    dlgoff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Okay. Then I'll be waiting to hear what they have to say.
     
  8. Feb 11, 2009 #7

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  9. Feb 11, 2009 #8

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    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. Feb 11, 2009 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    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. Feb 11, 2009 #10

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    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. Feb 11, 2009 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The angle of the shot might account for distortions in the appearance of the fuselage.
     
  13. Feb 11, 2009 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    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. Feb 11, 2009 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    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. Feb 11, 2009 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Last edited: Feb 12, 2009
  16. Feb 12, 2009 #15

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    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. Feb 15, 2009 #16
    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. Feb 15, 2009 #17

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    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. Feb 15, 2009 #18
    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. Feb 15, 2009 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    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. Feb 15, 2009 #20

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    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
     
  22. Feb 15, 2009 #21

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't really get where this whole 'slow lens is no excuse' argument is going.

    Is the argument that the photographer is lying? Or is it indicative of a hoax? What?

    How does 'he would have had plenty of time' get us anywhere towards an answer?

    Seriously. He was there. It's his account. Who are any of us to say what should have or could have happened? The account is what it is.

    Or am I missing something?
     
  23. Feb 15, 2009 #22

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    For someone who claims to have some relevant knowledge, this post shows surprisingly little knowledge and a lot of attitude. "The slow lens excuse", for example - some cheap point and shoot cameras have surprisingly slow cycle times. It can take a total of couple of seconds to focus, capture, record, refocus... and that has nothing at all to do with exposure time, which is what the quote was actually referring to. You're mixing two completely separate issues.

    A slow lens (high f ratio) is a simple and reasonable explanation for why the craft is not sharp but the tree is.
     
  24. Feb 15, 2009 #23

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Heck, the guy doesn't even have to be right! Maybe he did have more time to take more photos but was fumbling with the camera. Maybe he sneezed and accidentally turned it off. It really doesn't matter - none of that has anything to do with the content of the photo. It is not relevant contextual information.
     
  25. Feb 15, 2009 #24

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Here's a photo of an E-3 taken with a 4:00 aspect. Note the engines are visible and note the dish is separated from the tail. A 5:00 aspect might show them on top of each other, but I haven't found a good pic online showing a view from further back. Maybe I'll try to duplicate it in MS Flight Sim. You'd really need to be specific about it to know for sure if there is any viewing aspect from which you wouldn't be able to see the engines and see the dish and tail blended together.
     

    Attached Files:

    • e3.jpg
      e3.jpg
      File size:
      24.1 KB
      Views:
      108
  26. Feb 16, 2009 #25

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I believe the US airforce policy is to refuse to comment on anything not cleared by the pentagon. That creates a lot of public suspiscion, but does make sense.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook