 The late 1940s and 1950s were halcyon days for UFO
sightings in North America. The Roswell Incident occurred in 1947,
heralding the belief that we were being visited - or
even stalked - by alien beings. There were 6 "reported"
sightings in Ontario alone between 1951 and 1957, many of which were
classified as hoaxes.
In 1959 a flying saucer flew around the Malton Airport
(Toronto). It was observed by hundreds of people, photographed
extensively and its flight was even captured as a quality movie. Was it a
hoax? Nope.
The Malton flying saucer wasn't from outer space. It was
designed and built right there at the A.V.Roe (AVRO) aircraft company.
In his research, AVRO's Chief Designer, John Frost, (pictured
at right) had discovered an application of something called the "Coanda Effect".
(To learn more on the
Coanda Effect go to http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/coanda.htm)
Frost's application of the Coanda Effect suggested that a powerful ground cushion
could be created by a circulating fan and, in conjunction with
horizontal engines, could provide the basis for a vehicle that could have both have VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) capabilities and could still operate as an
aircraft.
AVRO and the Canadian government provided the initial funding for Frost's work
in 1952- 1953. Frost combined his innovative design into a disc shape,
a saucer shape, which had been chosen as the most efficient aerodynamic shape and to simplify structural requirements for a circular hovering platform.
The flying saucer was officially designated the VZ-9AV but was generally
referred to as the "AvroCar".
 By
late 1953, the project was costing upwards of $400,000 to the Canadian
government and, in their infinite wisdom, they pulled the plug on the
project.
Frost, not wanting to give up his ideas turned to the US to fund the
development. In 1955, the U.S. Air Force invested some $1.9
million to allow Frost and AVRO, which also sunk $2.5 million of their own
money, to continue the work. In 1958 the first prototype was
built for wind tunnel testing. In 1959 the second prototype took
to the air, with AVRO pilot "Spud" Potoki at the controls, at Malton.
After several additional flights and wind tunnel tests, the U.S. Air Force decided to end its funding of the project
in 1961. They stated that their decision was based on the
experiences of poor lateral stability with the AvroCar.
AVRO knew how to fix the problems but they were strapped for
cash. Seems that a certain Canadian Government had killed funding
on more than just the AvroCar. They had also killed the CF-105,
the AVRO ARROW, a project that resulted in massive losses of money and
talent at AVRO.
AVRO scraped up enough cash to redesigned the AvroCar with a pair of J-85 turbojets, a larger turborotor,
for improved performance, and a wing/tailet configuration
that they married to the central disc platform (see image below).
These changes seemed to solve the stability problems but it was too late.
On April 30, 1962, the parent company, A. V. Roe Canada, which had been
disintegrating since the cancellation of the ARROW, ceased to exist.
The two prototype AvroCars still exist. The 1959 model is in an
Army Museum in Fort Eustis, Virginia. The other belongs to the
National Air and Space Museum, who have it stored in a warehouse in
Maryland.
Authors note: This story tells many
tales. It is a tale of stupidity on behalf of our Canadian
government in the 1950s. Here was AVRO, a company on the leading
edge of pure aviation research, which was developing the rudiments of
VTOL. VTOL is the basis of the success of the British Harrier Jet
and the new Joint Strike Fighter program in the U.S. Government
has place in funding research but government is pressured to
demand an
immediate Return on Investment (ROI). Pure research does not offer
immediate ROI. In fact, some research can fail and offer no
ROI. Our governments prefer to fund a new Regional Jet, a simple
line-extension for a profitable aircraft manufacturer, than to invest in
longer term innovation.
Just out of interest, can you guess what the
AVROCAR was a prototype for?
click on this image to make it larger
30/10/2007
|
