If you happen to be the kind of person who enjoys documentaries about UFO cover-ups either because you believe every word or because you are looking for a good laugh, there is one feature of these presentations you will see again, and again, and again….
Ladies and gentlemen, I present
The AVRO AIRCAR
We can all debate until we are blue in the face and asteroids are raining down upon us the relative merits of Roswell, or if Eisenhower really did have negotiations with intergalactic vikings during his term as President, or if at some time Area 51 really did keep UFOs in hidden bunkers at Groom Lake. And we probably will. But the Avro Aircar case has more holes in it than a good Swiss cheese.
Mmmm, cheese.
Yes, the Avro, also called the VZ-9, does superficially resemble an flying saucer…
…but there is a reason for that which is completely unrelated to any extraterrestrial origins. Even the most casual examination of the vehicle will show you it attains lift through use of a ducted fan which is nothing more than a completely conventional turbine engine pointed down toward the ground instead of out the back as in a jet which attains lift through air passing over a wing. The slightly domed disc shape of the vehicle is intentional, not because it is related to flying saucers, but because the VZ-9 was intended to maneuver in uni-directional flight. A hybrid of helicopter and airplane: an airplane that was not limited to gaining lift through direction of flight, and a helicopter that did not have the speed limitations that come with the nature of its lift.
Then there is the question of why, if the VZ-9 were a vehicle testing the principles of alien technology it would be freely available on film? Do super secret government tests typically make it onto newsreels? And IF the United States government were inclined to be testing alien technology recovered from crashed UFOs, would we give that technology to other countries?
I am a bit of an airplane fan. One of my favorites from the WWII era was the Lockheed P-38.
I’m not here to debate the merits or drawbacks of the twin boom design, it’s a cool plane so shut up.
I raise the subject of the P-38 because when the plane was developed it was offered to the British as a long range fighter capable of escorting bombers to targets all the way into Germany and back. There were few fighters capable of that range and bombers were often on their own, unprotected over the most dangerous stretches of their missions for much of the war. Thousands of skilled pilots and needed planes were lost for this fact.
The British turned down the design.
According to the WWII Aleutian Aircraft website
The first P-38 production runs sold to the British did not include a supercharger fitted to their Allison V-1710 engines. The supercharger (turbocharger) was deemed to be classified equipment by the U.S. Government, and was thus restricted from overseas sales. These P-38’s performed poorly, resulting in the order for 667 additional P-38s being cancelled by the RAF.
A terrestrially designed and built supercharger was considered classified equipment and thus not sold to an ally for whom it could have turned the tide of the war, saving hundreds if not thousands of lives. Yet, the A.V. Roe company, a British airplane manufacturer who built the Lancaster and Lincoln bombers who expanded into Canada to become A.V. Roe Canada Limited, commonly referred to as Avro Canada is given alien technology to fulfill a contract for the US military?
Literally and figuratively, as you can see from the video, the Avro Aircar barely got off the ground. It was unstable and difficult to control and abandoned as a design, though its principles found their way into ground effect vehicles in use today both commercially and in military applications.
The Avro VZ-9 never has been evidence of or a result of reverse engineering alien technology and its repeated presence in stories trying to make that case do more harm than good to the case for alien visitation. It’s very presence in an investigation claiming otherwise can only serve to cast serious doubt upon the quality of research, and analysis of so called expert commentators and serves only to discredit them and their conclusions.
5 comments
