# Qestions About The AVRO "Flying Saucer" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 5, 2013, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370 "2013-02-05T07:54:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/1 "2013-02-05T07:54:49Z")
This month’s Mechanix Illustrated had an interesting story about the abortive “flying saucer” aircraft , which was developed by Avro in Canada (1950’s). I had some questions about it: -why wold the US Airforce award such a large contract to a foreign firm? -the aircraft never flew more than a few feet off the ground (it was unstable in hovering mode); why didn’t they test this first with a 1/10th scale model? -I cannot see how the thing could be controlled in forward flight-no rudder, flaps, ailerons, etc. It was worked on for quite some time (almost 10 years); why was it pursued so long? Overall, one of the more bizarre attempts at a new aircraft design. It looks so strange-I cannot imagine it ever could have flown. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/2 "2013-02-05T08:42:13Z")
I have no idea about most, but I will suggest this for one of your questions: > [@ralph124c](#): > > -why wold the US Airforce award such a large contract to a foreign firm? Because Canada was a friendly country and a fellow NATO member. Canadians were no strangers to aerospace development. In Canada, the A.V. Roe Company (“Avro”) had developed the [Arrow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow) fighter-interceptor-bomber; and while it went nowhere (a debate over its viability at the time is one Canadians are still having), Avro had at least established its credibility with the US–another NATO member. So, when Avro suggested that its “[Avrocar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar)” might be of interest to the USAF, the USAF took notice. It went nowhere, as history tells. Still, the Canadian experience of the A.V. Roe engineers was not wasted. In spite of the fact that their Arrow aircraft was scrapped, Roe’s engineers went to work for NASA. They went on to take us to the Moon. According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow#Aftermath): > [@](#): > > Following the Canadian government’s cancellation of the Avro Arrow project in 1959, CF-105 Chief Aerodynamicist Jim Chamberlin led a team of 25 engineers to NASA’s Space Task Group to become lead engineers, program managers, and heads of engineering in NASA’s manned space programs—Projects Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. Perhaps my countrymen couldn’t build a better aircraft, but they knew what to do with spacecraft. Good for them! ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/3 "2013-02-05T10:47:25Z")
See “flying wing” if you want another off-the-wall airplane of the era. It (predictably) had major control problems - but it was stealthy before more than 100 people understood why that was such a good idea. (the B-2 uses computers to constantly adjust trim - not available in 1953. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/4 "2013-02-05T15:44:36Z")
off topic: One of the things mentioned in the article is the coanda effect. That has recently been exploited to develop a [VTOL aircraft](http://www.gizmag.com/aesir-unmanned-aerial-vehicle/12813/) that doesn’t use any kind of airfoil for lift. ---
**Author:** ![FluffyBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@FluffyBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FluffyBob)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/5 "2013-02-06T06:49:53Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > See “flying wing” if you want another off-the-wall airplane of the era. It (predictably) had major control problems - but it was stealthy before more than 100 people understood why that was such a good idea. > (the B-2 uses computers to constantly adjust trim - not available in 1953. Why is this so predictable? Previous flying wings designed by Northrop and the Horton Brothers were stable. There were quite a few successful flying wing glider designs. The only obvious instability is in yaw due to lack of a vertical stabilizer. The YB-49 was a flawed aircraft but it did not have ‘Major’ control problems. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/6 "2013-02-06T16:13:07Z")
The most amazing/ironic thing about the AVRO is that if they had thought to add a simple skirt around the vehicle they would have had a viable, practical, prototype military hovercraft decades earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/7 "2013-02-07T01:33:20Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > -why wold the US Airforce award such a large contract to a foreign firm? The US aviation industry wasn’t really the state of the art yet, so restricting purchases to domestic builders wasn’t the no brainer it is now. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/8 "2013-02-07T05:02:20Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > The most amazing/ironic thing about the AVRO is that if they had thought to add a simple skirt around the vehicle they would have had a viable, practical, prototype military hovercraft decades earlier. The [SR.N1 hovercraft](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR.N1) first flew in 1959, the same year as the first Avrocar. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/9 "2013-02-07T06:29:12Z")
We needed some Canadian planes to fill some space in the AF museum and that one seemed interesting. FWIW, It’s a lot smaller than I thought it was. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/10 "2013-02-07T14:21:44Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > -why wold the US Airforce award such a large contract to a foreign firm? Remember that the AV-8B Harrier used by the USMC was a British (Hawker Siddeley) design. Sometimes investments pay off; sometimes they don’t. > [@ralph124c](#): > > Overall, one of the more bizarre attempts at a new aircraft design. It looks so strange-I cannot imagine it ever could have flown. The same era brought us the [Convair Sea Dart](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F2Y_Sea_Dart), the [Convair Pogo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY_Pogo), the [Lockheed XFV ‘Salmon’](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_XFV), the [Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_flying_platform), the [de Lackner Aerocycle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle), and the [McDonnell XF-85 Goblin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin). ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/11 "2013-02-07T16:19:38Z")
Thanks for the links-the Pogo might merit a new look-might be a way to have a carrier based airforce without a huge carrier! ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/12 "2013-02-07T16:31:21Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Thanks for the links-the Pogo might merit a new look-might be a way to have a carrier based airforce without a huge carrier! That was the idea. But imagine trying to land one of those on a rolling deck! ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/13 "2013-02-07T19:51:29Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > That was the idea. > > But imagine trying to land one of those on a rolling deck! With computer control and guidance, it should be a snap. The original POGO design required the pilot to bend his neck to see the deck-no need of that today. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/14 "2013-02-07T20:16:30Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > With computer control and guidance, it should be a snap. The original POGO design required the pilot to bend his neck to see the deck-no need of that today. computer controlled approach to the deck would work on a normal approach. the examples given by LA would not. They were either going straight up or straight down. They weren’t safe in zero wind on land. Now there is another possibility that was demonstrated a few years back. It was a plane called the Raven. It was a turbo prop with reverse pitch which turned it into a massive speed brake. It reduced landing to a couple hundred feet. Heck, the early centerfugal jet engines had massive flaps on them. I think it was the British Vampire used 90 degrees of flaps when landing so the pilot could keep the engine spooled up in case of a go-around. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/15 "2013-02-08T03:34:20Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Thanks for the links-the Pogo might merit a new look-might be a way to have a carrier based airforce without a huge carrier! Would it have any advantage over the Harrier, or its replacement, the [F-35B](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B)? Or the V-22 Osprey? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2013, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qestions-about-the-avro-flying-saucer/649370/16 "2013-02-08T03:50:36Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > Would it have any advantage over the Harrier, or its replacement, the [F-35B](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B)? Or the V-22 Osprey? It’s crude technology compared to modern aircraft, so no. The problem of the pilot unable to see behind him is most noted,but the biggest problem was a lack of control while in vertical mode. It wouldn’t take much wind to make it totally unlandable. The far more advanced V-22 took years of development to make safe, and it still has limited utility. Planes like the Harrier and F-35B have limitations also, but at least are fast and can carry substantial armament. The Apache helicopter is a much more capable aircraft than the Pogo. In 1954 when the Pogo was tested helicopters were just getting off the ground.