OV ACCESSION HO. 9B-DOCUMENT LOC OAT A HANDLING PACK 9B-TOPIC TAGS TM9501521 1 09-TITLE PRACTICAL AERODYNAMICS OF THE An-2 AIRCRAFT aerodynamic force, aerodynamic boundary layer, aerodynamic stability, „ , aerodynamic control, aerodynamic drag/(U)AN2 transport aircraft 47-SUBJECT AREA 01, 20 43-AUTHOR SHIFRIN, M. N. 43-sourcePRAKTICHESKAYA AERODINAMIKA SAMOLETA AN-2 RUSSIAN 74-MON I TORINO AGENCY 63-SECURITY AND DOWNGRADING INFORMATION I 68-DOCUMENT NO. FTD4MT-24-169-69 63-PROJECT NO. 20Q06 64-CONTROL MARKINGS 97-HEADER CLASN UNCL, 0 NONE 76-REEL/FRAME NO. 77-SUPERSEOES 1890 0477 _ _ CONTRACT NO. FTD *T' NO. 78.CHANGES PUBLISHING DATE 02-UR/0000/68/000/000/0001/0176 ABSTRACT 40-GE0GR APHICAL AREA TYPE PRODUCT TRANSLATION ACCESSION NO. NO. OF PAGES REVISION FREQ (U) The book discusses basic properties and laws of motion of the air, aerodynamic forces of the wing, peculiarities of layout and aerodynamic properties of the aircraft, equilibrium, stability and controllability of the aircraft under different flight conditions, and peculiarities of flight under conditions of icing. The book is intended for students of colleges and schools of civil aviation and can be used by flying personnel of other departments operating the An-2 aircraft. There are 6 tables and 105 figures. APtC < A A FI) ) 69- 1276TR * M *6 00 00 cd REVIEW OP THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO REPORT ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS BY A PANEL OF T-iiU NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES D DC U[j.UNl21S69 Ulfeistsrtns B Copyright, National Academy of Sciences, 1969. This booh, or any parts thereof, may hot be reproduced in any form without written permission from the^ publisher except that reproduction in whole, or in part, is' permitted for any use of the United States Government, Reproduced by the CLEARINGHOUSE (or Fodoro! Scientific & Technical Information Springfiold Va. 22151 i. This document has been approved for public rsleasa and sale ; its distribution is unlimited. - . . . . . . . . lb 3c '<***£■*■ !*• • „ A 1 § « a }\ il -J • •! : ; s : 5 5 i U jv4 mk -- 2 t: Revj.ru of the Colorado Report on Unidentified Flying Objects ^ by a Panel/of the National Academy of Sciences : The Panel was appointed in the latter part of October and early November 1966. The charge to the Panel was "to provide ah independent .assessment of the scope, methodology, and findings of the (University of Colorado;) study as reflected in the (University’s) Report. " While the Pano.l largely restricted its review to this ^charge, it was thought born appropriate and necessary that the jPanel become familiar with various scientific points of view as presented in other publications and reports by technically trained persons. - It was, not the task of the Panel to conduct its own study .of UJPOs or to invite advocates, scientifically trained or not*, of various points of view to hearings. The task was to study the University’ sOReporb and to assess:. First,;, its, scope; namely, did: the Report, in the opinion of the Panel!, cover those topics that a scientific study of UFO phenomena should have embraced? Second, its methodology; namely/, did the Report,, in the opinion of -,the. .Panel,, reveal ah acceptable scientific methodology and approach to the, subject? Third, its findings ; namely, were the -/conclusions -and. interpretations warranted iby the evidence and analyses as presented in the Report and were they reasonable? t ' \ . In'-the course of its review the Panel consulted papers on the same' subject by technically trained persons (for example, William Markowitz , "The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects ," Science , 157' (1967), pp. ,1274-79,. James E. McDonald,, "Science , "Technology ,, and UFOs,’" presented- January 26, i960, at a General Semina i of the United Aircraft: Research Laboratories, East Hartfo.d, Connecticut. James E. McDonald, "UFOs - Ah International Scientific. Problem," presented March 12 , 1968, at the Canadian Aeronautics and Space institute Astronautics Symposium;,, Montreal, Canada. James E. McDonald, "Statement on International Scientific Aspects of the Problems of Uriidcntif fed Flying Objects," sent to the United Nations on June 7,; 1967. Donald H. Menzel,. Flying Saucers, Harvard University Press ( C^Jflfbridge , 1952), '^onal9nH".”’'f?ehzel and Lyle G. Boyd , The World of Flying Saucers, Doubleday (Now York, 1%3). Report of i"cetjifgs Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, Second Session, July 20, 1908). -'or n - f i *- .. 3 - The Panel began its review immediately after the* Report became available on -November 25>, 1968, by on initial, reading of the Report by each member of the Panel during a two-week period. The Panel convened on December 2 for a discussion of members * initial assessments*, for consideration of the Panel'1 s charge (scope, methodology, and findings in the Report), and for de- ^ lineation of further steps in its reviev;. The latter included the study of other documents -presenting views and >f indings-St ’ technically trained persons (e.g. , the documents c\ited .s)Vvi» >>: further examination of the Report’s summary and findings, -nd further directed study of specialized chapters of the Report, -by^ appropriate members of the Panel. Extensive discussion, bothf by correspondence and by telephone, occurred during this period,’ The Panel met again on January 6 , 1969 , to conclude its ^deliberations and to prepare its findings,, which are presented below;. I. SCOPE The- study by the University of Colorado commenced in October 1966 and continued for about two years. Case studies of 59 reports of UFOs are presented in detail, with 68 plates; of these, ten reports predated the project, but were so well documented that they were included., A chapter is devoted -to UFOs, in history, one to UFO study programs in foreign countries, and one to UFOs reported in the 20 years preceding the study-. Ten chapters are devoted to perceptual problems, processes of perception and reporting-, psycho¬ logical aspects of UFO reports,, optics, radar, sonic boom, atmospheric electricity and plasma interpretations, balloons.,, instrumentation for UFO searches',; and statistical analyses. (Twenty-four appendixes add= -detailed technical background to the study. Volume 4 concludes with an index of 27 pages.) In our, opinion the scope ..of /the , study, was adequate to its purpose^ a . scYentiT ic study oftQ'FO- Wenomena^/' ~ ™ ' " ’ II. METHODOLOGY As a’ rule, fie la trips wore made to investigate UFO reports only if they were less than a y ear old,. The Report states that near!/ all UFO .sighting are of short duration, seldom lastjjagr an hour and usually for a i.ew minuces. Thus most investigations co, . sisted of interviews with persons who made reports. Three teams, usually consisting of two persons each (a physical scientist nd ,♦ a psychologist), were employed in field investigations where .tele¬ phonic communioc tion wit h UFO-sighting individuals gave hope of gaining added information. T)ie aim was to get a team to the site -y jj as quickly as possible after a reported sighting. (It was found that- nearly all cases could be classified in such categories as pranks', hoaxes', naive interpretations, and various types of mis¬ interpretations. A few events, which did not fit these categories, are left unexplained.): Materials and conditions amenable to laboratory approaches were investigated •— c ,<£.,» alleged UFO parts by chemical analysis, "automobile ignition failure by simulation studies, and UFO photography by photogrammetric analyses. (Of 35 photographic, cases investigated, nine are said to give evidence of probable fabrication, seven are classified as natural" or1 man-made phenomena, twelve provided in- ‘stfffidient data if or analysis, and seven were considered to be possible fabrications; none proved to be "real objects- with high strangeness.11) \ Technically* trained personnel Were utilized by the University. The University group- included a sub-group on field investigations of UFO reports; their narration and interpretations of cases are reasonable and* adequate. Leading groups were engaged under contract for specialized work -- e;g.,» Stanford Research Institute on radar anomalies and a subsidiary of the Raytheon Corporation for photo¬ grammetric analyses. Divergent views of those few scientists- who have looked into UFOs were taken into account, ihc. history of the subject' was also surveyed including the experiences in some other nations. Finally, extensive use was made of many specialists in various public and private: laboratories. The Report makes clear that with the best means at our dis¬ posal positive correlation ’s * . a 1 vr# ' < t> ,.' ^ •> 1 ■ ». 9 ? * ' \ z * . ' - " - ro* , '* o f> - > O'? _ , „„ "'O * % 5f - , z, , ' f. ^ 't o.: .t,- ^ - . ’ ’['0 '’ 0 v *- S> ,* ;' C '/ s? - , - ' ^ , n' ;’ ' V , - >f <: - -' ’ ■> & o > •■ X X ..' ------ >4- ».%.' >fe "' ^ ' -5 r ! - 1 The Re ppi't’i, findings and evaluations --es^htiaiiyjeighll/, 1 'her.*, presented ins its ..-first sections-- are concerned with '- comments. * i,0 - * ;.,v > 1. On secrecy], Is the subject: ”.shroude in official ; Secrecy”? The .study found ho basis' \f gr this contention, - ' «•*-. c- v * r . • We accept this finding of the study. I> ... .0 x2. On defense. 5 (a^ .Is there. evidence that UFQ sigh^irigs » may represent »a defense- hazard? No such; evidencf came £b light * - *„ v; " in the , study. This., hoWever, was 'not an objective of the study $ ® and! was . properly; construed "as a . Department of Defense- matter./? y s (b) The Report States:, ”'lhe -history -of' the ,past' 21 ' ye'ars Ihas^ / •> '• .o repeatedly led Air Force jpfficei’s to the conclusibri tha.t'none of ^ 4 '\>v the things seen., or thought to have begn seen, Which by ?ihe name of UFO report's, 'constituted any hhzaibd or threat to national1 ? % •. 0 security. ” ' ■?- " • r- •' & ;; 0>- *-« - ' - . . - -■• . - ' - X ~.f . V *• V X - o <■ • . ... - . - ... J. . ' . . ■•>’ 0 " ■■■.■ ... v o . o. ^ We, concur v^itli the, position described in )C'45."tihs I »,"*■*'*. * w,e fQuod no evideiice in.. 'ffl^K^port "or oth e"r~ Tit e rature to cont rad 3 ct *•' ° v tHFquotcd statCifieritT" . — - — - :>>•■» bsy ^ 3. On future UFO sightings. ; "The- quest ion remains as’ tb" • V ° whqt, a-f anything, the federal government should cdo about^the -UFO' * ' ' x <* .o -r; .■ • o- cr ■ * ■ 4 . * v > .tl v|j •xbxH :■ Jh - if °< .''lift . , '•■' 1)' - b. but the Department of Defense should-candle' these ij'^its normal survei;<:lance operations without rieecl for such* spediAli- units as Project: Blue Book,. " \,tv v& ^ ' X. " - ♦. We concur la this recommendation. - * ' „-c'v-'- ' „ 4-8, On- further irivestigatiohs*. ' ’Should’ the federal. ? governrnent .set up a major hew agency, as some .have suggested, f'l the sc:-ent:ific study of UFOs”? The studv. -found no Kvde. f-rwi ■ -« . ft O I" 1 yi t n sf .has added to scientific .knowledge,'” The Report then Vi" 1 sPoci^'c tese<* .>'ch topics v.^y ■ wa front cbhsifieratibn: , , . ^ here arc .unportanl oT’c.'>s cf i‘tt>:osph,-!'ic optics:, inelsding rudio iMVi propagation, and of atmospheric electricity :jn v;]v*ch present knowledge is quite incomplete. These topics came to- our / - 6 - attention in connection with 'the interpretation of some UFO reports > but they are also of fundamental scientific interest, and they arc relevant to practical problem, related to the improvement of safety of military and civilian flyii. Research efforts are being carried out in "these areas by the Department of Defense , the Environmental Science Services Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and by universities and nonprofit research organi¬ zations such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research, whose work; is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. " The Report also observes (7) that UFO reports and beliefs are also of interest to "the social scientist and the communications specialist.” In these areas particularly — i.e., (6) and (7) — the study suggests (8) that "scientists with adequate training and credentials who do come up with a clearly defined,. specific proposal” .should -bo supported, implying that normal competitive procedures and assessments of proposals should be followed here as is customary. We concur with these evaluations and recommendations . IV. PANEL CONCLUSION The range of topics in the Report is extensive and its various chapters, dealing with many aspects of the subject, should prove of value to scholars in many fields. Its analyses and findings ore pertinent and useful in any figure assessment of activity in this field. We concur in the recommendation suggesting that no high priority in UFO investigations is warranted by data of the past- two -decades. We are unanimous in the opinion that this has been a very creditable effort to apply objectively the relevant techniques of science to the solution of the UFO problem. The Report recognizes that there remain UFO sightings that are not easily explained. The Report does suggest, however, so many reasonable and possible directions in which an explanation may eventually be found, that there seems to be no: reason to attribute /them to an extraterrestrial source without evidence that is much more' convincing. The Report also shows how difficult it is to apply scientific methods to the occasional transient sightings with any chance of success. While further study of particular aspects of the topic (e.g. , atmospheric phenomena) may be useful , a study of UH5s in general is not a promising way to expand scientific understanding of the phenomena. On the basis qf present knowledge the least likely explanation of UFOs is the Hypothesis of extraterrestrial .visitations by intelligent beings. — Gerald M. Clemence, chairman; H. R. Crane, David M. Dennison, Wallace 0. Fenn, H. Kef fer Hart.'! ine , E. R, Hilgard, Mark Kac, Francis W. Reichelderfer , Will • .m W. Rubey, C. D. Shane, Oswaid G. Vil.lard, Jr. Attachments: ■ - List of Panel Members - Letter of Transmittal MEMBERS OF THE REVIEW PANEL Gerald M.- Clemence, Chairman Yale University H. R. Crane University of Michigan David M. Dennison University of Michigan Wallace 0. Fenr. University of Ilo Chester H. Keffer Ha dine . . The Rockefeller University E. R. Hilg&rd Stanford University Mark Kac The Rockefeller University Francis W. Reicnelderfcr Washington, i).C. William W. Rubey University of California at Los Angeles C. D. Shane Santa Cruz, California Oswald G. Villard, Jr. Stanford University 2 * • National Academy of Sciences 4 orfict or t*c.*ncs oc*t f IOI CONSTITUTION A V«*UC WASHINGTON. O. C» a<-*I« ,t I I . January 8, 1969 The honorable Aloxander H. Flax Assistant Secretory of the Air Force Washington, D. C. 20330 Dear Dr. Flax: Following your request pf October 29, 1968, the Academy appointed a panel of its members to review the report of the University of Colorado study group on Unidentified Flying Objects. As you know, a final draft of this report was made available to the panel on November 15, 1968. Under the chairmanship of Dr. Gerald Clemence the panel has devoted substantial time and effort to a careful review of the scope, methodology and find¬ ings of the Colorado study group and has prepared and unanimously approved the attached report, which I am pleased £o transmit on behalf of the panel. The Academy accepted this task because of its belief in the importance of making available to the government and the public a careful assessment of the scientific significance of UFO phenomena which have s - been variously interpreted both in this country and abroad. Substantial questions have been raised as to the adequacy of our research and investigation pro¬ grams to explain or to determine the nature of these sometimes puzzling reports of observed phenomena. It is my hope that the Golorado report, together with our panel review, will be helpful to you and other responsible officials in determining the nature and scope of any continuing research effort in this area. t The Honorable Alexander H. Flax January 8, 1969 Page Two Finally, may I add that the report of the re¬ viewing panel was prepared and is being made avail¬ able for the sole purpose of assisting the government in reaching a decision on its future, course of action. Its use in whole or part for any other purpose would be incompatible with the purpose of che review and the conditions under which it \*as conducted. Sincerely yours, Frederick ^ President Attachment ) P?tv- DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R & D V U U ill J. €•>»» tiffcaflon of f/f/<*. hof^r r< ,i*<**wr' r’? *rdc \ •''?,; .imn.O'itut AfusTIU crlered uhr. -#*i<* overall report it* 1£ ’©RiGINA '•»%C AC”** ' v rCoiporair »*. «E**C^' JECU*»H \ ^1* MfiCATlON National Academy of Sciences j UNC ;' 2101 Constitution Ave. N.W. hr s «.=-<• " - YJashington , D.C. 20418 j J;^ Zr'C ^ v 3. f EPOPT 7* ~ „ < REVIEW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO REPORT OK UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS BY A PANEL 0? THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 4. DESCRsP ti . e ftC TGS ‘’Typ* of report on (I inclusive .v Scientific Special 5. A(JTM©R