Avro Canada TS-140

Avro Canada

Industry	Aerospace
Founded	1945
Founder	[Not specified]
Headquarters	[Not specified] , Canada
Products	Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar, Avro CF-100, others

"Avrocar" redirects here. For the band, see Avrocar (band).

The Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar was a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft developed by Avro Canada as part of a classified U.S. military initiative during the early Cold War period. This craft aimed to harness the Coandă effect by utilizing a single "turborotor" that expelled exhaust along the perimeter of its circular frame to generate both lift and propulsion. In flight, its appearance was reminiscent of a flying saucer.

Initially envisioned as a fighter-type aircraft capable of achieving high speeds and altitudes, the project underwent multiple reductions in scope before the U.S. Air Force ultimately discontinued it. Subsequently, development was resumed by the U.S. Army, which sought a tactical combat aircraft resembling an advanced helicopter. Flight tests revealed persistent issues with thrust and stability, restricting the Avrocar to limited, low-performance flight parameters; as a result, the program was terminated in September 1961.

Throughout its development, the program was identified by several designations. Avro internally called it Project Y, with individual units named Spade and Omega. Later, under U.S. Air Force funding, it was known as WS-606A, Project 1794, and Project Silver Bug. When the U.S. Army assumed responsibility, the aircraft received its final designation as "Avrocar" and the code "VZ-9," aligning with the Army's series of VTOL projects labeled VZ.

Origins

The Avrocar emerged from a sequence of innovative research initiatives led by designer "Jack" Frost, who joined Avro Canada in June 1947 after experience with several British aerospace companies. Previously at de Havilland since 1942, he contributed to projects such as the de Havilland Hornet, de Havilland Vampire jet fighter, and served as chief designer on the supersonic research de Havilland Swallow project.

At Avro Canada, Frost initially worked on the Avro CF-100 before assembling a team dubbed the "Special Projects Group" (SPG) dedicated to unconventional concepts. This group consisted of engineers sharing unconventional ideas and was first based in an area mockingly called the "Penthouse," located in the executive section of the Administration Building. The SPG later moved to a secured World War II-era building known as the Schaeffer Building opposite company headquarters, guarded by security personnel and requiring special access cards. Occasionally, they operated from the Experimental Hangar alongside other specialized Avro teams.Template:Fix/category

During this period, Frost focused on jet engine innovation, particularly enhancing compressor efficiency while maintaining turbine simplicity. Finding Frank Whittle's "reverse flow" engine design overly complicated, he pursued a more streamlined configuration. This led to an engine layout where flame cans were positioned around the outer edge of a centrifugal compressor, radiating outward like wheel spokes. The compressor was powered by a novel turbine resembling a centrifugal fan rather than traditional pinwheel turbines; this turbine transferred power through gearing instead of a shaft. The resulting engine took on a flat disk shape that Frost termed a "pancake engine." Since jet thrust exited uniformly around the engine's circumference, integrating this design into conventional aircraft posed significant challenges.Template:Fix/category

Project Y

File:Project Y mockup colour.jpg

A 1954 view of the Project Y mock-up housed in the Experimental Flight Hangar. The scalloped nozzles along the near edge channel jet thrust rearward. The cockpit is faintly visible at the front of the upper spine.

During this period, the aviation sector broadly showed growing enthusiasm for VTOL aircraft. It was anticipated that any future conflict in Europe would likely commence with a nuclear strike, devastating most traditional airbases. Consequently, aircraft needed to be capable of operating from minimal infrastructure such as small airstrips, highways, or even rough terrain. Extensive research was directed toward developing methods to ensure a reliable second-strike capability. Among these were rocket-assisted launches exemplified by the zero-length launch approach, while numerous manufacturers began exploring VTOL designs as a more sustainable long-term solution.

Frost recognized that the remarkable capabilities of his newly developed engine made it an ideal candidate for VTOL applications, primarily due to its anticipated superior power-to-weight ratio. The challenge lay in harnessing the annular thrust not only for vertical lift but also for forward propulsion, alongside accommodating the unusually large engine within an appropriate airframe. Frost proposed utilizing a network of ducts and vents to reroute the thrust emitted from the engine's front toward the rear. To minimize duct length, this redirection occurred along the leading edge of what was fundamentally a thick delta wing. Given the engine's disk-like shape, the triangular delta wing extended forward where it joined the engine disk, resulting in an overall silhouette resembling a spade from a playing card.

The engine featured a central intake positioned at its core, necessitating that air intakes be placed near the wing’s midsection. In the Ace design variant, these intakes were situated just ahead of center on both upper and lower surfaces of the aircraft. The cockpit was arranged above the main bearing, positioned behind these intakes. A structural "spine" ran longitudinally along both top and bottom surfaces from the cockpit area to the aircraft’s trailing edge. Several alternative configurations based on this core layout were also examined, including one dubbed "Omega," which adopted a more circular form by truncating rear sections of the delta wing.

For vertical takeoff and landing operations, it was planned that the aircraft would assume a nose-up posture supported by elongated landing legs extending from the spine. Due to this steep angle during landing, pilot visibility on approach would be severely limited. Various VTOL prototypes of that era experimented with solutions such as rotating cockpits or pilot seats to address this visibility challenge; however, none proved entirely successful. Another common difficulty among VTOL designs was achieving stable hover control—a known but persistent issue. Effective hover stability typically required directing thrust downward over a broad area, similar to how helicopters generate lift across their rotor disks. Many designers attempted to solve this by diverting compressed air through pipes distributed around their aircraft’s structure. Frost’s engine incorporated such an extensive array of nozzles that implementing a comparable system would have been complex.

By 1952, Project Y had progressed sufficiently for Canada’s Defence Research Board to award funding amounting to CAN$400,000. A wooden mock-up was completed by 1953; only photographs of this model survive today. The project appeared to be deemed too expensive by military authorities, who were concurrently investing heavily in other costly air defense initiatives. On 11 February 1953, details and images of the Omega design were leaked to the Toronto Star, seemingly as an effort to secure additional financial support—a tactic commonly known at that time as policy by press release. Five days later, the Minister for Defence Production confirmed before Parliament that Avro was developing a "mock-up model" resembling a flying saucer capable of speeds up to 1,500 miles per hour (2,400 km/h) and vertical ascent. Despite this announcement, no further funding materialized.

Project Y-2: the "flat-riser"

File:John Frost colour.jpg

"Jack" Frost illustrating the Coandă effect. Pressurized air exits from the red tube's end and flows over the metal disk's upper surface. Due to the Coandă effect, the airflow adheres to the disk, curving downward at its edges to move vertically. This airflow supports the disk in flight.

During the ongoing development of Project Y, Frost became intrigued by the Coandă effect, a phenomenon where fluid streams tend to follow strongly convex surfaces, which can appear counterintuitive initially. He believed this effect could be harnessed in his engine design to create a more practical VTOL aircraft by directing exhaust over the top surface and then downward along flap-like structures. This approach would generate lift around the entire perimeter of the aircraft, enabling it to land in a flat orientation. Frost constructed several small-scale experimental models using compressed air instead of an engine to determine an optimal airframe shape, ultimately concluding that a disk-shaped design was most effective.

As experimentation progressed, Frost discovered that the thrust-vectoring system intended for VTOL maneuvers also functioned effectively during forward flight. Although the disk shape itself was not inherently a good lifting surface—being neutral with respect to lift direction and capable of flying sideways as easily as forward—modifying airflow with a modest amount of jet thrust could significantly alter overall aerodynamics. This created a "virtual airfoil" adaptable to various configurations. For example, directing some jet thrust downward would pull a large volume of air over the wing’s upper surface, substantially enhancing lift.

This concept appeared to address one of the era's most challenging dilemmas: designing an aircraft capable of efficient performance at both subsonic and supersonic speeds. While subsonic lift depends on airflow following streamlines around wings, supersonic lift arises from shock waves formed at critical curvature points. No single conventional design could excel in both flight regimes. The blown disk offered a solution by optimizing supersonic performance while using jet thrust to modify subsonic airflow into something resembling a traditional wing’s lift characteristics. Consequently, this design promised high supersonic capabilities, satisfactory subsonic performance, and VTOL functionality within one airframe.Template:Fix/category

U.S. Involvement: Project 1794/WS 606A

File:Models.jpg

Avro company models depicting the Y-2 (right) alongside the Avrocar (left)

In late 1953, U.S. defense officials visited Avro Canada to inspect the new CF-100 fighter jet. During this visit, Frost redirected the tour toward Avro’s Special Projects division, where he revealed mock-ups, models, and drawings of a fully circular disk-shaped aircraft named "Project Y-2," some of which had not been previously disclosed even to senior company personnel. Following this presentation, the USAF agreed to assume funding responsibilities for Frost’s Special Projects Group, awarding a contract worth US$750,000 in 1955. By 1956, Avro management showed enough interest to invest $2.5 million for constructing a prototype as a "private venture." Additional funding from the Air Force arrived in March 1957, officially designating the aircraft as Weapons System 606A.Template:Fix/category

Numerous VTOL fighter designs centered on the disk concept were evaluated, culminating in Project 1794—a supersonic large-disk fighter aircraft proposal. Wind tunnel testing was conducted using various scale models featuring a raised central section above the engine housing that contained the cockpit and rectangular intakes supplying air during low-speed flight. For supersonic speeds, upper intakes were closed via louvers while air intake shifted to a dedicated supersonic inlet located at the front of this raised section. Frost projected performance reaching up to Mach 3.5 at approximately 100,000 ft (30,000 m) altitude.

As Project 1794 advanced, Avro Canada proposed an iteration of "Project Y," designated TS-140, aiming to fulfill the United States Navy's Specification TS-140 for a VTOL fighter in 1956; however, this proposal was declined by the Navy. The TS-140 featured a canard layout powered by four Bristol Orpheus jet engines; instead, the Navy selected Bell Aircraft's D-188A for their requirement.

Within the USAF there was considerable debate regarding this concept amid competing projects seeking funding—such as nuclear-powered bombers. Echoing an earlier Toronto Star disclosure, a comprehensive article appeared in 1955 in Look magazine speculating that recent UFO sightings were Soviet-made flying saucers. The article included diagrams evidently inspired by Avro’s design.

For experimental testing purposes, engineers developed an engine assembly named PV-704—standing for Private Venture—comprising six Armstrong Siddeley Viper jet engines mounted around an impeller rim designed to blow air outward. This rig was housed in a bunker-like structure behind Avro’s Experimental Test facility and aimed to evaluate various Project 1794 concepts while providing data to demonstrate feasibility to the USAF. Initial plans included progressing from ground tests to free-flight trials using this Viper Engine Rig; however, testing proved problematic due to dangerous oil leaks causing three separate fires. Eventually personnel feared operating near it despite protective booths made from bulletproof glass and quarter-inch steel plating. A final nearly catastrophic engine test in 1956 involving an uncontrollable Viper engine convinced Frost that safer test apparatuses were necessary.

Origin of the Avrocar

In 1958, while engine development was still underway, Frost suggested constructing a smaller "proof-of-concept" test craft named the Avrocar to collect flight data on the fundamental design. At that time, the U.S. Army was engaged in numerous experiments involving compact VTOL aircraft intended to serve as a "flying Jeep," and they showed interest in Avro's innovative idea. Frost presented his scaled-down model both as a prototype aligned with Army requirements and as an aerodynamic test platform for the WS-606 program. The initial performance targets for the Avrocar included a ten-minute hover capability within ground effect and a range of 25-mile (40 km) carrying a payload of 1,000 lb (450 kg).

File:Army Avrocars 02.jpg

U.S. Army Avrocars marketed as "flying jeeps" in promotional materials

This revised approach satisfied all parties involved, resulting in a $2 million joint-services contract overseen by the Air Force and awarded to Avro for the construction and testing of two Avrocars. The Army designated these as VZ-9-AV (with AV representing "Avro," which was an uncommon deviation from standard U.S. Army naming conventions), continuing the sequence of "VZ" aircraft. The Army's enthusiasm for the Avrocar initiative was notably strong. Bernard Lindenbaum from the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory recalled a late 1950s visit to Washington seeking extra funds for helicopter drag reduction research; although approved, he overheard an Army General assert that the Huey would be the Army’s final helicopter purchase, anticipating replacement by the Avrocar.

Additional funding from the Air Force amounting to roughly $700,000—unspent funds from the 606A program—was redirected to support the Avrocar effort. By March 1959, another contract worth $1.77 million was awarded for a second prototype. At unveiling, anticipated capabilities far surpassed initial targets, projecting a top speed of 225 knots (417 km/h), service ceiling of 10,000 feet (3,000 m), range of 130-mile (209 km) with a payload of 1,000 lb (450 kg), and hover out of ground effect carrying 2,428 lb (1,101 kg). Maximum takeoff weight allowing transition to forward flight out of ground effect was estimated at 5,650 lb (2,560 kg), while maximum weight with transition within ground effect (GETOL) was calculated at 6,970 lb (3,160 kg).

However, just as initial functioning test models were being fabricated, a major setback occurred. On "Black Friday," February 20, 1959, the Canadian government terminated the Avro CF-105 Arrow project. This decision led to near-complete layoffs at Avro Canada, including members of the Special Projects Group. Yet, three days after the Arrow cancellation announcement, many Special Projects personnel were rehired. Despite this reprieve, operations were altered: personnel from CF-100 and CF-105 teams joined the group, which relocated to the largely vacant main building, and company leadership increased their oversight.

The USAF Project Office responsible for Avro initiatives recommended terminating WS-606A and all associated efforts (including the Avrocar). A "stop/go" directive was issued, compelling Frost once again to attempt salvaging the program. Through an extensive appeal emphasizing continued military support's importance, Frost succeeded in securing approval; by late May 1959, USAF consented to proceed with the "flying saucer" projects.

Design

The Avrocar featured a circular, disk-like configuration resembling a frisbee, with the upper surface exhibiting a pronounced curvature while the underside was comparatively flatter. Measuring approximately 18 feet (5.5 m) in diameter and about 3.5 feet (1.1 m) in thickness, the aircraft's structure was centered around a large equilateral triangular truss to which all major components were affixed. Positioned at the triangle’s center was the 124-blade "turborotor," which directed most of its thrust downward through an opening on the bottom surface; a portion of this airflow was diverted to power the control mechanisms located along the disk’s outer edge.

File:Avrocar schematic (high resolution).jpg

Avrocar schematic from the VZ-9 manual

Three Continental J69-T-9 jet engines mounted on the truss supplied power to the turborotor. Each engine operated with independent fuel and oil reservoirs along with associated support systems, although future iterations were planned to interconnect these systems. The airframe primarily consisted of aluminum, resulting in an empty weight of roughly 3,000 pounds (1,400 kg). The landing gear was minimalistic, comprising three small castering wheels attached to short "stub" shafts; later testing replaced these with skids, although skids were not standard equipment.

Pilot inputs were managed exclusively through a single control stick located on one side. Pitch and roll maneuvers were executed by pushing or pulling and moving the stick laterally, while yaw control was achieved by twisting it. Instead of mechanical linkages, the stick regulated high-pressure airflow around the craft to operate either directly on control surfaces or indirectly through local cable connections that substituted for intended cable-driven controls such as engine throttles.

The system responsible for attitude and thrust control consisted of a large ring positioned outside the main disk, shaped somewhat like a rounded triangle with its flat side facing inward. From a side view, this control flap was nearly invisible in its neutral position as it blended into the aircraft’s profile. The pilot’s manipulation of this ring altered its position relative to the airframe, thereby modifying airflow moving radially outward from the craft’s center. Lowering the ring enhanced vertical lift by increasing airflow over its upper surface, which then deflected downward toward the ground. Adjusting the ring’s tilt generated uneven thrust distribution to enable directional control.

Testing revealed that the Avrocar suffered from inherent instability during forward flight because its aerodynamic center of pressure was located significantly ahead of its center of gravity. To address this, the vehicle incorporated an autonomous mechanical stability augmentation system independent of pilot input. The turborotor’s considerable angular momentum functioned as a stabilizing gyroscope, establishing a preferred flight orientation. When the craft shifted relative to this rotor, control cables connected at its base would be tensioned, triggering control surfaces to counterbalance unwanted movements.

Crew accommodations included two separate cockpits fitted into available spaces within the airframe; however, testing typically involved only one pilot aboard, occasionally accompanied by an observer in the second cockpit. Prior to resolving control challenges fully, Avro test pilots developed a delicate sensitivity for managing the highly responsive controls. Avro Aircraft’s Chief Development Test Pilot Potocki ultimately demonstrated flights requiring minimal manual input. Nevertheless, pilots such as Peter Cope, USAF project pilot Walter J. Hodgson, and NASA Ames Research Center Chief Test Pilot Fred J. Drinkwater III—all experienced Avrocar operators—agreed that piloting it remained difficult. Drinkwater famously compared flying it to "balancing on a beach ball."

Testing

File:Avrocar at factory.jpg

The initial Avrocar being prepared at the Avro factory circa 1958

The first Avrocar, designated #58-7055, was unveiled at the Avro Malton facility in May 1959. Between 9 June and 7 October 1959, it underwent evaluation using a static hover rig. During these trials, it was discovered that exhaust gases were recirculating into the intakes while hovering, which diminished engine thrust. Furthermore, the fan produced lift from only a limited portion of its surface area, resulting in reduced total thrust. The ducts also exhibited greater losses than anticipated, and despite several adjustments, this issue persisted significantly. These factors limited the maximum lift outside ground effect at altitude to 3,150 lb (1,430 kg), which was less than the vehicle’s empty weight of 4,285 lb (1,944 kg). Consequently, the craft could not sustain hovering beyond ground effect. After these tests, the Avrocar was transferred to NASA Ames for wind tunnel evaluation.Template:Fix/category

The second prototype, #59-4975, was finalized in August 1959. On 29 September, its initial tethered hover attempt took place. Shortly after becoming airborne, uncontrollable oscillations in roll and pitch began, causing each of the three wheels to alternately strike the ground. The pilot, W. D. "Spud" Potocki, promptly shut down all engines. Modifications were made to enhance the stability system’s control authority, and new tethering methods were explored to better manage these instabilities. As testing proceeded, it became apparent that this instability was intrinsic to the design; engineers dubbed this phenomenon "hubcapping" due to its resemblance to a spinning hubcap on the ground.

Further analysis uncovered the root cause of this behavior. While within ground effect, high-pressure air beneath the vehicle formed a stable cushion supporting the craft evenly. However, once above ground effect, this air consolidated into a narrow column—a condition Frost described as "tree trunking." At intermediate heights, the craft would intermittently shift between these states, causing one side to be fully supported while support diminished beneath the opposite side. This resulted in a pronounced pitching motion toward the unsupported side. When this occurred, that side would descend and reestablish support from the air cushion as the other side lifted above it. This cycle repeated itself repeatedly as the vehicle rolled side to side. To address this issue, engineers drilled 52 holes radially three feet from the center on the underside of the craft to create a central jet intended to stabilize the ground cushion.

Following these alterations and their apparent success, the Avrocar achieved its first untethered flight on 12 November 1959. However, testing revealed deficiencies in the nozzle control system. The spoilers were designed to direct airflow over either the top or bottom of an annular flap—exiting solely from below during hover but from both top and bottom during forward flight—to create differential lift for control by decreasing lift on one side and increasing it on the other. While lift decreased as expected on one side with control inputs, it failed to increase correspondingly on the opposite side; consequently, every maneuver resulted in altitude loss. After five flights totaling 18.5 hours of test time by 5 December 1959, testing was paused temporarily.

File:Avrocar flying.jpg

The modified Avrocar 59-4975 underwent flight tests without canopies and incorporated a perimeter "focusing" ring circa 1961. Heat exposure during flights caused instrument discoloration.

During winter modifications, a new design replaced original spoilers with a single movable ring situated beneath the annular flap. This ring shifted relative to the vehicle during control inputs, closing off gaps on one side while opening them on the other. Testing resumed in January 1960 with improved results; hovering control was enhanced significantly. However, at speeds exceeding 30 knots (56 km/h), instability reemerged. The first Avrocar prototype at Ames received similar upgrades and was tested in their 40 ft × 80 ft (12 m × 24 m) wind tunnel in April 1960. It became evident that this ring obstructed much of the engine thrust output, drastically reducing overall power. As velocity increased, airflow beneath diminished recirculation effects that had been beneficial for lift over the upper surface—an unexpected outcome since recirculation had previously been considered detrimental due to thrust loss. To sustain lift at higher forward speeds required pitching the aircraft near its control limits.

Avro remained optimistic about viability and proposed a comprehensive overhaul of propulsion and control systems. The redesign replaced earlier single annular flap and spoiler arrangements or ring controls with two distinct systems integrated into one nozzle: one optimized for hover and another for forward flight. During hover mode, "transition doors" opened within nozzles to redirect airflow downward beneath the craft; control was managed by adjusting an outer flap segment to concentrate flow directionally. At higher speeds, these doors closed allowing air to exhaust from edges equipped with simple flaps for directional control. This new system covered approximately three-quarters of the vehicle’s circumference at the rear; hovering controls occupied only its front section.

After completing modifications on the Ames model, testing recommenced in April 1961 showing markedly improved hover control and increased lift capabilities. Maximum speed rose significantly to 100 knots (190 km/h), compared with previous limits near 30 knots (56 km/h). Despite these advances, pitch instability persisted along with a pronounced nose-up trim tendency. NASA engineers attempted correction using a T-tail, but it proved ineffective as it operated within turborotor airflow interference zones. Frost’s team explored two alternative designs: one featuring a large vertical tail and another incorporating wings with vertical winglets at their tips—both powered by two 2,700 lbf (12 kN) General Electric J85 turbojets and increasing turborotor diameter from five to six feet. These redesigns remained conceptual.

On 9 June 1961 at Avro’s facility, a second USAF/NASA joint flight evaluation took place using an updated second prototype featuring similar modifications. During testing, it reached speeds up to 20 knots (37 km/h) and demonstrated capability to cross ditches six feet wide and 18 inches (460 mm) deep. However, flight above critical altitudes remained hazardous or nearly impossible due to fundamental instability issues. The evaluation report also highlighted several ongoing control deficiencies.

Cancellation

Funding ceased in March 1961 before any design alterations could be implemented. Frost's suggested revisions failed to gain approval, leading to the official termination of the Avrocar and the associated WS-606A supersonic VTOL initiatives by the U.S. military in December 1961. Executives at Avro continued to advocate for further VTOL research, investigating alternative configurations combined with a disk-shaped platform and even exploring a "lift jet" variant; however, neither Canadian nor other parties expressed renewed interest, marking the conclusion of this Special Projects Group effort. In 1961, several subsequent concepts—including the Avro P470 VTOL fighter derived from the Special Projects Group—were proposed to meet NATO’s tactical strike fighter competition. These requirements were ultimately satisfied by the Hawker Siddeley Harrier. More broadly, enthusiasm for VTOL diminished as confidence grew that a nuclear first strike would not initiate a European conflict.

File:NASM Avro VZ9V-1. (1984).jpg

Avro VZ-9-AV Avrocar displayed at the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration and Storage Facility, National Air and Space Museum circa 1984

By the conclusion of flight trials, the second Avrocar had accumulated roughly 75 hours of airborne operation. Evaluated on its capabilities, the Avrocar was deemed a significant failure: it was unable to safely elevate itself beyond a few feet above ground level, and its rounded shape restricted high-speed performance. Additionally, excessive heat and loud exhaust noise rendered it unsuitable for military use. Despite these shortcomings, its design foreshadowed future technologies: it was essentially a hovercraft lacking only a flexible skirt, similar to the Saunders Roe SR.N1, which also debuted in 1959. Nonetheless, company designer John Frost secured multiple patents in Canada, the UK, and the U.S., underscoring the Avrocar's and related experimental vehicles' influential contributions to VTOL development.

Latest developments

File:U.S. Air Force Museum C (34).jpg

Avrocar exhibited at the National Museum of the USAF

Russell Lee, curator at the National Air and Space Museum, described the Avro VZ-9 Avrocar as a technological "dead end" within VTOL evolution; nevertheless, its innovations have captivated subsequent designers. One notable feature—the employment of ducted fans—spawned various experimental projects. Dr. Paul Moller, originally an engineer at Avro Canada who later moved abroad, developed early experimental VTOL craft inspired by "saucer" concepts incorporating buried ducted fans akin to those on the Avrocar. The XM-2 model in this series bore a striking resemblance to a small flying saucer. After successful tethered testing, these saucer-shaped designs—sometimes referred to as "discojets"—were eventually discontinued; Moller's latest venture shifted focus toward the Moller Skycar, which resembles a flying automobile.

The narrative of the Avrocar persisted beyond program cancellation. Only two units were ever built; since funding was provided by the U.S. military, ownership reverted to U.S. authorities once development ended. The second unit, serial number 59-4975, used primarily for flight tests, briefly returned to Canada for exhibition at Montreal’s Man and His World Exhibition in 1968. Following extended outdoor display, it is currently undergoing restoration at the U.S. Army Transportation Museum located in Fort Eustis, Virginia.

File:AVRO CANADA VZ-9AV AVROCAR at Wright Patterson AFB.jpg

Avrocar displayed at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio

The first Avrocar, serial number 58-7055 (bearing the mark AV-7055), served as a tethered test article before being repurposed as a "wind tunnel" model at NASA Ames Research Center. It remained in storage there from 1961 until 1966 when it was donated to the National Air and Space Museum and subsequently stored at Smithsonian's Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility in Suitland, Maryland. It stayed largely untouched for approximately four decades until plans were made for its restoration and exhibition at the newly established Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center. Instead of permanent display there, it was loaned to the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio, arriving in November 2007. Following comprehensive restoration—including reconstruction of missing plexiglass domes—it was unveiled in June 2008 within the museum’s Cold War Gallery and later relocated to the Presidential Aircraft Gallery. In 2016, it was transferred again to the Research and Development Gallery inside the museum’s fourth hangar.

A full-scale replica of the Avrocar was created for the 2002 documentary Avrocar: Saucer Secrets from the Past. This reproduction is now part of the collection at the Royal Aviation Museum of Western Canada in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Specifications (VZ-9-AV)

File:Avrocar 3-view.jpg

Avrocar three-view illustration

See also

• Nemeth Parasol

References

Bibliography

• Avrocar: Saucer Secrets from the Past. Winnipeg: MidCanada Entertainment, 2002. Archived version
• Campagna, Palmiro. The UFO Files: The Canadian Connection Exposed. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing, 1998.
• Harding, Stephen. "Canadian Connection: US Army Aviation's Penchant for Canadian Types." Air Enthusiast, November–December 1999, No. 84, pp. 72–74.
• Milberry, Larry. Aviation in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1979.
• Milberry, Larry. The Avro CF-100. Toronto: CANAV Books, 1981.
• Rogers, Mike. VTOL: Military Research Aircraft. New York: Orion Books, 1989.
• Rose, Bill and Tony Buttler. Flying Saucer Aircraft (Secret Projects). Leicester, UK: Midland Publishing, 2006.
• Taylor, Michael. The World's Strangest Aircraft. London: Grange Books plc, 1999.
• Winchester, Jim. The World's Worst Aircraft: From Pioneering Failures to Multimillion Dollar Disasters. London: Amber Books Ltd., 2005.
• Whitcomb, Randall. Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation. St. Catharine's, Ontario: Vanwell, 2002.
• Yenne, William. "From Focke-Wulf to Avrocar." In Secret Weapons of World War II: The Techno-Military Breakthroughs That Changed History. New York: Berkley Books, 2003.
• Zuk, Bill. Avrocar, Canada's Flying Saucer: The Story Of Avro Canada's Secret Projects. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press, 2001.
• Zuk, Bill. The Avrocar Story. Winnipeg: MidCanada Entertainment, 2002. Archived version
• Zuuring, Peter. The Arrow Scrapbook. Kingston, Ontario: Arrow Alliance Press, 1999.

External links

• Footage from the Avrocar Continuation Test Program (1961)
• Aero Systems Division, 1969 records (RG 342 UD-UP 138; NND 63253; Boxes 35 and 58)
• Avrocar information at virtuallystrange.net
• History of the Avrocar
• Overview of Flying Platforms
• National Museum of the United States Air Force fact sheet on the Avrocar
• Official report on Project Silverbug available at Cufon
• Project 1794 Final Development Summary Report, June 1956 ARC Identifier 6920770 / MLR Number UD-UP 138
• The Avrocar: Canada's Flying Saucer (archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20070429183506/http://www.avroarrow.org/Avrocar/Avrocar.html)
• Avrocar: An authentic flying saucer design
• Details on Avro Project Silverbug for aerial ramming missions
• Television segment titled "Wankel Rotary Powered Flying Car" featuring Moller Aircraft and demonstrations of the "hubcapping" issue
• Patent US3062482A for gas turbine powered aircraft
• Documentary "Avrocar: Saucer Secrets from the Past"