Jump to content

Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar

From Alfawiki
Avro Canada
IndustryAerospace, Defense
Founded1945
Headquarters
Toronto
,
Canada
ProductsAircraft, including Avrocar VZ-9


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

Template:Use Canadian English Template:Infobox aircraft

The Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar was a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft developed by Avro Canada under a classified U.S. military initiative during the early Cold War period.[1][2] This vehicle aimed to utilize the Coandă effect by channeling exhaust from a single "turborotor" around the edge of its circular body to generate both lift and propulsion. Its appearance in flight was reminiscent of a classic flying saucer.[3]

Initially conceived as a fighter-style aircraft intended to achieve exceptional speeds and altitudes, the project underwent several reductions in scope until the U.S. Air Force discontinued support. Subsequently, the U.S. Army adopted the program, envisioning it as a tactical combat vehicle akin to an advanced helicopter.[4] Flight trials revealed persistent issues with thrust and stability, severely restricting its operational capabilities; these shortcomings ultimately led to the program's termination in September 1961.

Throughout its development, the project carried multiple designations. Avro internally called it Project Y, with prototype units named Spade and Omega. When funded by the U.S. Air Force, it was identified as WS-606A, Project 1794, and Project Silver Bug. Upon U.S. Army involvement, it received its final title "Avrocar" along with the designation "VZ-9," aligning with the Army's series of VTOL initiatives under the VZ classification.

Origins

The Avrocar emerged from a sequence of innovative research efforts led by designer "Jack" Frost, who joined Avro Canada in June 1947 after tenure at various British aerospace companies.[5] Prior to this, he worked at de Havilland starting in 1942 and contributed to projects such as the de Havilland Hornet, de Havilland Vampire jet fighter, and served as chief designer for the supersonic research aircraft known as the de Havilland Swallow.[6]

At Avro Canada, Frost initially participated in developing the Avro CF-100, then formed a specialized research unit called the "Special Projects Group" (SPG). He assembled a team of unconventional engineers sharing his vision and secured workspace initially located in what was mockingly dubbed the "Penthouse," referring to the executive section of the Administration Building. Later, this group moved into a secured Second World War-era building opposite company headquarters—the Schaeffer Building—equipped with guarded access and special clearance cards. Occasionally, SPG also operated within the Experimental Hangar alongside other unique Avro projects.Template:Fix/category[citation needed]

During this period, Frost focused on jet engine innovation, particularly enhancing compressor efficiency without complicating turbine design. Finding Frank Whittle's "reverse flow" engine layout overly intricate, he sought a streamlined alternative. This pursuit led him to conceive an engine architecture where flame can combustion chambers were arranged radially outside the perimeter of a centrifugal compressor, resembling wheel spokes pointing outward. The compressor was powered by a novel turbine resembling a centrifugal fan rather than conventional pinwheel turbines; power transmission occurred through gearing instead of a direct shaft connection. This configuration produced an engine shaped like a large disk—dubbed a "pancake engine" by Frost.[7] However, adapting this engine design for typical aircraft applications proved challenging due to its circumferential jet exhaust pattern.Template:Fix/category[citation needed]

Project Y

File:Project Y mockup colour.jpg
The Project Y mock-up displayed in the Experimental Flight Hangar around 1954. The scalloped nozzles along the near edge channel the jet thrust rearwards. The cockpit is faintly visible at the front of the upper spine.

During this period, the entire aviation sector showed growing enthusiasm for VTOL aircraft. It was anticipated that any future conflict in Europe would commence with a nuclear strike, likely destroying most conventional airbases. Consequently, aircraft needed to be capable of operating from minimal infrastructure such as small airfields, roads, or even unprepared terrain. Significant research efforts were directed toward developing solutions that would ensure a reliable second-strike capability. Among these were rocket-assisted launches like the zero-length launch system, while numerous manufacturers began focusing on VTOL designs as a more sustainable long-term approach.

Frost believed that the remarkable capabilities of his new engine—especially its high power-to-weight ratio—made it an ideal candidate for VTOL applications. The main challenges involved harnessing the annular thrust to propel the aircraft forward and integrating the notably large engine into an appropriate airframe. To address this, Frost proposed a configuration using ducts and vents to redirect the thrust exiting the engine’s front towards the rear. To minimize duct length, the exhaust was routed along the leading edge of what was essentially a thick delta wing. Given the engine’s disk shape, the triangular delta wing extended near its front interface with the engine disk, creating an outline resembling a spade from a playing card.

The engine featured a central intake, necessitating that air inlets be positioned near the wing’s midpoint. In the Ace variant, these intakes were located just ahead of center on both upper and lower surfaces of the aircraft. The cockpit sat atop the main bearing, behind these intakes. A "spine" structure ran longitudinally along both upper and lower surfaces, extending from the cockpit area to the aircraft’s trailing edge. Various other iterations of this fundamental design were explored, including one dubbed "Omega," which presented a more circular form by truncating parts of the delta wing’s rear sections.

For vertical takeoff and landing operations, the aircraft was expected to rest in an upright orientation supported by extended landing legs emerging from the spine. Approaches and landings would occur at steep angles, complicating pilot visibility during descent. Multiple VTOL prototypes from this era experimented with solutions such as rotating cockpits or pilot seats to mitigate this issue; however, none yielded satisfactory results. Another persistent challenge was maintaining stable hover conditions—a difficulty not unexpected given the technology of the time. Effective hover stability generally required directing thrust downward over a broad surface area, similar to helicopter rotors distributing lift across their disk area. Most designers attempted to solve this by diverting compressed air through pipes arranged around their aircraft. Frost’s engine incorporated so many nozzles that implementing such a system proved complex.

By 1952, Project Y had progressed sufficiently for Canada’s Defence Research Board to grant CAN$400,000 in funding. By 1953, a wooden mock-up had been completed; only photographs of this model survive today. The project appeared to be deemed prohibitively expensive within military circles already engaged in multiple costly air defense initiatives. On 11 February 1953, details about Project Y were leaked to the Toronto Star, accompanied by images of the Omega design—likely as an attempt to secure additional financial support. This tactic mirrored similar practices in the United States known as policy by press release. Five days later, the Minister for Defence Production confirmed before the House of Commons that Avro was indeed developing a "mock-up model" resembling a flying saucer capable of vertical climb and speeds up to 1,500 miles per hour (2,400 km/h). Despite this acknowledgment, no further funding materialized.

Project Y-2: the "flat-riser"

File:John Frost colour.jpg
"Jack" Frost illustrating the Coandă effect. Pressurized air exits the red tube's end and flows over the curved metal disk. Due to the Coandă effect, the airflow adheres to the disk's surface, bending downward at the edges to move vertically. This airflow supports the disk in suspension.

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—often counterintuitive at first glance. He believed this effect could be harnessed in his engine design to create a more practical VTOL aircraft by channeling exhaust over the aircraft's upper surface and then directing it downward via flap-like structures. This approach would generate lift around the entire perimeter, enabling a "flat" landing capability. To determine an optimal airframe shape, Frost constructed several small-scale models using compressed air instead of an engine, ultimately concluding that a disk-shaped configuration was most effective.[8]

Further experimentation revealed that the thrust vectoring system intended for vertical takeoff and landing also performed efficiently during forward flight. Although the disk itself did not inherently provide directional lift—being equally capable of moving sideways or forward—the introduction of a modest amount of jet thrust could significantly influence the airflow around the aircraft. This manipulation effectively created a "virtual airfoil" with adjustable characteristics. For example, directing a slight jet thrust downward could pull a substantial volume of air over the wing's upper surface, greatly enhancing lift generation.[9]

This innovation addressed a long-standing challenge in aircraft design: achieving efficient performance at both subsonic and supersonic speeds. While subsonic lift relies on airflow following streamlines around wings, supersonic lift is produced by shock waves forming at critical curvature points. Traditionally, no single design excelled in both regimes. The blown disk concept offered a solution by optimizing for supersonic flight and then using jet thrust to modify subsonic airflow into an approximation of conventional wing lift. Consequently, this design promised high supersonic capabilities, acceptable subsonic performance, and VTOL functionality all within one airframe.Template:Fix/category[citation needed]

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 toured Avro Canada to inspect the new CF-100 fighter jet.[10] During this visit, Frost redirected their attention to Avro’s Special Projects division where he unveiled mock-ups, models, and drawings—including some previously unseen by senior management—of a fully circular disk-shaped aircraft dubbed "Project Y-2". The United States Air Force agreed to assume funding responsibilities for Frost’s Special Projects Group, awarding a contract worth US$750,000 in 1955. By 1956, Avro’s leadership committed $2.5 million towards constructing a prototype as a "private venture". Additional Air Force funding arrived in March 1957, officially designating the project as Weapons System 606A.Template:Fix/category[citation needed]

A broad range of VTOL fighter designs were explored,[4] all centered on the disk concept culminating in Project 1794—a large supersonic disk fighter aircraft. Wind tunnel tests were conducted using various scaled models featuring a raised central section housing the cockpit above the engine and rectangular intakes supplying air during low-speed flight. For supersonic operation, these upper intakes were sealed with louvers while air was drawn through an alternative supersonic intake located at the front of the raised section. Frost’s performance projections suggested potential speeds reaching Mach 3.5 at altitudes near 100,000 ft (30,000 m).Template:Fix/category[citation needed]

Concurrently, Avro Canada proposed an iteration of "Project Y", designated TS-140, aimed at fulfilling the United States Navy’s Specification TS-140 for a VTOL fighter in 1956; however, this proposal was declined.[11] The TS-140 featured a canard configuration powered by four Bristol Orpheus jet engines; ultimately, the Navy selected Bell Aircraft's D-188A for their requirements instead.Template:Fix/category[citation needed]

Within the USAF there was internal debate as various factions vied for funding on competing projects such as nuclear-powered bombers.[12] A notable media event occurred in 1955 when Look magazine published an extensive article speculating that recent UFO sightings might be Soviet-developed flying saucers—echoing earlier narratives from Toronto Star.[lower-alpha 1] The article included diagrams evidently influenced by Avro’s designs.[13]

For experimental validation, engineers developed a novel engine assembly named PV-704—standing for Private Venture—which combined six Armstrong Siddeley Viper jet engines directing airflow across an outer rim impeller. This prototype was housed within a fortified structure behind Avro’s Experimental Test facility and intended to evaluate various Project 1794 concepts while supplying test data to USAF officials regarding feasibility. Initially planned free-flight tests of this Viper Engine Rig faced significant challenges; frequent dangerous oil leaks caused three fires.[14] The situation deteriorated to where personnel feared operating near it despite protective booths made of bullet-proof glass and quarter-inch steel plating. A particularly severe and nearly fatal engine runaway incident in 1956 convinced Frost that a safer test apparatus was essential moving forward.Template:Fix/category[citation needed]

Origin of the Avrocar

In 1958, while engine development was still underway, Frost suggested constructing a smaller-scale "proof-of-concept" vehicle named the Avrocar to collect flight data on the fundamental design. By this time, the U.S. Army was conducting numerous experiments with compact VTOL aircraft intended to serve as a "flying Jeep," and they showed interest in Avro's innovative idea. Frost presented his compact model both as a prototype tailored to meet the Army's operational requirements and as an aerodynamic test platform for the WS-606 project. The initial performance goals for the Avrocar included sustaining a hover for ten minutes within ground effect and achieving a range of 25-mile (40 km) while carrying a payload of 1,000 lb (450 kg).

File:Army Avrocars 02.jpg
U.S. Army Avrocars promoted as "flying jeeps" in official company materials

This revised approach satisfied all parties involved, leading to a $2 million joint-services contract, overseen by the Air Force, awarded to Avro for the construction and testing of two Avrocars. The Army designated these vehicles as the VZ-9-AV—with "AV" representing "Avro," an uncommon deviation from typical U.S. Army naming conventions—making it the latest entry in the "VZ" series of aircraft. Interest from the Army in the Avrocar initiative was notably strong. Bernard Lindenbaum from the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory recounted a late-1950s trip to Washington where he sought extra funds for helicopter drag reduction research; although approved, he overheard an Army General declare that the Huey would be their final helicopter purchase since it would soon be replaced by the Avrocar.

Additional Air Force resources amounting to roughly $700,000—left unspent from the 606A program—were redirected to support the Avrocar project. In March 1959, another contract valued at $1.77 million was awarded for a second prototype. At its unveiling, anticipated capabilities significantly surpassed original targets, including 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 1,000 lb (450 kg) payload, and hover performance out of ground effect with a payload capacity of 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 for transition within ground effect (GETOL) was calculated at 6,970 lb (3,160 kg).

As production of initial functional prototypes commenced, a major setback occurred: on 20 February 1959—known as "Black Friday"—the Canadian government terminated the Avro CF-105 Arrow program. This decision led to widespread layoffs across Avro Canada, affecting nearly all employees including those in the Special Projects Group. However, within three days after this announcement, many members of that group were rehired. Despite this, operations were not restored to normal; personnel from CF-100 and CF-105 teams joined the Special Projects Group, which relocated to an almost empty main building. Additionally, higher-level management became more involved in overseeing the group's activities.

The USAF Project Office responsible for Avro projects recommended terminating WS-606A and all associated efforts—including the Avrocar. A "stop/go" directive was issued, compelling Frost once again to advocate vigorously for continued funding. Through an extensive campaign, Frost successfully argued for ongoing U.S. military financial support. By late May 1959, the USAF authorized Avro to proceed with development of their "flying saucer" programs.

Design

The Avrocar featured a saucer-like configuration, resembling a frisbee in its overall form. Its upper surface was noticeably curved, while the underside presented a gentler contour. Measuring approximately 18 feet (5.5 m) across and about 3.5 feet (1.1 m) thick, the disk-shaped structure was supported by a substantial equilateral triangular framework to which all components were affixed. Positioned at the center of this triangle was the 124-blade "turborotor," which primarily directed its thrust downward through an aperture on the lower surface. A portion of this airflow was diverted to operate the control mechanisms distributed along the disk’s perimeter.[15]

File:Avrocar schematic (high resolution).jpg
Avrocar schematic from the VZ-9 manual

Three Continental J69-T-9 jet engines powered the turborotor, each mounted on the triangular truss and equipped with dedicated fuel and oil reservoirs along with auxiliary support systems; future variants were anticipated to feature interconnected systems. The airframe predominantly consisted of aluminum, resulting in an empty weight near 3,000 pounds (1,400 kg).[16] The Avrocar’s landing gear was minimalistic, consisting of three small caster wheels attached to short stub axles; later testing phases introduced a set of skids, although these were not standard equipment.[17]

Pilot input was managed exclusively through a single control stick located to one side. Pitch and roll were manipulated via forward-backward and lateral stick movements, while twisting the stick controlled yaw. Rather than employing mechanical linkages, the control stick regulated high-pressure airflow within the craft, which either directly influenced control surfaces or indirectly operated local cable linkages designed to substitute for intended cable-actuated controls such as engine throttles.[15]

The attitude and thrust management system comprised a large ring encircling the main disk, shaped roughly like a rounded triangle with its flat edge facing inward. From a side perspective, this control flap was nearly invisible when in its neutral position, blending seamlessly with the aircraft’s profile. Pilot commands adjusted this ring relative to the rest of the vehicle, thereby modifying outward airflow from the craft’s center. Lowering the ring increased vertical lift by enhancing airflow over its upper surface, which then deflected downward toward the ground. Tilting the ring created uneven thrust distribution for directional maneuvering.[18]

Testing revealed that forward flight was inherently unstable due to the aerodynamic center of pressure being positioned significantly ahead of the center of gravity.[19] To address this instability, a mechanical stability augmentation system independent from pilot input was incorporated. The turborotor’s considerable angular momentum was intended to function as a strong gyroscope, maintaining a stable flight orientation. Control cables connected at the rotor’s base would activate control surfaces when relative movement between the craft and rotor occurred, counteracting unwanted motions.Template:Fix/category[citation needed]

The Avrocar accommodated two crew members seated in separate cockpits integrated into available spaces within the airframe. However, most test flights involved only one pilot onboard; occasionally an observer occupied the second cockpit. Until control issues were fully resolved, test pilots developed a refined sensitivity to its highly responsive controls. Avro Aircraft’s Chief Development Test Pilot Potocki ultimately achieved "hands-off" flight demonstrations. Nevertheless, pilots including Avro test pilot Peter Cope, USAF project pilot Walter J. Hodgson, and NASA Ames Research Center Chief Test Pilot Fred J. Drinkwater III regarded it as a challenging aircraft to operate. Drinkwater famously compared flying it to "balancing on a beach ball." [20]

Testing

File:Avrocar at factory.jpg
The initial Avrocar being prepared at the Avro factory around 1958

The first Avrocar, designated #58-7055, was manufactured at the Avro Malton plant and completed in May 1959. Between 9 June and 7 October 1959, it underwent testing within a stationary hover rig.[21] During these trials, it was discovered that exhaust gases were recirculating into the intakes during hover, which diminished engine thrust. Additionally, lift generation was limited to a small portion of the fan's surface area, resulting in reduced overall thrust. The ducting system exhibited greater losses than anticipated, and despite multiple adjustments, this issue persisted significantly. Consequently, maximum lift capability out of ground effect at higher altitudes was limited to 3,150 lb (1,430 kg), which was less than the aircraft’s empty weight of 4,285 lb (1,944 kg), indicating it could not maintain hover beyond ground effect. After these evaluations, the vehicle was transferred to NASA Ames for wind tunnel testing.Template:Fix/category[citation needed]

The second Avrocar, #59-4975, was finalized in August 1959. On 29 September, an initial tethered hover attempt took place.[22] Shortly after becoming airborne, the craft experienced uncontrollable oscillations combining roll and pitch, causing each of its three wheels to strike the ground sequentially. Pilot W. D. "Spud" Potocki promptly shut down all engines to regain safety. Modifications to the stability control system were implemented to enhance handling authority, and new tether designs were explored to better manage such instabilities.[4] As trials progressed, it became evident that this instability was intrinsic to the design itself; engineers coined the term "hubcapping" for this phenomenon due to its resemblance to a spinning hubcap on the ground.[23]

Further analysis uncovered the root cause of this instability. While within ground effect, a high-pressure air cushion beneath the vehicle created a stable support area by filling the space evenly. When ascending beyond ground effect, this cushion constricted into a narrow vertical column—described by Frost as "tree trunking". At intermediate altitudes, the craft would transition intermittently between these states; during such transitions one side remained fully supported by air pressure while support diminished beneath the other side. This imbalance induced strong pitching motions toward the unsupported side. As that side descended back toward the ground and reestablished air support, the opposite side would rise above its support limit. This cycle repeated continuously, causing oscillations from side to side. To address this issue, engineers drilled 52 holes radially three feet from the center on the underside of the vehicle to create a central jet aimed at stabilizing the air cushion beneath.[24]

Following these adjustments and their apparent success, the Avrocar achieved its first fully untethered flight on 12 November 1959. However, this test revealed deficiencies in the nozzle control system. The original spoilers were designed to direct airflow either above or below an annular flap—during hover directing air only downward and during forward flight both above and below—to create differential lift for control by reducing lift on one side while increasing it on the other. While lift reduction occurred as expected on one side, there was no corresponding increase on the opposite side; thus every control input caused altitude loss. After five flights and accumulating 18.5 hours of test time by 5 December 1959, testing was temporarily suspended.[25]

File:Avrocar flying.jpg
Avrocar 59-4975 following modifications; tested without canopies and fitted with a perimeter "focusing" ring circa 1961. Heat buildup during flights caused instruments to discolor after just a few runs.

During the winter overhaul, a completely new control approach replaced the original spoilers with a single movable ring positioned beneath the annular flap. This ring shifted relative to the vehicle under pilot input to close off gaps on one side while opening them on the other. Testing resumed in January 1960 with improved hovering performance observed; nevertheless, at speeds exceeding 30 knots (56 km/h), stability issues emerged again. The first Avrocar prototype underwent similar modifications at Ames and was tested in their 40 ft × 80 ft (12 m × 24 m) wind tunnel in April 1960.[26] It became apparent that this ring obstructed a significant portion of engine thrust, substantially diminishing available power. As velocity increased, airflow beneath reduced recirculation effects which had previously contributed positively to lift over the upper surface—an unexpected finding since recirculation had been viewed negatively due to thrust loss concerns. Ultimately, maintaining lift at higher speeds required pitching the aircraft near its control limits.[27]

Despite these challenges, Avro remained confident in the viability of the concept and proposed an extensive redesign of propulsion and control systems. Rather than using a single annular triangular flap with spoilers or a perimeter ring for control, they introduced two separate mechanisms integrated into one nozzle: one dedicated to hover and another for forward flight control. During hover mode, "transition doors" opened within nozzles to block airflow outward and redirect it downward beneath the craft; directional control was achieved by adjusting an outer flap segment that focused airflow accordingly. At higher speeds, these doors closed allowing air to exit around the edge of the vehicle where simple flap-like controls operated for maneuvering. This new system covered approximately three-quarters of the rear circumference of the aircraft’s outer edge; hovering controls occupied only the forward section.[17]

Modifications were completed on Ames’ model and testing restarted in April 1961 with markedly improved hover control and significantly enhanced lift performance demonstrated. The vehicle now attained speeds up to 100 knots (190 km/h), a notable increase from prior maximums near 30 knots (56 km/h). Nonetheless, pitch instability persisted alongside pronounced nose-up trim tendencies. NASA engineers attempted corrective measures including installing a T-tail, but this configuration interfered with turborotor airflow and failed to resolve issues. Frost’s team then explored two conceptual redesigns—one featuring a large vertical tail and another incorporating wings with tip-mounted vertical stabilizers ("winglets"). Both designs envisioned using two 2,700 lbf (12 kN) thrust General Electric J85 turbojet engines and increasing turborotor diameter from five to six feet.[28] These remained conceptual projects without physical prototypes.

On 9 June 1961, a second joint USAF/NASA evaluation flight took place using an extensively modified second prototype at Avro’s facility. During these tests, maximum speed reached only 20 knots (37 km/h); however, it demonstrated capability crossing a six-foot-wide ditch with an eighteen-inch depth obstacle successfully negotiated. Flight beyond critical altitude was deemed hazardous or nearly impossible due to fundamental stability limitations.[29] The flight assessment report also highlighted various ongoing control deficiencies.[30]

Cancellation

Funding ceased in March 1961 before any design alterations could be implemented. Frost's suggestions for a revised model were ultimately rejected, and by December 1961, the U.S. military formally terminated the Avrocar and associated WS-606A supersonic VTOL initiatives. Executives at Avro encouraged further VTOL development efforts, investigating alternative configurations combined with a disk platform and even experimenting with a "lift jet" variant; however, these concepts failed to attract renewed interest from Canadian or other sources, marking the conclusion of this Special Projects Group endeavor. In 1961, several subsequent proposals, including the Avro P470 VTOL fighter concept derived from the Special Projects Group’s work, were submitted in response to a NATO competition seeking a tactical strike fighter. Ultimately, these requirements were met by the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, while broader enthusiasm for VTOL technology diminished amid prevailing beliefs that a nuclear first strike would not initiate a European conflict.

File:NASM Avro VZ9V-1. (1984).jpg
Avro VZ-9-AV Avrocar at the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration and Storage Facility, National Air and Space Museum c.1984

By the conclusion of flight testing, the second Avrocar had accumulated approximately 75 hours in the air. Evaluated based on its operational capabilities, the Avrocar was deemed a significant failure: it could barely lift itself safely beyond a few feet above ground level, and its rounded shape limited its high-speed potential while generating intolerable heat and deafening exhaust noise—rendering it unsuitable for military purposes. Despite being classified as a technical failure, its design anticipated future developments; lacking only a flexible skirt to become one of the earliest examples of a hovercraft, similar to the Saunders Roe SR.N1 which also first flew in 1959. Nonetheless, designer John Frost secured multiple patents across Canada, the UK, and the U.S., affirming the crucial influence that the Avrocar and related experimental vehicles had within VTOL innovation.

Latest developments

File:U.S. Air Force Museum C (34).jpg
Avrocar 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 "dead end" in VTOL design; nevertheless, its technological breakthroughs have captivated subsequent engineers. One key feature—the employment of ducted fans—served as inspiration for other experimental projects. Dr. Paul Moller, a Canadian-born engineer who began his career at Avro Canada, developed an initial series of VTOL prototypes based on "saucer" concepts incorporating buried ducted fans similar to those of the Avrocar. The first model in this line, the XM-2, bore a striking resemblance to a small flying saucer. Following successful tethered flight tests, these saucer-shaped designs—sometimes promoted under names like "discojet"—were eventually discontinued, with Moller’s latest project evolving into the flying-car styled Moller Skycar.

The narrative of the Avrocar extended beyond program cancellation. Only two units were ever constructed; since funding came from the U.S. military, both reverted to American possession after project termination. The second unit, serial number 59-4975, which was used for flight testing, briefly returned to Canada for exhibition at Montreal’s Man and His World Exhibition in 1968. After prolonged outdoor exposure, 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 designation AV-7055), served as a "wind tunnel" test model following tethered trials at NASA Ames Research Center. It remained in storage there from 1961 until 1966 before being transferred to the National Air and Space Museum’s collection and stored at the Smithsonian’s Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility in Suitland, Maryland—where it stayed unused for nearly four decades. Eventually slated for restoration and exhibition at the newly opened Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, it was instead loaned to the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio in November 2007. After comprehensive restoration—including reconstruction of both 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 once more to the Research and Development Gallery inside their fourth hangar.

A life-size replica of the Avrocar was created for the 2002 documentary Avrocar: Saucer Secrets from the Past. This replica is currently exhibited at the Royal Aviation Museum of Western Canada in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Specifications (VZ-9-AV)

File:Avrocar 3-view.jpg
Three-view illustration of the Avrocar

Template:Aircraft specs

See also

Template:Aircontent

Notes

  1. ↑ Another recurring strategy in policy communication involves claims that "the Soviets are doing it".

References

  1. ↑ Yenne 2003, pp. 281–283.
  2. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  3. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Milberry 1979, p. 137.
  5. ↑ Milberry 1981, p. 15.
  6. ↑ Milberry 1981, p. 19.
  7. ↑ Avrocar... 2002
  8. ↑ Campagna 1998, p. 61.
  9. ↑ Campagna 1998, pp. 62–63.
  10. ↑ Whitcomb 2002, p. 58.
  11. ↑ Zuk 2001, p.56.
  12. ↑ Zuuring 1999, p. 220.
  13. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  14. ↑ John Frost
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Rogers p. 84
  16. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named camp68
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Winchester 2005, p. 69
  18. ↑ Campagna 1998, pp. 69–70.
  19. ↑ Zuk 2001, pp. 85–87.
  20. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Avrocar: Saucer Secrets from the Past 2002
  21. ↑ Zuk 2001, p. 74.
  22. ↑ Taylor 1999, p. 78.
  23. ↑ Zuk 2001, p. 79.
  24. ↑ Rogers 1989. p. 85.
  25. ↑ Citation needed|date=August 2019
  26. ↑ Zuk 2001, p. 76.
  27. ↑ citation needed|date=December 2020
  28. ↑ Zuk 2001, p. 82.
  29. ↑ Winchester 2005, p. 68.
  30. ↑ Zuk 2001, p. 79.

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

Template:Avro Canada Template:US Army VTOL Template:USAF system codes Template:Aircraft types (by method of thrust and lift) Template:Aircraft manufactured in Canada Lua error in Module:Authority_control at line 159: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).

Retrieved from "https://www.alfawiki.org/index.php?title=Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar&oldid=77630"