Michael Emrys Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 B-47? six engines but no props... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlightRadarFinland Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 OK, thank you. This is just the information I've found during these almost 4 years I've been trying to solve this mystery. I'm trying to explain in a clearer way (I'm sorry about my English. It's my third after Finnish and Swedish): -about same size as 767/747 -had six propeller engines (I ment this when I wrote six engines) and six propellers -very long wings and fuselage -wings were directly towards the fuselage -this plane appeared to be brand new, appeared to have resemblance to a Fokker passanger planes -Boeing B-29 kind of a structure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress -the color was propably pretty close to the gray Finnish Air Force uses on their F-18 Hornets 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Tu-95 Bear ?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 I think our friend is saying that the wings were straight, not swept. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 This would be even more of a story. The rest of the pictures on that page and what they represent are outstanding. Michel Always showing off your flash ride, Michael, you hot roddder you. No doubt it has whitewalls and an 8-track player as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I live about 20 kilometers from Helsinki Airport or (IATA: HEL, ICAO: EFHK). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Airport I've been googling now for a couple of years of an unknown grey plane that landed over our house in the beginning October 2009 at 4 pm local time. This happened just a few days before Hillary Clinton visited Moscow and I came in to the conclusion that this plane somehow had something to do with Mrs Clinton's visit to Russia. The plane was un-marked, shining new, no visible windows, military gray in color and with 3 propeller engines on both wings. I saw the plane for about 15 seconds at an altitude of about 700 to 1000 meters, which is the normal altitude for approaching planes from this direction (NW). I saw it from the right hand side, underneath and from behind as it was decending towards the Helsinki Airport. It looked very much like Fokker 50, but with much longer wings and fuselage. And it was absolutely not C-130, but much lighter looking. Even resembled U-2 but with 6 propeller engines. And I am absolutely sure it had those 6 propeller engines, because I saw 6 lines of exhaust smoke leaving the plane. I have talked with a lot of people who work at the airport and for Finnair and other companies, but nobody has seen or heard anything. Maybe it just did a flyover. I would really appreciate if somebody would be able to solve this mystery. This news is about Mrs Clinton’s visit to Moscow in 2009: Not to question your vision or credibility, but any chance it could have been one of these: Airbus A400M? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 FRF: try reading through the five pages of Chapter 3 here: http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm44-80(96).pdf and provide a thorough, organised description of what you saw. At the moment your description is all over the place, with additional bits of information tucked into your second post. I suggest you start over with a single, comprehensive description of what you saw, using the WEFT framework at that page, and see how we go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Always showing off your flash ride, Michael, you hot roddder you. No doubt it has whitewalls and an 8-track player as well. Not only that, but it has a wet bar, reclining seats, and a condom dispenser. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 C-130 isn't as fat as it looks while sitting on the ground. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2376/2189815098_9efefafccd.jpg And I am absolutely sure it had those 6 propeller engines, because I saw 6 lines of exhaust smoke leaving the plane. I'm betting you are seeing the exhaust of a 4 engined plane. Prop wash may disperse the exhaust to both sides of the engines. The outboard engine to outside and centre of wing, inboard engine to inside and centre. This would give you three exhaust trails per wing. My money is once again on a C-130 if you also think you saw 6 nacelles. If not there are so many alternatives that it isn't really worth guessing at. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdp Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Couldn't have been this giant could it? /sdp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Couldn't have been this giant could it? Six engines alright, but no props and no straight wing. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Not only that, but it has a wet bar, reclining seats, and a condom dispenser. Michael "Condom dispenser?" Oh, that explains the anal probes that "alien abductees" are always blathering about... :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 "Condom dispenser?" Oh, that explains the anal probes that "alien abductees" are always blathering about... :eek: Nah. Those guys just have a fixation originating in childhood. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Nah. Those guys just have a fixation originating in childhood. Michael Well, stop picking up hitchhikers then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlightRadarFinland Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 FRF: try reading through the five pages of Chapter 3 here: http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm44-80(96).pdf and provide a thorough, organised description of what you saw. At the moment your description is all over the place, with additional bits of information tucked into your second post. I suggest you start over with a single, comprehensive description of what you saw, using the WEFT framework at that page, and see how we go. -- Thank you for the WEFT information. None of those planes look like the one I saw. It didn't look like a cargo plane at all: new, military gray, long and narrow fuselage, straight narrow wings with six propeller engines (six propellers, six engines and six exhaust trails). My first impression was that it looked like something in between a Fokker 50 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_50 and a U2 but much larger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlightRadarFinland Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Couldn't have been this giant could it? /sdp -- Antonov 225 has never landed here, but 124s every now and then. One of the flights flew 16 military vehicles to Finnish ISAF-troops in Afganistan. http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?distict_entry=true&aircraft_genericsearch=Antonov%20An-124%20Ruslan&countrysearch=Finland 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 -- Thank you for the WEFT information. None of those planes look like the one I saw. It didn't look like a cargo plane at all: new, military gray, long and narrow fuselage, straight narrow wings with six propeller engines (six propellers, six engines and six exhaust trails). My first impression was that it looked like something in between a Fokker 50 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_50 and a U2 but much larger. Seems like what we have here is a true UFO, in that so far we are unable to identify it. To me, the most likely candidate is something new that the Russians have cooked up but not released to the world. The long straight wings suggests something intended to fly at very high altitudes and subsonic speeds. Use of six engines suggests that they aren't overly concerned about fuel consumption. Be interesting to see if more reports of this start turning up...and where. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Sorry, I can't agree with you Michael - I don't see the Russians creating some new mystery plane and flying it into O'Hare to show it off and then disappear it again. My conclusion after following this thread is that it is simply the result of observer mis-ID. Sure wouldn't be the first time that's happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 I think he means UFO in a very literal sense; it is a flying object that is, as yet, unidentified. At least by anyone here. Someone, somewhere, knows what it is I agree, though, that observer mis-ID is most likely though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 ...I don't see the Russians creating some new mystery plane and flying it into O'Hare... O'Hare??? Where did that come into it? I thought our observer was in Finland, where an overflight by a new Russian plane, whether accidental or deliberate, was quite possible. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP Jones Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Mis-ID is for sure. My guess is that it was a C-130 with wing tanks that were mistaken for engines. The exhaust wash may have enhanced the engine-like apperance. No flying 6 prop plane exists today. case closed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 O'Hare??? Where did that come into it? I thought our observer was in Finland, where an overflight by a new Russian plane, whether accidental or deliberate, was quite possible. Michael The OP that started the thread stated he lived near O'Hare and saw what he thought was a six-engine aircraft flying from it. The subsequent posts were about other sightings. I simply rolled the sightings up into one for point of argument. If the Russians have a new plane that is so hush-hush, they are not going to jeopardize security flying over Finland with it. Chechnya, maybe, Georgia, probably, but Finland? And risk being taken down by some farmer with his grandpappy's Suomi? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 No flying 6 prop plane exists today. That we here know of. case closed Maybe, maybe not. That's what makes the discussion interesting. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 The OP that started the thread stated he lived near O'Hare and saw what he thought was a six-engine aircraft flying from it. The subsequent posts were about other sightings. I simply rolled the sightings up into one for point of argument. If the Russians have a new plane that is so hush-hush, they are not going to jeopardize security flying over Finland with it. Chechnya, maybe, Georgia, probably, but Finland? And risk being taken down by some farmer with his grandpappy's Suomi? I should think a more serious concern would be that same farmer throwing pine cones. We know (or at least have been told often enough) how destructive those can be. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristinjenson123 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Regarding the babble beneath access paths, during the 1950s the bounded air abject had C-124s activity in and out on a circadian basis. These were powered by four recip engines agnate to those acclimated on the B-29 and were abundantly noisy. One day we were visiting some accompany who lived anon beneath the flight aisle not far from the end of the runway. As I sat out in the advanced backyard and watched the C-124s accomplish their landing approaches, I noticed that anniversary time one anesthetized over the acme of the copse growing in the backyard would beachcomber in the slipstream. It was blatant that day. I still don't apperceive how my accompany stood it day in and day out, but maybe you can get acclimated to anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.