unmanned aerial vehicles and unidentified aerial phenomena

NARCAP Topical Review 05

1

NARCAP Topical Review TOP 05, 2013

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena:

Can We Tell Them Apart?

Richard F. Haines and Wayne Reed

Chief Scientist Research Associate

National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena

Copyright

October 10, 2013

Abstract

Serious investigators of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and perhaps others need to be

able to correctly discriminate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) from unidentified aerial

phenomena (UAP) which are probably not manmade. Doing this accurately requires knowledge

about the key visual features and flight capabilities of each class of objects. This paper is an

extension of Osborn (2009) and presents photographs and selected technical information related

to one-half of this challenge – UAV - a technology that is evolving so rapidly that this snapshot

can portray only a small proportion of the many bizarre shapes, wide range of dimensions, flight

capabilities and other characteristics of UAVs at the present time. Can perceived outline shape

be used with assurance in making an accurate discrimination between UAV and UAP? Indeed,

odd shaped, apparently non-aerodynamic objects may or may not be manmade. Can any current

UAV accelerate almost instantaneously, hover silently, turn sharp corners, or leave a luminous

trail behind them? Can any currently flying UAV cause airplane compasses to deviate or other

electronic systems to malfunction when flying near an airplane? Can they keep pace with high

performance air force jets and perform corkscrew flight maneuvers around the jets or even be

visible in one moment and invisible in the next? If the answer to these questions is found to be

yes then much serious, non-instrumented UAP field research will have come to an end and

ultimately will result only in frustration. This paper explores several of these issues and includes

photographs of sixty eight current UAV with related information.


2

Introduction

American, Australian, and other allied airplane spotters on faraway Pacific islands during

WW-2 were trained to quickly and accurately identify different Japanese airplanes primarily by

their silhouette (outline) shapes. Except for situations where these airplanes were far away - with

correspondingly angularly small retinal image sizes - each airplane’s silhouette contained one or

more critical details [Haines, 2010(b)] that enabled the spotters to make a correct identification.

Such critical visual details included recognizable, i.e., familiar outline shape, vapor or other

atmospheric traces produced by the still to be identified airplanes and their flight performance

capabilities. In some cases the engine sounds they made confirmed their identity particularly in

poor visibility situations. But aviation technology has progressed very greatly since WW-2.

Making a correct discrimination between a manned and unmanned air vehicle has become far

more difficult today.

Critical Details

There are several major contributors to making an accurate visual identification of a distant

flying object. We call them “critical details” since they may serve in many cases as unique

identifiers of a UAV. Even when the object is little more than a speck in the sky without any

shape at all, for instance, its motions can be appreciated when there is a stable background

visible. If it follows smooth turns that have a finite radius it could be a manned or unmanned

airplane or a UAP. The greater the velocity and object mass the larger the radius that is required

as is illustrated by America’s SR-71 high altitude reconnaissance plane that requires about a 100

miles radius turn (at a medium bank angle) when flying at Mach 3. But if the unidentified

airplane or phenomenon makes very sharp, even instantaneous changes in its direction of flight

which, considering its forward velocity, would otherwise produce extremely high g loads on its

on-board pilot(s), then it might be a lower mass UAV (located at a much nearer distance) or a

UAP. If it seems to come to a sudden stop in mid-air from an angularly high rate of speed or

suddenly accelerates it might be a small UAV located nearer to the observer or a UAP. Clearly,

the ever increasing maneuverability of UAV make them more and more difficult to discriminate

from UAP that are reported to perform truly fantastic flight maneuvers.

Of course, there are other visual factors that contribute to this set of “critical details.” One is

outline shape. When the unidentified object has increased in size (i.e., visual angle) one may

finally see its outline (silhouette) shape but nothing else. Its shape will vary as its orientation

toward the viewer changes. As is illustrated in Figure 1, the same UAV can appear radically

different depending upon the angle from which it is seen. This factor alone can cause confusion

and uncertainty. Indeed, only a sphere is invariant at different orientations. [Haines et al.,

2010(a)]


3

The following line drawing is of an “all-wing” manned glider design from the pre-WW-II era

designed by the Horten brothers in Germany. (Myhra, Pg. 305, 1998). It must be pointed out that

several current UAV are based on the same general design principles as can be seen in the

following photographs of plane form and stealth shaped Flying Wing UAV today some seventy

years later!

Figure 1

Three Views of the Flying Wing Model HO-16

(Used by Permission: Schiffer Publishing Ltd.)

Top View

Front View

Side View

Figure 2 is an artist’s drawing of Lockheed Martin’s RQ-170 Sentinal UAV, a vehicle that

looks remarkably like the earlier HO-16 flying wing.

Figure 2

Artist’s Rendering of the RQ-170 Sentinal UAV in Three Views

(www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinal)


4

Additionally, the visual characteristics of military UAV in particular are designed to blend

into the surroundings and thus their external paint colors are often a light, flat, grey with hints of

light blue. Since the flat paint and color choices are carefully selected to reduce detection, they

would almost certainly eliminate such a UAV if a glint or reflection was observed from them.

Another critical detail is viewing duration. In some past cases small fighter aircraft were

misidentified as larger bombers (and vice versa) until sufficient viewing time had elapsed to

make their actual identity clear. Research by the first author on 283 reports of UAP seen from

aircraft for the period 1 January 1942 to 31 December 1952 found that the average sighting

duration was 7.3 minutes. (Haines, 1983) Such long durations contribute to being able to

examine many of the unidentified object’s critical details and eliminate most of the prosaic

explanations.

A third contributor is prior familiarity with different airplane shapes. For example, someone

who has never read about or seen a flying wing design may believe that he is not seeing a

manmade aircraft at all. Trying to classify something one has never seen before is a challenging

task indeed; the interested reader should consult [Haines, 2012(b)] for a current example of this.

The photographic array of different UAV models presented below will help to make some of

them more familiar to the reader.

Another critical detail is the noise that is or is not heard from a UAV or squadron of them.

Generally, the greater the mass that must be levitated against gravity and propelled laterally at

some velocity, the more power that is required. Generating this power produces noises of

various volumes, durations, and frequencies. While some very small UAV use quiet battery-

powered electric motors driving rotors that can barely be heard nearby larger models employ

gasoline or jet engines that are unmistakably manmade UAV. Nevertheless, so-called stealth

UAV are being developed for surveillance (and other) applications that are claimed to be almost

undetectable against normal urban background noise levels. Continuing improvements in these

ultra-quiet UAV will only contribute to their being confused with UAP.

Finally, nighttime operations of UAV may or may not employ standard red - green navigation

and collision avoidance lights. These requirements are still being worked out. For stealth-related

operations many small UAVs use normally invisible infrared strobes during nighttime flights as

locating beacons. Only those wearing appropriate night vision goggles can see them. On UAV

designed for night time advertising their light sources will likely present virtually any color,

pattern, flash rate, or intensity. There are already several small hobby class model UAV made to

look like discs and saucers and that light up with flashing colored LEDs.

As has been mentioned before this paper addresses the subject of how to correctly

discriminate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) from what the authors believe is a fundamentally

different class of aerial phenomena that we call UAP, (for unidentified aerial phenomena).


5

What about UAV?

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is “any aircraft which is designed or modified not to

carry a human pilot and is operated through electronic input initiated by a remotely located flight

controller and/or by an onboard autonomous flight management control system that does not

require flight controller intervention.” (www.psi.nmsuk.edu/uav/conops/ ) So far at least all

UAV are aerodynamic in shape and operation. There are about a thousand different UAV

systems today designed and built by over three hundred firms in many countries. (Aerospace

America, 2013; Anon, 2012; Goldman, 2012; Karim, 2009; NOVA, 2012; Osborn, 2009;

Popular Science, 2010; Wiki, 2012, 2013) Appendix 1 is a partial list of the ever growing

number of names that have been given to UAV; it is clear that this technology is still in flux and

developing in various aerodynamic capability (and other) directions. By 2020 there are predicted

to be at least thirty thousand UAV flying in U. S. airspace, albeit most at lower altitudes. Today

the FAA requires a special Airworthiness Certificate (SAC-Experimental) to operate UAVs. It

will be selecting six UAV test sites by the end of 2013; the first should become operational

within six months. As Peter Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution has pointed out,

UAV are a “game-changing technology, akin to gunpowder, the steam engine, the atomic bomb

– opening up possibilities that were fiction a generation earlier…”. (Whitehead, 2013) If this is

true for UAV today, could the same thing be said about UAP? (Footnote 1)

As more and more UAV enter America’s National Air Space (NAS) national and

international aviation agencies are working to keep airplanes with people on board from

colliding with them (Anon, 2012). Ground and airborne radar detection, transponders and

perhaps even some type(s) of Terminal Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) onboard future

UAV will likely form the backbone of such collision avoidance efforts along with modification

of the traditional see-and-be-seen principle when both vehicles are manned to see-and-avoid

when one is manned and the other isn’t. Where does the ultimate responsibility for collision

avoidance lie in this matter? With expanded use of multiple wide-angle on-board cameras the

UAV’s ground controller may possibly be able to maintain adequate situational – collision

avoidance awareness. Still, the deliberate use of stealth fuselage designs of already small UAVs

will minimize the effectiveness of their detection by primary radar. Various anticipated uses of

UAV within the NAS will probably require that transponders be carried on-board as part of their

payload. Flights of so-called hobby-class UAV are likely to rely on continuous (or at least

remote) visual contact with the vehicle from the ground. (Reynish, 2004)

What about UAP?

In spite of their controversial nature and their capability to produce a stubborn and closed-

minded attitude toward accepting their reality by some people today, UAP (sometimes called by

the misleading yet commonly used acronym ufo) are firmly established as a modern reality.

Whatever they are they are objectively real, having been photographed, detected by radar, infra-

red and multi-spectral sensors, touched, smelled, and seen by many hundreds of thousands (or

http://www.psi.nmsuk.edu/uav/conops/


6

more) of highly qualified people over many centuries. Reviews by Catoe (1969); Clark, 1990;

Dolan (2000); Hall (2001); Vallee, (1965) and others should be consulted in this regard. The

aviation communities of the world should stop denying their reality. Research by the first author

and many others is also pointing to an unacceptably large possibility for flight safety impact by

UAP. (cf., Clark, 2003; Ferguson, 2012; Garrido and Cornejo, 2010; Guzman, 2001; Haines,

2000; Haines et al, 2007; Haines 2012(a); Randles, 1998; Sato, 2013; Shough, 2002; Smith,

1997; Weinstein, 2011). This paper will not address any details of the electromagnetic effects on

manmade technology that have been linked to nearby UAP.

It must be emphasized that UAP, like UAV, present a very wide range of silhouette shapes

with all of the attendant problems of identifying them on the basis of their shape. [Haines, 1976;

1979(a); 1979(b); 2010(b)] Having prior sightings with actual UAP also provide important clues

as to their classification as being something that is not manmade. Of course the flight

characteristics of many UAP have also been noted by many past researchers as being extremely

non-aerodynamic. Their means of propulsion have not yet been discovered. One of many

interesting facts about UAP is that the great majority of them depart from the witness’s location

by rising vertically or at a steep angle and also rapidly. This cannot be said for most UAV.

When this occurs at usual cruise speeds and altitudes of commercial jet airplanes, as it has on

many scores of occasions it eliminates UAV as the other object.

What is not Covered Here

The subject of UAV is already so vast and constantly changing that it may appear foolish to

offer even a limited snapshot of it here. The following aspects of UAV are not discussed here in

order to keep this review to a manageable length and because they are not directly relevant to the

subject at hand: means of ground-to-UAV communication and energy transfer; specific UAV

payloads unless their form factor influences their shape; on-board sensing systems; emitted

radiation; specific vehicle missions and related design drivers [cf. Goldman, 2012]; collision

avoidance issues and FAA regulations within the NAS; and certification of UAV operators.

These and other related topics are discussed elsewhere [e.g., Association for Unmanned Vehicle

Systems International; Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Perceptions &Potential (2013)].

The following section presents several sighting reports to illustrate some of the difficulties in

telling a UAV from a UAP.

Several Unexplained Sighting Reports

A part of the motivation to prepare this report came from trying to find explanations for what

was reported by aviation personnel over many decades. Were these reported objects and lights

actually UAVs of some kind? This is a valid question that skeptics have raised many times


7

before. Consider the following three sighting reports made over fifty years ago - before there

were hardly any UAV.

Sixty one years ago on April 5, 1952 when remote control of airplanes was very limited

four U.S. Air Force personnel stationed at Kadena A.F.B., Okinawa and assigned to the 372nd

Bomb Squadron watched as an unidentified object flew an “erratic course” for about ten minutes.

The local time was 12:00 am. The white, silent object maneuvered above their base with violent

zig-zag motions, coming to a complete stop and then continuing. The airmen estimated its

altitude at about 20,000 feet. It departed out of sight by rising up and away to the west over the

ocean. This report was found in an official Air Force Project Blue Book file; the official

explanation given was “aircraft.”

The second case is also found in Project Blue Book files (case 3523) and involved two U.S.

Air Force officers who were walking across the airfield ramp at the Keflavik, Iceland airbase at

16:38 hrs. local time on May 4, 1955. They reported seeing a group of very unusual objects

flying across the sky. First seen at about ten degrees arc from directly overhead they all

disappeared behind cloud cover about thirty degrees arc above the horizon within ten or twelve

seconds! Approximately eight of the unknown objects were grouped together with two more

farther away on their right-hand side. “In position they did not move back and forth or in and out

slowly, as jet aircraft. But very rapidly and jerkily. When they were about half-way through this

50 degree arc of the sky the object in the center of the group emitted a very thin, linear smoke

trail which disappeared almost immediately. All of the objects had the same indistinct (round or

oval) shape, color, and brightness. No wings or tail could be seen; they all appeared to be

transparent or translucent like a, “glob of milk of magnesia that had been heavily cut with

water.” One witness estimated the angular size of each object as that of a penny held at arm’s

length (about 1.5 deg.), or about 60 to 70 feet across and travelling at well over 1,000 kts.

(U.S.A.F. Project Blue Book files; Olsen, 1966) The official explanation was “unidentified.”

Another sighting occurred fifty six years ago on August 27, 1957, according to official U.S.

Air Force records (case 4922). At least six airmen and control tower operators saw a round

object associated with a white light above Eglin A.F.B. in western Florida for about five minutes.

During this time its altitude was judged to be seven hundred feet and it moved vertically up and

down. It also circled the hanger at about 2,000 feet altitude showing red and white lights. The

official explanation was “aircraft.”

Less than three months later (November 7, 1957) plant guards at the Pantex Atomic Energy

Commission ordnance plant near Amarillo, Texas phoned the Texas State Highway Patrol at

19:46 hrs. concerning three bright, flashing objects that were hovering above the plant at about

fifty feet above the ground. When a patrolman arrived at 20:15 hrs. he also saw one of the

strange lights. A great many more similarly bizarre accounts could be cited. (cf. Clark, 1990;

Hynek, 1972; Olsen, 1966)


8

Could any of these unidentified objects have been some kind of UAV of that era? The highly

qualified answer is probably no because America did not then possess powered aero-vehicles of

any shape that could hover silently, fly vertically up and down [other than noisy gyrocopters and

helicopters (Leishman, 2000)], or fly in saw-tooth or jerky flight paths. Clearly, these objects

were not helicopters because of differences in reported shape, flight performance, as well as

complete silence. If any of them were balloons with lights attached at night what was their

source of electrical power and how could they fly in the manners just described? Could any have

been radio-controlled airplane models? While this is possible it is not very probable.

More Recent Aerial Encounters with Alleged UAVs.

Let us now consider several more recent sighting reports that may have been caused by

UAV. The U.S. Air Force allegedly used an unmanned jet propelled combat aerial vehicle in the

war in Afghanistan in mid April 2009 that looked “… similar to the X-45s and X-47s… built

…for the USAF and Navy.” The summary article about this event concluded by saying, “…no

one is saying what a combat UAV design is doing in Afghanistan. But there it is, operating as a

UFO (unidentified flying object).” (www.strategypage.com/htmw)

This incident involved many eye witnesses stationed at Camp Leatherneck (Marjah)

Afghanistan on or about February 7, 2010. The following narrative is quoted verbatim from the

Mutual UFO Network’s Case Management System files (http://www.mufon.org; Case 36089) .

“Here are 2 of the 6 photos that I took one night (on or about 7 Feb, 2010) while at our office

in the MLG (Marine Logistics Group) compound on Camp Leatherneck Afg. (located in Heland

Province). I know that ALL of my friends on FB that were with us saw the same thing. They

were up there long enough that people were leaving.

“They were up there for a long time without moving. They went away for a while and then

came back. They didn't move or blink or make any noise. They looked like they were really high

up but there was nothing to base that on. Pretty cool event.

“Now that I have seen it on TV it is super cool that we were able to witness it.

1. I was in my office in teh (sic) MLG Compound on Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan.

2. One of the Marines in the Company came into the office to tell us about the lights.

3. At first we thought maybe flares or weather balloons but they didn't change alt. or fade out

or fall.

4. As my attachments show there were 7 equally spaced lights in the sky that did not appear

to move or change.

5. Very interested to see the lights, so many people saw them and didn't even stop to look at

them. There was a lot going on during the day but nothing to distract us during the

http://www.mufon.org/


9

sighting.

6. I hate to say it but after maybe 45 minutes we just went back inside to work.”

“I have 4 more pics (sic) they are sharper but since I was moving they make the light appear

as if they were moving. The two I attached are pretty clear.” (Note: These two nighttime photos

are not presented here but are available on the MUFON website in the case files section, search

UFO data base. A recently posted comment on this case, allegedly by another Marine who was

also stationed here, claimed that he saw the same formation of lights in 2009).

< http://www.examiner.com/article/series-of-lights-reported-hovering-over-u-s-marine-base- >

Were there any UAV in use in the Afghanistan war zone in early 2010 that can hover in

silence for a relatively long period of time while maintaining a précises position along a straight

line (relative to several other UAV) also having the same angular size, shape, color, and

brightness? If this sighting report can be believed one can also ask what these seven self-

luminous objects were and what were they doing above the marine base?

In the following more recent sighting both flight crew members of a Citation 550 jet reported

to authorities on the ground that on January 11, 2011 at 18:45 hrs. local time, they were cruising

at FL 200 at 380 kts. true air speed heading west between New Haven, Connecticut and Buffalo,

New York when the following incident took place. The captain was the first to see a flickering

light ahead of them. He pointed it out to the First Officer because it was at their twelve o’clock

position and they knew of no other traffic in the area. In his typed report submitted to the

National UFO Reporting Center (used by permission) two days later, the captain wrote that at

first he thought it was a planet but soon realized that the unknown object was passing off to their

left side; he estimated it to be between 2 and 4 thousand feet above their altitude. He wrote, “It

had a blinking light in front and between 3 and 4 other lights on it, all white except for an

extremely faint and small green light toward the rear.” The captain radioed ATC about it when

the light reached their ten o’clock position and was told that they, “…had traffic at that position

going westbound. This craft was eastbound and not in contact with any controllers… Both my

co-pilot and myself watched it disappear behind us… While it is common to see other traffic in

the sky while flying, the fact that it was so lit up (planes are not usually that highly lit at those

altitudes) with lights that were not consistent with aircraft lights and it (sic) relatively slow

closing speed with us makes me believe that it wasn’t a aircraft as we know an aircraft to be.”

The First Officer on this flight also submitted his own report of their five minute-long

sighting. He wrote, “I found this to be peculiar considering that in my 5 years of professional

flying typically aircraft passing at this altitude pass each other very quickly because they are

operating at their cruise air speeds. The relative motion of the flashing lights just did not make

sense, just to (sic) slow… the lights that we were observing however were east bound and

moving at significantly slower speed than a jet or turbo prop aircraft typically does. In fact, I

remarked, “Is that a helicopter?”” He described the object as follows.

http://www.examiner.com/article/series-of-lights-reported-hovering-over-u-s-marine-base-


10

“The lights observed consisted of a large bright white strobe like light at the lowest point as

well as three to four smaller white lights that surrounded the main light. The brilliance of the

light lacked the whiteness of modern strobe instead it had a pearlescent quality and flickered

rather than flashed however with intensity. At times then (sic) main light seemed to be casting a

fluttering shadow much like a flashlight would yield if cast through a rotating fan blade…that

prompted me to question if the craft was a helicopter as previously stated. I looked intently for

the red and green navigation lights that all aircraft have conversely none were observed.”

“The flight conditions were good; visibility was excellent as the stars made a magnificent

backdrop as they typically do on night flights during the winter months. An overcast layer

existed well below our flight level that I estimate to be at 10 to 12 thousand feet. “

This sighting report made by two commercial pilots raises many interesting questions such

as, was this unidentified object a military UAV capable of flying this high and fast but without

the required night time navigation lights? Did air traffic control personnel know its identity but

did not disclose it? Was this UAP detected by ground radar since ATC personnel informed the

flight crew about it and if so was it squawking a transponder code? Why didn’t the jet’s TCAS

system signal an alarm or was it just not reported? Finally, if this was a UAV and passed this jet

as closely as was reported why wasn’t a formal near miss reported to the FAA? Or, could this

object have been a UAP?

In another recent unsettling incident, an unidentified object that looked like a “large remote

controlled aircraft” nearly collided with a private jet at 8,000 feet altitude near Denver, Colorado

on May 14, 2012 at 17:17 hrs. local time. The air-to-ground radio transmission made thirty

seconds later can be heard at: <LiveATC.net> The encounter was so brief that the flight crew

could not perceive any important critical details of the other object. Based on its description as

an aircraft it is probable that the object was a UAV of some kind.

Finally, according to a New York Office F.B.I. press release dated March 5, 2013, the flight

crew of Alitalia Flight 608 reported seeing a “small, unmanned aircraft while on approach to

John F. Kennedy International Airport” when they were about three miles from runway 31R.

The black UAV was about a yard in width with four propellers and came within 200 feet of the

jet which was at an altitude of about 1,750 feet. The critical details of this intruder vehicle,

which identified it as a UAV included its four propellers, wings, fuselage, and other airframe

details.

It is becoming ever clearer that UAV are going to pose an increasing threat to flight safety.

(Anon., 2013(c); Campbell, 2013) Investigators need to be able to discriminate them from

another class of poorly understood atmospheric phenomena that are not manmade.


11

Comparison of UAV and UAP

The main purpose of this paper is to provide a number of useful discriminating features of

UAV so that reports of alleged UAP may be compared with them and accurately identified if

possible. This section attempts such a comparison using the following eight basic features of

UAV.

Maximum Altitude. The unmanned solar powered prototype “Pathfinder Plus” UAV set a world

altitude record of 80,200 feet in 1997 which was exceeded three years later by the Helios

Prototype at 96,800 feet in 2001 (see Figure 3). It had a 247 ft. wing span but was only 12 ft.

long. Even on a clear, sunny day when seen from the side and at a distance of several miles it

probably would not have been particularly conspicuous from the ground with unaided vision due

to its small visual cross-section. Even when seen from directly below from the ground its tip-to-

tip wing span would have subtended an angle of only 8.76 minutes arc, a mere speck, when

flying at its record breaking altitude of 96,800 feet above the ground.

As will become apparent later, the great majority of current UAV operate at much lower

altitudes in order to carry out their various missions. Maximum altitude is integrally related to

flight endurance which varies widely in today’s UAV. Internal combustion engine aircraft

endurance depends primarily on the percentage of fuel burned as a fraction of total vehicle

weight (cf., Breguet equation). Thus, endurance is actually, almost independent of aircraft size.

Solar-electric UAVs like that shown in Figure 3 hold the potential for unlimited flight.

Figure 3

AeroVironment’s Helios Sunlight-Powered UAV in Flight

(Sponsored by NASA’s Environmental Research Aircraft & Sensor Technology program)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Helios_in_flight.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Helios_in_flight.jpg


12

Shape vs. Orientation. As the following photographic section should make clear there are

already a very large number of UAV shapes on drawing boards, in pre-flight testing, in the so-

called hobby market and in civilian and military operations. Each model possesses its own set of

critical visual details with which a viewer could tell it from another UAV shape if he or she had a

basis for such a visual comparison. Unfortunately, such a comparison ”identity chart” is not yet

available. As Figure 1 and 2 have shown, the direction from which the UAV is viewed can play a

crucial role both in identifying it and even seeing it at all. Four photos of the Golden Eye 100 at

different orientations in flight are found at: < http:www.aurora.aero/media/gallery/goldenEye50.aspx.

Silent or Very Quiet Hover and Flight. There are no UAVs at this time that can hover or fly in

absolute silence. The quietest are those using one or more electric motors and fans/propellers

such as the Draganflyer and the SQ-4 UAV. Depending on their distance, ambient noise levels,

and the hearing capabilities of the witness some UAVs may not be detected or identified as such

solely on the basis of their noise output. As Hall (2001) and others have documented most UAP

are either absolutely silent or very quiet, sometimes emitting only a low hum or buzzing sound.

And so the total lack of sounds can be a useful discriminator between UAV and UAP.

Size/Distance. Current UAV range in size from the Harvard Fly measuring one inch across to

the infamous Global Hawk RQ-4B UAV with a 131 foot wing span and gross weight of about

32,250 lbs. at take off! From a ground observational point of view, an obvious fact is that larger

UAV can be seen farther away than the same shaped but smaller object. If the shape of the UAV

is not familiar and the vehicle is farther away than the observer’s binocular depth perception

limit of about forty feet, then there can be no reliable visual basis for making an accurate size or

distance judgment.

Time Aloft/Range of Flight. All current UAV have finite (limited) flight endurance although

perpetual on station UAV are on the drawing board. Considering current UAV lift and

propulsion systems time aloft/ and range of flight is determined by how much fuel or battery

power can be carried on-board. When the duration of an average ground witness UAP sighting is

considered it is far shorter than the flight endurance of almost all current UAVs. Therefore,

viewing duration is not a reliable parameter to discriminate a UAV from a UAP.

No privately operated American “hobby class” UAVs (legally) may fly beyond line of sight

distances; they tend to have limited flight durations on the order of minutes rather than hours.

By comparison, military UAVs can carry far more fuel and can be controlled either by a line-of-

sight C-band link or a long-range Ku-band communications link to an orbiting satellite which

makes them remotely controllable from virtually any location on earth and for long periods of

time. As is noted in the following photographic section the Heron Machatz-1UAV can stay aloft

for 52 hours or longer.


13

Lighting at Night. Most small UAV use infrared (visible from the ground using night vision

goggles) strobing LEDs in the 740 to 850 nm wavelength range to serve as location beacons. So

far at least, the FAA requires that all such flights be operated in clear visibility (VFR) conditions.

Exterior lights on future nighttime UAV flights will probably be regulated in conformity with

FAA safety standards, or by exception. In addition, the FAA and most other U. S. government

agencies prefer “eyes-on” UAV flight control at all times within the National Airspace System.

That is, the UAV must stay within eye-shot. Thus, it is less likely that a UAV will be seen in

reduced visibility (weather) conditions and if it is its ground controller is likely to be nearer

rather than farther away.

Velocity/Acceleration/Range and Flight Characteristics. Specific UAV can travel over a wide

range of velocities as noted in the following photographic section. So can UAP (Hall, 2001). A

more discriminating question is that of vehicle acceleration. Needless to say, all UAV accelerate

at relatively low acceleration rates. In comparison U. S. Air Force radar contact with UAP has

documented extremely high acceleration rates. It should be noted that most small to medium

size UAV are primarily flown for visual surveillance purposes. As such, their typical flight

characteristics are based on slow “flat” turns with little roll in the airframe. This keeps the sensor

package nadir to the area of concern. Although stabilized gimbal mounted sensor packages are

becoming more prevalent, most smaller UAVs typically do not have such sophisticated support

hardware. Flight agility and maneuverability are not normally associated with UAV airframes.

Location of Sighting. It is probably reasonable to suggest that for the foreseeable future most

military, law enforcement agencies, and border protection units using UAV will be test flying

them either near where they are manufactured or at established testing areas such as Edwards

A.F.B., in California, Nellis A.F.B. in Nevada, or others. For example the maiden flight of an

unmanned F-16 took place on September 19, 2013 out of Tyndall A.F.B., Florida. It flew for 55

minutes at up to Mach 1.47 with loading as high as seven g.

But what about non-military developers of UAP? A recent FOIA request to the FAA

originating from the Electronic Frontier Foundation disclosed that more than fifty non-military

U. S. agencies have already applied for approval to test fly UAV. There are nearly twenty U. S.

colleagues and universities now officially linked with UAV design and development. For a

discussion of sixty three currently approved drone sites in America consult (Klimas, 2012).

Clearly, the U. S. public will be seeing an increasing number of UAV of all shapes, flight

performances, and sizes from now on.

Larger commercially developed UAV must obtain permission from the FAA in order to

conduct flight tests within pre-approved areas. (See Appendix 2 for a list of some current and

planned uses for UAV) Nearby residents may possibly see and report these aero-vehicles to be

UAP. As this class of UAV proliferates it will be seen virtually anywhere. Only through a careful


14

and systematic investigation will their true identity be discovered.

Considering small (hobby class) UAV, they will eventually appear almost anywhere in the

country and not only out of doors! It may be of interest to note that some small UAP already can

fly and hover quietly (but not silently) inside buildings. UAP (excluding ball lighting) are not

known to do this. Knowing this simple fact may help some field investigators.

When one can’t tell the difference between a UAV and a UAP the eye witness should merely

record as many of the visual and auditory details as possible for others to analyze.

Photographs and Selected Details of Various UAV Designs

This section presents photographs and related information on more than sixty current UAV

designs grouped into nine general categories. Another catalogue of UAV photographs is also

available (<http://www.theuav.com >). Some are one-of-a-kind (experimental/developmental)

models while others are in production and flying operationally. Data on their size, speed,

unusual shapes, and other characteristics are also noted (in no particular order).

Small UAV: (Nano- and Micro-Drones)

Without regard to a precise definition we will refer to small UAV as those that can be held in

one’s hand and/or hand-launched. The forms of most small UAV tend to follow their intended

function(s). So-called nano and micro-drones generally with the size and shape of insects and

small birds can hover almost silently nearby without being recognized for what they are. They

generate their own needed concealment and camouflage. They may carry a TV camera,

microphone, or other sensors along with a relatively short-range transmitter. Under some

viewing conditions these small UAV may be misidentified as larger and more common objects

(like insects or birds) farther away making their identification even more difficult. Controlled

swarms of many such small UAVs has already been demonstrated several times, e.g.,

< http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/future-drone-surveillance- swarms-cyborg-

insect… >

As the following photographs illustrate there is no clear boundary between the so-called

Nano-Drones that range in size from less than an inch to about an inch and the next larger class

called Micro-Drones. The number of both sizes that are now on drawing boards and have already

flown continues to grow very rapidly. Six examples are presented here to illustrate the wide

variety of shapes and means of propulsion that have been developed so far. (cf., Anderson, 2005)

In spite of their small size and payload capability they are used to carry out a variety of usually

covert surveillance missions. It can be pointed out, however, that the U.S.A.F. is developing

micro-drones that are “unobtrusive, pervasive, and lethal” according to Lennard (2013) (italics


15

ours). Further information is available at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/iniature_UAV >.

Needless to say, most nano- and micro-drones don’t make very much noise. It is unlikely that

any of them would be mistaken for much larger UAP for reasons discussed above. Indeed, most

UAP are not described as looking very much like terrestrial aero-technology.

Radio controlled “hobby-class” airplanes and so-called Do-it-Yourself (DIY) drones form

another sub-division of small UAV for which there are many dozens of available models: they

are not reviewed here. Most do not incorporate global positioning satellite (GPS) navigation

capabilities or elaborate sensing and telecommunication systems as do many of the UAV

reviewed here. (cf. < http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/_437_191_planes_parts-

fpv_models.html > <http://diydrones.com/profiles/blog/… >.

Photos of Nano- and Micro-Drones:

Two Views of the “Spy-Butterfly” Ornithopter

(Israel Aerospace Industries) Israel

8” wing span; 4 flapping wings; wt. 12 grams; color TV camera.

“Harvard Fly” Robo Insect Drone Festo Dragon Fly Drone

(Harvard Robotics Lab.) USA (BionicOpter) Germany

Approx. 1” span: transparent wings 17” long, weighs 6 oz., aluminum

flap 120 times a second; power is and plastic body; 4 flapping-twisting wings.

through a thin wire that trails it. www. networkworld.com/community/ blog/future-drone-

surveillance-cyborg-insect-drones)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/iniature_UAV

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/_437_191_planes_parts-fpv_models.html

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/_437_191_planes_parts-fpv_models.html


16

Black Hornet Nano Insect Drone

(Prox Dynamics, AS) Norway (C.I.A. Developmental) USA

4” long; wt. 0.5 oz; operational in 1.1” long, developed in 2007

Afghanistan today Said to carry a TV camera (http:/ /news.yahoo.com/uk-sends-hand-held

helicopter-drones-war-zone-101428321-finance. com)

Photos of Small Airplane Shaped UAV:

Pathfinder RQ-11 Raven BirdEye 100 (4)

(AeroVironment) USA (Israel Aerospace Industries) Israel

3’ long; 4’7” span; pusher prop; 2’ 7” long; 2’ 9” span; wt. 1.3 kg;

wt. 4.2 lbs.; range 6.2 mi.; speed range approx. 5 km; endur. 1 hr.

56 km./hr.; endur. 60-90 min. (www.livescience.com/16445-drones-unmanned- http://www.unmanned.co.uk/autonomous-unmanned-

aircraft-gallery.html ) vehicles/uavdata- specifications-fact-sheets..


17

Bird Eye 400 Orbiter 2

(Israel Aerospace Industries) Israel (Textron Corp, AIA) Israel

31.5” long; span 7’ 3”; wt. 12.3 lbs.; 3’3” long; 9’10” span; speed range.

endur. 80 min.; range 15 km. 30-70 kts.; max. alt.18,000 ft.; payload

3.3 lbs.; endur. 3–4 hrs.; pusher prop.

Searcher II Predator MQ-1B

(Israel Aerospace Industries-MALAT Div.) (General Atomics Corp.) USA

19’ long; 28’ span; wt. 436 kg.; 28.7 ft. long; 48.7 ft. span; ceiling 25,000 ft.;

endur. 16+ hrs.; range 150 km.; alt.18,500 ft. endur. approx. 40 hrs.; cruise speed 70 kts.;

turbo-pusher prop http://www.uadrones.net/military/research/acrobat/0302.pdf


18

Bixler II Night Flyer Boomerang

(Marcus UAV) USA (Bluebird Aero Systems) Israel

Referred to as a Do-it-Yourself drone 24’ 7” span; wt. 9 kg.; 2 kg. payload; ceiling

http://diydrones.ning.com/profile/marcusuav 9,750 ft.; endur. 7.5 hr.; range 50 km.

Hermes 450 Ursus

(ELBIT Systems) Israel (Marek Rokoski) Poland

20’ long; 34’ 5” span; max. speed 109 mph; 3.8’ long; 5’ 11” span; wt. 1,200 kg.;

ceiling 18,000 ft; endur. > 20 hrs.; pusher electrically driven pusher prop;

prop; introd. in 1998; 2 ea. used for U.S. foam parts (kit)

border patrol tests in 2004.


19

Cormorant (artist rendering) Eagle -2 (artist rendering)

(Lockheed Martin-Skunk Works) USA (EADS Dornier with IAI) Germany/Israel

Multipurpose Unmanned Air Vehicle (Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAV)

wt. 8,000 lbs; submarine launched, 42’ 8” long; 85’ 4” span; alt. 45,000 ft.;

contract cancelled in FY08 endur. 24 hrs.+; turbo-prop pusher

Zephyr 2 Micro Falcon

(Marcus UAV, Inc.) USA (Innocon Ltd.) Israel

54” span; wt. 4 lbs; speed 30-90 mph; 5’ 3” to 6’ 7” span; wt. 6–10 kg;

endur. 60 min. ceiling 15,000 ft; endur. < 3 hrs.;

payload 1 kg http://www.innoconltd.com/


20

Photos of Larger Airplane Shaped UAV:

Global Hawk RQ-4B Heron (Machatz-1)

(Northrup Grumman) USA (Israel Aerospace Industries-MALAT Div.)

(131’ span; gross wt. 32,250 lbs.) 54’5” span; 27’10” long; max. speed 130 mph;

range 217 mi.; endur. 52 hrs.; ceiling 32,800 ft.

Predator C/Avenge Anjian (Dark Sword)

(General Atomics Aeronautical Systems) (Shenyang Aircraft Co.) China

USA 41’ long; 66' wide; wt. approx. Concept model, Zhuhai Air Show, 2006, 2009

15,800 lbs.; speed 463 mph; ceiling 60,000 ft. http://english.people.com.cn/200705/30/eng20070530_379205.html


21

5–QF–4 Target Drone Harfang 2

(McDonnell Douglas Corp.) USA (EDS – IAI) Israel

63’ long; 39’ 3” span; max. speed 30’ 6” long; 54’ 6” span; max. speed

1,600 mph; payload >18,000 lbs.; 207 km/hr.; alt. 7,500 m.; endur. 24+ hrs.;

operational status since 1997. range 1,000 km.

USAF DS-21 Multirole M-011

(Lockheed Corp.) USA (Aerotekniikka) Finland

est. 19’ 6” span; mounted on top of SR-71 51’ long; 48’ 9” span; rotor

http:/ /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird diam. 10.2”; speed range 15 – 100 km/hr.;

endur. 60 min; mission radius 10 km.


22

Photos of Single Rotor Shaft Helicopter UAVs:

Intelli UFO II Naval Rotary NRUAV

(Manufacturer Name here) (IAI – Malat Division) Israel

3.5” height overall; approx. 1.6” diam. body; 42’ 2” long; 9’ 9” high; 36’2” main rotor;

5.5” diam. co-axial rotors; LOS infrared max. speed 100 kts.; wt. 2,200 kg; payload

transmitter; audible electric motor buzz. 220 kg.; alt. 15,000 ft.; range 150 km. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RKllgCyEfQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI-HAL_NRUAV

MQ-8B Fire Scout Boeing A-160 Hummingbird

(Northrup Grumman) USA (Boeing Co.) USA

24’ long; 9’8” high; 27’6” rotor diam.; wt. 35’ long; 36’ rotor diam.; wt. 2,500 lbs.;

2,073 lbs.; payload 600 lbs.; endur. 8 hrs. ceiling approx. 30,000 ft.; endur. 20+ hrs. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrup_Grumman_MQ-8_Fire_Scout www.en-wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing-A160_Hummingbird

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrup_Grumman_MQ-8_Fire_Scout

http://www.en-wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing-A160_Hummingbird


23

SVU-200 VTUAV Elicotterro i-SPY Pro – 300

(Ewatt Technology) China Hobby Class UAV

Heavy-lift multipurpose UAV Different models available; battery powered;

max. speed 209 km/hr.; payload 200 kg. www.choozen.it/nav-elicotteri-telecomandat,100

http://defense-update.com/20130813_chinese-unmanned-helicopter www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTISSTTkqMw

Photos of Double and Triple Rotor Helicopter UAVs:

IAI Ghost Rotary Mini-UAV OVIWUN

(Israel Aerospace Industries) Israel (Trek Aerospace Inc.) USA

4’ 9” long; 29.5” wide; wt. 9 lbs; 12” wide; 18” tall; 2 ea. 9” diam. ducts;

endur. 30 min. outdoor vel. 44 mph.; counter-rotating

fans www.trekaerospace.com/

http://www.choozen.it/nav-elicotteri-telecomandat,100

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTISSTTkqMw


24

Min-Panther (UAS) Draganflyer X6 Hexicopter

(Israel Aerospace Industries-MALAT Div.) (Draganfly Innovations, Inc.) USA

wt. 12 kg.; 2 ea. wing-mounted tilt rotors; 34.3” wide; 12.6” high; wt. 2.2 lbs.;

1 ea. fixed rotor for hovering; endur. 2 hrs.; climb 6.5 ft./sec.; turn rate 90 deg/sec.;

ultra-quiet motors. max. speed 30 mph; noise level @ 3m

away = 62 db.; introd. in 2008.

Photos of Quad-Rotor Helicopter UAVs:

MD4-3000 Microdrone MD-4 1000

(Microdrones GmbH) Germany (Microdrones GmbH) Germany

8” long; cruise speed 16m./sec.; ceiling 4,000 m.; 8” long;1.4” high; wt. 15 kg.; flt. radius

flight radius 50 km.; endur. approx. 45 min.; 50 km.; cruise speed 16 m./sec.

payload 200 g.

Aeryon Scout SQ-4

(Aeryon Labs. Inc.) Canada (BCB International, Ltd.) UK

Body 29” diam.; rotor diam. 29”; speed 31 9.5” x 9.5” x 4.3”; wt. 230 g.; speed 14.5

mph; climb rate: 6 ft./sec.; ceiling 1,000 ft. mph; range 4,900 ft.; relatively quiet. http://en-wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeryon_Scout


25

Photos of Planform, Delta, Stealth Shaped, Flying Wing UAVs:

X-45A Polecat P-175

(Boeing Phantom Works) USA (Lockheed Martin -Skunk Works) USA

26’6” long; 33’10” span; 6’ 8” high; 100’ long; 90’ span; wt. 9,000 lbs.;

wt. 8,000 lbs.; max. speed 571 mph; payload 1,000 lbs.; ceiling 65,000 ft.;

range 1,300 nm.; ceiling 40,000 ft. endur. 4 hrs.

First flt: 22 May 2002 Edwards AFB, CA.

X-45-J UCAV X-47-A Pegasus

(Boeing/DARPA) USA (Northrup Grumman) USA

39’ long; 49’ span; speed 0.8 Mach; (Front View above)

4,500 lbs. payload; 40,000 ft. ceiling; 19’7” long; 19’6” span; 6’ 1” high;

range 1,300 nm. wt. 3,836 lbs; max. speed: high subsonic

www.unmanned.co.uk/autonomous-unmanned-vehicles/uav/ ceiling 40,000+ ft.; range 1,500 + nm.;

maiden flt. 23 Feb. 2003


26

X-47-B X-47B (continued)

(Rear View at Take-off from Aircraft Carrier ) (Oblique View Downward-Wings folded).

First launch from aircraft carrier:14 May 2013. http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/15/navy-drones-next-test-x-47b...

X-50A RQ-3 Darkstar

(Boeing/DARPA) USA (Lockheed Martin) USA

Canard Rotor/Wing;

17’ 8” long; 8’11” span; 12’ rotor diam.; 15’ long; 69’ span; wt. 4,360 lbs.;

wt. 574 kg.; max. speed 435 mph; range 575 mi.; ceiling 45,000 ft.;

payload 91 kg. cruise speed 288 mph.; Program cancelled. www.unmanned.co.uk/autonomous-unmanned-vehicles/uav-da http://en.wikipeda.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ_3_DarkStar

http://www.unmanned.co.uk/autonomous-unmanned-vehicles/uav-da


27

RQ-3 Darkstar (continued) Harpias

Underside View from Rear. (Embraer SA (Brazil) & ELBIT Systems) Israel

(artist’s conception)

Pusher prop; uses aviation gas.

Taranis UAV Taranis UAV (continued)

(BAE Systems/GE Aviation/et al.) UK (artist conception)

37’ 2” long; 30’ span; 13’ high; Designed for offensive missions

wt. 18,000 lbs.; range intercontinental; Prototype flight tests scheduled

velocity supersonic. for late 2013 at Woomera, Australia. Gray, R., The Telegraph, 13 January 2013.


28

Phantom Ray Duct-Fan U

(Boeing-Defense, Space & Security) USA (artist conception).

36’ long; 50’ span; wt. 36,000 lbs.:

payload 4,500 lbs.; speed 614 mph.;

ceiling 40,000 ft. Aviation Week & Space Technology/June 13, 2011

RQ-170 Sentinal Ababil

(Lockheed Martin) USA (HESA Aviation Industries Organization) Iran

65’ 7” span; 14’ 9” long; 6’ high; 10’ 9” span; 45 kg payload; endur. 1.5+ hrs.;

wt. < 8,500 lbs.; ceiling <50,000 ft. range 150 mi.; ceiling 14,000 ft. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinal www.unmanned.co.uk/unmanned-vehicles-news/unmanned-aerial...

nEUROn Harop UAV

(Dassault) France (Israel Aerospace Industries -Malat Div.)

30’ 4” span; wt. 6,000 kg; ceiling 8’ 2” long; 9’10” span; range 625 mi.;

51,000 ft; range 1,200 nmi.; endur. 3 hrs. endur. 6 hrs.; 51 lb. (warhead) payload.


29

Harop UAV (continued)

(Side View-Nose to Right)

Expendable vehicle designed to

destroy radar systems; pusher prop.

Photos of Cylindrical Ducted Fan VTOL UAVs:

HeliSpy II VTOL iSTAR UAV

(Micro Autonomous Systems, LLC) USA (Allied Aerospace Industries, Inc.) USA

27” high; 11” diam.; wt. 4.5 lb.; speed 29” diam; endur. est. 1 hr.; medium freq.

75 mph; endur. 30 min.; flies in noise; max. speed 60-100 kts.; current

vertical orientation and at 60 deg. status unknown (as of 2009).

tilt at high forward speed.


30

Cypher II “Dragon Warrior” Sky Agent !

(Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.) USA (artists drawing)

6’ 2” diam.; 2’ high (body); 4’ rotor

diam.; wt. 264 lbs.; max. speed 145

mph; range 115+ mi.; endur. 2-3 hrs.

T-Hawk MAV VTOL Golden Eye 100 VTOL

(Honeywell,) USA (Aurora Flight Sciences Corp./DARPA) USA;

wt. < 20 lbs. (back-packable); speed 50 5’ 6” tall; 10’ span; wt.105 lbs.; range

mph; ceiling 10,000 ft.; endur. 46 min. 620 mi.; max. speed 185 m/hr. www.unmanned.co.uk/autonomousunmanned-vehicles/uav-da...


31

CL-327 Guardian GAUI 330X Quad-Flyer

(Canadair – U.S. Navy) Canada (Designer: Choi Wa Fung) China

6’ high; 13’1” rotor diam.; wt. 33 lbs.; Approx. 14” diam.; 5” high;

max. speed: 85 kts.; endur. 6.25 hrs.; rng. Row of blue LEDs around circumference,

200 105 kg payload; 1500 ft/min climb; Hobby-class UAV.

18,000’ ceiling; in production 1996. (For video see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHQ4URDTTdA

No Photograph Available

Photos of Miscellaneous UAV Shapes:

Black Widow BugBot (artists drawing)

(AeroVironment/DARPA) USA (Air Vehicle Directorate, USAF) USA

6” wide; endur. 30 min.; wt. 3 oz.; Conceptual designs may crawl and fly with

vel. 20m./sec.; rng. 1.8 km.; 769 ft. alt. autonomous guidance capabilities. http://defense-update.com/products/b/black-widow.htm http://www.dailymail.com.uk/news/article-2281403/U-S-Air-Force-...


32

Summary

Unless something basic has been overlooked in this overview it seems reasonable to assert

that none of the UAV that are reviewed here are able to disappear suddenly from sight, execute

instantaneous ninety degree (or other angles) turns, accelerate at extremely high speeds, hover in

complete silence or perform small, constant radius somersaults or corkscrew flight around a

single point, suddenly change shape or size (without changing their orientation or distance from

the viewer) - all of which UAP have been reported to be able to do. So far at least all UAV use

well understood aerodynamic principles. Some of the smaller UAV carry colored lights, produce

a wide range of noises from a low electric-motor hum to intense turbo-jet exhaust, and even fly

in tight and complex, varying formations with other UAV. But no UAV are yet capable of

mimicking extreme UAP flight behaviors nor can most of them outfly jet interceptors. In short,

while some of the more recent UAP sighting reports may have been caused by seeing an

unfamiliar UAV (e.g., cylindrical, ducted fan, VTOL models) it is unlikely that very many

reports have been so caused. This is bound to change in the near future. It is hoped that this

review may help keep UAV from being misidentified as UAP.

References

Aerospace America – 2013 Supplement, < http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/

AerospaceAmerica-PDFs-2013/July-August-2013/2013 >

Anderson, G., Fundamental Physics of Micro Air Vehicles: Challenges and Opportunities.

< http://teaming.sysplan.com/NAV/presentations/ganderson.pdf > 29 September 2005.

Anon., Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles. Aviation Week & Space Technology, Pp. 72-74, January

23/30, 2012.

Anon., < http:/ /news.yahoo.com/uk-sends-hand-held-helicopter-drpones-war-zone-

101428321… > 2013(a).

Anon., < swampland.time.com/2013/09/24/look-ma-no-pilot >, 2013(b).

Anon, Brazilian UFO Caused by Drone; Unmanned Aircraft Causing Rise in UFO Sightings

(VIDEO). < www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/ufo-over-brazil-protest-2013

drone_n_3474842.html > June 21, 2013(c).

Anon, www.icao.int/Meetings/UAS/Documents/Circular%20328_en.pdf (cf. pg. 2).

http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/%20%20%20%20%20%09AerospaceAmerica-PDFs-2013/July-August-2013/2013

http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/%20%20%20%20%20%09AerospaceAmerica-PDFs-2013/July-August-2013/2013

http://teaming.sysplan.com/NAV/presentations/ganderson.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/ufo-over-brazil-protest-2013

http://www.icao.int/Meetings/UAS/Documents/Circular%20328_en.pdf


33

Campbell, A., Brazilian UFO Caused By Drone; Unmanned Aircraft Causing Rise In UFO

Sightings (VIDEO). < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/ufo-over-brazil-

protest-2013-drone_n_3474842.html > 2013.

Catoe, L.E., UFOs and Related Subjects: An Annotated Bibliography. Library of Congress,

Science and Technology Division, Washington, D.C., 1969.

Clark, J., The UFO Encyclopedia. Three volumes, Apogee Books, Detroit, MI, 1990.

Clark, J., Strange Skies: Pilot Encounters with UFOs. Citadel Press, New York, 2003.

Dolan R.M., UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up 1941 – 1973.

Keyhole Publ. Co., 2000.

Ferguson, C.D., Encuentros entre Pilotos y OVNIs en Argentina. Editorial Dunke, Buenos

Aires, 2012.

Fulghum, D., UAS Demand is Solid. Aviation Week & Space Technology, Pp. 72-74, January

23/30, 2012.

Garrido, R.B. and J.C. Cornejo, Ufologia Aeronautica: Un Nuevo Concepto en el Estudio de

Los OVNIs. MAGO Editores, Santiago, Chile, 2010.

Goldman, M., Congress, the FAA, and the Future of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS),

www.sgbdc.com/UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.doc.pdf, April 2012.

Guzman, C.A., and A. Salazar Mendoza, Los OVNIs y la Aviacion Mexicana: 50 Anos de

Encuentros con OVNIs en el Espacio Aereo Mexicano. Grupo Editorial Tomo, S.A.

de C.V. Mexico City, 2001.

Haines, R.F., UFO Appearance Recognition and Identification Test Procedure. UFO Pheno-

mena, vol. 1, no. 1, Pp. 39-54, Editecs, Italy, 1976.

Haines, R.F., UFO Shapes. In Story, R.D. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of UFOs. Doubleday,

Garden City, N.Y., 1979(a).

Haines, R.F., What do UFO Drawings by Alleged Eyewitnesses and Non-Eyewitnesses Have

in Common? Chpt. 12 in Haines, R.F. (Ed.), UFO Phenomena and the Behavioral

Scientist. The Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, N.J., 1979(b).

http://www.sgbdc.com/UNMANNED%20AIRCRAFT%20SYSTEMS.doc.pdf


34

Haines, R.F., A Review of Selected Aerial Phenomenon Sightings from Aircraft from 1942 to

1952. Pp. 14–44, In Proceedings of the 1983 annual MUFON UFO Symposium,

Pasadena, California, July 1-3, 1983.

Haines, R.F., Aviation Safety in America: A Previously Neglected Factor. National Aviation

Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, TR-1, October 2000.

Haines, R.F., K. Efishoff, D. Ledger, L. Lemke, S. Maranto, W. Puckett, T. Roe, M. Shough,

and R. Uriarte, Report of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon and its Safety Impli-

cations at O’Hare International Airport on November 7, 2006. National Aviation

Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, TR-10, March 2007.

Haines, R.F., K. Amamya, V-J Ballester-Olmos, R. Chola, K. Efishoff, J. English, C. Guzman,

D. Lee, L. Lemke, T. Osborn, T. Roe, A. Salazar, M. Shough, R. Spalding, M. Teodorani,

and D. Weinstein, Spherical UAP and Aviation Safety: A Critical Review. National

Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, TR-14, April 2010(a).

Haines, R.F., Foundations for a Taxonomy of UAP Shapes. Section 5.2 In Spherical

UAP and Aviation Safety: A Critical Review. National Aviation Reporting Center on

Anomalous Phenomena, TR-14, April 2010(b).

Haines, R.F., Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and Flight Safety: There is a Relationship.

Invited lecture to Air and Space Academy, Paris, France, September 2012(a).

Haines, R.F., Jumbo Jet Encounters UAP Soon After Take-off from LAX on September 27,

1996. National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, TR-15, July

8, 2012(b).

Hall, R.H., The UFO Evidence: A Thirty-Year Report. Vol. II, Scarecrow Press, Inc., Lanham,

Maryland, 2001.

Hynek, J.A., The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry. Ballantine Books, New York, 1972.

Karim, U. http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/34032-uavs-new-smart-weapon.html,

2009.

Klimas, L., Where Are the 63 Drone Sites Approved by the FAA in the U.S.? TheBlaze, April

24, 2012.

Leishman, J.G., A History of Helicopter Flight. < http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~leishman/Aero/

history.html > 2000.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/34032-uavs-new-smart-weapon.html


35

Lennard, N., Micro-drones will “hide in plain sight.” Feb. 19, 2013 < http://www.salon.com/

2013/02/19/microdrones_will_hide_in_pain_sight/ >

Myhra, D., The Horten Brothers and Their All-Wing Aircraft. Schiffer Publ. Ltd., Atglen, PA,

1998.

NOVA, The Rise of the Drones. (52 min. documentary), < http://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=

1#inbox/13c7f5465e8a4a9f > 2012.

Olsen, T.M., The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports. UFO Information Retrieval

Center, Inc., Riderwood, MD, 1966.

Osborn, T.J., A Review of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Designs and Operational Characteristics.

National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, TR-11, 2009.

Popular Science, Aerobot Invasion. < http:// www.popsci.com/announcements/article/210-02/

march-2010-issue-aerobot-invasion. > 2010.

Popular Science, The Present and Future of Unmanned Drone Aircraft: An Illustrated Field

Guide. 7/14/2012. Lists 54 countries currently designing and/or manufacturing UAV

and model names within each country, 2012.

Randles, J., UFO! Danger in the Air. Sterling Publ. Co., New York, 1998.

Reynish, W., UAVs Entering the NAS. < w ww.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/bga/UAVs-

Entering-the-NAS_1139.html > 2004.

Sato, M., A True Record: UFO Close Encounters by Self-Defense Force Pilots. Kodan-sha,

Tokyo, Japan, 2013.

Shough, M., Radar Catalogue: A Review of Twenty One Ground and Airborne Radar UAP

Contact Reports Generally Related to Aviation Safety for the Period October 15, 1948

to September 19, 1976. National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena,

TR-6, 2002.

Smith, W., On Pilots and UFOs: A Collection of Interesting Cases from the Blue Book Files

and the Spanish Air Force Records. UNICAT Project, Privately published, Florida,1997.

Vallee, J., Anatomy of a Phenomenon: Unidentified Objects in Space – A Scientific Appraisal.

Henry Regnery Publ., Chicago, 1965.


36

Weatherington, D., Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap, 2005-2030. < http://www.uavm.

com/images/Weatherington.pdf > 2005.

Weinstein, D. F., Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Reported by Military and Civilian Pilots from

1946 to 2010. 3rd

. edition, AIRPANC Report, Paris, France, 2011.

Whitehead, J.W., Roaches, Mosquites, and Birds: The Coming Micro-Drone Revolution.

< http://original.antwar.com/jwhitehead/2013/4/17/roaches-mosquitoes…. > 2013.

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_umanned_aerial_vehicles 2012.

Wikipedia, < www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_UAV> 2013.

Yale Global Forums, Greater UAVs Diversity. (Pp. 19)

http://forums.yaleglobal.yale.edu/thread.jspa?threadID=1614, March 6, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_umanned_aerial_vehicles

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_UAV

http://forums.yaleglobal.yale.edu/thread.jspa?threadID=1614


37

Appendix 1

Names Assigned to UAV

One need only review the following long list of current UAV model names (as of late 2013)

to realize that this aero-technology market is still in a feeding frenzy of military defense (and

other government and private source) funding not only in the U.S.A. but also in scores of other

countries as well. Lists of past and present UAV are available elsewhere (Fulghum, 2012;

Popular Science, uavforum.com, 2012; Wikipedia, 2012).

Following are some of the names given to UAV: Many illustrate attempts to come up with

suitable marketing names that adequately describe the mission, shape, and/or operational

capability of the UAV.

Primary Name or Acronym Associated/Sub-Names

___________________________________________________________________________

Aerobot

Aerostat tethered, joint land attack elevated netted

sensor, rapid aerostat initial deployment

Aerocopter tricopter-, quadcopter-

Airship

Autonomous Helicopter

Blimp Lighter-than-air craft

CUAV Clantestine Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Copter cam-, quad- (Nano-, black hornet)

Dirigible

Drone bird-, cyborg-, dragonfly-,

hummingbird-, insect-, micro-,

microBat-, mosquito-, raven-,

roach-, roachbot-, samarai-,

spy-butterfly-, switchblade-,


38

Flying Robot(s) flybot

HAA High Altitude Airship

HALE High Altitude/Long Endurance

J-UCAS Joint Unmanned Combat Air System

LALE Low Altitude/Long Endurance UAV

MALE Medium Altitude/Long Endurance UAV

MALE-EP Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAV – Extreme Persistance

MAV Micro (or Minature) Air Vehicle

MM/MR Multimission/Multirole UAV

MPUAV Multi-Purpose Unmanned Air Vehicle

M/UAV Optionally Manned or Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

NAV Nano Air Vehicle

NRUAV Naval Rotary Unmanned Air Vehicle

NUAS nano Unmanned Aerial System

OAV Organic Aerial Vehicle

Ornithopter (flapping wings)

OPV Optionally Piloted Vehicle

OUAS Operational Unmanned Aerial System

ROA Remotely Operated Aircraft

RPA Remotely Piloted Aircraft

RPV Remotely Piloted Vehicle(s)

sUAS small Unmanned Aerial System(s)

STUAS Small Tactical Unmanned Air System


39

Sub Tac Sub-Tactical UAV

TUAV Tactical UAV

UCAS Unmanned Combat Air System

UCAV Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle

UA Unmanned Aircraft

UAS Unmanned Aerial System(s), Unmanned Aircraft System(s)

VTOL UAS Vertical Takeoff/Landing Unmanned Air System ROTORWing

_______________________________________________________________________


40

Appendix 2

Partial List of Present and Planned Future UAV Missions

Weatherington, (2005) a former deputy director of the Department of Defense’s unmanned

aerial vehicle planning task force, stated that unmanned systems are well suited for “information,

surveillance and reconnaissance” missions at the tactical level. Someone else has suggested that

UAVs are fit for missions that are dirty, dangerous and dull. However one might put it, we can

note how our thinking about remotely controlled aero-vehicles has expanded and matured in the

last decade! Fully effective integrated missions of all kinds (military, civilian, and private) call

for a highly reliable aero-vehicle, command – control - communication (CCC) system, on-board

high resolution sensor systems, uninterruptable down- (and up-) link capability, ground support

personnel and operational logistics, and well trained operators (pilots). In short, UAV are

constantly changing and growing into mature aero-systems with tremendous potential for the

future. Debate continues to rage over the issue of invasion of personal privacy in America posed

by this new technology.

Table 2 presents an abbreviated list of current and future uses for UAV. This list is

expanding almost daily and so cannot be considered up to date; it emphasizes the increasing

difficulty eye witnesses on the ground and in the air will have in trying to accurately identify

them either as a man-made UAV or a UAP of some kind.

It is likely that their presence in our skies will become almost ubiguitous and eventually

accepted into our way of life as telephones and automobiles are today. At some time in the future

it may be nearly impossible to accurately discriminate a UAV from a UAP solely on the basis of

its shape; this will be more true when UAV designers mimic visual features of UAP in their

designs that have been reported for many decades. When that happens, UAP research will

become far more difficult than it now is. Hopefully by then UAP research it will have been

supplemented by more scientifically based sensing and identification means.

When UAP investigators are aware of the kinds of missions UAV are able to perform this

knowledge may help them to eliminate UAV as the cause of a sighting report.


41

Table 2

Partial List of Present and Future Planned UAV Uses

______________________________________________________________________

Primary Developer/User (Uses)

______________________________________________________________________

Department of Defense

Antipersonnel operations (remote tagging/incapacitation) (chiefly using

so-called insect drones)

Antiradar loitering attack drone

Battlefield resupply

Cargo transfer

Communications (SIGINT) (radio link/repeater) transfer station

Convoy route clearance/surveillance

Damage assessment in war zones

GPS to target rectification

Hostage rescue support

Mapping/tactical operations planning

Minefield reconnaissance/detonation in war zone

Naval early warning detection

Obstacle field navigation (OFN)

Safe landing area determination (SLAD)

Stealth/radar detection calibration

Surveillance (at all levels of operations)

Weapons/stores aiming/delivery (target acquisition/artillery adjustment)

Federal (Civil) Government

Airport operations safety (bird density; terrorist tracking)

Biological/chemical agent detection

Border (U.S.) surveillance/tracking//control

Civil espionage/terrorist monitoring (cf. Yale Forum, 2009, pg. 9)

Coastline survey/erosion monitoring

Dangerous situation monitoring (radioactivity and heat at nuclear plants;

rock and snow slides; downed power lines)

Environmental Monitoring

Air pollutant monitoring

Crop health monitoring

Disaster planning and triage

Extreme weather damage/pre-planning/etc.


42

Geophysical surveying

Illegal crop detection/mitigation

Monitoring toxic spills/remedial (clean-up) operations

Wildlife biology (counting fish nets, nighttime anti-poaching monitoring)

Maritime/Sea life observation and protection

Protecting human life – law enforcement

Public gathering - monitoring/recording/control

Remote wildlife counting/monitoring

Smuggling detection/subsequent interdiction operations

Transportation security

Weather monitoring (hurricane (etc.) watch)

State/Local Government

Combat graffiti and other acts of vandalism

Communication nodes/GPS (for Incident Commanders, others)

Counter-drug operations

Criminal surveillance/tracking

Forest fire regional monitoring/strategic planning, post-fire damage assessment

Hostage negotiations (using microphone/speaker installation)

Law Enforcement/Public Safety Agencies/First Responders (deploying tasers,

tear gas, etc.), monitoring gang activities.

Local Fire Department activity support (people trapped inside burning buildings;

remote fire responder communications radio relay)

Traffic flow/accident monitoring

Commercial Uses/Service Providers

Advertising

Cargo transport

Crop dusting

Environmental (air) sampling (factory emissions, etc.)

Food/medicine delivery

Geophysical surveys for commercial applications

Insurance companies (pre- and post disaster/damage assessment)

Meteorological monitoring/reporting services

Movie industry filming

Pipeline inspection

Real estate research and planning (e.g., local lot topography, platting, drainage,

advertising photography)

Television news coverage

Theme park ride (virtual) imagery generation


43

Travel/transportation support (e.g., guiding university/college students around

a large campus)

Private

Civil rights organizations (monitoring police actions)

game hunting (prey sensing, position reporting)

Model/hobby/recreational airplane sport(s) (must remain below 400 ft.

AGL; FAA Advisory Circular 91-57)

Monitoring actions/behavior of public officials

Sports venue pictures

______________________________________________________________________

Footnotes:

1. Whitehead in a 2013 article titled “Roaches, Mosquitoes, and Birds: The Coming

Micro-Drone Revolution” discusses a number of different types of micro-drones. They

include cyborg drones (a U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

concept) that would, through genetic engineering, change insects into “cyborgs” for use

in surveillance purposes. Dragonfly drones (another DARPA project) are generally in

the shape of dragonflys. A photograph of the BionicOpter model Dragon Fly Drone is

shown above. Other examples of microdrones include the Nano Hummingbird

(another DARPA project), Nano-Quadrators (University of Pennsylvania) uses four

small propellors, Black Hornet nano-drone (manufactured by Prox Dynamics AS, in

Norway) four inches long (Anon, 2013a). See photo in section above. Samarii Drone

(Lockheed Martin), fashioned after the general shape and dynamics of a maple seed. It

can fly at high speeds, move vertically, and can be launched from the ground. Spy-

Butterfly Drone (Israel) eight inch span with four flapping wings. See two views

of this drone in the above section. Switchblade Drone

narcap_TOP-05_10-10-13.docx