Comments on: Air Disaster in 1962

By: MattBille

MattBille — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:41:25 +0000

With all due respect to Mr. Hall (a prodigious and dedicated researcher of the first order), I’ve never been impressed by the Thunderbird body of evidence: birders should have logged many sightings and, more important, many photos and videos by now. Any out-of-place specimen, even a single sparrow-sized bird, gets spotted and photographed quickly. While birding magazines (as Hall has noted) are unikely to carry such reports, a significant subset of these folks would have captured images and talked to local papers, and, in the last couple of decades, would have put images on the Internet.
Granted, the Viscount crash seems peculiar. You wouldn’t think that a single bird, even a large one like a goose or swan, would cause such a crash unless it went through the cockpit windshield or into the jet intake (the Viscount was a turboprop and thus did have such intakes, but that’s not where the bird hit).
However, it is a fact that a larger, more rugged aircraft, a B-1B bomber, was downed by impact of a single pelican on the leading edge of the wing.
(BTW, the force in any such collision depends on relative velocity and angle of impact as well as the bird’s mass. The bomber was going 560 knots at the time, subsonic but faster than Viscount 745, which topped out around 300 knots.) The B-1B was designed to withstand nuclear shockwaves as well as proximity explosions of conventional SAM warheads.)

Taking into account the similarities and differences with the B-1B crash, the Viscount loss must have been the result of a nearly “perfect” strike (bird hits head-on) but does not cross over into the inexplicable. I do wonder if there was some preexisting damage or defect in the tail section of the Viscount. (I’m looking for my copy of Robert J. Serling’s 1970 aviaition safety book “Loud and Clear,” which I recall as having some details on this crash.)

By: archer1945

archer1945 — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:58:17 +0000

It’s too bad no one had the foresight to save the remains for future study. It might prove very interesting if we could now run DNA tests on them.

I think the CAB came up with the swan story just to keep the media off their backs. Remember in 1962 probably a number of these investigators had been in WWII and had seen what kind of damage the B17s were able to take in the tail and still fly. So I think the swan story was just a cover.

Another hole in the swan story is that if there was a flock of birds in front of them the pilots probably would have seen it and made a report, probably would have maneuvered away from it. Pilots have steered clear of flocks of birds as long as there have been planes in the air. Also if it had been a flock of swans why was the plane only hit by one, the props should have pulled several right thru them with damage to them which would have left traces. Not to mention birds impacting the fuselage.

By: HOOSIERHUNTER

HOOSIERHUNTER — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:04:51 +0000

According to a website on plane crashes in 1962,
“The aircraft penetrated a flock of Whistling Swans at 6000 ft. One, estimated to be 13 pounds, struck the leading edge of the left horizontal stabilizer, weakening the structure and causing it to detach. The aircraft lost control and broke up in mid-air and crashed.”
The site is: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1962/1962.htm

By: Kronprinz_adam

Kronprinz_adam — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:57:50 +0000

Dear sirs.
I think there should be witnesses of these birds also in Mexico and Guatemala. Do they migrate?
A friend from my dad told us some years ago, that he had seen a frightful black-jet giant bird in a foot expedition to the mountains in western Guatemala. He likes wandering a lot into the woods, and he went with an small group. A woman was walking ahead, but she suddenly returned quite shocked, to tell the others about her sighting. The others shortly saw a huge raptor sitting on a tree, so heavy that the tree was trembling, and it was “shouting” loud also.
They didn’t stay any longer and returnet immediately.
Later my dad told me the story, what does this bird could be? This friend was in southamerican zoos, and he had seen some captive condors. He told us, that the bird was bigger. I suggested a Thunderbird, because I have read about them in cryptozoology books. An older friend, who liked birdwatching a lot, suggested an out-of-place californian condor. But since I saw Monsterquest, I can only think in one beast: Birdzilla.

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:27:31 +0000

It is conceivable that it could happen. If there are indeed Thunderbirds migrating in the skies, it is quite plausible that there could be close calls/collisions, or even evasions by pilots or birds that could cause troubles in the skies.

I would guess the number of Thunderbirds, while there must be a viable breeding population, would still be minimal or we would probably be aware of them more frequently.

Having said that, I think that it is very likely that such a bird could exist in our skies. The first argument I hear stirring is the classic, ‘well if they were there, we would see them.’

Sure. But then again, would we? I think about myself when I’m driving down the road and just how often I actually take note of things in the sky. While I will notice a plane, helicopter, etc., I also do not take much time to “See” the thing. I often take note and move on. Is it possible that Thunderbirds do fly over and that most people miss them, caught up in driving, their own thoughts, or just not being observant?

And again, estimating sizes of things in the sky is really difficult unless you have had some serious practice or training. If you saw something big in the sky, especially the size of a small plane, would it not be easy to just assume it was a plane? Especially if it was flying really high?

(I would ask Mark Hall here. I do not know a lot about the habits of birds, but I am going to guess that they have an altitude range that they fly in. Is it different for larger birds? If so, is it possible or even likely that a Thunderbird of immense size might fly higher in the sky than smaller birds? OR am I just ignorant of the facts?:)

The other thing is that even if you saw a big bird, even a really big bird (as in larger than your average bald eagle), would you say anything to anyone other than, “Whoa, I saw a really big bird today?”

Now, me, sure I would. I am cued into this type of thing and I would probably notice a bird with a wing span of greater than 10-15 feet, but most people might not really think too hard about it.

And the other part of the equation is: if there are thunderbirds, and if they get to be around 10-20 foot wingspans (I’ve read Mark’s book, but the details are eluding my brain pan, and my books are packed at the moment, so forgive my errors in details), how long does it take a Thunderbird to reach maturation and full adult size? The reason I ask, is that might we not be seeing thunderbirds in the skies and just not know it because they are not full grown yet? Is it possible people might have seen or be seeing such things and because they are not full grown they are mistaken for other birds of prey?

I am just throwing this up for food for thought to all of you, posing questions and hoping someone will give some answers that will help us all decide if it is plausible.

Whether I’m right or wrong, I have cast enough stones to make it plausible…or have I?

By: korollocke

korollocke — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:30:30 +0000

Maybe Sam Arkoff was inspired by this event…