A Navy TBM torpedo bomber pilot chased a dome-shaped circular white object, about 40 feet across, over an airfield for over two minutes. It departed by rapidly flying away until lost to sight. (Zeitvogel, Lt. James R).

Ruppelt's account:

The morning before, on January 21, a Navy pilot had taken off from Mitchel in a TBM. He was a lieutenant commander, had flown in World War II, and was now an engineer at the Navy Special Devices Center on Long Island. At nine-fifty he had cleared the traffic pattern and was at about 2,500 feet, circling around the airfield. He was southeast of the field when he first noticed an object below him and "about three runway lengths off the end of Runway 30." The object looked like the top of a parachute canopy, he told me; it was white and he thought he could see the wedges or panels. He said that he thought that it was moving across the ground a little bit too fast to be drifting with wind, but he was sure that somebody had bailed out and that he was looking at the top of his parachute. He was just ready to call the tower when he suddenly realized that this "parachute" was drifting across the wind. He had just taken off from Runway 30 and knew which direction the wind was blowing.

As he watched, the object, whatever it was (by now he no longer thought that it was a parachute), began to gradually climb, so he started to climb, he said, staying above and off to the right of the object. When the UFO started to make a left turn, he followed and tried to cut inside, but he overshot and passed over it. It continued to turn and gain speed, so he dropped the nose of the TBM, put on more power, and pulled in behind the object, which was now level with him. In a matter of seconds the UFO made a 180-degree turn and started to make a big swing around the northern edge of Mitchel AFB. The pilot tried to follow, but the UFO had begun to accelerate rapidly, and since a TBM leaves much to be desired on the speed end, he was getting farther and farther behind. But he did try to follow it as long as he could. As he made a wide turn around the northern edge of the airfield he saw that the UFO was now turning south. He racked the TBM up into a tight left turn to follow, but in a few seconds the UFO had disappeared. When he last saw it, it had crossed the Long Island coast line near Freeport and it was heading out to sea.

When he finished his account of the chase, I asked the commander some specific questions about the UFO. He said that just after he'd decided that the UFO was not a parachute it appeared to be at an altitude of about 200 to 300 feet over a residential section. From the time it took it to cover a city block, he'd estimated that it was traveling about 300 miles an hour. Even when he pulled in behind the object and got a good look, it still looked like a parachute canopy-- dome-shaped--white--and it had a dark undersurface. It had been in sight two and a half minutes.

He had called the control tower at Mitchel during the chase, he told me, but only to ask if any balloons had been launched. He thought that he might be seeing a balloon. The tower had told him that there was a balloon in the area.

Then the commander took out an aeronautical chart and drew in his flight path and the apparent path of the UFO for me. I think that he drew it accurately because he had been continually watching landmarks as he'd chased the UFO and was very careful as he drew the sketches on the map.

I checked with the weather detachment at Mitchel and they said that they had released a balloon. They had released it at nine-fifty and from a point southeast of the airfield. I got a plot of its path. Just as in the Long Beach Incident, where the six F-86's tried to intercept the UFO, the balloon was almost exactly in line with the spot where the UFO was first seen, but then any proof you might attempt falls apart. If the pilot knew where he was, and had plotted his flight path even semi-accurately, he was never over the balloon. Yet he was over the UFO. He came within less than 2,000 feet of the UFO when he passed over it; yet he couldn't recognize it as a balloon even though he thought it might be a balloon since the tower had just told him that there was one in the area. He said that he followed the UFO around the north edge of the airfield. Yet the balloon, after it was launched southeast of the field, continued on a southeast course and never passed north of the airfield.

But the biggest argument against the object's being a balloon was the fact that the pilot pulled in behind it; it was directly off the nose of his airplane, and although he followed it for more than a minute, it pulled away from him. Once you line up an airplane on a balloon and go straight toward it you will catch it in a matter of seconds, even in the slowest airplane. There have been dogfights with UFO's where the UFO's turned out to be balloons, but the pilots always reported that the UFO "made a pass" at them. In other words, they rapidly caught up with the balloon and passed it. I questioned this pilot over and over on this one point, and he was positive that he had followed directly behind the UFO for over a minute and all the time it was pulling away from him.

This is one of the most typical UFO reports we had in our files. It is typical because no matter how you argue there isn't any definite answer. If you want to argue that the pilot didn't know where he was during the chase--that he was 3 or 4 miles from where he thought he was--that he never did fly around the northern edge of the field and get in behind the UFO--then the UFO could have been a balloon.

But if you want to believe that the pilot knew where he was all during the chase, and he did have several thousand hours of flying time, then all you can conclude is that the UFO was an unknown.

I think the pilot summed up the situation very aptly when he told me, "I don't know what it was, but I've never seen anything like it before or since--maybe it was a spaceship."

I went back to Dayton stumped--maybe it was a spaceship.

I. DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

At approximately 0950 EST on 21 January 1952, a US Navy pilot flying a TBM aircraft sighted an unidentified object southeast of Mitchel AFB. The TBM was on a heading at approximately 4-5°, When first noticed, the object was low at an angle of about 4-5° from the aircraft. The location of the aircraft was about three runway lengths from the end of, and lined up with, Runway #30 (300°). The object appeared to be halfway between the aircraft and the end of the runway. The pilot's first impression was that the object was a parachute and he thinks he noticed wedge or pie-shaped segregations on the top, however, he realized that the object was going cross-wind and that it could not be a drifting parachute. He judged the angular size to be the same as the angle subtended by a house on the ground and by watching the object cover the equivalent of a city block. He judged the speed to be 300 knots. He judged the altitude to be 200-300 feet. It appeared to be on a course of about 225°•

The pilot started a left turn in an attempt to identify the object. He states that he kept the airspeed of the TBM at about 160 knots and kept a nearly constant altitude of 6000 ft„ all during the turn. He estimated that he was pulling from two to three G's in the turn. At one point near position #3 of the aircraft he had to increase his angle of bank to nearly 90° to keep the object from disappearing under the wing of the aircraft.

The pilot 's version of the attempted intercept is shown on the inclosed overlay. He stated that the paths shown are not exact due to the fact that he was concentrating on the object and not his position, although he occasionally looked at the airfield to get reference points.

The object stayed below the TBM during most of the time it was in sight. When the aircraft was somewhere near position U, the object appeared to start a rapid climb, accelerating to an estimated 500 knots, and when it was at an angle of about 10° above the pilot's horizontal line of vision, it disappeared. When the object disappeared, the TBM was near position #5. The object did not diminish in apparent size except possibly near the end of the chase, it just disappeared.

The pilot was very positive in his statement that when he was north of Mitchel AFB he could see the object. The course on which the object disappeared was established by lining up the aircraft with the apparent path of object and reading the compass.

The object appeared to be dome-shaped, or similar to the vertical cross-section of a parachute canopy. The top was light colored, "like nylon", and the under-surface was dark. It had a length to depth ratio of about 1:3.

While the object was in level flight it appeared to oscillate with a slow period.

The total time elapsed was estimated to be about two and one half minutes.

II. STATUS OF INVESTIGATION

A field trip was made to Mitchel AFB to reinterrogate the pilot and other personnel having knowledge of facts pertaining to the sighting. The pilot's description of the incident was the same as was stated in his original report. His added details have been incorporated into Section I of this Appendix.

At 0950 EST on 21 January 1952, the weather section of Mitchel AFB launched a Rawinsonde balloon from the position shown on the overlay. These balloons are about six feet in diameter at time of launch and expand on ascending. The expansion up to 6,000 ft can be neglected, however, as it is small. The balloons are a light gray color and have white streaks of talcum powder which is used in packing the balloons. The balloon carried a tin-foil radar 13 inch square reflector six inches below the balloon. The path of the balloon is shown on the inclosed overlay.

These balloons are tracked by radar. It was hoped that the radar operators might have recalled seeing an aircraft return circling their balloon return. They stated, however, that due to the heavy air traffic in the area, it was not uncommon to pick up aircraft returns and they did not pay any attention to them.

The tower operators on duty at the time of the sighting were interrogated. They had not seen the TBM or the balloon. The tower log showed that the first contact with the TBM was at 0955 EST at which time pilot reported sighting an object east of the field. At 1008 the pilot again called the tower to describe the incident in detail. The pilot's description was a condensed version of that given in Part I of this Appendix except he stated that the object "appeared to be a parachute canopy with a dark colored object underneath". The 0955 contact was made soon after the object was sighted, . establishing the time.

III. DISCUSSION OF INCIDENT

An accurate time of the initial sighting is needed to establish the position of the balloon at this time. It is assumed that the tower clock is more accurate than the clock in the TBM, thus the time of the initial sighting was. probably closer to 0954 allowing for time to contact the tower than the 0950 which was estimated by the pilot.

At 0954 the balloon would have been at about 4,000 ft. and in the position marked 4,000 ft. on the overlay. The pilot stated that the object appeared low, at an angle of 45° from vertical, and appeared to cover the same angle of vision as a house. This would make the slant range to the ground 8,590 ft. It can be shown that an object thought to be 30 ft, in diameter (assuming an average home is 30 ft. long) at 8,500 ft. range could also have been a six ft. diameter balloon only 1,700 ft, from the observer or at about 4,800 ft. altitude.

Allowing for errors in estimation of the angle, this coincides very closely to the altitude of the balloon at 0954. The position of the balloon in respect to the ground was approximately off the end of Runway #30. The pilot stated that the object appeared to be on a heading of 225°, the reciprocal of the heading of the TBM, and the speed of the object was about 200 knots. The balloon would appear to be traveling on a reciprocal heading and appear to be traveling at a higher rate of speed than the TBM if the pilot had assumed the balloon to be a large object close to the ground.

In examining the turn as sketched by the pilot, it is believed that the radius of turn is too great. He stated that the air speed was kept at 160 knots and he estimated he pulled two to three G's, this would give a radius of turn of about 1,500 ft. instead of the nearly 6,000 ft. radius shown on the overlay. It will also be noted that in positions 0, 1, 2, and 3 on the overlay, the bearing of the object is relatively constant, being of about 10 o'clock from the aircraft heading. A balloon seen from an aircraft making a 360° left turn around the balloon would have a constant bearing at 9 o'clock, however errors in the sketch of the ground tracks could account for this discrepancy.

After the position of the aircraft given as point 3 on the overlay, it is more difficult to show that the object could have been the balloon. If point 4 (of aircraft) is shifted to near point 1 (aircraft) it is possible that the pilot started another 360° turn around the balloon (see overlay).

Two major discrepancies in the theory that the object was a balloon are that the pilot was very sure that at one time during the attempt to intercept the balloon he was north or northwest of the airfield and could still see the object. In addition, shortly before the object disappeared, the line of sight of the object began to swing toward the nose of the aircraft. If this were true and the object was a balloon, the pilot should have been able to come close enough to the object to identify it as a balloon.

It should be noted that the pilot admits that the sketch could be in error. During the reinterrogation, it was brought out by the Operation's Officer at Mitchel AFB, who conducted the original interrogation, that the first sketch the pilot drew was about half the size (i.e. all radii one half) of the final sketch which has been included in the inclosed overlay. This is further brought out by the calculations for the radius of turn. The pilot was positive that the airspeed was always 160 knots and that he was pulling about two to three G's. As stated before, this would give a radius of turn of about 1,500 ft. instead of the 6,000 ft. as shown on the overlay. A 6,000 ft. radius turn is not considered likely during any interception tactics in an aircraft as slow as a TBM. Changing the radius of the 360° turn to 1,500 ft. would "shrink5" the complete sketch to one-fourth the original size (see overlay).

The time to turn, with a 1,500 ft„ radius, is 35 seconds. Assuming the turn was not a perfect circle but more of an ellipse, the time would increase to possibly 45 seconds,. This is also a discrepancy since the pilot judged the elapsed time to be two and one half minutes. This is not a serious discrepancy, however, as it is known that short intervals are difficult to judge and the pilot did not actually time his maneuvers.

The description of the object could very well be that of a balloon. Observations have shown that a balloon appears to be more oval or dome-shaped than spherical and due to shadows, the bottom appears darker than the top. The talcum powder used in packing the balloon could easily give the appearance of segments such as the panels in a parachute. The oscillations of the object described by the pilot are very similar in period to those of a balloon,, The pilot stated that he did not observe anything suspended from the object such as the radar reflector handing beneath the balloon, however, the tower operator was sure that the pilot had mentioned the fact that there was something dark beneath the object when he called the tower to describe the object he had seen.

A T-11 was the only aircraft in the area near the time of the sighting. The possibility of the pilot's first seeing the balloon, then the T-11, were checked, but the T-11 was on an entirely different heading than that of the object, and was out of the immediate area0

IV. CONCLUSIONS

From the data obtained on this sighting, it cannot be definitely concluded that the object sighted by the TBM pilot was the Rawinsonde balloon released by the Mitchel AFB Weather Station. However, enough of the data on the reported object does correlate with that of the balloon to indicate that there is a possibility that the object observed was a balloon,, There were no other reports of persons observing any unusual objects and since the object appeared to be 20 ft to 30 ft in diameter and very unusual in appearance at only 200 ft to 300 ft altitude over a thickly populated area, it would seem very likely that it would have been seen and reported by someone on the ground.

Google map of this location.