Claim: Melton 'UFO's' Melbourne, Australia (1983)

Regarding that first UFO sketch...

1685218642962.png

It just reminds me of a Bell 47 Helicopter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_47


1685218682802.png

They were in service with the Australian Army from 1968 to the early 1970s but there may have been other airframes, either civil or Military Historic Flights still flying after then:

http://www.adf-serials.com.au/3a1.htm
1685218818943.png
I had the same thought. Btw, the French Alouette helos resemble the Model 47, especially at a distance. In fact, sharp eyed viewers will note Allouettes occasionally appear as Bell 47s in episodes of M*A*S*H in long shots. I'm pretty sure the Australian military did not operate Alouettes, but as successful as the aircraft was worldwide, at least a few commerical variants probably made it to Oz.

SA318_(cropped).jpg
 
the French Alouette helos resemble the Model 47
Aerospatiale built another similar helicopter as well, on top of several Alouette models.
Article:
AEROSPATIALE SA-315 LAMA
Aerospatiale-SA-315B-Lama-Aeropedia-The-Encyclopedia-of-Aircraft-Australia-New-Zealand-1170x570.jpg
A small number of Lamas have been registered in this region. One VH-FJS (c/n 2029A – ex F-WKQF), which later became VH-PDU with Pacific Aviation, was used in the Mount Kosciuszko National Park and in other mountain areas for the installation of ski-lifts and other associated equipment. This machine was first registered in June 1973 and spent sometime in New Guinea as P2-PDU before being exported in 1989.

By Australian standards, that park is close to Melbourne.
 
You might want to revisit the source you posted above, it looks to be for some fantasy or alternative history group.
Article:
This is the Alternate History Wikia site of Chris Marshall. This wikia site started as a factbook for role playing, but has now become a place to hold my alternate history writings. I have written a history of an Australia colonised by France rather than Britain, and a series of articles about a world in which there is a Cold War between Nazi Germany and the United States.
 
Edited to add: Spent so long on this post (on and off) that parts are already redundant- apologies and acknowledgements to Duke and Mendel!

How could object 2 be a jet aircraft? It's described as making little noise.
...And a Harrier in the hover is a seriously loud aircraft.
Plus I doubt the Aussie authorities would allow a Harrier to hover (or fly at a speed lower than that sufficient for aerodynamic lift) over a residential area, the pilot hasn't many options in an "engine out" scenario
(unlike, say, Chesley Sullenberger's famous landing of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River in 2009).

Probably a good idea for you to vet sources before posting them
Duke is spot-on, the Home page for the "Marshall Wiki" website (link in Duke's post) says
This is the Alternate History Wikia site of Chris Marshall. This wikia site started as a factbook for role playing, but has now become a place to hold my alternate history writings.
Content from External Source
I'm going to go in a different direction. Even today Bell 47s are operating as crop dusters.
A company called McDermott Aviation, established 1982, flies Bell 47's for spraying in Australia:

McDermott Australia.JPG

Quoting from their website, https://www.mcdermottaviation.com/our-aircraft/bell-47t/ (my bold)
The quiet noise signature of the Bell 47T is also excellent around noise sensitive areas such as livestock/horses etc.
Content from External Source
,
but McDermott's nearest current base is in Bankstown, just over 530 miles from Melbourne (and the Bell 47's aren't based there).

Various Australian rescue organisations used the Bell 47 with floats, click to enlarge if interested
h1.JPGbell47.JPG,
On left, a story from a local Sydney newspaper, St. George & Sutherland Shire Leader, July 04 2019, about a guy retiring after 44 years, his first helicopter in 1975 was a Bell 47 https://www.theleader.com.au/story/...y-after-1000-missions-to-save-lives-in-peril/), on right, a demonstration by The Sydney Branch of the Helicopter Surf Rescue Committee, 1973, picture (ahem) borrowed from Getty Images.

Added later: Just noticed the helo on the left has similar markings to dierde's,
they had one as a rescue copter
but a different registration number.

The Royal New Zealand Air Force operated Bell 47's as trainers up to at least 2005
In 2005 the Ministry of Defence selected the NH90 helicopter to replace the RNZAF's ageing fleet of 14 UH-1H Iroquois. The NZ government allocated NZ$550 million to replace the Iroquois and Bell 47 (Sioux) training helicopters.
Content from External Source
(Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Air_Force) and I'd guess RNZAF sometimes train alongside the Australian army and air force.
But I can't think of a reason why RNZAF would ship an essentially obsolete training aircraft to Australia in 1983.

The Aerospatiale Alouette II helicopter was sold widely, and had a very similar tail boom to the Bell 47.
It could carry pontoons like the Bell, and was used for many purposes including rescue, crop-spraying and policing.
Did a very quick search, couldn't see any obvious Aussie users; some pics for comparison, click to enlarge if interested.
IMG_0122.jpg

Pretty confident we can ascribe the Melbourne sighting to flarkey's/ Z.W. Wolf's helicopter theory though, and probably a Bell 47 as they suggested.

If only all Australian mysteries were so open to explanation...

Untitlednb.jpg

Untitled.jpg
 
Yes. Still, a Bell 47 helicopter with pontoons fits both, taking the unreliability of witness recollections at nighttime into account.
The Bell 47 has a fuel endurance up to 2.5 hours (see below)

https://www.mcdermottaviation.com/o...xt=The Bell 47 is a,endurance up to 2.5 hours.

According to the documents above this went on for >5 hours. Plus if it landed during that time, someone would have had to have aviation fuel on hand for a quick refuel and back up in the skies.
 
The Bell 47 has a fuel endurance up to 2.5 hours (see below)
THAT bell 47 has an endurance of 2.5 hours. Probably because water is heavy.

According to the documents above this went on for >5 hours.
But they didnt see it for 5 hours straight. We have some sightings that all say 12:40.
then we have some sightings from [allegedly]4:30 am to about 5:45 am (according to your UFOlogist PDFs in the OP.)

Unless i missed it, i saw no sightings between say 1 am and 4:30 am.
 
Last edited:
If it was being used as a crop duster, it would be serviced on the ground by a support vehicle. I suspect the pesticide tanks need to be refilled more often than the fuel tanks.
 
THAT bell 47 has an endurance of 2.5 hours. Probably because water is heavy.

-
But they didnt see it for 5 hours straight. We have some sightings that all say 12:40.
then we have some sightings from [allegedly]4:30 am to about 5:45 am (according to your UFOlogist PDFs in the OP.)

Unless i missed it, i saw no sightings between say 1 am and 4:30 am.

I have found some more information, some key highlights below:

- The constables visually tracked the object and at 2.40am it again appeared to be on the ground at a location which they attended.
- It was then lost to view until 4:30am when they were again at the shopping centre. The object was some sixty meters up, and when they shone their spotlight at it.
-They followed the object, this time with more lights visible than previously, until about 6am. By 6:10am at dawn the object was not sighted again.
- The Army signal unit was alerted that their security had been breached. Earlier the object had briefly appeared on Tullamarine radar. The officers had also sighted the object on the ground near a paddock at the rear of the Toolern Vale Stud. Ellens and Ferguson inspected the paddocks in the area but could find nothing.

Source: https://richardsportal.tripod.com/policeufo/AuWitsB.html
 
You might want to revisit the source you posted above, it looks to be for some fantasy or alternative history group. The Aussies never flews Sea Harriers as the site claims, nor did/do they operate the two aircraft carriers (HMAS Vengeance, HMAS Australia) the site claims the Sea Harriers flew/fly from. Probably a good idea for you to vet sources before posting them.

https://themarshall.fandom.com/wiki/Australia_class_(Principe_de_Asturias)_aircraft_carrier


It's possible RAF or RN Harriers/Sea Harrier flew in Oz for training and exercises. The Brits probably tried to sell one or both those a/c to the Aussies as well at one time or another. We know they were going to buy HMS Invincible from the Brits prior to the Falklands War, but after the war the UK decided not to sell it.
Agreed, I recant my statement.

But agreed it is possible they had a Harrier that flew for training etc...
 
I have found some more information, some key highlights below:

- The constables visually tracked the object and at 2.40am it again appeared to be on the ground at a location which they attended.
- It was then lost to view until 4:30am when they were again at the shopping centre. The object was some sixty meters up, and when they shone their spotlight at it.
-They followed the object, this time with more lights visible than previously, until about 6am. By 6:10am at dawn the object was not sighted again.
- The Army signal unit was alerted that their security had been breached. Earlier the object had briefly appeared on Tullamarine radar. The officers had also sighted the object on the ground near a paddock at the rear of the Toolern Vale Stud. Ellens and Ferguson inspected the paddocks in the area but could find nothing.

Source: https://richardsportal.tripod.com/policeufo/AuWitsB.html
i cant verify the 2:40 am time because im not spending 18$ to buy a book that only has 2 pages on this event. :) I had already searched these sources as i posted this link earlier in the thread. Granted i'm a bit suspicious because 12:40 and 2:40 is a bit on the nose..but coincidences do happen i'll grant.

but even "if" they spotted the thing at 2:40 it sounds like it was just a momentary sighting.
from the project 1947 source given :
Article:
Earlier the object had briefly appeared on Tullamarine radar. The officers had also sighted the object on the ground near a paddock at the rear of the Toolern Vale Stud. Constables Ellens and Ferguson inspected the paddocks in the area but could find nothing.


either way there is nothing to say it was flying around for 5 hours. we really have very spotty information, which is typically the case with these very old cases. and as you pointed out there is always the possibility that the earlier "thing" (before the 5am sightings) was a separate object. No pics, old case with only various retellings by ufologists... there will be no definite answers found either for or against an ET ufo.
 
- It was then lost to view until 4:30am when they were again at the shopping centre. The object was some sixty meters up, and when they shone their spotlight at it.
-They followed the object, this time with more lights visible than previously, until about 6am. By 6:10am at dawn the object was not sighted again.

Best to quote the source:

The constables visually tracked the object and at 2.40am it again appeared to be on the ground at a location which they attended. It was then lost to view until 4:30am when they were again at the shopping centre. The object was some sixty meters up, and when they shone their spotlight at it, it left to the south-east. They followed the object, this time with more lights visible than previously, until about 6am. By 6:10am at dawn the object was not sighted again.
Content from External Source
https://richardsportal.tripod.com/policeufo/AuWitsB.html

By reading the actual quote we see that they saw it again at 4:30 and then it implies they followed it for over 1 1/2 hours. How? In their car, on foot or did the just watch it from a stationary position? If they followed by car, did the object also follow the road, or was it off in the distance? If they followed for that amount of time, they must have ended up somewhere different then where they started right? Where did they lose sight of the object?

The source seems to just be a UFOlogy reposting or collection site. This is supposedly from the police reports, but there is no way to be sure. As @deirdre noted above, there isn't much definitive that can be done with some of these old cases. There is no physical evidence, just some witness statements and no real investigation.

Even if the witnesses were contacted today, it's been 40 years and memory is far too fragile and malleable. Some guys saw some lights and maybe a helicopter.
 
But agreed it is possible they had a Harrier that flew for training etc...
Possible- it's likely that Australian pilots on exchange programs flew British (and possibly USMC) Harriers.
But with the 1982 cancellation of plans to sell the British ship HMS Invincible (a "Harrier carrier") to Australia, I think it's unlikely that such flying would be done in Australia in 1983, more likely the UK or West Germany (or if with USMC, the USA and USN ships).

- Traveled around 70 to 80 mph.
These speeds are well below the stall speed of a Harrier in forward flight (where airflow over the wings provides lift).
Of course, a Harrier could vector its thrust, enabling it to fly very slowly or hover-
-if the engine has problems while doing this, the plane's going to drop pretty much vertically- there's no option of a steerable glide to a preferred "ditching" area.

Engine failures, and bird strikes, are thankfully rare, but I don't think Australian civil or military authorities would approve sustained vectored thrust-dependant flight over a residential area. Why take the risk- and for what purpose?

Plus vectored lift is an extremely inefficient use of fuel, I won't pretend to know the figures (I think there are one or two members here who might have an idea, or be able to calculate it) but it would massively reduce the time spent in the air-
- Sighting went for 5-6 hours.
I don't think this is achievable by a Harrier (without in-flight refuelling) in forward flight, let alone while vectoring.
Harriers don't have a particularly long range for a combat aircraft, and therefore limited endurance (time in the air).

From Wikipedia, data for Harrier GR.3 (1983 was before AV8B/ Harrier II), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier

Maximum speed: 635 kn (731 mph, 1,176 km/h) at sea level
Ferry range: 1,850 nmi (2,130 mi, 3,430 km) with 330 imp gal (400 US gal; 1,500 L) drop-tanks, 3,000 nmi (3,500 mi; 5,600 km) with one AAR
Endurance: 1 hour 30 minutes combat air patrol 100 nmi (120 mi; 190 km) from base, 7 hours plus with one AAR
Content from External Source
(...where AAR= air-to-air refuelling, which I think is unlikely in this scenario).


And the Pegasus engine of a Harrier is loud. Constable Ferguson's account, courtesy of member ManInBlack:
Object 2 by Constable Ferguson (Fig. 4 (5.45 am)
"The object came closer and eventually passed directly overhead; we shined the spotlight onto its underside..."
Content from External Source
Also in the policemen's statements,
Object 1 "Admitted a whirling sound (not like a conventional helicopter)."
Object 2 "Admitted a low pitched humming sound."

I think it's extremely unlikely that these reports can be reconciled with the whining scream of a Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine.

The sketches of object 1 both strongly suggest a small helicopter of dated design, as others have posted, probably a Bell 47 or maybe an Alouette II.
The reported sounds (particularly "...a whirling sound") imply a light rotorcraft, not a jet fighter-bomber.

Z.W. Wolf's and deirdre's pictures of the underside of pontoon-equipped Bell 47s make a helicopter of that type a plausible candidate for object 2 IMHO.

The details of object 2's sides as sketched by Ferguson have some resemblance to these pontoons on an Alouette
g.JPG


We know Bell 47s had been used by the Australian army and rescue organisations, and are still used for spraying.
I don't know if the TV series M*A*S*H was shown in Australia-
-but on reflection I find it implausible that the cops who sketched "object 1" didn't notice the resemblance to a helicopter tail-boom (though it was described as looking like a gyrocopter):

Object 1 looks very much like a Bell 47 tail-boom, without the fuselage (or whatever it's called) of a Bell 47.
Object 2 looks (arguably) like the underside of a Bell 47 with pontoons, without a tail-boom.

I wonder if there was an element of a practical joke by the police witnesses, whatever they actually saw- to see if the despatch officer back at the station (or maybe their boss) would "put 2 and 2 together".
 
Object 1 "Admitted a whirling sound (not like a conventional helicopter)."
just a fun bit of trivia..we in AMerica used to call those things (MASH helicopters) whirleybirds. i never realized the name might come from the sound they make. huh.
 
whirleybirds. i never realized the name might come from the sound they make. huh.
I'm gonna guess it's more from the whirly thing on top :)

...When I was very little one of the TV stations showed repeats of an old (black and white) TV series about helicopters, called "Whirlybirds". -This was in the UK but I'm pretty sure the programme was American, I can't remember any details.

-Just had a quick look on Wikipedia: a nice bit of serendipity, deirdre, one of the "star" helicopters in Whirlybirds is a Bell 47!

Desilu Studios, intrigued by the Bell 47 and its manufacturer, began discussions with Bell Aircraft about how the entertainment potential of the Bell 47 might be further developed for a television audience. The result of this collaboration became The Whirlybirds.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlybirds
 
I have been given a tip off that there is a presentation/conference video where the researcher who investigated this case provided more information than what has been documented in the archives. More data that might help with solving this case. Apparently this presentation was put on YouTube (dates back to the early 2000s), I have searched but cannot find it. If anyone finds it please post it here. Thank you.
 
COincidentally, my brother and I have been looking for a house to buy in the Melton area for the last couple of months. It's odd that this is refeered to the Melton case, it's true that Rockbank is within the City of Melton local government area. The Suburb or Melton and Rockbank are about 10km apart. Rockbank is even now , almost nothing there, a very small development suburb of houses thats now expanding. It sits on the way to Melton cluster and it's sattelite suburbs and is really disconnected from it.

I imagine in 73 there would not have been much at Rockbank given theres not much there now
 
*UPDATE MORE INFORMATION*

Thanks to a tip-off, the presentation has been found. John Auchettl who investigated the case, attended a 'UFO conference' :rolleyes: and this was recorded in 1996 (see below).

Ignoring that this is from a UFO conference, Mr Auchettl was on scene just after the event and wrote the report in the beginning of this thread.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnLctuhtWWk&list=UUwS0l7X-Z1or-vjWFQ9ygtA&index=67




It's a 40-minute presentation from a UFO conference from 27 years ago about a case from 40 years ago. Is there anything special about it with at least some time stamps or is it just a rehash of the original report. YouTube videos can be a bit challenging here as evidence when it requires people to just watch through to find out what they're supposed to be seeing.

Best practice would be to summarize key points with time stamps so we can decide if we want to take the time to go through it.

If it's just presented as a curiosity that sort of reenforces the original report, that's ok but preference it as such.
 
It's a 40-minute presentation from a UFO conference from 27 years ago about a case from 40 years ago. Is there anything special about it with at least some time stamps or is it just a rehash of the original report. YouTube videos can be a bit challenging here as evidence when it requires people to just watch through to find out what they're supposed to be seeing.

Best practice would be to summarize key points with time stamps so we can decide if we want to take the time to go through it.

If it's just presented as a curiosity that sort of reenforces the original report, that's ok but preference it as such.
Have a life outside of this forum but will summarise additional points when I get a chance. Provided it for anyone interested in watching in the meantime.
 
Back
Top