http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm

.... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.

Rob

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
>
> ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
>
> Rob

On that basis the V-2 was built using borrowed US technology.

'Goddard was ahead of us all '
Werner Von Braun

Keith

On 13 Feb 2004 06:48:00 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
>
>... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
>From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
>
>Rob

The only thing that we got from Germany was millions of dead bodies
and destroyed cities. The Germans of WWII were a criminal people
who were desperately trying to keep Der Fuhrer from killing them.

Al Minyard

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
> >
> > ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> > From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
> >
> > Rob
>
> I think what you have been most successful with here at r.a.m. is in
> convincing us that the Germans invented insecurity.

Giggle-snort. Good observation!

Brooks

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
> >
> > ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> > From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
> >
> > Rob
>
> I think what you have been most successful with here at r.a.m. is in
> convincing us that the Germans invented insecurity.

A hit sir a palpable hit.

Keith

>From: (robert arndt)
>
>
>http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
>
>... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
>From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
>
>Rob
>
Why do you persist on pushing your Reich? Feeling insecure?

Lippisch was a genius, but he didn't invent heavier than air flight. He learned
from others. No one "borrowed" your "German-tech," it's a matter of learning
from each other. Your beloved Nazis learned from Goddard, the Wrights, Curtis
etc.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In article (robert arndt) wrote:

> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
>
> ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.

Did Gordon's "Bubble UFO" have any Third Reich origins?

You know what thieves those fellows from Alpha Centauri Gamma 5
can be!

Whooo, can those creatures drink!


SMH

robert arndt wrote:
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
>
> ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
>
Not directly, as the DM-1 was a rather flawed design. The very basic
idea of a "delta" wing was his first, but it would not have been any
kind of stretch for others to do it, and the original work on the XF-92
(especially in its original form) owes very little to Lippisch.

>Did Gordon's "Bubble UFO" have any Third Reich origins?

Very probably,but they called them SFOs (SonderFlugObjecten) the term UFO has
been invented much later by others.

>'Goddard was ahead of us all '
>Werner Von Braun
>

Typical German understatement.

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
> >
> > ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> > From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
> >
> > Rob
>
> On that basis the V-2 was built using borrowed US technology.
>
> 'Goddard was ahead of us all '
> Werner Von Braun
>
> Keith

Right... Germany got it's rocketry from Oberth, not Goddard:
http://www.oberth-museum.org/museum_e.htm

BTW, the Allies had no equivalent to the V-2 and most every other
German missile design.
Postwar it was German tech that made the US and USSR superpowers...
unless you still believe a lone bomber-dropped A-bomb could sustain
that status. As a matter of fact 85% of our current weapon systems are
derived from technology of the Second and Third Reichs.
Then there is also the space programs of the US and USSR :)
It is so unbelievable to read this nonsense about the "USA invented
everything" crap. If it wasn't for Germany and two World Wars (which
you guys hate so much) the US would just be some second-rate regional
power still playing games with Mexico and central America.
Get a clue.

Rob

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
> > >
> > > ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> > > From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> > On that basis the V-2 was built using borrowed US technology.
> >
> > 'Goddard was ahead of us all '
> > Werner Von Braun
> >
> > Keith
>
> Right... Germany got it's rocketry from Oberth, not Goddard:
> http://www.oberth-museum.org/museum_e.htm
>
> BTW, the Allies had no equivalent to the V-2 and most every other
> German missile design.
> Postwar it was German tech that made the US and USSR superpowers...
> unless you still believe a lone bomber-dropped A-bomb could sustain
> that status. As a matter of fact 85% of our current weapon systems are
> derived from technology of the Second and Third Reichs.
> Then there is also the space programs of the US and USSR :)
> It is so unbelievable to read this nonsense about the "USA invented
> everything" crap. If it wasn't for Germany and two World Wars (which
> you guys hate so much) the US would just be some second-rate regional
> power still playing games with Mexico and central America.

And if it were not for that second World War (which you apparently don't
hate in and of itself, instead just not particularly caring for the outcome)
we'd be goosestepping and sending our special students to the ovens instead
of special education classes in public schools. Thank goodness things did
not turn out as you would have hoped.

Brooks

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> In article (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
> >
> > ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> > From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
>
> Did Gordon's "Bubble UFO" have any Third Reich origins?
>
> You know what thieves those fellows from Alpha Centauri Gamma 5
> can be!
>
> Whooo, can those creatures drink!
>
>
> SMH

What the hell does the S-30 UFO craft have to do with the Third Reich?
I simply answered the guy's question and provided a link.
If you want to get into a discusiion on terrestrial HUFOs vs EBE
UFOs... then bring it on tough guy.
The Germans had disc designs that the US, UK, Canada, and USSR got
their hands on. The latter 3 nations failed to develop them but there
is ample evidence that the US pursued the craft and constructed some
of them. If you take the time to study the propulsion system of the
suspected TR-3B ASTRA you would notice similarities with the Haunebu
Triebwerk, only the US craft utilizes a nuclear accelerator ring in
that craft. But of course the technology difference is 6 decades to
perfect.
IMO, ther are NO aliens, just USAF propaganda and conspiracy theorists
that are used to cover black projects originating in the Third Reich.

Rob

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...

> > 'Goddard was ahead of us all '
> > Werner Von Braun
>
> Right... Germany got it's rocketry from Oberth, not Goddard:
> http://www.oberth-museum.org/museum_e.htm

....and Oberth got his from Goddard.

Oberth's first liquid rocket engine came about fifteen years after
Goddard's first patent for a liquid fueled rocket motor, and three years
after Goddard's first successful flight.

Gyroscopic control, steering through vanes in the exhaust, gimbaled
thrust... Goddard was there first, and Oberth and the rest of the
Germans followed in his footsteps some years later.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
> > >
> > > ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> > > From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> > On that basis the V-2 was built using borrowed US technology.
> >
> > 'Goddard was ahead of us all '
> > Werner Von Braun
> >
> > Keith
>
> Right... Germany got it's rocketry from Oberth, not Goddard:
> http://www.oberth-museum.org/museum_e.htm
>
> BTW, the Allies had no equivalent to the V-2 and most every other
> German missile design.
> Postwar it was German tech that made the US and USSR superpowers...
> unless you still believe a lone bomber-dropped A-bomb could sustain
> that status. As a matter of fact 85% of our current weapon systems are
> derived from technology of the Second and Third Reichs.

Airplanes? no.

Micro electronics? no.

Radar? No.

Rocketry? See Robert Goddard -- Von Braun & Co. developed his concepts.
Atomic bombs? The stupid Hitler & Co. evicted their best theoretical
physicists (Einstein & Co.) to the US. Thank you!

Aerial refueling? no.

Satellites? Developed from Von Braun & Co.

> Then there is also the space programs of the US and USSR :)
> It is so unbelievable to read this nonsense about the "USA invented
> everything" crap. If it wasn't for Germany and two World Wars (which
> you guys hate so much) the US would just be some second-rate regional
> power still playing games with Mexico and central America.
> Get a clue.


It is fortunate that the Germans had such a bunch of lunatics for
leaders that they lost the wars they started. If they hadn't started the
wars, they MIGHT have been successful!

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> Stephen Harding > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article (robert arndt) wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
> > >
> > > ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> > > From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
> >
> > Did Gordon's "Bubble UFO" have any Third Reich origins?
> >
> > You know what thieves those fellows from Alpha Centauri Gamma 5
> > can be!
> >
> > Whooo, can those creatures drink!
> >
> >
> > SMH
>
> What the hell does the S-30 UFO craft have to do with the Third Reich?
> I simply answered the guy's question and provided a link.
> If you want to get into a discusiion on terrestrial HUFOs vs EBE
> UFOs... then bring it on tough guy.
> The Germans had disc designs that the US, UK, Canada, and USSR got
> their hands on. The latter 3 nations failed to develop them but there
> is ample evidence that the US pursued the craft and constructed some
> of them. If you take the time to study the propulsion system of the
> suspected TR-3B ASTRA you would notice similarities with the Haunebu
> Triebwerk, only the US craft utilizes a nuclear accelerator ring in
> that craft. But of course the technology difference is 6 decades to
> perfect.
> IMO, ther are NO aliens, just USAF propaganda and conspiracy theorists
> that are used to cover black projects originating in the Third Reich.


The blackest project of all the Third Reich projects was the ovens!

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

>And if it were not for that second World War (which you apparently don't
>hate in and of itself, instead just not particularly caring for the outcome)
>we'd be goosestepping and sending our special students to the ovens instead
>of special education classes in public schools. Thank goodness things did
>not turn out as you would have hoped.
>
>Brooks
>
Still ****ed at having to take the short bus, eh? Get over it.

Grantland

>From: (robert arndt)


> If it wasn't for Germany and two World Wars (which
>you guys hate so much) the US would just be some second-rate regional
>power still playing games with Mexico and central America.
>Get a clue.
>
>Rob
>
"You guys?" If you love the Germans so much how come you never emigrated to
Germany? Could it be because they won't let you fly your Nazi flags outside
your home?

How come when the Nazis themselves credit Americans, as von braun did, and
other nations you are unable to admit it?

Name ONE thing Lippisch invented. The flying wing? Lilienthal developed them as
gliders in the 1800s. Oh gee, he's German too so that doesn't count. Actually
almost every one of the early glider designers, including the Wrights, made at
least one flying wing. Ailerons? Try Glenn Curtiss.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
>

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
> > >
> > > ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> > > From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> > On that basis the V-2 was built using borrowed US technology.
> >
> > 'Goddard was ahead of us all '
> > Werner Von Braun
> >
> > Keith
>
> Right... Germany got it's rocketry from Oberth, not Goddard:
> http://www.oberth-museum.org/museum_e.htm
>
> BTW, the Allies had no equivalent to the V-2 and most every other
> German missile design.

Absolutely correct.

We never were stupid enough to deploy a missile that killed
more of our own workers building it than the numbers of our
enemy that it managed kill when fired.

At no time did we warp our entire defnce industries producing a
weapon with no real military value that sucked up scarce
resources desperately needed for defense of the homeland.

It never occurred to us that a weapon which cost more per round
than the value of the damage it caused.

No we just developed the weapons that won the
war, not very imaginative perhaps but hey as a
strategy its effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact
that this conversation is in English.

Keith

>
> Name ONE thing Lippisch invented. The flying wing? Lilienthal developed them as
> gliders in the 1800s. Oh gee, he's German too so that doesn't count. Actually
> almost every one of the early glider designers, including the Wrights, made at
> least one flying wing. Ailerons? Try Glenn Curtiss.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan,

Here's a whole bunch of things Lippisch pioneered:

http://www.lippischdesign.com/pages/collage.html

Only some ex-USAF clod would try to defame Dr. Alexander Lippisch.

Rob

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 2/14/2004 5:54 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>> Name ONE thing Lippisch invented. The flying wing? Lilienthal developed
>them as
>> gliders in the 1800s. Oh gee, he's German too so that doesn't count.
>Actually
>> almost every one of the early glider designers, including the Wrights, made
>at
>> least one flying wing. Ailerons? Try Glenn Curtiss.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Dan,
>
>Here's a whole bunch of things Lippisch pioneered:
>
>http://www.lippischdesign.com/pages/collage.html
>
>Only some ex-USAF clod would try to defame Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
>
>Rob
>
No need for name calling. I didn't "defame" him. I simply pointed out he never
invented anything. He simply improved on other people's designs or used
existing technology in a new direction.

On the other hand, YOU were the one telling us how much modern aircraft owe to
him. You assume that, because he wad German, he must have been the source of
all things extraordinary in the field of aeronautics.

Almost every thing you post in this newsgroup is about how great the Germans,
especially the Nazis, were/are.

If you adore the Germans so much why do you not move there?

Now stop with the name calling. It only proves you are in marron's, petukhov's,
tarver's and grantland's class.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

> (B2431) wrote:

[snip]

>Now stop with the name calling. It only proves you are in marron's, petukhov's,
>tarver's and grantland's class.

Two can play your childish game of categorizing and pigeon-holing
people, danny. Fact is, I put you in the same "category" as Tarver and
Grantland (I don't even bother to read Petukhov's stuff) as I have
effortlessly and soundly defeated all three of you psychotic trolls.
Debating you is like having a slap fighting contest against a man with
no arms and like I said, whether on the ground or in the sky, I soar
miles above you, sergeant. ;)

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > (B2431) wrote:

> Debating you is like having a slap fighting contest against a man with
> no arms

Pot kettle, kite boy.

At least Dan has been up close to an operational fighter.

Isn't there an untralight newsgroup where your posts might be topical,
Marron?

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Debating you is like having a slap fighting contest against a man with
>>no arms

>Pot kettle, kite boy.

We actually consider "kite" to be an endearing term for our fabulous
little airplanes. Try again.

>At least Dan has been up close to an operational fighter.

Dan who?

>Isn't there an untralight newsgroup where your posts might be topical,
>Marron?

Isn't there an newsgroup for folks like you whom have had a lobotomy,
splappy?

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
> >>Debating you is like having a slap fighting contest against a man with
> >>no arms
>
> >Pot kettle, kite boy.
>
> We actually consider "kite" to be an endearing term for our fabulous
> little airplanes. Try again.

The irony is wonderful.

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> Here's a whole bunch of things Lippisch pioneered:
>
> http://www.lippischdesign.com/pages/collage.html

Well, from that page, he really didn't "pioneer" much.

He built some very nice gliders, he pushed the tailless delta wing
concept, and he designed a lot of other stuff that didn't really work
out very well, like a coal-burning ramjet and an outboard-powered
ground-effect boat.

His two big successes were the Me-163 and his gliders. Other than that,
not so much.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

> Chad Irby > wrote:
(robert arndt) wrote:

>>Here's a whole bunch of things Lippisch pioneered:

>>http://www.lippischdesign.com/pages/collage.html

>Well, from that page, he really didn't "pioneer" much.

>He built some very nice gliders, he pushed the tailless delta wing
>concept, and he designed a lot of other stuff that didn't really work
>out very well, like a coal-burning ramjet and an outboard-powered
>ground-effect boat.

>His two big successes were the Me-163 and his gliders. Other than that,
>not so much.

Us trike flyers worldwide will always credit an American named
Francis Rogallo for pioneering the tailless, delta wing concept while
working at NASA's Langley Research Center.

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
> > > >
> > > > ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> > > > From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > >
> > > On that basis the V-2 was built using borrowed US technology.
> > >
> > > 'Goddard was ahead of us all '
> > > Werner Von Braun
> > >
> > > Keith
> >
> > Right... Germany got it's rocketry from Oberth, not Goddard:
> > http://www.oberth-museum.org/museum_e.htm
> >
> > BTW, the Allies had no equivalent to the V-2 and most every other
> > German missile design.
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
> We never were stupid enough to deploy a missile that killed
> more of our own workers building it than the numbers of our
> enemy that it managed kill when fired.
>
> At no time did we warp our entire defnce industries producing a
> weapon with no real military value that sucked up scarce
> resources desperately needed for defense of the homeland.
>
> It never occurred to us that a weapon which cost more per round
> than the value of the damage it caused.
>
> No we just developed the weapons that won the
> war, not very imaginative perhaps but hey as a
> strategy its effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact
> that this conversation is in English.
>
> Keith

No A-bomb was dropped on Germany and the Reds did all the real
fighting on the ground... so you didn't win with any specific weapons
just NUMBERS OF MEN AND MATERIAL- a deluge NO army in history could
win against. Of course the Germans DID fight non-stop for 6 years and
introduced incredible weapons that influenced the way we fight war for
6 decades now. And they did it under TOTAL BOMBARDMENT. The US was
NEVER BOMBED and Britain only marginally compared to Germany. How many
weapons would the US have produced under total bombardment? How come
we had every advantage and only claim the A-bomb, radar, and the P-51D
Mustang? The US should have produced everyhting the Germans did... but
did not.
And if you think the Allies are so great why then did they send all
their experts into Germany hunting for secret weapons and every scrap
of technology they could find? Wright Field held thousands of TONs of
captured documents- the largest brain-drain and theft of entire nation
in history.
And you dare to say no one benefitted from it? Bull****.
You're a joke Keith. My next door neighbor was in the OSS. He died in
1981 but before he did I asked him what exactly they found in Germany.
He told me something I'll never forget, "among the jets and rockets we
found things that we could not comprehend at the time". He actually
was there and saw the stuff. You didn't, so **** off.

Rob

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

>
> No A-bomb was dropped on Germany

Didnt say it was

> and the Reds did all the real
> fighting on the ground... so you didn't win with any specific weapons
> just NUMBERS OF MEN AND MATERIAL

Having destroyed Germany's synthetic oil plants by strategic bombing
and devastated its transport infrasructure.

> - a deluge NO army in history could
> win against. Of course the Germans DID fight non-stop for 6 years and

They werent bright enough to realise invading Russia AND declaring war
on the USA wasnt smart

> introduced incredible weapons that influenced the way we fight war for
> 6 decades now. And they did it under TOTAL BOMBARDMENT. The US was
> NEVER BOMBED and Britain only marginally compared to Germany.

Because Britain managed to use its scientific resources to build

1) An effective air defense system
2) An effective long range bomber force

> How many
> weapons would the US have produced under total bombardment? How come
> we had every advantage and only claim the A-bomb, radar, and the P-51D
> Mustang? The US should have produced everyhting the Germans did... but
> did not.

No, it produced useful weapons instead of supersonic phallic
symbols with no military value.

To wit

Efficient air dropped homing torpedoes and long range maritime
patrol aircraft that decimated the u-boats

The proximity fuse that was responsible for improving the
efficiency of AA by almost an order of magnitude

Centimetric radar that allowed the allied nightfighters to destroy
German hightfighters over their own bases, find the U-boats
at night and allowed British airctaft from malta to find and
sink Rommel's transports at night

Efficient logistical systems using practical developments such
as standard containers to keep the armies supplied

Programmble computers that allowed the codebreakers to read
German cipher traffic so fast that by 1944 Eisenhower would
be reading Hitlers orders to Rommel at the same time Rommel
did,

etc etc

> And if you think the Allies are so great why then did they send all
> their experts into Germany hunting for secret weapons and every scrap
> of technology they could find? Wright Field held thousands of TONs of
> captured documents- the largest brain-drain and theft of entire nation
> in history.

Because looting is what winners do,

> And you dare to say no one benefitted from it? Bull****.

I didnt say anything of the sort, I merely pointed out that
it didnt benefit GERMANY

> You're a joke Keith. My next door neighbor was in the OSS. He died in
> 1981 but before he did I asked him what exactly they found in Germany.
> He told me something I'll never forget, "among the jets and rockets we
> found things that we could not comprehend at the time". He actually
> was there and saw the stuff. You didn't, so **** off.
>

My father was there Herr Arndt, he saw more than rockets
and jets, he saw Bergen Belsen. I grew up in a British city
in the 50's where the ruins of bombed out buildings were a
normal part of life.

My best friend at school was the son of a German jew who
came to Britain in 1936 and helped ICI build its synthetic
fuel plant, NONE of the rest of his family survived the camps.

The Nazi state was brutal corrupt and above all inefficient.
In every measure of arms production they lagged behind in
productivity. Despite their control of all the resources of Western
Europe, Britain alone outproduced Germany in fighter and
bomber aircraft and artillery and tanks. In 1943 and 1944 with
a vast Soviet army headed their way and an Anglo American
army chewing them up in Italy they decided to build not
masses of anti-tank weapons but a rocket with no military
value.

This criminal waste of irreplaceable resources and manpower
is what you are so proud of and yet it in fact only served helped
hasten the defeat of the Reich.

Keith

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...

> Us trike flyers worldwide will always credit an American named
> Francis Rogallo for pioneering the tailless, delta wing concept while
> working at NASA's Langley Research Center.

Don't foget to thank the man from Glad.

B2431 wrote:
> [...]
> Almost every thing you post in this newsgroup is about how great the
> Germans, especially the Nazis, were/are.
>
> If you adore the Germans so much why do you not move there?

_Please_, Dan, don't give him ideas - we already have too many Nazi lovers
over here :-(.

Andreas

"Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
...
> B2431 wrote:
> > [...]
> > Almost every thing you post in this newsgroup is about how great the
> > Germans, especially the Nazis, were/are.
> >
> > If you adore the Germans so much why do you not move there?
>
> _Please_, Dan, don't give him ideas - we already have too many Nazi lovers
> over here :-(.

If he were in Germany, wouldn't there be a law against his posts?

>From: Andreas Parsch
>
>B2431 wrote:
>> [...]
>> Almost every thing you post in this newsgroup is about how great the
>> Germans, especially the Nazis, were/are.
>>
>> If you adore the Germans so much why do you not move there?
>
>_Please_, Dan, don't give him ideas - we already have too many Nazi lovers
>over here :-(.
>
>Andreas
>
But there he could be arrested for some of the things he has posted. <g>

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>> _Please_, Dan, don't give him ideas - we already have too many Nazi
>> lovers over here :-(.
>
> If he were in Germany, wouldn't there be a law against his posts?

No, because he does neither explicitly deny the holocaust nor actively
promote NAZI symbols or slogans (which is indeed illegal to do in public in
Germany). Apart from that, it's perfectly legal to be a NAZI fan and say so
- one of the drawbacks of a free society ;-).

Andreas

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

<snip of Arndt being spanked by Keith>

> No A-bomb was dropped on Germany

Wasn't needed--the Nazi regime caved before we were even able to do the
Trinity test.

and the Reds did all the real
> fighting on the ground...

Which would be a surprise to the Wehrmacht armies that got shoved out of
North Africa, bullied up the length of Italy, cut off and captured in
France, and then penetrated and exploited in both the Ruhr and farther
south, all by the western allies.

so you didn't win with any specific weapons
> just NUMBERS OF MEN AND MATERIAL-

No, as Keith pointed out, a more intelligently *managed*, compared to the
German approach at the time, deluge of men and materiel.

> a deluge NO army in history could
> win against.

Especially one that, courtesy of its leadership, had blundered so badly and
in so many ways.

Of course the Germans DID fight non-stop for 6 years and
> introduced incredible weapons that influenced the way we fight war for
> 6 decades now.

And what is that prize for just "being a good tryer" called in war...? Oh,
yeah, that's right--LOSER.

> And they did it under TOTAL BOMBARDMENT.

Which they could not overcome, despite your continued references to super
weapons. Again, poor leadership decisions.

The US was
> NEVER BOMBED and Britain only marginally compared to Germany.

The US was not stupid enough to start a war that opened it to such
treatment--Germany was, and paid for the error. Deal with it. The Brits just
proved superior to the German efforts directed at bombing it into
submission.

How many
> weapons would the US have produced under total bombardment?

Dumb question--the German's could not bombard the US, and the closest the
Japanese came to a strategic bombing campaign against the US were a few
incendiary balloons which had no significant effect.

How come
> we had every advantage and only claim the A-bomb, radar, and the P-51D
> Mustang?

Who says that is all we can claim?

The US should have produced everyhting the Germans did... but
> did not.

We (speaking of the western allies as a whole) produced the VT fuze; the
Germans did not. We produced reliable and robust four engined bombers; the
Germans did not. We produced enough trucks to motorize the entire ground
force--the Germans were still relying on horses for a significant part of
their ground transport when the war ended. The list can go on and on...

> And if you think the Allies are so great why then did they send all
> their experts into Germany hunting for secret weapons and every scrap
> of technology they could find?

Because we were smart enough to try and take advantage of the research that
the Germans had largely wasted?

Wright Field held thousands of TONs of
> captured documents- the largest brain-drain and theft of entire nation
> in history.

It is not "theft" when you are the losing nation--think of it as
"intellectual reparations".

> And you dare to say no one benefitted from it?

From the specific program you claim to have been the foundation of the
F-102? Nope, not really.

> Bull****.

No, that has been you product, not Keith's.

> You're a joke Keith.

No, he is not, especially compared to the deluded, and delusional, likes of
you.

> My next door neighbor was in the OSS.

God, I bet you'd *really* have been impressed with him if he'd not had that
initial "O" in that title...

> He died in
> 1981 but before he did I asked him what exactly they found in Germany.

Lots of rubble?

> He told me something I'll never forget, "among the jets and rockets we
> found things that we could not comprehend at the time". He actually
> was there and saw the stuff.

Even if he did say that (and your rep is not such that we can depend upon
the accuracy of your claim), so what?

> You didn't, so **** off.

So Keith has demonstrated a better grasp of the significance of the material
in question than your neighbor did; again, so what?

Brooks

>
> Rob

>From: (robert arndt)
>

Of course the Germans DID fight non-stop for 6 years and introduced incredible
weapons that influenced the way we fight war for 6 decades now.

Non stop? Check your history books. The most famous "stop" was the "sitzkreig"
between the criminal invasion of Poland and the illegal and equally unprovoked
invasion of the Low Countries and France.

Let's see, about your wonder weapons that influence us to this day, would that
include the assorted suicide weapons? Perhaps the super cannon in France with
the multiple breaches? The missiles that were so improbable no other country
has made equivelents? The long range bombers? Oops, the Nazis never made a
successful one.

Get over it. The Nazis did work on some things we use to this day. So did the
U.S., U.K. and U.S.S.R. and all your rants can't change that. If the Nazi ideas
had any merits they have been used. The fact remains your claims of 2 atom
bombs being built and detonated, various wonder weapons being covered up by
assorted plots and the like have never been verified by reliable sources

Just think, if your heroes hadn't started the war they would have had time to
develop all kinds of neat things.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

>From: Andreas Parsch
>Date: 2/15/2004 3:40 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>>
>>> _Please_, Dan, don't give him ideas - we already have too many Nazi
>>> lovers over here :-(.
>>
>> If he were in Germany, wouldn't there be a law against his posts?
>
>No, because he does neither explicitly deny the holocaust nor actively
>promote NAZI symbols or slogans (which is indeed illegal to do in public in
>Germany). Apart from that, it's perfectly legal to be a NAZI fan and say so
>- one of the drawbacks of a free society ;-).
>
>Andreas
>

Well, I tried <g>

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

robert arndt wrote:
<snip>
> And if you think the Allies are so great why then did they send all
> their experts into Germany hunting for secret weapons and every scrap
> of technology they could find? Wright Field held thousands of TONs of

Do you have a source on this? "thousands of TONS?" Not very plausible.

Cheers

--mike

> captured documents- the largest brain-drain and theft of entire nation
> in history.
<snip>
> Rob

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
> > > >
> > > > ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> > > > From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > >
> > > On that basis the V-2 was built using borrowed US technology.
> > >
> > > 'Goddard was ahead of us all '
> > > Werner Von Braun
> > >
> > > Keith
> >
> > Right... Germany got it's rocketry from Oberth, not Goddard:
> > http://www.oberth-museum.org/museum_e.htm
> >
> > BTW, the Allies had no equivalent to the V-2 and most every other
> > German missile design.
> > Postwar it was German tech that made the US and USSR superpowers...
> > unless you still believe a lone bomber-dropped A-bomb could sustain
> > that status. As a matter of fact 85% of our current weapon systems are
> > derived from technology of the Second and Third Reichs.
>
> Airplanes? no.

There were many inventors from many nations on the way to inventing
the aircraft in the fields of aerodynamics and propulsion: from Caley,
Lilienthal, the Stinson Victorian aerial steamer etc. The Wrights got
there first only just. Several people got there in 1904 and 1905 and
several may have done earlier. Despite Amerians being most probably
first it is inevitable that someone would have done so independantly
in several other nations. An Englishman, Frenchman and German would
have followed soon.


>
> Micro electronics? no.

That certainly belongs to Noyce though there was some German
transistor work.

Konrad Zuse quite independantly invented the computer and even a high
level language. Most of his Z series machines used relays (thus
making them more reliable and more funtional than valve machines) and
they had floating point arithmetic and they did work on a valve
powered FLAK computer.


>
> Radar? No.

A German called Christian Husselmeyer apparently invented radar in
1903 after witnessing loss of life on a barge that collided in a
fogged up Rhine River.

German radar was well developed quite independantly before WW2. It was
superior to British radar in most ways. Part of the problem was that
the Freya and Wurzburg were so good that they encouraged the Germans
to neglect microwave radar developement. Wurzburg even used Doppler
to overcome window and chaff.


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs/97-0609F.pdf:
DEFLATING BRITISH RADAR MYTHS OF WORLD WAR II
A Research Paper
Presented To
The Research Department
Air Command and Staff College
In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements of ACSC
by Maj. Gregory C. Clark
March 1997

4
Incredibly, in 1904 a German inventor, Christian Hülsmeyer, was
granted a British patent for a telemobiloscope, which was a
'hertzian-wave projecting and receiving apparatus…to give
warning of the resence of a metallic body such as a ship or a train.'
On the morning of 10 May 1904, at the Rhine bridge in Cologne, he
successfully demonstrated his apparatus. With rave reviews from the
press, technical representatives from various shipping companies
observed a convincing display of this new technology. He proved that a
ship fitted with this system of transmitter and receiver could locate
another ship and inform the captain of the approach of another vessel
up to 5 kilometers
away. The shipping company representatives were enthusiastic, but
hesitant to invest in this new technology and afraid of violating
previous agreements with the Marconi Company. The shipping companies
had trouble differentiating between wireless directional finding
versus the idea of radio detection. In their minds it seemed to be
spending twice for the same results. Hülsmeyer also sought the
financial backing of the German Navy only to be rebuffed by Admiral
von Tirpitz's reply of, 'Not interested. My people have better ideas!'
Only after a personal expenditure of 25,000 Marks and approaching
bankruptcy did he abandon his idea to pursue more financially
rewarding work.6
What is important about this is the fact that as early as 1904 the
concept of radar was demonstrated and patented. Hülsmeyer’s
techniques revealed modern concepts which would not be rediscovered
for another thirty years. His idea of mounting the assembly on the
foremast of a ship to measure the range and bearing of an object did
not reappear until the Second World War. It is also interesting to
reflect how this invention would have changed history in the instance
of the loss of the passenger ship Titanic and the World War I naval
battle of Jutland.7

<http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=9iv8uk%24dsq%241%40nntp6.u.washington.edu&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26q%3Dflak%2Bpredictor%2Bproximity% 26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch>

The British received as an invaluable gift a well-made tube, a part
of an early attempted iteration of such a fuze, which measured
electrical
potentials and could serve to trigger a detonator if the potential
detected were high enough. The gift came as part of what came to be
known as
the Oslo Report, so-named because that was the city in which a German
engineer
(IIRC) disaffected with the Nazi regime, used to transmit this
remarkable and
priceless document to the British. In it were described all of the
most advanced technologies then under consideration by the Hitlerites,
including the proximity fuse, in great detail.




>
> Rocketry? See Robert Goddard -- Von Braun & Co. developed his concepts.
> Atomic bombs? The stupid Hitler & Co. evicted their best theoretical
> physicists (Einstein & Co.) to the US. Thank you!

Einstein was a bit of a celebrity myth. There is not much that he
actually developed at all. E = mc^2 was elucidated in public and
published by an Italian several years before Einstein (who spoke
Italian as his father was an Nth Italian Jew) and his polio crippled
serbian wife used Bernhard Rieman's Tensor calculus to put his
theories back together again after Heisenberg shot them down. Between
Maz Plank, Michelson & Morley, Maxwell, Rieman, Fitzgerald & Lorenz
it's impossible to see that Einstein did anything but clever
plagiarism and self publicity. He was littlemore than an ethnophobic
zionist in my eyes.

Goddard's work was excellent but even after sponsorship by Daniel
Guggenheim it seems to have gone nowhere.

The use of gyro-steered vains on the rocketry motor seems and
intuitively obvious development of the Auto-Pilot.

I think its more a case of parrallel development rather than
'copying'. von Braun't socieity for spaceflight goes back to the
early 20s afterall.

One invention the V2 people did come up with was the PIGA (pendulating
integration gyroscopic accelerometer) which was accurate enough to
provide for inertial navigation.



>
> Aerial refueling? no.

The Germans mande several succesfull aerial refuelings during WW2
though they rejected them as impracticable for attacks on the USA.

What made aerial refueling a success was the developement of the jet
engine and the elimination of the prop collision issue. You might
have seen Me 262s aerial refueling perhaps from a probe and drogue fed
from a whatever big aircraft hr Germans had but certainly never a P51
and and very unlikely a P38. What made aerial refueling practicable
on a P80 from a B29 made it practicable from a Me 262 from a He 177 or
Ju 352 or Ju 390


>
> Satellites? Developed from Von Braun & Co.
>
> > Then there is also the space programs of the US and USSR :)
> > It is so unbelievable to read this nonsense about the "USA invented
> > everything" crap. If it wasn't for Germany and two World Wars (which
> > you guys hate so much) the US would just be some second-rate regional
> > power still playing games with Mexico and central America.
> > Get a clue.
>
>
> It is fortunate that the Germans had such a bunch of lunatics for
> leaders that they lost the wars they started. If they hadn't started the
> wars, they MIGHT have been successful!


A favourable winter, rather than the worst winter in 100 years, in the
Soviet Union may have changed all of that.

Possibley the biggest mistake they made was the Hitler dictate that no
developments that could not be completed within 2 years should be
preceded with.
This seems to have cost them their excellent microwave development
team in 1940 and the development of the proximity fuse (both were put
on ice).

The dictate may have been sensible however: Germany and the Axis were
thoroughly outnumbered and out resourced and devoting resources and
engineers on future developements may have been flawed as those
resources were best applied to immediate issues. To the Axis it was
win now or face inevevitable defeat in a war of attrition that the
Allies would win on the basis of superior resources.

The Germans certainly made breakthrough reasearch in ballistic,
rocketry guidence, jet propulsion, stealth (radar aborbant paints and
structures on sub conning towers and the Go 229 aircraft) swept wing
aerodynamics (Busmann in 1930s). Even in doctrine the Germans were
"right" in the long run (though utter wrong in the short run) as they
anticipated that passive sensor technology would be necessary as any
emiter would be detected and attacked.

robert arndt wrote in message >...
>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...


(snip)

>> We never were stupid enough to deploy a missile that killed
>> more of our own workers building it than the numbers of our
>> enemy that it managed kill when fired.
>>
>> At no time did we warp our entire defnce industries producing a
>> weapon with no real military value that sucked up scarce
>> resources desperately needed for defense of the homeland.
>>
>> It never occurred to us that a weapon which cost more per round
>> than the value of the damage it caused.
>>
>> No we just developed the weapons that won the
>> war, not very imaginative perhaps but hey as a
>> strategy its effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact
>> that this conversation is in English.
>>
>> Keith
>
>No A-bomb was dropped on Germany

Ah the need to throw in something different.

>and the Reds did all the real
>fighting on the ground...

Except for the clearing of western Europe and North Africa.

>so you didn't win with any specific weapons
>just NUMBERS OF MEN AND MATERIAL- a deluge NO army in history could
>win against.

Amazing then the very bright German high command voluntarily decided
to take on the combination.

By the way the above text is "you didn't win", below is "we won". Robert
keeps becoming a WWII German then changing to something else.

>Of course the Germans DID fight non-stop for 6 years

October 1939 to April 1940? The gap in land operations June 1940
to April 1941? The fact September 1939 to April 1945 is 5 years 8
months?

The British fought for nearly 6 years less the early pauses, the RN was
in the war for 6 years, the Chinese were at war for around 8 to 9 years,
as were the Japanese.

>and introduced incredible weapons that influenced the way we fight war for
>6 decades now.

You mean like the advanced radars, major radio networking, the
atomic weapons and propulsion systems, the use of airpower
against an economy, aircraft carriers, fully motorising the armies,
proximity fuses, awacs, controlled air interception?

>And they did it under TOTAL BOMBARDMENT. The US was
>NEVER BOMBED and Britain only marginally compared to Germany.

To the end of 1941 the British estimates are the Luftwaffe had dropped
around 57,000 tons of bombs on Britain, by the end of 1942 that was up
to around 60,000 tons. This tonnage excludes incendiary bombs.

Bomber Command records have the RAF tonnage on Germany as of
the end of February 1942 as 31,714 tons, by the end of 1942 67,221
tons. Until around the end of the third quarter of 1942 there were more
German bombs on Britain than the other way around. So go and
compare the British economy in 1940, 1941 and into 1942 versus the
German one.

Bomber Command's halfway point for bombs on Germany was in
September 1944, the 8th Air Force's mid November 1944. The 8th
passed the 60,000 tons of bombs on Germany mark in March 1944,
and this counts incendiaries.

The US was bombed, by Japanese float planes and balloons, as well
as having a couple of bombardments by submarines. Minor it is true
but non zero, and I am not counting a place called Alaska, which is
normally considered a part of the US.

>How many
>weapons would the US have produced under total bombardment?

Given the larger size of the economy and greater distance to the
targets from outside the US probably more weapons as the attacks
could allow the government to squeeze the population more while
the raids did little lasting damage. Especially with Goering as the
head of the attacking air force. Bf109 range was? As a percentage
of the width and depth of the US?

>How come
>we had every advantage and only claim the A-bomb, radar, and the P-51D
>Mustang?

Given the cost of the a-bomb that alone is a substantial advantage.
Add a large navy, ground controlled interception, the new way of naval
warfare, the more advanced electronics, medical advances like mass
production of penicillin and so on. The US had to solve different
problems than the Germans, so it is not surprising different areas made
better progress, but that has to be ignored.

>The US should have produced everyhting the Germans did... but
>did not.

So tell us all where are the Kriegsmarine Essex class carriers?
How about say a few escort carriers? The major shipbuilding
program to enable armies and navies to fight at the other end
of the Atlantic and Pacific? The advanced radars, penicillin,
whole blood service and so on.

How about using high speed cameras to record wind tunnel tests?
How about the banning of personal radios by the Nazis, thereby
removing the chance for a large number of people to learn to use
radios for themselves, given how much of WWII was a radio war.

Why wasn't the Luftwaffe air defence system as good as the
RAF's in 1940?

Since Germany had around a 50% bigger population than Britain,
just as the USA had around the same margin over Germany why
didn't the Germans produce everything the British did? Mosquitoes
come to mind as aircraft, reliable jet engines another, airborne
radars in 1940, machines ("computers") to break codes and so on
and the Germans should have easily matched the British in the
1942/43 time period, since they had the less bombed economy,
correct? How about the LST, a large ocean going ship that could
beach itself and handle vehicles.

The Japanese had long range single engined fighters in 1940, why
didn't the Germans?

Shall we go on, say why didn't the Germans have a written language
when the Greeks and Romans did?

>And if you think the Allies are so great why then did they send all
>their experts into Germany hunting for secret weapons and every scrap
>of technology they could find? Wright Field held thousands of TONs of
>captured documents- the largest brain-drain and theft of entire nation
>in history.

Given the amount of theft that goes on in war I doubt what the
western allies did in 1945 was the greatest theft ever, and it
makes sense to merge the German and allied research, just
look at the benefits when the US and UK merged theirs, and
justify it as reparations for the damage the Germans did.

The greatest brain drain was done by the Nazis, look at all the
people who left before the war.

Different countries had different priorities, the allies decided to
benefit from that, saves work.

>And you dare to say no one benefitted from it? Bull****.

No Keith makes the point that your claims about what benefits there
were are greatly exaggerated.

>You're a joke Keith. My next door neighbor was in the OSS. He died in
>1981 but before he did I asked him what exactly they found in Germany.
>He told me something I'll never forget, "among the jets and rockets we
>found things that we could not comprehend at the time". He actually
>was there and saw the stuff. You didn't, so **** off.

This is quite funny, the idea OSS operators were chosen for expertise
in advanced aerodynamics, the unsupported verbal claim used as
"proof".

It is quite simple when Keith states something it is normally correct,
when Robert states something it is normally fiction. Just check with
other sources.


Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

steve gallacci > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
> >
> > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
> >
> > ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> > From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
> >
> Not directly, as the DM-1 was a rather flawed design.

It was a glider. The germans always built a glider first (usually a
wooden mockup) to verify their calculations in just about every
aircraft they built. The DM1 was crated and shipped to the USA and
tested in a windtunnel and by all accounts handelled very well. The
oversize verticle fin was removed and replaced by a bubble cannopy
with a smaller fin and this looks rather modern, to test that
configuration.

The Americans weren't so stupid as to reject a good idea because it
was "not invented here" although the Russians and Americans tried to
discredit each other for being dependant on German socientists for a
kick start in some areas. (Berier for instance asked that German
atomic reasearchers in particular publish under Russian pseudonyms)
and the US navy stopped development of heinkel He S11 jet engine
becuase of russian ribbing. This is quite a loss as the He S11 had
the diameter of an axial jet engine and the turbulent intake
tollerance of a radial compressor engine by virtue of its diagonal
compressor. The engines were thus slim enough to be burried in wings
and draw air in via very slim leading edge slits rather than round air
intakes.

The DM-1 was I believe a research aircraft and possibly pre
development aircraft for the Lippisch PM13a
http://www.luft46.com/lippisch/lip13a.html

The engine is interesting as was intended to be an inductor ramjet.
This had a rocket motor in the center of the ramjet that was fired at
zero speed both to provide thrust but mainly to induce an airflow so
that fuel could be burned in the main airflow till the ramjet became
self sustaining at about Mach 0.6

Because of the fuel shirtage the engine was supposed to be fired not
by keosene but by pulverised granulated coal fed from a basket. This
is not preposterous to anyone that has seen a jet of powdered coal or
seen how explosive coal dust could be. I suspect the rocket fuel
would have been heavy fuel oil obtained from the cokeing or pyrolisis
of coal and the oxidiser nitric acid both of which could be made with
minimum infrastructure and fire hypergolically.


> The very basic
> idea of a "delta" wing was his first, but it would not have been any
> kind of stretch for others to do it, and the original work on the XF-92
> (especially in its original form) owes very little to Lippisch.

Except all the inspiration, theory and supersonic wind tunnel testing
it was based on. What happens to the aerodynamic center of pressure
at Mach 1+ both above and below What happends to the momment?

When the USSR and USA start building ground effect aircraft that too
will be based on Alexanders Lippisch's work.

There was mass of german supersonic data. It went beyond just the
idea of a deltawing buit to well theorised and tested data.

It is called the spoils of war. Our race to Space with the USSR was also
from rocket scientist from Germany. Many of our early jet aircraft designs
came from Germany. Yes the US and England had working prototypes and even
Japan had a jet aircraft. But the US place more into amounts of aircraft to
put into the war, which helped us win.

Sound like there is still a bit of fight in the German people, wonder were
that was when the Soviets took over your country, or when we asked for your
assistance in IRAQ.
Could it be that all the oil your country was get from the oil for food
program, or the weapons that were being supplied by German companies to
Iraq.

Just my own views,

Bill Maddog Maddux
"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an51.htm
>
> ... more "borrowed" German-tech courtesy of Dr. Alexander Lippisch.
> From the Lippisch DM-1/P.13 we got the XF-92, F-102, F-106, and B-58.
>
> Rob

In article >,
Bill and Susan Maddux > wrote:
>It is called the spoils of war. Our race to Space with the USSR was also
>from rocket scientist from Germany. Many of our early jet aircraft designs
>came from Germany. Yes the US and England had working prototypes and even

More than prototypes. Both the UK and the US had jet fighters in service:
RAF had the Gloster Meteor F1 in 1944 and the Meteor F3 early in 1945,
US had the Lockheed F80 before the end of war in Europe. These are
only the aircraft which actually saw theatre service (and of these the
F3 Meteor and F80 were better all-round than any of the German designs
to see service - mainly because their engines were vastly superior).
Other designs - notably the De Havilland Vampire - were already ramping up
into production, but didn't make it to front-line squadrons before the
end of the war.

Worth remembering that the Meteor flew *before* any of the German jet
fighters did, too.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

Thank you, I am a little rusty of the beginnings of jet aviation. I remember
a show on the history channel that talked about German spies getting
information on the British jet engine designs or something like that.
"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Bill and Susan Maddux > wrote:
> >It is called the spoils of war. Our race to Space with the USSR was also
> >from rocket scientist from Germany. Many of our early jet aircraft
designs
> >came from Germany. Yes the US and England had working prototypes and even
>
> More than prototypes. Both the UK and the US had jet fighters in service:
> RAF had the Gloster Meteor F1 in 1944 and the Meteor F3 early in 1945,
> US had the Lockheed F80 before the end of war in Europe. These are
> only the aircraft which actually saw theatre service (and of these the
> F3 Meteor and F80 were better all-round than any of the German designs
> to see service - mainly because their engines were vastly superior).
> Other designs - notably the De Havilland Vampire - were already ramping up
> into production, but didn't make it to front-line squadrons before the
> end of the war.
>
> Worth remembering that the Meteor flew *before* any of the German jet
> fighters did, too.
>
> --
> Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
> http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
> "Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
> and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Bill and Susan Maddux > wrote:
> >It is called the spoils of war. Our race to Space with the USSR was also
> >from rocket scientist from Germany. Many of our early jet aircraft designs
> >came from Germany. Yes the US and England had working prototypes and even
>
> More than prototypes. Both the UK and the US had jet fighters in service:
> RAF had the Gloster Meteor F1 in 1944 and the Meteor F3 early in 1945,
> US had the Lockheed F80 before the end of war in Europe. These are
> only the aircraft which actually saw theatre service (and of these the
> F3 Meteor and F80 were better all-round than any of the German designs
> to see service - mainly because their engines were vastly superior).

The engines were superior only becuase they were able to use nimonic
alloys that were essentially 80 nickel and 20 chromium for tubines,
turbine nozzles and combustion chambers and exhausts. Becuase of
sever supply problems the Germans had to use alloys that were about
14% Chromium, 14% nickel balance steel and then even then replaced the
nickel with manganese and lowered the chromium and that was only for
the turbine and turbine nozzles. Other hot parts were plain steel.
This only worked becuase they were forced to advance way ahead with
blade cooling. The combustion chambers and exhaust cones were
ordinary carbon steel with an aluminium oxide corrosion coating.

The Germans did use axial compressors to get a low engine diameter and
this required slighly tighter control since the optimum opperating
point, cavitation point were closer and drop of in efficiency was more
rapid and thus required variable area exhaust nozzle but it meant
that their engines had less drag and could be installed under a wing.
The meteor had enormous difficulties in integrating its wing/engine
combination.

However an early meteors engines could be destroyed by poor throttle
handling just like a jumo 004B on a Me 262. The problem was that when
the engine accelerated the dilution of air/fuel was not controlled
tightly enough and temperatures could go high enough to blown a tubine
or combustion chamber. The jumo 004B suffered form this but the
BMW003 had a fuel by pass system that opperated using an aneroid
capsule across the compressor that used and could be thrown around
much more.

When they moved from axial impulse type compresors to axial reaction
types, as they were doing, they left the radial compressor engines
behined in efficiency.

By the time the Jumo 004D and BMW003E2 had entered production many of
the control problems had been solved, too late, however and only a few
protoype eingines were tested aprt from some use on He 163 Salamander.

The late model jumo 004D, He S11, BMW003 engines slated for production
by the Germans in mid 1945 had duplex injectors so that they could
handle flight to 55,000 feet where thin air makes proper vaproisation
and soing of fuel difficult on a siongle injector, they had effectve
throttle limiting to bypass excess fuel as engines spooled up to
prevent temperature over runs blkowing tubines and chanbers and they
had automtic systems that adjuted nozzle area to get get the
appropriate turbine temperature and backpressure.



> Other designs - notably the De Havilland Vampire - were already ramping up
> into production, but didn't make it to front-line squadrons before the
> end of the war.
>

A jumo 004C equiped Me 262 could manage 578mph and a jumo 004D even
more.

It would have been quite a race.

The Germans would have jumped ahead sometime in 1946 if hostilities
had of still been going with the introduction of swept wing aircraft
like the Focke Wulf Ta 183 or Messerschmit p1011 depite their
powerplant metalurgy logistics problems.

It would not have been a big advange as I suspect as supersonic was
still borderline and as using a very thin wing gets you quite far, and
there was an vague academic awareness (but no enthusiasm and no solid
wind tunnel work) developing of swept wing technology by 1944 in the
US.


> Worth remembering that the Meteor flew *before* any of the German jet
> fighters did, too.

I doubt this as Me 262s were in the air in 1942, however the Meteors
development was very protracted because of airframe/engine integration
problems created by the huge diameter of the radial compressor
engines. As the radial engines became more powerfull they found their
niche in single engine aircraft like the P80/F80 and vampire where
their ungainly diameter was not a problem and their abillity to cope
with turbulent flows was an advantage.

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message
>...
> > In article >,
> > Bill and Susan Maddux > wrote:
> > >It is called the spoils of war. Our race to Space with the USSR was
also
> > >from rocket scientist from Germany. Many of our early jet aircraft
designs
> > >came from Germany. Yes the US and England had working prototypes and
even
> >
big snip

> > Worth remembering that the Meteor flew *before* any of the German jet
> > fighters did, too.
>
> I doubt this as Me 262s were in the air in 1942, however the Meteors

It seems you are wise to be sceptical

http://www.vectorsite.net/avmeteor.html

The first Meteor to actually fly took to the air on 5 March 1943, with
Michael Daunt
at the controls. It was the fifth in the prototype manufacturing sequence
and was fitted
with de Havilland Halford H.1 turbojets, the ancestor of the Goblin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

It was the third airframe that was to become a true jet plane when it took
to the air on July 18, 1942 in Leipheim

John

"Bill and Susan Maddux" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
> It is called the spoils of war. Our race to Space with the USSR was also
snip
>
> Sound like there is still a bit of fight in the German people, wonder were
> that was when the Soviets took over your country, or when we asked for
your
> assistance in IRAQ.
> Could it be that all the oil your country was get from the oil for food
> program, or the weapons that were being supplied by German companies to
> Iraq.
>

Do you think germany needed the Oil (or the money), its just business like
nearly all countries do!
Or will You say that the USA has problems to sell to China, Pakistan or
Saudi Arabia.

Germany (oficialy) didnt want to assist USA (and the coalition), because
they don't believe Mr Powell proofs in the WMD myth.
I personaly (living in one of the coalitian countries) was against the war,
because of the side effects.


my point of view.
andi

In article >,
"andi" > wrote:

> Germany (oficialy) didnt want to assist USA (and the coalition),
> because they don't believe Mr Powell proofs in the WMD myth.

But unofficially, the big motivation was money. A much, much more
powerful motivator than any resistance about WMDs.

> I personaly (living in one of the coalitian countries) was against
> the war, because of the side effects.

You were upset about removing a horrible dicatator?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
.. .
> In article >,
> "andi" > wrote:
>
> > Germany (oficialy) didnt want to assist USA (and the coalition),
> > because they don't believe Mr Powell proofs in the WMD myth.
>
> But unofficially, the big motivation was money. A much, much more
> powerful motivator than any resistance about WMDs.

That i doubt, the motivation were to became chancelor, and Schroeder won.


>
> > I personaly (living in one of the coalitian countries) was against
> > the war, because of the side effects.
>
> You were upset about removing a horrible dicatator?

No, i am upset that how many were killed, twice, as ten years ago the us was
there too.

andi