Hey, Germany Invented It... Face It

[Erich Adler]

I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?

I live in America now but don't like the blatant arrogance I see
whenever history is talked about in regards to military aircraft.
Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull
that they owe practically everything to Germany in the field of modern
military aviation.

We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
run. German engineers told them that in 1945. We could discuss the US
reliance on German wind tunnel data to build a large variety of
postwar military aircraft and research aircraft. We could discuss the
various guns and missile systems copied by the US and Allies to be
applied to those military aircraft. We could talk about the German
invention of stealth that the US applied to both the U-2 and SR-71.
Lastly we could talk about the taboo discs and forms of propulsion
beyond the axial-flow Jumo 004B, which was way beyong US science of
the time and not even perfected until possibly the late 1980s or '90s.

But ignorant Americans choose to believe lies instead. When confronted
with the truth they hide behind sour words like "you lost the war",
"Yeager broke the sound barrier", "the US invented everything military
aviation wise postwar". All of this is nonsense. It is patriotic and
endearing to veterans of World War II but the opposite of reality.

Germany was robbed of its entire aviation core and the hunt was on for
the escaping Nazis that took the exotics with them. The United States
scoured South America and went to Antarctica for this reason as soon
as interrogations of German SS personnell led them to these locations.
Yet they failed.

General Kammler got away and with him the disc technology of Vril. A
U-boat fleet went missing with him and the submarines that surrendered
in Argentina had fulfilled their mission- unload at Base 211.

Americans are extraordinarily ignorant of the true nature of Hitler's
Germany and the underlying reasons why such disc aircraft came into
being. If Hitler had no occult ties there never would have been any of
these revolutionary machines.

I have no doubt the US eventually discovered their secret and maybe
even traded for the technology from Base 211.

Popular Mechanics is doing a cover that shows "when the UFOs arrive".
Imagine for a brief second what would happen if the UFO that
eventually lands is bearing the Iron Cross.

Just think about it, don't rush to conclusions. I don't expect anyone
to believe what I believe. This is America and you can disagree. But
don't attack someone to do it. Just state why you don't think so.

Peace,

Erich Adler

[Tex Houston]

"Erich Adler" > wrote in message
m...
> I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
> that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
> fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?


I was reading this seriously until you talked about that paragon of
stealthiness, the U-2. After I got through laughing I read the rest. Great
parody. You have a talent there. Never lose your sense of humor.

Tex

[Keith Willshaw]

"Erich Adler" > wrote in message
m...
> I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
> that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
> fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?
>
> I live in America now but don't like the blatant arrogance I see
> whenever history is talked about in regards to military aircraft.
> Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
> because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull
> that they owe practically everything to Germany in the field of modern
> military aviation.
>
> We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
> run. German engineers told them that in 1945.

American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
turned out to be correct.

> We could discuss the US
> reliance on German wind tunnel data to build a large variety of
> postwar military aircraft and research aircraft. We could discuss the
> various guns and missile systems copied by the US and Allies to be
> applied to those military aircraft. We could talk about the German
> invention of stealth that the US applied to both the U-2 and SR-71.
> Lastly we could talk about the taboo discs and forms of propulsion
> beyond the axial-flow Jumo 004B, which was way beyong US science of
> the time and not even perfected until possibly the late 1980s or '90s.
>

Bull**** , the Jumo 004B was a typical first generation engine in terms
of performance with woeful reliability and had poorer performance
than the Derwent. This is of course why the Soviets used the
RR centrifugal engine in the Mig-15

Keith

[Boomer]

So why havent the disks and thier masters retuned to the Fatherland, made
tons of money and fixxed all of Germanys woes? Because when they landed in
Antarctica they accidently disturbed Gwar and Gwar ate them!

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Erich Adler" > wrote in message
> m...
> > I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
> > that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
> > fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?
>
>
> I was reading this seriously until you talked about that paragon of
> stealthiness, the U-2. After I got through laughing I read the rest.
Great
> parody. You have a talent there. Never lose your sense of humor.
>
> Tex
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Erich Adler" > wrote in message
m...
> I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
> that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
> fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?
>
> I live in America now but don't like the blatant arrogance I see
> whenever history is talked about in regards to military aircraft.
> Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
> because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull
> that they owe practically everything to Germany in the field of modern
> military aviation.

Oh, goody, another Arndt..."practically everything", huh? Other than that
your diatribe was not too bad right up until you got to the "stealthy" U-2
(which is a rather unique claim) andthen went 'round the bend with the
"taboo discs" and tails of alleged US expeditions to Antarctica in search of
them. What a hoot.

Brooks

>
> We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
> run. German engineers told them that in 1945. We could discuss the US
> reliance on German wind tunnel data to build a large variety of
> postwar military aircraft and research aircraft. We could discuss the
> various guns and missile systems copied by the US and Allies to be
> applied to those military aircraft. We could talk about the German
> invention of stealth that the US applied to both the U-2 and SR-71.
> Lastly we could talk about the taboo discs and forms of propulsion
> beyond the axial-flow Jumo 004B, which was way beyong US science of
> the time and not even perfected until possibly the late 1980s or '90s.
>
> But ignorant Americans choose to believe lies instead. When confronted
> with the truth they hide behind sour words like "you lost the war",
> "Yeager broke the sound barrier", "the US invented everything military
> aviation wise postwar". All of this is nonsense. It is patriotic and
> endearing to veterans of World War II but the opposite of reality.
>
> Germany was robbed of its entire aviation core and the hunt was on for
> the escaping Nazis that took the exotics with them. The United States
> scoured South America and went to Antarctica for this reason as soon
> as interrogations of German SS personnell led them to these locations.
> Yet they failed.
>
> General Kammler got away and with him the disc technology of Vril. A
> U-boat fleet went missing with him and the submarines that surrendered
> in Argentina had fulfilled their mission- unload at Base 211.
>
> Americans are extraordinarily ignorant of the true nature of Hitler's
> Germany and the underlying reasons why such disc aircraft came into
> being. If Hitler had no occult ties there never would have been any of
> these revolutionary machines.
>
> I have no doubt the US eventually discovered their secret and maybe
> even traded for the technology from Base 211.
>
> Popular Mechanics is doing a cover that shows "when the UFOs arrive".
> Imagine for a brief second what would happen if the UFO that
> eventually lands is bearing the Iron Cross.
>
> Just think about it, don't rush to conclusions. I don't expect anyone
> to believe what I believe. This is America and you can disagree. But
> don't attack someone to do it. Just state why you don't think so.
>
> Peace,
>
> Erich Adler

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Hey, Germany Invented It... Face It
>From: (Erich Adler)
>Date: 2/17/04 9:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
>that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
>fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?
>
>I live in America now but don't like the blatant arrogance I see
>whenever history is talked about in regards to military aircraft.
>Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
>because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull
>that they owe practically everything to Germany in the field of modern
>military aviation.
>
>We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
>run. German engineers told them that in 1945. We could discuss the US
>reliance on German wind tunnel data to build a large variety of
>postwar military aircraft and research aircraft. We could discuss the
>various guns and missile systems copied by the US and Allies to be
>applied to those military aircraft. We could talk about the German
>invention of stealth that the US applied to both the U-2 and SR-71.
>Lastly we could talk about the taboo discs and forms of propulsion
>beyond the axial-flow Jumo 004B, which was way beyong US science of
>the time and not even perfected until possibly the late 1980s or '90s.
>
>But ignorant Americans choose to believe lies instead. When confronted
>with the truth they hide behind sour words like "you lost the war",
>"Yeager broke the sound barrier", "the US invented everything military
>aviation wise postwar". All of this is nonsense. It is patriotic and
>endearing to veterans of World War II but the opposite of reality.
>
>Germany was robbed of its entire aviation core and the hunt was on for
>the escaping Nazis that took the exotics with them. The United States
>scoured South America and went to Antarctica for this reason as soon
>as interrogations of German SS personnell led them to these locations.
>Yet they failed.
>
>General Kammler got away and with him the disc technology of Vril. A
>U-boat fleet went missing with him and the submarines that surrendered
>in Argentina had fulfilled their mission- unload at Base 211.
>
>Americans are extraordinarily ignorant of the true nature of Hitler's
>Germany and the underlying reasons why such disc aircraft came into
>being. If Hitler had no occult ties there never would have been any of
>these revolutionary machines.
>
>I have no doubt the US eventually discovered their secret and maybe
>even traded for the technology from Base 211.
>
>Popular Mechanics is doing a cover that shows "when the UFOs arrive".
>Imagine for a brief second what would happen if the UFO that
>eventually lands is bearing the Iron Cross.
>
>Just think about it, don't rush to conclusions. I don't expect anyone
>to believe what I believe. This is America and you can disagree. But
>don't attack someone to do it. Just state why you don't think so.
>
>Peace,
>
>Erich Adler


Sind sie verruckt?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Andreas Parsch]

Erich Adler wrote:
> [waste of bandwidth snipped ...]
>
> This is America

No, this is UseNet.

> and you can disagree.

Thank you _very much_ for giving me this option.

> But don't attack someone to do it. Just state why you don't think
> so.

Ok, I'll bite :-).

You ask me why I don't believe your stories (German disks, Antarctica
bases, etc.)? I'll give you a very simple answer, and I'm at a loss why you
can't understand it:

**Nobody*has*ever*presented*any*genuine*factual*ev idence*for*your*fairy
**tales!

And, just in case, in German:

**Niemand*hat*jemals*irgendwelche*ungefälschte*Bew eise*für*deine
**Märchengeschichten*vorgelegt!

And I do not count those rather pathetic fake images of German disks all
over the web.

So, given the above, WHY THE **** [1] should I believe your drivel?!? I
believe in God, but everyone else has to present evidence.

Andreas

[1] Sorry for the loud swearing

[t_mark]

Since everyone else is countering your ridiculous posts with fact, I'll go
to the base level: You're a profoundly myopic, ignorant and relatively
stupid individual. You've immersed yourself in an opinion and spent your
life supporting it, giving you detailed knowledge of names, numbers and
timeframes, but absolutely no ability to assimilate anything else - like,
oh, perspective or, oh, truth or, oh, reality.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
...
> Erich Adler wrote:

>
> So, given the above, WHY THE **** [1] should I believe your drivel?!? I
> believe in God, but everyone else has to present evidence.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1] Sorry for the loud swearing
>

No problem and tahnk you Andreas for reminding
us that most Germans are sane rational beings.

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"Erich Adler" > wrote in message
>> We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
>> run. German engineers told them that in 1945.

Uh, no. You're thinking "Metropolitan-Vickers in 1943"

>American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
>before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
>design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
>it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
>turned out to be correct.

Yep. Metrovick had a very tasty axial-flow engine (the basis of
Armstrong-Siddeley and later Bristol-Siddeley engines to come)
flying in late 1943. Not a bad engine at all. And a fighter
powered by two of 'em was testing before the end of the war
(intended for pacific operations).

>Bull**** , the Jumo 004B was a typical first generation engine in terms
>of performance with woeful reliability and had poorer performance
>than the Derwent. This is of course why the Soviets used the
>RR centrifugal engine in the Mig-15

And why one Adolf Galland - who flew both - rated the Meteor as
a better fighter than the 262. It had *much* better engines.
I'll grant that he did say the 262 might have been better if it
had Derwents, but it would be interesting to try and mate the two.

--
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)

[David Windhorst]

Erich Adler wrote:

>snip
>
>Popular Mechanics is doing a cover that shows "when the UFOs arrive".
>Imagine for a brief second what would happen if the UFO that
>eventually lands is bearing the Iron Cross.
>
>Just think about it, don't rush to conclusions. I don't expect anyone
>to believe what I believe. This is America and you can disagree. But
>don't attack someone to do it. Just state why you don't think so.
>
>Peace,
>
>Erich Adler
>
>
There's a verse in the New Testament (KJV), Hebrews 11:1, that goes "Now
faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen." You, dude, are one highly religious individual.

David Windhorst -- former ministerial student turned atheist

[Krztalizer]

>I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
>that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
>fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?
>
>I live in America now but don't like the blatant arrogance

<snip, snip>

>Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
>because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull

<snip, snip>

>
>But ignorant Americans choose to believe lies instead.

<snip, snip>

>
>Just think about it, don't rush to conclusions. I don't expect anyone
>to believe what I believe. This is America and you can disagree. But
>don't attack someone to do it. Just state why you don't think so.

Well, if you want to debate with people, why not try leaving out claims of how
uniformly ignorant and arrogant we are? In exchange, I'll try not to picture
you roasting my relatives in an oven.

>
>Imagine for a brief second what would happen if the UFO that
>eventually lands is bearing the Iron Cross.

Funny thing for a "German" to say - they never marked -any- aircraft with an
"Iron Cross". Balkenk or Haken - crosses go on your airframe, but
"Eisenkreuz" was solely an award for bravery. Little oops there, buddy...?

Gordon

[Ron]

>
>>Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
>>because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull

I know what you mean, after seeing some American write a crazy post about
Antarctic UFO bases..


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[WaltBJ]

U2 stealthy? If they copied German stealth no wonder the LW lost - I
used to intercept U2s at operational height and I gotta tell you the
weakest AI radar in the fleet, the ASG14T1, picked them up at 20
miles, the maximum range of its scope. Woo-woo alarm - On tinfoil
hats!
Walt BJ

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) writes:
> In article >,
> Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>>
>>"Erich Adler" > wrote in message
>>> We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
>>> run. German engineers told them that in 1945.
>
> Uh, no. You're thinking "Metropolitan-Vickers in 1943"

Or GE in 1941 (TG-100/T-31)
Or GE in 1944 (TG-180/J35)
Or Westinghouse in 1943 (X19/J30)
Or...

Axial compressors, and their potential benefits, were well known long
before with Whittle or von Ohain ran their engines. In fact, one of
the reasons that the RAF was so reluctant to find Whittles'
experiements was becasue the Air Minitry's tame Gas Turbine expert,
Griffith, was so enamoured of his own over-complicated, unsuccessful
axial complressor designs that he refused to believe that compressors
could, in fact, be that simple.

>>American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
>>before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
>>design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
>>it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
>>turned out to be correct.

And at twice the power of anything the Germans ever achieved. The J33
and J35 both ran in early 1944, The Rolls Nene, developed as a
response to the J33, ran in late '44. Westinghouse was running the
J30, mentioned above, the J32 9.5" diameter missile engine, and the
J34, and Metrovick had the Beryl in production adn were working on the
Sapphire by the time anyone on the Allied side got to touch a German
engine.

>
> Yep. Metrovick had a very tasty axial-flow engine (the basis of
> Armstrong-Siddeley and later Bristol-Siddeley engines to come)
> flying in late 1943. Not a bad engine at all. And a fighter
> powered by two of 'em was testing before the end of the war
> (intended for pacific operations).
>
>>Bull**** , the Jumo 004B was a typical first generation engine in terms
>>of performance with woeful reliability and had poorer performance
>>than the Derwent. This is of course why the Soviets used the
>>RR centrifugal engine in the Mig-15
>
> And why one Adolf Galland - who flew both - rated the Meteor as
> a better fighter than the 262. It had *much* better engines.
> I'll grant that he did say the 262 might have been better if it
> had Derwents, but it would be interesting to try and mate the two.

An interesting noe in the report of U.S.A.A.F> testing of war prize Me
262s at Freeman Field, Ohio, after the war is available on the Defence
Technical Information Center site:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/

One comment in the report was that they did no specific single-engine
testing - They got plenty of single-engine time due to engine failure.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Erich Adler) wrote:

> I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
> that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
> fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?
>
> [snip]
>
> We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
> run. German engineers told them that in 1945.

GE was working on axial-flow jet engines before they switched to
centrifugal versions based on British designs.

> But ignorant Americans choose to believe lies instead. When confronted
> with the truth they hide behind sour words like "you lost the war",
> "Yeager broke the sound barrier", "the US invented everything military
> aviation wise postwar". All of this is nonsense. It is patriotic and
> endearing to veterans of World War II but the opposite of reality.

Yeager didn't break the sound barrier? (Granted, it was just the first
time it had been done in level flight, but still...)

> [tinfoil bait snipped]

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Peter Stickney > wrote:
>In article >,
> (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) writes:
>> In article >,
>> Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>>>
>>>"Erich Adler" > wrote in message
>>>> We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
>>>> run. German engineers told them that in 1945.
>>
>> Uh, no. You're thinking "Metropolitan-Vickers in 1943"
>
>Or GE in 1941 (TG-100/T-31)
>Or GE in 1944 (TG-180/J35)
>Or Westinghouse in 1943 (X19/J30)
>Or...

Yep - though IIRC the Metrovick engine was the first allied axial-
flow turbine to fly (what's rather startling is that within
a few months M-V had developed it into a *turbofan* - the F3 -
although that never flew)

>Axial compressors, and their potential benefits, were well known long
>before with Whittle or von Ohain ran their engines. In fact, one of
>the reasons that the RAF was so reluctant to find Whittles'
>experiements was becasue the Air Minitry's tame Gas Turbine expert,
>Griffith, was so enamoured of his own over-complicated, unsuccessful
>axial complressor designs that he refused to believe that compressors
>could, in fact, be that simple.

Agreed, seconded..
Once they did accept that something that simple could work, all marks
to the ministry (and to the allies in general) for deciding that a
slightly-less-than-ideal engine which could be built *right now*
and made reliable *real soon now* was prefereable to an obstensibly
better design which wasn't going to work well any time in the near
future (and you could always push the axial flow designs along while
productionising the centrifugal-flow engines)

>>>American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
>>>before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
>>>design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
>>>it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
>>>turned out to be correct.

Could argue that - in Britain at least - we lost interest in the
centrifugal flow engine just a touch too early. There was very little
interest in the Nene, IIRC, which is why it was regarded as OK to
sell the design to Russia (while hanging on tight to the Sapphire
and Avon). Of course, the Nene worked very well in MiG15 (and also,
IIRC, in the Tunnen as well as a few other designs). In fact it must
have been the last centrifugal flow engine to power an aircraft in
combat - when did the Indian Sea Hawks go?

>And at twice the power of anything the Germans ever achieved. The J33
>and J35 both ran in early 1944, The Rolls Nene, developed as a
>response to the J33, ran in late '44. Westinghouse was running the
>J30, mentioned above, the J32 9.5" diameter missile engine, and the
>J34, and Metrovick had the Beryl in production adn were working on the
>Sapphire by the time anyone on the Allied side got to touch a German
>engine.

Surely the Avon must have been in early development by then as well,
though it didn't work very well until Hooker got put in charge of it.

>> And why one Adolf Galland - who flew both - rated the Meteor as
>> a better fighter than the 262. It had *much* better engines.
>> I'll grant that he did say the 262 might have been better if it
>> had Derwents, but it would be interesting to try and mate the two.
>
>An interesting noe in the report of U.S.A.A.F> testing of war prize Me
>262s at Freeman Field, Ohio, after the war is available on the Defence
>Technical Information Center site:
>http://stinet.dtic.mil/
>
>One comment in the report was that they did no specific single-engine
>testing - They got plenty of single-engine time due to engine failure.

*lovely*. Just what you want. :(

--
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)

[Greg Hennessy]

On 18 Feb 2004 00:20:03 -0000, (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:


>Yep. Metrovick had a very tasty axial-flow engine (the basis of
>Armstrong-Siddeley and later Bristol-Siddeley engines to come)
>flying in late 1943. Not a bad engine at all. And a fighter
>powered by two of 'em was testing before the end of the war
>(intended for pacific operations).
>

That was the SR1A I take it. How did it compare performance wise with the
meteor and vampire ? One wonders how say a 'conventional' version would
have performed over the skies of Korea.


greg


--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Cub Driver]

>All the
>Germans did was use radar absorbing paint. This does not qualify as
>inventing "stealth", yet no German seems to understand this.

This was true of both sides, actually. The first stealthy warplane is
considered to be the Horten/Gotha nurflugel fighter-bomber, the second
the Northrop YB-49. Neither one was meant to be stealthy; the builders
were simply trying to build an all-wing aircraft. Only after it was
flying did the builders discover they couldn't be seen on the radar of
the time (in the case of the Horten, airborne radar).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>On 18 Feb 2004 00:20:03 -0000, (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:
>
>
>>Yep. Metrovick had a very tasty axial-flow engine (the basis of
>>Armstrong-Siddeley and later Bristol-Siddeley engines to come)
>>flying in late 1943. Not a bad engine at all. And a fighter
>>powered by two of 'em was testing before the end of the war
>>(intended for pacific operations).
>>
>
>That was the SR1A I take it. How did it compare performance wise with the
>meteor and vampire ? One wonders how say a 'conventional' version would
>have performed over the skies of Korea.

Suprisingly fast, IIRC. 500+ mph rings a bell.
Aha:

"The S.R.A.1 had a normal fuel capacity of 425 Imp. gal., and jettisonable
fuel tanks could be carried under the wing inboard of the retractable
stabilising floats. Loaded weight was l6,255 lb., and empty weight was
11,262 lb. The third prototype attained a maximum speed of 516 mph., and
initial climb rate exceeded 4,000 ft/min. Dimensions were: span, 46
ft.; length 50 ft.; height, 16 ft. 9 in.; gross wing area, 415 sq. ft."

(quote from "The JET AIRCRAFT of the World" by William Green (February
1956) - probably reliable enough)

Range was about 500 miles (~830 km) without external tanks. I can't find
time-to-height or ceiling figures.

Vampire F1 was good for about 520 mph, range comparible or a bit longer,
same gun armament (the usual four hispanos) but a lighter bomb load.

"Engine 3,100lb de havilland Goblin DGn.2
Wing span 40ft
Length 30ft 9ins
Maximum speed (Kts)
at height (ft) 540
20,000
Service ceiling (ft) -
Rate of climb (ft/min) 4,200
Range (miles) 730
Armament 4 x 20mm cannon in nose"

(from http://www.609.org.uk/vampire.htm)

climb rate a little faster, and I'd be suprised if it wasn't more agile
than the big SaRo.

Meat Box F1 (with Wellands) was only good for about 410 mph, but the
F3 which was the first main production type and was in pretty extensive
squadron service before VE day was a lot better. The developed version
- the F4 - came in just post-war but is probably the best comparison
to the SaRo and the Vampire:
Engines : two Derwent V turbojets of 3495 lbs thrust
Max speed : 510 Kts (Mach 0.76) at sea level, 430 Kts (Mach 0.76) at
10.000 ft, 235 Kts (Mach 0.78) at 40.000 ft
Cruising speed : 400 Kts - 480 Kts, Landing speed : 90 Kts - 100 Kts
Service ceiling : 40.000 ft, Max ceiling : 44.500 ft
Range : 530 Nm (755 Nm with external tanks)
Empty weight : 9995 lbs, Max take off weight : 17000 lbs
Dimensions : Span of 37 ft 2 in, Length of 40 ft 11 in, Height of 13 ft
Armement : four 20mm cannon + two 1000 lbs bombs or 8 x rockets of 90 lbs
each
Users : Belgium, UK, Netherlands, Argentina

So 598 mph maximum. For its day the Meteor was a very fast machine (it
held the air speed record for a fair while) and for an early jet its
acceleration was good. Not agile except in the hands of someone like
the late Zura, however.

The SaRo wasn't a lot worse than the Vamp in performance and would
certainly have overmatched any piston-engined fighter, let alone
any other seaplane. It would almost certainly have been at a disadvantage
against a Meteor, and although there were ideas of re-activating the
project early in the Korean war it's hard to see what would have been
achieved, even with more powerful engines. I doubt if anyone would
have wanted to take it up against MiG15s (though it'd possibly be no
worse than doing the same in a Firefly)

--
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)

[robert arndt]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message >...
> "Erich Adler" > wrote in message
> m...
> > I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
> > that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
> > fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?
>
>
> I was reading this seriously until you talked about that paragon of
> stealthiness, the U-2. After I got through laughing I read the rest. Great
> parody. You have a talent there. Never lose your sense of humor.
>
> Tex

Laugh this off Tex. The US captured the DFS 228 rocket recon sailplane
in 1945 and took it back home. The aircraft was designed to fly at
(wait for this)... 80,000 ft and carry two Zeiss cameras (IR types
too).
So you think the U-2 came from US sources... uh, no. The funny thing
is the DFS even had a pressurized escape pod, something the U-2
didn't.
And then of course is the German radar-absorbing paint
"Schornsteinfeger"- a carbon paint to scatter radar that was the
inspiration for US Ironball paint applied to the U-2. I agree it
wasn't that effective for that time period, but the US got the idea
from the Germans.
Germans had stealth first- a fact you cannot deny. The Go-229 flew in
Feb 1945, a hell of a long time before the B-2.
Still laughing?

Rob

[robert arndt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Erich Adler" > wrote in message
> m...
> > I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
> > that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
> > fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?
> >
> > I live in America now but don't like the blatant arrogance I see
> > whenever history is talked about in regards to military aircraft.
> > Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
> > because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull
> > that they owe practically everything to Germany in the field of modern
> > military aviation.
> >
> > We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
> > run. German engineers told them that in 1945.
>
> American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
> before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
> design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
> it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
> turned out to be correct.

Only due to the German lack of strategic materials for higher quality
jet construction. Nevertheless, they did remarkably well with
synthetic lubricants and materials to keep their jets flying. Their
latter axial designs were much greater than your postwar centrifugals
and one engine the DB 109-016 which was tested in March 1945 produced
28,652 lb thrust making it the world's most powerful jet at the time.
The Germans also invented the afterburner with the Jumo 004E at the
end of the war. Postwar, the Soviets made good use of other designs,
especially the German derived turboprops.
>
> > We could discuss the US
> > reliance on German wind tunnel data to build a large variety of
> > postwar military aircraft and research aircraft. We could discuss the
> > various guns and missile systems copied by the US and Allies to be
> > applied to those military aircraft. We could talk about the German
> > invention of stealth that the US applied to both the U-2 and SR-71.
> > Lastly we could talk about the taboo discs and forms of propulsion
> > beyond the axial-flow Jumo 004B, which was way beyong US science of
> > the time and not even perfected until possibly the late 1980s or '90s.
> >
>
> Bull**** , the Jumo 004B was a typical first generation engine in terms
> of performance with woeful reliability and had poorer performance
> than the Derwent. This is of course why the Soviets used the
> RR centrifugal engine in the Mig-15

Can't you read, he said the engines BEYOND the Jumo 004B- the disc
engines, which created rotating electromagnetic fields, very similar
to the suspected engines of the black craft flying today... only the
Nazis seemed to have got that engine working in the '40s instead of
the '80s, '90s, 00's(?).

Rob
>
> Keith

[robert arndt]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) writes:
> > In article >,
> > Keith Willshaw > wrote:
> >>
> >>"Erich Adler" > wrote in message
> >>> We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
> >>> run. German engineers told them that in 1945.
> >
> > Uh, no. You're thinking "Metropolitan-Vickers in 1943"
>
> Or GE in 1941 (TG-100/T-31)
> Or GE in 1944 (TG-180/J35)
> Or Westinghouse in 1943 (X19/J30)
> Or...

Maybe so, but the point here is that it was the US experts that asked
the Germans what they believed to be the future and why. The Germans
did explain that the axial-flow engine would prevail.
Using your explanation above it makes the US and Britain look foolish
since they continued with centrifugal engine production. If they had
knowledge of axial superiority and the materials, time, money, and
skill to build them then why not?
>
> Axial compressors, and their potential benefits, were well known long
> before with Whittle or von Ohain ran their engines. In fact, one of
> the reasons that the RAF was so reluctant to find Whittles'
> experiements was becasue the Air Minitry's tame Gas Turbine expert,
> Griffith, was so enamoured of his own over-complicated, unsuccessful
> axial complressor designs that he refused to believe that compressors
> could, in fact, be that simple.
>
> >>American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
> >>before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
> >>design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
> >>it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
> >>turned out to be correct.

Thats BS. Had the Germans had the materials available that the Allies
did, more time, and no bombardment they could have proceeded with much
greater designs in both jets and rocket powerplants.
>
> And at twice the power of anything the Germans ever achieved. The J33
> and J35 both ran in early 1944, The Rolls Nene, developed as a
> response to the J33, ran in late '44. Westinghouse was running the
> J30, mentioned above, the J32 9.5" diameter missile engine, and the
> J34, and Metrovick had the Beryl in production adn were working on the
> Sapphire by the time anyone on the Allied side got to touch a German
> engine.
>
> >
> > Yep. Metrovick had a very tasty axial-flow engine (the basis of
> > Armstrong-Siddeley and later Bristol-Siddeley engines to come)
> > flying in late 1943. Not a bad engine at all. And a fighter
> > powered by two of 'em was testing before the end of the war
> > (intended for pacific operations).

Refer to earlier post, the DB 109-016 was tested in March 1945 at
28,652 lb thrust- the world's greatest jet engine of the time.
> >
> >>Bull**** , the Jumo 004B was a typical first generation engine in terms
> >>of performance with woeful reliability and had poorer performance
> >>than the Derwent. This is of course why the Soviets used the
> >>RR centrifugal engine in the Mig-15
> >
> > And why one Adolf Galland - who flew both - rated the Meteor as
> > a better fighter than the 262. It had *much* better engines.
> > I'll grant that he did say the 262 might have been better if it
> > had Derwents, but it would be interesting to try and mate the two.

Galland has a right to his opinion- all jet flyers do. There are those
today who would pick foreign aircraft to fly other than our own. But
then again Galland only flew the Me-262... he never flew a Vril-7 or
Haunebu disc, did he? What do you think his comments would have been
if he flew those craft?
>
> An interesting noe in the report of U.S.A.A.F> testing of war prize Me
> 262s at Freeman Field, Ohio, after the war is available on the Defence
> Technical Information Center site:
> http://stinet.dtic.mil/
>
> One comment in the report was that they did no specific single-engine
> testing - They got plenty of single-engine time due to engine failure.

Doesn't mean a thing. Of course they would experience the same problem
the Germans did because of the lack of stronger materials in the
engines. Had they removed the synthetics and weaker materials and
replaced them with what the Germans had wanted to use in the Jumo 004
then they would have gotten excellent results.
BTW, Wright's flight handbook for the Me-262 dated 1946 (an official
document) claims the Me-262 could do Mach 1 in a shallow dive. So who
cares about your engine flame-out comments?

Rob

[robert arndt]

> Oh, goody, another Arndt..."practically everything", huh? Other than that
> your diatribe was not too bad right up until you got to the "stealthy" U-2
> (which is a rather unique claim) andthen went 'round the bend with the
> "taboo discs" and tails of alleged US expeditions to Antarctica in search of
> them. What a hoot.
>
> Brooks



He could say what he wants, this is a NG. He could also be like you,
another Brooks, Keith Willshaw, Al Minyard, Dan- USAF, retired!!!

Rob

[robert arndt]

> Sind sie verruckt?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Art Kramer in a German thread and NO mention of the B-26 Marauder?
Quick, somebody call me an ambulance, I think I'm going to have a
stroke!!!

:)
Rob

[Andreas Parsch]

robert arndt wrote:

>
> Can't you read, he said the engines BEYOND the Jumo 004B- the disc
> engines, which created rotating electromagnetic fields, very similar
> to the suspected engines of the black craft flying today...


Sound like a _really_ radical development step from the 004 ;-).

Anyway, a sensible discussion of German WW2 technology should be
restricted to those devices, which actually _existed_. Again, could
you please come up with at least some sort of evidence? Other than
simply re-telling stories whose origin is either unknown or can be
traced to die-hard post-1945 nazis with about zero credibility? No?
Thought so.

You probably say it's all stored in top secret archives. If so, how do
you know? I doubt you have a security clearance ;-).

Andreas

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> > Oh, goody, another Arndt..."practically everything", huh? Other than
that
> > your diatribe was not too bad right up until you got to the "stealthy"
U-2
> > (which is a rather unique claim) andthen went 'round the bend with the
> > "taboo discs" and tails of alleged US expeditions to Antarctica in
search of
> > them. What a hoot.
> >
> > Brooks
>
>
>
> He could say what he wants, this is a NG. He could also be like you,
> another Brooks, Keith Willshaw, Al Minyard, Dan- USAF, retired!!!

In other words, then he might have a clue?

Brooks

>
> Rob

[robert arndt]

> And I do not count those rather pathetic fake images of German disks all
> over the web.
>
> So, given the above, WHY THE **** [1] should I believe your drivel?!? I
> believe in God, but everyone else has to present evidence.
>
> Andreas

Well Andreas let's recount ALL the German wartime disc projects and
see what conclusions we reach:

1) Arthur Sack A.S.6: Private circular aircraft, one prototype,
constructed 1944, mostly made of wood with Me-108 cockpit and landing
gear and Argus engine. Flown by Me-163 pilot at Brandis in 1944. A few
hops and crashes due to misplacement of gear, low engine hp, and poor
rear control surfaces. Cut up for firewood. Photos exist- all real and
confirmed.

2) Fw VTOL: Circular VTOL aircraft patentented by Heinrich Focke,
patented in 1939. None built but construction of test models done
postwar. Photos exist of test models and theory of flight proven. None
constructed.

3) Viktor Schauberger Repulsin A&B Models: Discoid liquid vortex
motors. Repulsin A built 1940, tested until 1942. Repulsin B built in
1943. Both motors constructed at Mauthausen where the SS gave
Schauberger 20-30 engineers to work with him. In 1944, Schauberger was
released back to Austria. Photos exist of both motors- all real and
confirmed. SS supposedly enlarged the motors and installed them in a
version of Schriever's disc. Specifically, Miethe's design which flew
in 1944. Two photos of this disc aircraft were published in an Italian
magazine postwar. If you want them tell me and I'll post the links.
After the war, Schauberger was approached by AVRO Canada for disc
research- he declined. The US then pressured Schauberger to sign away
his designs to a US consortium. He died in 1958, robbed of everything.

4) Rudolf Schriever FlugKreisel: Schriever was an employee for Heinkel
that came up with a disc based on his observations of discus throwing
in the 1936 Nazi Olympics. His design was a circular cockpit
surrounded by a variable-pitch multi-bladed disc driven by 12 jet
engines. On the underbody two more jet engines were used for control.
Supposedly, his designs were taken by the SS (which actually DID
control all of Germany's and the occupied nations patents). Schriever
never had any control over his design which the SS assigned 3
scientists to work on: Habermohl, Miethe, and an Italian Dr. Belluzzo.
Only Miethe's design is said to have been built and it did not
resemble Schriever's original design due to the introduction of
Schauberger's Repulsin powerplant becoming available. Again, the
photos that exist are of Miethe's disc only.
When Schriever died among his papers were various disc designs along
with the original FlugKreisel.

5) BMW Flugelrad series: Disc jet-autogyros. Built at BMW Prague. All
used BMW 003 jets for power which were fitted with a thrust deflector
that reacted with another type of variable-pitch disc rotor
surrounding a cockpit. The body housed the BMW 003 and the gear was
fixed in the early models. Summary:

BMW Flugelrad I V-1: one built, flew in 1943 at Prag-Kbely. Flew up 1m
and 300m horizontally before making a rough landing. Highly unstable
and difficult to control.
BMW Flugelrad I V-2: one built, flew in 1944 at Neubiberg Aerodrome.
Cockpit enlarged for two crew, rudder added,and semi-retractable gear.
Did not fly well at all... tethered most of the time.
BMW Flugelrad II V-1: one built, flew in 1945 at Prag-Kbely. Another
jump at low altitude. All Flugelrads destroyed in April 1945.
BMW Flugelrad II V-2: under construction, not finished
BMW Flugelrad II V-3: Wind-tunnel model testing, none built
BMW Flugelrad III: Design only for stratospheric recon

No photos released yet. USAF admitted design in 1995...

6) Andreas Epps Omega Diskus: Disc with 6 fans for lift and four
rotating Pabst ramjets around the ring. Four 1/10th scale models built
and tested in 1944-45. Photos exist- real and proven. Design patented
postwar in 1956, offered to USAF. Declined. He also had an earlier
design powered by 2 jets on the body and two rotating jets above the
dome- 1939, but not patented.

7) SS Schildkrote: Possibly the mystery Feuerball (aka Foo Fighter)
menace that plagued the 415th NFS from Nov '44 to Apr '45 and then
showed up in Japan (via submarine technology transfer in Aug '45).
This one is a mystery as it has nothing to do with the Vril, Haunebu,
RFZ or any other German disc design. A photo exists of poor quality
but clearly seen is that it is unpiloted and has a large ring around
the domed body with some form of rocket motor slung underneath and 3
fixed legs. Could be an aerial flak mine to be detonated in a bomber
stream or a weapon that used Messerschmitt's electrostatic field
device that disable aircraft motors. Unknown...

8) Thule Jenseitsflugmaschine (JFM): Not an aircraft but a gateway,
portal, or some other form of otherworld travel machine. Disc form.
Constructed in 1922 and tested until 1924. Hurriedly dismantled and
stored in 1924 ending up at Messerschmitt's Augsburg facility. Fate
unknown. Several photos exist. No determination on what the thing was
except for Thule's claims of ET contact.

9) Freiberg crashed alien UFO: Disc, crashed in 1936. Supposedly
recovered by SS and taken to Himmler's castle at Wewelsberg for
reverse engineering (modern term). More likely investigated, taken
apart and tested. Any results? Unknown. No photos.

10) Thule/Vril RFZ series: Disc aircraft with a form of
electromagnetic propulsion.
photos exist for RFZ 1,2,3,4,6 but subject to speculation.

11) Vril series: Same as above.
photos exist for Vril 1,7,8 Odin and designs for Vril 2,9.

12) Thule/Vril Haunebu series: Larger, more powerful discs running off
Thule Triebwerk engine.
photos exist for Haunebu I, II, II-DoStra,but none for III or
Andromeda Gerat

13) Fw 500: Disc jet fighter project with rotating wing blades. None
built.

14) Henri Coanda Lenticular Disc: Lenticular disc. Coanda, like
Schauberger, was arrested by the SS and forced to work on disc
designs. Only models built before the end of the war. Design would
have used Coandas suction effect and been powered by 12 internal Jumo
004 engines with forking nozzles pointing outward from the disc rim.
Was deemed too costly to construct and abandoned. Design validated in
1949 in UK and patented in US in 1952 with none constructed.

So Andreas there seems to be a lot of proof that the Nazis were
engaged in disc research throughout the entire war. Many were just
patents and projects but some flew and the most successful are also
the most elusive. As you can see the SS working with Thule/Vril;
forcing Coanda, Schauberger, Schriever, and scientists to perform; and
stealing patents from various nations all played a part in the exotic
disc construction programs.
IMO, the victorious Allies only got the more primitive jet designs
because that is the direction immediate postwar disc programs took. No
equivalent to the RFZ, Vril, or Haunebu series came about until FFX
propulsion became available in the late 80s or early 90s. The supposed
NRO TR-3B ASTRA uses a similar engine to the Thule Triebwerke but is
not a disc- its a black triangle.

Rob

p.s. In the list I did not include the Lippisch disc designs nor the
Hortens because they were strictly postwar studies at the request of
the US.

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Erich Adler" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
> > > that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
> > > fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?
> > >
> > > I live in America now but don't like the blatant arrogance I see
> > > whenever history is talked about in regards to military aircraft.
> > > Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
> > > because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull
> > > that they owe practically everything to Germany in the field of modern
> > > military aviation.
> > >
> > > We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
> > > run. German engineers told them that in 1945.
> >
> > American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
> > before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
> > design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
> > it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
> > turned out to be correct.
>
> Only due to the German lack of strategic materials for higher quality
> jet construction. Nevertheless, they did remarkably well with
> synthetic lubricants and materials to keep their jets flying. Their
> latter axial designs were much greater than your postwar centrifugals
> and one engine the DB 109-016 which was tested in March 1945 produced
> 28,652 lb thrust making it the world's most powerful jet at the time.

Of course it never actually flew

> The Germans also invented the afterburner with the Jumo 004E at the
> end of the war. Postwar, the Soviets made good use of other designs,
> especially the German derived turboprops.

Which used more fuel and produced less thrust than the Nene

> >
> > > We could discuss the US
> > > reliance on German wind tunnel data to build a large variety of
> > > postwar military aircraft and research aircraft. We could discuss the
> > > various guns and missile systems copied by the US and Allies to be
> > > applied to those military aircraft. We could talk about the German
> > > invention of stealth that the US applied to both the U-2 and SR-71.
> > > Lastly we could talk about the taboo discs and forms of propulsion
> > > beyond the axial-flow Jumo 004B, which was way beyong US science of
> > > the time and not even perfected until possibly the late 1980s or '90s.
> > >
> >
> > Bull**** , the Jumo 004B was a typical first generation engine in terms
> > of performance with woeful reliability and had poorer performance
> > than the Derwent. This is of course why the Soviets used the
> > RR centrifugal engine in the Mig-15
>
> Can't you read, he said the engines BEYOND the Jumo 004B- the disc
> engines, which created rotating electromagnetic fields, very similar
> to the suspected engines of the black craft flying today... only the
> Nazis seemed to have got that engine working in the '40s instead of
> the '80s, '90s, 00's(?).
>

There is of course no evidence that anything of the sort happened

Keith

[Boomer]

Actually you have offered ZERO "proof" whatsoever! A lot of typing but NO
proof! post some links to these alleged photos NOT line drawings.

Actually ALL German disc research comes from US research during the
revolutionary war (the hetians found the objects and returned to Europe to
tell the stories) engraved stone tablets exist, confirmed and verified.
Why do you suppose these things never had wings? Because the Wright
Brothers et al hadent devised them yet!
Arther T. Farnsworth (not THAT Art Farnsworth) of Ooopseyepinchedda dookie
Delaware devised 3 flying discs out of nothing more than wood and a kind of
plaster and a complicated series of pullys and ropes connected to pedels in
the "manbasket" as he called it. When operated the upper disc rotated
clockwise while the lower disc rotated counterclockwise and created a great
wind, or as Art called it "mother-in-law whooshing" . The wind was collected
in a complicated series of wooden troughs which brought them to the bottom
of the central area of the disc where upon they were re-ingested into the
works and the wind speed increased. Unfortunatly Art always tired before he
could develope enough thrust to actually lift off. This led to the Ox
powered version and..................


"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> > And I do not count those rather pathetic fake images of German disks all
> > over the web.
> >
> > So, given the above, WHY THE **** [1] should I believe your drivel?!? I
> > believe in God, but everyone else has to present evidence.
> >
> > Andreas
>
> Well Andreas let's recount ALL the German wartime disc projects and
> see what conclusions we reach:
>
> 1) Arthur Sack A.S.6: Private circular aircraft, one prototype,
> constructed 1944, mostly made of wood with Me-108 cockpit and landing
> gear and Argus engine. Flown by Me-163 pilot at Brandis in 1944. A few
> hops and crashes due to misplacement of gear, low engine hp, and poor
> rear control surfaces. Cut up for firewood. Photos exist- all real and
> confirmed.
>
> 2) Fw VTOL: Circular VTOL aircraft patentented by Heinrich Focke,
> patented in 1939. None built but construction of test models done
> postwar. Photos exist of test models and theory of flight proven. None
> constructed.
>
> 3) Viktor Schauberger Repulsin A&B Models: Discoid liquid vortex
> motors. Repulsin A built 1940, tested until 1942. Repulsin B built in
> 1943. Both motors constructed at Mauthausen where the SS gave
> Schauberger 20-30 engineers to work with him. In 1944, Schauberger was
> released back to Austria. Photos exist of both motors- all real and
> confirmed. SS supposedly enlarged the motors and installed them in a
> version of Schriever's disc. Specifically, Miethe's design which flew
> in 1944. Two photos of this disc aircraft were published in an Italian
> magazine postwar. If you want them tell me and I'll post the links.
> After the war, Schauberger was approached by AVRO Canada for disc
> research- he declined. The US then pressured Schauberger to sign away
> his designs to a US consortium. He died in 1958, robbed of everything.
>
> 4) Rudolf Schriever FlugKreisel: Schriever was an employee for Heinkel
> that came up with a disc based on his observations of discus throwing
> in the 1936 Nazi Olympics. His design was a circular cockpit
> surrounded by a variable-pitch multi-bladed disc driven by 12 jet
> engines. On the underbody two more jet engines were used for control.
> Supposedly, his designs were taken by the SS (which actually DID
> control all of Germany's and the occupied nations patents). Schriever
> never had any control over his design which the SS assigned 3
> scientists to work on: Habermohl, Miethe, and an Italian Dr. Belluzzo.
> Only Miethe's design is said to have been built and it did not
> resemble Schriever's original design due to the introduction of
> Schauberger's Repulsin powerplant becoming available. Again, the
> photos that exist are of Miethe's disc only.
> When Schriever died among his papers were various disc designs along
> with the original FlugKreisel.
>
> 5) BMW Flugelrad series: Disc jet-autogyros. Built at BMW Prague. All
> used BMW 003 jets for power which were fitted with a thrust deflector
> that reacted with another type of variable-pitch disc rotor
> surrounding a cockpit. The body housed the BMW 003 and the gear was
> fixed in the early models. Summary:
>
> BMW Flugelrad I V-1: one built, flew in 1943 at Prag-Kbely. Flew up 1m
> and 300m horizontally before making a rough landing. Highly unstable
> and difficult to control.
> BMW Flugelrad I V-2: one built, flew in 1944 at Neubiberg Aerodrome.
> Cockpit enlarged for two crew, rudder added,and semi-retractable gear.
> Did not fly well at all... tethered most of the time.
> BMW Flugelrad II V-1: one built, flew in 1945 at Prag-Kbely. Another
> jump at low altitude. All Flugelrads destroyed in April 1945.
> BMW Flugelrad II V-2: under construction, not finished
> BMW Flugelrad II V-3: Wind-tunnel model testing, none built
> BMW Flugelrad III: Design only for stratospheric recon
>
> No photos released yet. USAF admitted design in 1995...
>
> 6) Andreas Epps Omega Diskus: Disc with 6 fans for lift and four
> rotating Pabst ramjets around the ring. Four 1/10th scale models built
> and tested in 1944-45. Photos exist- real and proven. Design patented
> postwar in 1956, offered to USAF. Declined. He also had an earlier
> design powered by 2 jets on the body and two rotating jets above the
> dome- 1939, but not patented.
>
> 7) SS Schildkrote: Possibly the mystery Feuerball (aka Foo Fighter)
> menace that plagued the 415th NFS from Nov '44 to Apr '45 and then
> showed up in Japan (via submarine technology transfer in Aug '45).
> This one is a mystery as it has nothing to do with the Vril, Haunebu,
> RFZ or any other German disc design. A photo exists of poor quality
> but clearly seen is that it is unpiloted and has a large ring around
> the domed body with some form of rocket motor slung underneath and 3
> fixed legs. Could be an aerial flak mine to be detonated in a bomber
> stream or a weapon that used Messerschmitt's electrostatic field
> device that disable aircraft motors. Unknown...
>
> 8) Thule Jenseitsflugmaschine (JFM): Not an aircraft but a gateway,
> portal, or some other form of otherworld travel machine. Disc form.
> Constructed in 1922 and tested until 1924. Hurriedly dismantled and
> stored in 1924 ending up at Messerschmitt's Augsburg facility. Fate
> unknown. Several photos exist. No determination on what the thing was
> except for Thule's claims of ET contact.
>
> 9) Freiberg crashed alien UFO: Disc, crashed in 1936. Supposedly
> recovered by SS and taken to Himmler's castle at Wewelsberg for
> reverse engineering (modern term). More likely investigated, taken
> apart and tested. Any results? Unknown. No photos.
>
> 10) Thule/Vril RFZ series: Disc aircraft with a form of
> electromagnetic propulsion.
> photos exist for RFZ 1,2,3,4,6 but subject to speculation.
>
> 11) Vril series: Same as above.
> photos exist for Vril 1,7,8 Odin and designs for Vril 2,9.
>
> 12) Thule/Vril Haunebu series: Larger, more powerful discs running off
> Thule Triebwerk engine.
> photos exist for Haunebu I, II, II-DoStra,but none for III or
> Andromeda Gerat
>
> 13) Fw 500: Disc jet fighter project with rotating wing blades. None
> built.
>
> 14) Henri Coanda Lenticular Disc: Lenticular disc. Coanda, like
> Schauberger, was arrested by the SS and forced to work on disc
> designs. Only models built before the end of the war. Design would
> have used Coandas suction effect and been powered by 12 internal Jumo
> 004 engines with forking nozzles pointing outward from the disc rim.
> Was deemed too costly to construct and abandoned. Design validated in
> 1949 in UK and patented in US in 1952 with none constructed.
>
> So Andreas there seems to be a lot of proof that the Nazis were
> engaged in disc research throughout the entire war. Many were just
> patents and projects but some flew and the most successful are also
> the most elusive. As you can see the SS working with Thule/Vril;
> forcing Coanda, Schauberger, Schriever, and scientists to perform; and
> stealing patents from various nations all played a part in the exotic
> disc construction programs.
> IMO, the victorious Allies only got the more primitive jet designs
> because that is the direction immediate postwar disc programs took. No
> equivalent to the RFZ, Vril, or Haunebu series came about until FFX
> propulsion became available in the late 80s or early 90s. The supposed
> NRO TR-3B ASTRA uses a similar engine to the Thule Triebwerke but is
> not a disc- its a black triangle.
>
> Rob
>
> p.s. In the list I did not include the Lippisch disc designs nor the
> Hortens because they were strictly postwar studies at the request of
> the US.

[Krztalizer]

>
>Galland has a right to his opinion- all jet flyers do. There are those
>today who would pick foreign aircraft to fly other than our own. But
>then again Galland only flew the Me-262... he never flew a Vril-7 or
>Haunebu disc, did he?

Yeah, as General in charge of all fighter aircraft, his clearance apparently
didn't reach "Ridiculous", to allow him to even hear about such craft.

>What do you think his comments would have been
>if he flew those craft?

"I felt as if the devil was pushing!"

>>They got plenty of single-engine time due to engine failure.
>
>Doesn't mean a thing.

>Had they removed the synthetics and weaker materials and
>replaced them with what the Germans had wanted to use in the Jumo 004
>then they would have gotten excellent results.

sooo, then it wouldnt have been a Jumo 004B, would it? It would have been an
American version that would have been, uhh, better than the German one.
Right...?


>BTW, Wright's flight handbook for the Me-262 dated 1946 (an official
>document) claims the Me-262 could do Mach 1 in a shallow dive. So who
>cares about your engine flame-out comments?

Ever try to go Mach 1 in an aircraft that is unpowered? Hint: Jumo engine pod
designers had no concept of how to spike the shock wave as it entered the
engine. That means, once you get to your critical Mach #, the show is over.

Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Krztalizer]

>> Quick, somebody call me an ambulance, I think I'm going to have a
>> stroke!!!
>
>Why can't you invent your own ambulance?
>

Ahh, yes - the ambulance. Yet another triumph of the Third Reich.

[steve gallacci]

> Refer to earlier post, the DB 109-016 was tested in March 1945 at
> 28,652 lb thrust- the world's greatest jet engine of the time.
> > >
Except for some mock up bits, the DB109-016 was never built or ran,
neither did any number of other fairly ambitious designs. But neither
did any number of Allied projects of the same period that were, in their
own way, just as advanced.
The German effort in such was driven by desperation, while the Allies
didn't have the same level of pressure, so could afford to be more
conservative, but certainly had the wherewithal to get advanced/exotic
if they had to.

That Germans were the first to connect some dots in some engineering
which deserves some appropriate historical footnote, but there simply
isn't anything special about the Germans for having done so. It is like
suggesting that Glenn Curtis was "better" than the Wrights for hinged
ailerons instead of wing warping, and that anyone who used ailerons
afterwards was some kind of thief/mental midget for adopting the idea.
Basic physics would have lead anyone to the same conclusion/solutions
for all kinds of stuff, WHEN is simply a matter of circumstance.

[Felger Carbon]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Quick, somebody call me an ambulance

OK, you're an ambulance.

[steve gallacci]

> 1) Arthur Sack A.S.6: Private circular aircraft, one prototype,
> constructed 1944, mostly made of wood with Me-108 cockpit and landing
> gear and Argus engine. Flown by Me-163 pilot at Brandis in 1944. A few
> hops and crashes due to misplacement of gear, low engine hp, and poor
> rear control surfaces. Cut up for firewood. Photos exist- all real and
> confirmed.

A simple disc shaped plan form, like any number of other ultra-short
aspect ratio aircraft ideas out of the '30s. Very much not a "UFO" prototypes.

( a lot of silly mostly Sci-Fi style fantasy or, more likely, post war
hoax stuff, though I would concede that there may well have been paper
projects using all kinds of voodoo "science" among the particularly
crackpot fringe of the Nazis)

> So Andreas there seems to be a lot of proof that the Nazis were
> engaged in disc research throughout the entire war. Many were just
> patents and projects but some flew and the most successful are also
> the most elusive. As you can see the SS working with Thule/Vril;
> forcing Coanda, Schauberger, Schriever, and scientists to perform; and
> stealing patents from various nations all played a part in the exotic
> disc construction programs.
> IMO, the victorious Allies only got the more primitive jet designs
> because that is the direction immediate postwar disc programs took. No
> equivalent to the RFZ, Vril, or Haunebu series came about until FFX
> propulsion became available in the late 80s or early 90s. The supposed
> NRO TR-3B ASTRA uses a similar engine to the Thule Triebwerke but is
> not a disc- its a black triangle.
>
> Rob
>
> p.s. In the list I did not include the Lippisch disc designs nor the
> Hortens because they were strictly postwar studies at the request of
> the US.

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)


>
>Laugh this off Tex. The US captured the DFS 228 rocket recon sailplane
>in 1945 and took it back home.

They took the first prototype to England where it was scrapped in 1947. The
second prototype was destroyed before the war ended. Neither ever flew under
their own power or over 23kilofeet. Powered sailplane looking aircraft were
nothing new by WW2. A Soviet man flew from the U.S.S.R. to Alaska in the 1920s
in what would today probably be called a motor-glider. Your country only
adapted other people's ideas to a specific use. Everybody does that.

The aircraft was designed to fly at
>(wait for this)... 80,000 ft and carry two Zeiss cameras (IR types
>too).
>So you think the U-2 came from US sources... uh, no. The funny thing
>is the DFS even had a pressurized escape pod, something the U-2
>didn't.

Which is why your airplane never would have made it to 80kilofeet.

>And then of course is the German radar-absorbing paint
>"Schornsteinfeger"- a carbon paint to scatter radar that was the
>inspiration for US Ironball paint applied to the U-2. I agree it
>wasn't that effective for that time period, but the US got the idea
>from the Germans.

The Brits and the Americans had already figured out the carbon would not work.

>Germans had stealth first- a fact you cannot deny. The Go-229 flew in
>Feb 1945, a hell of a long time before the B-2.
>Still laughing?
>
>Rob

Once again, flying wing designs were flying in glider form in the late 1880s in
your country, England, France and the U.S. with varying degrees of success.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

>Can't you read, he said the engines BEYOND the Jumo 004B- the disc
>engines, which created rotating electromagnetic fields, very similar
>to the suspected engines of the black craft flying today... only the
>Nazis seemed to have got that engine working in the '40s instead of
>the '80s, '90s, 00's(?).
>
>Rob


Prove it and don't tell us it's classified.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>Invented It... Face It
>
>
>In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
>> Art Kramer in a German thread and NO mention of the B-26 Marauder?
>> Quick, somebody call me an ambulance, I think I'm going to have a
>> stroke!!!
>
>Why can't you invent your own ambulance?
>
Haven't you heard? The ambulance was invented in his country by the Waffen SS
then modified to a horse drawn version and sent back in time to the Napoleonic
Wars using a Nazi designed and covered up by the U.S.A. time machine that only
he knows about.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

robert arndt > wrote:
> engines, which created rotating electromagnetic fields, very similar
> to the suspected engines of the black craft flying today... only the

Sigh, Nicola Tesla developed the concept of rotating electromagnetic
fields years before WW2, and they are the basis for cheap electric
motors world wide. Look up, synchronous AC motors. Nothing mysterious
or uber-tech about it.

The only bad part about this is that Tesla had a bunch of crackpot
ideas too, so it's hard to seperate the real contributions he
made from the more fanciful stuff.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

[Ron]

>
>That Germans were the first to connect some dots in some engineering
>which deserves some appropriate historical footnote, but there simply
>isn't anything special about the Germans for having done so. It is like
>suggesting that Glenn Curtis was "better" than the Wrights for hinged
>ailerons instead of wing warping, and that anyone who used ailerons
>afterwards was some kind of thief/mental midget for adopting the idea.
>Basic physics would have lead anyone to the same conclusion/solutions
>for all kinds of stuff, WHEN is simply a matter of circumstance.
>
>
>

Yeah its rather silly and intellectually lazy, to assume we, or anyone else,
would have never thought of a high altitude recon aircraft, and its only
because the germans were working on a project like that, that we have the U-2.

But then considering how we have to hear here about how the Germans flew first,
how they went supersonic first, how it must have been some fluke that Germany
was defeated, how they have had super secret UFOs, etc etc..

There is being proud of your heritage and ancestry, and then there is just
being plain delusional too.





Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Keith Willshaw]

> wrote in message ...
> robert arndt > wrote:
> > engines, which created rotating electromagnetic fields, very similar
> > to the suspected engines of the black craft flying today... only the
>
> Sigh, Nicola Tesla developed the concept of rotating electromagnetic
> fields years before WW2, and they are the basis for cheap electric
> motors world wide.

1882 to be precise.

Keith

[Pete]

"robert arndt" > wrote
>
> Galland has a right to his opinion- all jet flyers do. There are those
> today who would pick foreign aircraft to fly other than our own. But
> then again Galland only flew the Me-262... he never flew a Vril-7 or
> Haunebu disc, did he? What do you think his comments would have been
> if he flew those craft?
> >

His comments might have been "Ok..it flies, but not nearly as good as a
regular aircraft"

If disc planform aircraft are soooo good, where are they? 50-60 years later,
and there are zero flying discs in general use.

Somewhere between Gossamer Albatross and the 747, the P-51 and the F-22,
someone, somewhere would have reproduced the general concept. And if it
worked, they'd be using it. Hell...the German engineers that went to the US
and Russia would have said "Hey guys, try this! These things worked really
well for us."

Since to date we have seen none, it must be assumed that the disc was a
waystation on the way to actual functional aircraft. Much as the steam
engine was a waystation on the way to the IC engine in automobiles.
Something to be tried, and then tossed away as "well...it looked like a good
idea anyway".

Oh..I know where they are. The evil US government is monitoring *all*
heavier than air development, everywhere in the world. And supressing any
disc-based investigations. Or simply paying them off and keeping the
aircraft at Area 51. Along with the old German scientists' cadavers.

Pete

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Hey, Germany Invented It... Face It
>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 2/18/04 7:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
>...
>> "Erich Adler" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> > I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
>> > that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
>> > fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?
>>
>>
>> I was reading this seriously until you talked about that paragon of
>> stealthiness, the U-2. After I got through laughing I read the rest.
>Great
>> parody. You have a talent there. Never lose your sense of humor.
>>
>> Tex
>
>Laugh this off Tex. The US captured the DFS 228 rocket recon sailplane
>in 1945 and took it back home. The aircraft was designed to fly at
>(wait for this)... 80,000 ft and carry two Zeiss cameras (IR types
>too).
>So you think the U-2 came from US sources... uh, no. The funny thing
>is the DFS even had a pressurized escape pod, something the U-2
>didn't.
>And then of course is the German radar-absorbing paint
>"Schornsteinfeger"- a carbon paint to scatter radar that was the
>inspiration for US Ironball paint applied to the U-2. I agree it
>wasn't that effective for that time period, but the US got the idea
>from the Germans.
>Germans had stealth first- a fact you cannot deny. The Go-229 flew in
>Feb 1945, a hell of a long time before the B-2.
>Still laughing?
>
>Rob


I was one of the first Allied airman to see an ME 262 attacking in the air. I
am still here to tell about it, I don't think the the 262 or its pilot still
is. Laugh that off.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[B2431]

>From: "Pete"
>
>
>"robert arndt" > wrote
>>
>> Galland has a right to his opinion- all jet flyers do. There are those
>> today who would pick foreign aircraft to fly other than our own. But
>> then again Galland only flew the Me-262... he never flew a Vril-7 or
>> Haunebu disc, did he? What do you think his comments would have been
>> if he flew those craft?
>> >
>
>His comments might have been "Ok..it flies, but not nearly as good as a
>regular aircraft"
>
>If disc planform aircraft are soooo good, where are they? 50-60 years later,
>and there are zero flying discs in general use.
>
>Somewhere between Gossamer Albatross and the 747, the P-51 and the F-22,
>someone, somewhere would have reproduced the general concept. And if it
>worked, they'd be using it. Hell...the German engineers that went to the US
>and Russia would have said "Hey guys, try this! These things worked really
>well for us."
>
>Since to date we have seen none, it must be assumed that the disc was a
>waystation on the way to actual functional aircraft. Much as the steam
>engine was a waystation on the way to the IC engine in automobiles.
>Something to be tried, and then tossed away as "well...it looked like a good
>idea anyway".
>
>Oh..I know where they are. The evil US government is monitoring *all*
>heavier than air development, everywhere in the world. And supressing any
>disc-based investigations. Or simply paying them off and keeping the
>aircraft at Area 51. Along with the old German scientists' cadavers.
>
>Pete
>
What our Nazi friend seems to be forgetting is during the smae period of time
the U.S. had a flying disc prototype fighter nicknamed the "Flying Flapjack."

He also shows some drawings and photograps of ring shaped vehicles on the
ground, never in flight. In the late 1800s (?) Alexander Graham Bell had
biplane ring shaped "kite" that actually flew. I saw a picture of it and
description pf when, where and how it flew back in the late 1960s. If memory
serves it was about 15 feet across. Granted it wasn't an airplane, but it does
prove he had some idea of such a thing long before the Nazis did.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Julious Cesar]

Erich Adler wrote
> I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
> that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
> fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?

To learn about German Jet design:
http://www.germancross.com/

[B2431]

(Julious Cesar)

<snip>
>
>To learn about German Jet design:
>http://www.germancross.com/
>
According to that website the SS were a voice of reason, the U.S. air forces
straffed children because Luftwaffe aircraft were too difficult to shoot down,
Nazi Germany was misunderstood, the Allies "murdered" Germans like Hoess(
commander of Auschwitz-Berkenau etc. and everything was a Jewish plot.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Guy Alcala]

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:

> In article >,
> Peter Stickney > wrote:

<snip>

> >>>American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
> >>>before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
> >>>design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
> >>>it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
> >>>turned out to be correct.
>
> Could argue that - in Britain at least - we lost interest in the
> centrifugal flow engine just a touch too early. There was very little
> interest in the Nene, IIRC, which is why it was regarded as OK to
> sell the design to Russia (while hanging on tight to the Sapphire
> and Avon). Of course, the Nene worked very well in MiG15 (and also,
> IIRC, in the Tunnen as well as a few other designs). In fact it must
> have been the last centrifugal flow engine to power an aircraft in
> combat - when did the Indian Sea Hawks go?

<snip>

Mid-'80s IIRC, but there were MiG-17/-17Fs (VK-1/1F, a Nene copy) )in
combat (Vietnam 1972, Oct. 73, plus probably smaller wars since that Vic
Flintham will no doubt list) after the Sea Hawks (Dec. 1971) last fired in
anger.

Guy

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > wrote:
>ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:
>> have been the last centrifugal flow engine to power an aircraft in
>> combat - when did the Indian Sea Hawks go?
>
><snip>
>
>Mid-'80s IIRC, but there were MiG-17/-17Fs (VK-1/1F, a Nene copy) )in
>combat (Vietnam 1972, Oct. 73, plus probably smaller wars since that Vic
>Flintham will no doubt list) after the Sea Hawks (Dec. 1971) last fired in
>anger.

of course - the 17 used the Nene clone as well. I'd forgotten that.
For an engine that the Air Ministry thought was hopelessly outdated
in 194grumble, the Nene didn't do half badly..

--
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]

In article >, Pete > wrote:
>
>"robert arndt" > wrote
>>
>> Galland has a right to his opinion- all jet flyers do. There are those
>> today who would pick foreign aircraft to fly other than our own. But
>> then again Galland only flew the Me-262... he never flew a Vril-7 or
>> Haunebu disc, did he? What do you think his comments would have been
>> if he flew those craft?
>> >
>
>His comments might have been "Ok..it flies, but not nearly as good as a
>regular aircraft"

Or, given the problems with stability that were encountered when someone
(Avro Canada, IIRC) actually *built* a disc instead of just making up
stories about them:

"Ooooooooooooohhhh shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..." <crunch>

HTH.

--
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)

[Andreas Parsch]

robert arndt wrote:
> {snippo ...]
>
> So Andreas there seems to be a lot of proof that the Nazis were
> engaged in disc research throughout the entire war.

"Proof"? Come on, gimme a break! You just retold the same old stories and
didn't quote _a single_ source on any of the weirder parts. You only say
"Photos exist" - where? And I mean genuine photos or negatives, which can
be examined for fakery and not - as I already said - blurry digital images
on less-than-reliable websites.

And BTW, patents are no proof whatsoever that something can actually be
built, let alone that it was actually built. You can patent almost
everything as long as it's unique - you do _not_ have to show that your
invention could actually work.

Andreas

[JasiekS]

Uzytkownik "Erich Adler" > napisal w wiadomosci
m...
> I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
> that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
> fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?
>
> I live in America now but don't like the blatant arrogance I see
> whenever history is talked about in regards to military aircraft.
> Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
> because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull
> that they owe practically everything to Germany in the field of modern
> military aviation.
>
> We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
> run. German engineers told them that in 1945. We could discuss the US
> reliance on German wind tunnel data to build a large variety of
> postwar military aircraft and research aircraft.

I don't want to answer all this crap 'Germans invented ALL this decades
(or centuries...) ago', but wind-tunnel testing was my business. I used
to do researches in transonic region - the same which aviation
technology dealt with for the first time in the end of WWII and into
fifties. Unfortunately, Germans HAD NO POSSIBILITY to do any wind-tunnel
tests close to M=1. There was no technology and apparatus to do such
tests in that time. Germans had lots of data up to approx. M=0.7 and
above approx. M=1.15 and BIG STINKING HOLE in between! They had subsonic
and supersonic wind-tunnels but none transonic.

My first job after I finished high school was testing of three airfoils
intended for helicopter use up to M=0.95. The airfoils were: NACA 0012
(reference model) NACA 23012 and some modification of the later. It was
during Cold War and long before Internet. I needed some literature so I
dug old NACA and NASA reports which I could find. A friend of mine found
a photocopy of original wartime report of AVA Göttingen upon wind-tunnel
test of NACA 23012 up to M=0.9. These results were totally unreliable
above M=0.7; they even shoved negative (!) lift-curve slope at zero-lift
AoA at M=0.9! It could not be otherwise because the tests were made in
closed test section with SOLID WALLS of circular shape using
conventional finite aspect ratio wing with endplates on external
mechanical balance.

For those unfamiliar with testing technology:
1. However SOLID WALLS are good for subsonic and supersonic tests, they
are inadequate for any transonic tests. Every wind-tunnel with solid
walls has some terminal Mach number (for a given model) above which it
is impossible to increase effective Mach number in the test section. A
shock wave emerges in the throat (usually at model's max. cross section)
between the model and the walls. Nowadays every transonic wind-tunnel
has ventilated test section (slotted, perforated or mix of them).
Ventilation works as a mass-flow nozzle preventing the buildup of said
shock wave and thus achieve Mach numbers up to approx. 1.2 without need
of any convergent-divergent nozzle. I don't remember when ventilated
test section was used for the first time, but this technology was ABSENT
in Germany A.D. 1945.
2. Circular cross section of the test section is not good for
two-dimensional tests. Better is square test section and the best is
rectangular cross-section with H/B>1 (H/B=2-3 is widely used) and the
model placed wall-to-wall between side walls. The configuration used in
cited AVA Göttingen tests is tipical for low-speed tests (as presented
in NACA Report 824 for example).
3. Both external balance (with pushrods and strings) and end plates
produce additional forces which have to be tested separatelly and
deducted from model's test results. This technology is proven in low
speeds but in high subsonic speeds those corrections could be higher
than netto force, so the tests become unreliable.
4. As for negative lift-curve slope - this is visible sign of shock wave
between the model and the walls for me. Another argument about
unreliability of German transonic tests.

It would be all from me about these 'superior wind-tunnel data' which US
rely on postwar until today.

[snip rest of the crap]
> Peace,

OK! You should RIP, too.

> Erich Adler

JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

PS. What a coincidence! Please compare these two headers (hint -
NNTP-Posting-Host):

----------- Header 1
From: (Erich Adler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Hey, Germany Invented It... Face It
Date: 17 Feb 2004 09:54:06 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 57
Message-ID: >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.81.26.44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1077040446 4858 127.0.0.1 (17 Feb 2004
17:54:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:54:06 +0000 (UTC)

----------- Header 2
From: (robert arndt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Hey, Germany Invented It... Face It
Date: 18 Feb 2004 07:16:05 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 31
Message-ID: >
References: >
>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.81.26.44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1077117365 25946 127.0.0.1 (18 Feb 2004
15:16:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:16:05 +0000 (UTC)

[Krztalizer]

>
>PS. What a coincidence! Please compare these two headers (hint -
>NNTP-Posting-Host):

Teuton = Adler

Clutch the pearls, Jasiek, you don't think..??? :)

(I lot of us agree its more than a minor possibility...)

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.