Hey, Germany Invented It... Face It

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

"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

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

"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

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

Subject: 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

"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

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)

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

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)