The Wright Stuff and The Wright Experience

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:32:05 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

know about the most recently publicized repros, but methinks thay are not as
rare as the TV folks would have you believe?

The difference lies in the degree of authenticity. Using contemporary
materials and knowledge, it shouldn't be difficult to build a Wright
Flyer that a quick & competent pilot could fly. The Warrenton VA and
the EAA efforts are attempts to duplicate the airplane that the
Wrights flew in 1903, in the case of Warrenton (I think I have this
right) even unto the engine.

The EAA effort is accompanied by a flight simulator, in which the
public can attempt to fly the thang. Evidently it is hugely difficult,
and experienced pilots climb down from the simulator sweating and
trembling. www.warbirdforum.com/wrightst.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

Big deal. Historic replicas of the '01 Gustav-Weisskopf/Whitehead GW
No.21 have flown in both the '80s and '90s- the latter by a Luftwaffe
pilot. The Wrights dismissed the aircraft as having flown first due to
its design... which they claimed "could never fly". The original
flight and the two replicas proved them wrong. The fact that the NASM
continues to present the Wrights flight at Kitty Hawk as where it all
began is BS. It began with the GW No.21 in Connecticut in 1901.
If only the scientific reporter of that flight had used a camera
instead of a sketch of that flight aviation history would be very
different. But of course Weisskopf was a German immigrant and not
intent on pioneering aviation; rather, he was fixated on engine
development which failed in the US. Returning to Germany after never
achieving US citizenship, Weisskof died... and was soon forgotten by
everyone except for those in Germany.
His name deserves to be up there with Lilienthal and Zeppelin. But
America will never see it no matter what the evidence. Even if his
exact motors were duplicated today and a perfect replica flew the
Wright myth will continue on just like the Yeager myth of breaking
Mach 1 first.
When it comes to "official" history vs real history I'd settle for the
latter.

Rob

p.s. Wright lovers everywhere, no offense intended. Their achievement
is worthy but you cannot just ignore other people's achievements or
just blindly accept the "official" history of everything. The way GW
is treated historically is shameful to say the least, deceitful at its
worst.

Walt Boyne was a career Air Force pilot with 5,000 flying hours. He
went on to become director of the Smithsonian's National Air and
Space Museum, founder of Air & Space magazine, and he is
widely-recognized as the world's foremost authority on aviation. He
has written thirty-six works of nonfiction and five novels on
aviation, and is one of the few writers to have been on the New York
Times' best seller list for .. both fiction and non-fiction.

He taps into his skills to explore the psychology of the Wright
brothers .. their family .. and their fierce circle of competitors in
the new book (1) : DAWN OVER KITTY HAWK: THE NOVEL
OF THE WRIGHT BROTHERS .

For years it seemed certain that Samuel Langley, Secretary of the
Smithsonian, would be the first to take to the skies in powered
flight. The French, who had flown the first balloon in 1783, were
determined that it would be a Frenchman who would fly first, and they
considered the Wright brothers of Dayton, Ohio to be liars not flyers,
unable to get off the ground with any aircraft of their own design.

Orville and Wilbur had to struggle against more than gravity--they had
to break the bonds of dominance that their father, Bishop Milton
Wright, exercised over them. To him they were just "the boys"
until well into their thirties, and his word was absolute law in the
tightly-knit Wright household. He would have preferred them to be
lawyers or teachers, and the Bishop watched with cynical detachment
as Orville and Wilbur went from kites to powered flight in their
famous Flyer in just four years.

On December 17, 1903, they signaled the dawn of aviation with their
four history making flights at Kitty Hawk, only to find that no one
cared in the least about their great invention. Even though they were
ten years ahead of all competition, they found that they could
not sell their aircraft to the U.S. government even as Alexander
Graham Bell and Louis Blériot, were plundering their ideas.

The Wright Brothers gave the gift of flight to mankind, changing the
world in ways even they never dreamed of. Walt Boyne's new book
tells for the first time ever the human side of the two brothers.

- Stephen Coonts : "A magnificent novel of the dawn of the aviation
age by the world's foremost aviation historian, DAWN OVER KITTY HAWK
dramatically exposes the humanity, conflicts and genius of the men who
gave us wings. This terrific historical novel is as captivating, and
as revealing, as Gore Vidal's Lincoln. You owe yourself this ride."

[From the "FIGHTER PILOT" email list]

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...


Big deal. Historic replicas of the '01 Gustav-Weisskopf/Whitehead GW
No.21 have flown in both the '80s and '90s- the latter by a Luftwaffe
pilot. The Wrights dismissed the aircraft as having flown first due to
its design... which they claimed "could never fly". The original
flight and the two replicas proved them wrong. The fact that the NASM
continues to present the Wrights flight at Kitty Hawk as where it all
began is BS. It began with the GW No.21 in Connecticut in 1901.
If only the scientific reporter of that flight had used a camera
instead of a sketch of that flight aviation history would be very
different. But of course Weisskopf was a German immigrant and not
intent on pioneering aviation; rather, he was fixated on engine
development which failed in the US. Returning to Germany after never
achieving US citizenship, Weisskof died... and was soon forgotten by
everyone except for those in Germany.
His name deserves to be up there with Lilienthal and Zeppelin. But
America will never see it no matter what the evidence. Even if his
exact motors were duplicated today and a perfect replica flew the
Wright myth will continue on just like the Yeager myth of breaking
Mach 1 first.
When it comes to "official" history vs real history I'd settle for the
latter.

Rob

Rob,

Your claims are almost certainly untrue. I'm sure you know this, but are
trolling with more and more of your "Wild claims about German Aviation" tour
(like your claim today on Rec. Aviation. Military that the ME-262 was the
first aircraft to break the sound barrier.) That idea has been soundly
thumped there, so I'll take on this one...

Whitehead's claims were that he had a 10 hp engine to drive the wheels of
his aircraft on land. That engine was claimed to weigh 22 pounds. Sorry,
not doable in 1901. The second engine was claimed to produce 20 hp at a
weight of 35 pounds. Again, not doable in 1901. If the man had such
engines, the world would have beaten a path to his door. They didn't,
because those engines didn't exist. Sure, he may have had engines, but not
engines with those characteristics. Also, if we assume the impossible, that
the engines were real, have you seen the pictures of his aircraft?
Particularly the propellers? I don't think anyone since Alberto
Santos-Dumont has used that design. It isn't efficient, and with the low HP
engines which might have been available, high prop efficiency is critical if
you want to fly. Again, Whitehead's claims don't pan-out.

I'm sure you will argue that a couple of groups have built and flown
"replicas" of Whitehead's aircraft? Without drawings or an example to use
as a go-by, claiming you've built a replica is a bit far fetched, especially
when you use modern engines and propellers like those re-creators did. With
modern engines and propellors, you can make any shape fly... Just look at
the Facetmobile and a hundred other not-very-efficient designs.

Finally, if Whitehead got his "airplane #21" to fly, why didn't any of his
later creations fly? Certainly he would have improved his design, rather
than starting with a successful design, flying it a time or two, then moving
on to designs that were unable to fly...

Another good angle for you to take would be to ask "There were period
articles written about Whitehead's flights. Certainly you're not
questioning the credibility of those reporters?"... I used to believe in the
accuracy of magazine articles (and newspaper articles too), but after about
the 10th glowing article in Popular Science/Mechanics/etc on the Moeller
Skycar, I realized that reporters get a bit carried away in their search to
either: A) Sell more subscriptions, or B) Be the guy who wrote about the
next big thing that hasn't quite happened yet.

Now, run along and dig up some WWII German scientist who, on his deathbead,
claimed that he and Werner VonBraun designed and built the first SR-71.
Which was secreted to the US, but wasn't flown until the 1960's. I'm sure
we'll have fun with that one too.

KB

Finally, if Whitehead got his "airplane #21" to fly, why didn't any of his
later creations fly? Certainly he would have improved his design, rather
than starting with a successful design, flying it a time or two, then moving
on to designs that were unable to fly...

Just so. It's like the European "discoveries" of the Americas before
Columbus. If it's not provable, and if it led to nothing, then it
might as well not have happened.

Perhaps in the case of Columbus we use the wrong word, and "opening"
is what he did. And in the case of the Wrights, perhaps what we mean
is "they achieved replicable powered flight." But that is a bit long
to go on a postage stamp.

The Wrights were the first to fly. Put as many asterisks after it as
you like, having to do with power / proof / whatever, but they were
the first to fly.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

Your claims are almost certainly untrue. I'm sure you know this, but are
trolling with more and more of your "Wild claims about German Aviation" tour
(like your claim today on Rec. Aviation. Military that the ME-262 was the
first aircraft to break the sound barrier.) That idea has been soundly
thumped there, so I'll take on this one...

Certainly untrue? Did YOU witness the flight in 1901? A scientific
reporter did and drew a sketch of the aircraft IN FLIGHT. Furthermore,
that FLIGHT was witnessed by hundreds of people in Connecticut on that
day. Second, regarding the Me-262 and Mach 1 there is absolutely no
way for the 1946 US Flight Manual to mention the Me-262 being able to
break Mach 1 in a critical dive based solely on captured German wind
tunnel data as it took a full 11 years to evaluate all that
information. At the time of printing in 1946 Wright Patterson held
thousands of tons captured aviation documents. Sorry, they got that
info from the Germans directly or someone in the US broke the barrier
in a captured 262.

Whitehead's claims were that he had a 10 hp engine to drive the wheels of
his aircraft on land. That engine was claimed to weigh 22 pounds. Sorry,
not doable in 1901. The second engine was claimed to produce 20 hp at a
weight of 35 pounds. Again, not doable in 1901. If the man had such
engines, the world would have beaten a path to his door. They didn't,
because those engines didn't exist. Sure, he may have had engines, but not
engines with those characteristics. Also, if we assume the impossible, that
the engines were real, have you seen the pictures of his aircraft?
Particularly the propellers? I don't think anyone since Alberto
Santos-Dumont has used that design. It isn't efficient, and with the low HP
engines which might have been available, high prop efficiency is critical if
you want to fly. Again, Whitehead's claims don't pan-out.

Yet the aircraft FLEW in 1901. The missing design of his engine does
not in any way discredit the flight. Because YOU can't figure it out
doesn't mean Weisskopf didn't build it and use it.

I'm sure you will argue that a couple of groups have built and flown
"replicas" of Whitehead's aircraft? Without drawings or an example to use
as a go-by, claiming you've built a replica is a bit far fetched, especially
when you use modern engines and propellers like those re-creators did. With
modern engines and propellors, you can make any shape fly... Just look at
the Facetmobile and a hundred other not-very-efficient designs.

Perhaps you should investigate the replicas yourself since every
detail available was painstakingly recreated. Remember, the Wrights
claimed the GW NO.21 could NEVER fly based on its design- not the
motor. Again, they were proven wrong. The GW No.21 is pretty close to
the first Taube in basic structure, albeit more primitive... which all
early aviation models were at the time in question.

Finally, if Whitehead got his "airplane #21" to fly, why didn't any of his
later creations fly? Certainly he would have improved his design, rather
than starting with a successful design, flying it a time or two, then moving
on to designs that were unable to fly...

As stated by Weisskopf himself his real interest was in the
development of motors and would leave the adventures of pioneering
flight to others. To have a successful flight in 1901 is amazing in
itself. But that doesn't naturally mean Weisskopf would excel as an
inventor or aircraft designer. He concentrated on different motors but
failed in the US- returning home to Germany. Sad but true. Sort of
like those with one hit wonders that are never heard of again. Nothing
suspicious about that, happens all the time.

Another good angle for you to take would be to ask "There were period
articles written about Whitehead's flights. Certainly you're not
questioning the credibility of those reporters?"... I used to believe in the
accuracy of magazine articles (and newspaper articles too), but after about
the 10th glowing article in Popular Science/Mechanics/etc on the Moeller
Skycar, I realized that reporters get a bit carried away in their search to
either: A) Sell more subscriptions, or B) Be the guy who wrote about the
next big thing that hasn't quite happened yet.

No, there is strong debate going on over those articles and
contradictions; however, the reporter that covered the flight only had
to use a camera to capture the machine in flight and we wouldn't be
having this argument. Sadly, he chose to draw a sketch. That isn't
Weisskopf's fault. And the poor sport Wrights angered over US
disinterest in their designs went to Europe... only to return with an
ironclad "guarantee" of their aviation status based solely on
blackmailing. No "first to fly" no aircraft to be preserved.

Now, run along and dig up some WWII German scientist who, on his deathbead,
claimed that he and Werner VonBraun designed and built the first SR-71.
Which was secreted to the US, but wasn't flown until the 1960's. I'm sure
we'll have fun with that one too.

KB

Nice joke but you might want to reconsider since German disc aircraft
are still classified and the largest of those was reputed to have gone
several thousands of miles per hour in the '40s... long before the
SR-71. BTW, the X-15 was faster than the SR-71 and bears a rather
strong resemblence to the projected manned V-2 (aka Peenemunde EMW
A-6). Coincidence? Maybe not...

Rob

Rob wrote:

Second, regarding the Me-262 and Mach 1 there is absolutely no
way for the 1946 US Flight Manual to mention the Me-262 being able to
break Mach 1 in a critical dive based solely on captured German wind
tunnel data as it took a full 11 years to evaluate all that
information.

Errr, since we were involved in high speed flight experiments at the time that
the German data was captured, does it not make a wee bit o sense that this data
would be culled through, first? The more esoteric stuff was likely
back-shelved for later in the evaluation period, but anything that the US
thought it could use RIGHT then was destributed to various aviation companies
for their use, RIGHT then. We captured the wind tunnels while they were in
use, and we actually kept the German staffs at the sites, showing us what they
were working on when the bell rang. THAT info was not sat upon for 11 years -
it was taken directly to Wright Pat for immediate evaluation, as were the jets
themselves. Or are you saying that we evaluated the Mach characteristics of
the slave-built jets without bothering to check what the German engineers had
to say about them?! Rob, that's ludicrous.

At the time of printing in 1946 Wright Patterson held
thousands of tons captured aviation documents.

But...sadly... not a bit of it claimed the 262 HAD gone supersonic - you just
think it does, because of a single paragraph in a book that, SURPRISE, used a
bunch of those supposedly unread German documents of yours for sources. Which
is it - did the Americans not read the Mach 1 research for years after the war,
or not??

Sorry, they got that
info from the Germans directly or someone in the US broke the barrier
in a captured 262.

"...got that info from the Germans directly..."

I believe that's what I said earlier, Rob - that we obtained HG III and other
wind tunnel data, combined it with pilot's anecdotal compression stories, and
the result was a single notation in the postwar pilot's manual. Makes a lot
more sense than claiming an aircraft with thick wings, flat intakes, and a
rounded off nose somehow punched through the barrier, and then failed to report
it for 60 years.

You still ignore the problem that NO other Me 262 pilot (cept Mutke), either
Luftwaffe or postwar, made any sort of a similar claim. Mutke's postwar
revelation ignores (as you do) the improbable nature of Mach 1 flight in an
aircraft without proper mach-capable wings or engine intakes. Mutke is laughed
down by both his friends and detractors - he is known as a "crazy
gynochologist" and NOT as a test pilot, which he never was. His aircraft was
not instrumented to provide accurate airspeed data and his statements in
private even cast doubt on his on-line claims (I printed the on-line story, and
sent it to him for his signature - he carefully lined out one of the speed
figures and wrote in a smaller, more believable number). All things
considered, he is not a credible source for a Mach 1 claim - nor would I accept
as fact any such story that surfaced first, decades after the event. Mutke
kept his "event" a secret - so good, in fact, that his unit filed no loss or
damage report to match the supposedly thrashed Me 262 that he claims to have
piloted to Mach 1 and back. "White 9", the only candidate put forth as his
"Mach 1 aircraft" somehow suffered incredible damage due to his failure to
monitor his speed and disregard of his direct instructions from Heinz Bär
immediately prior to launch, so we already know something of Mutke's piloting
skills. His Mach 1 flight was an "accident" according to him - but an accident
that caused heavy damage to his "turbo". Being the kind of asshole that I am,
I went to the JG 7 loss records, which are intact, btw, and no such loss or
damage is reported on the date he claims. So, lets ignore Mutke's baseless
claims and get back to the facts - there were no wartime claims of a Mach 1
event in Germany, although there was plenty of high speed wind tunnel
experimentation in the final year. So we are left with your theory that
requires a US or Brit postwar test pilot that supposedly "did the deed" - but
none did, or claimed they did, in the last six decades. Whatever gag order you
may think they are under, these pilots are now elder gents that take orders
from no one - the British test pilots are emphatic that Mach 1 was not possible
in the Nazi jet, and further, they link the 'tuck under' and other negative
aerodynamic high speed tendancies as reasons why it could never exceed .88.

On the US side, a friend of mine has three shelves of binders, filled with
reams of Wright Patterson Me 262 test documents and pilot reports - Chuck has
also known the principal test pilots for years and has many of their original
notes and documents. Any Mach 1 data in there? Damn the mundanity, no. 30+
binders full of every sort of high speed flight test or evaluation and none of
it agrees with you.

Again, a Mach 1 event requires a suitable aircraft, a pilot, a date, and a
location. Documentation from the time of the event is also critical - to keep
from having arguments 60 years after the event.

You can't provide any one of those five required items and instead cling to a
single paragraph that was prepared by engineers and technical writers that
definitely had access to German wind tunnel data, regardless of your rather
biased claims.

Rob, I really am fascinated with the Me 262 - but years of familiarity with the
beast do not cloud my vision, to give it supernatural powers or abilities that
it clearly lacked.

You never have contacted Mutke, have you...? Or done any original research on
this issue? You are starting to sound a bit shrill - ignoring the bits you
can't explain and staying "on message", repeating the same claim over and over,
with the same cryptic proof from that one pilot's handbook -- which mentions
the characteristics of the Me 262 approaching compressibility, NOT a true
transonic event. The engineers of the day were aware that the two types of
event were different, but didn't have anything concrete in their hands to judge
which type of event had been reported by the early jet pilots.

Whitehead's claims were that he had a 10 hp engine to drive the wheels of
his aircraft on land. That engine was claimed to weigh 22 pounds. Sorry,
not doable in 1901. The second engine was claimed to produce 20 hp at a
weight of 35 pounds. Again, not doable in 1901. If the man had such
engines, the world would have beaten a path to his door. They didn't,
because those engines didn't exist. Sure, he may have had engines, but not
engines with those characteristics. Also, if we assume the impossible,
that
the engines were real, have you seen the pictures of his aircraft?
Particularly the propellers? I don't think anyone since Alberto
Santos-Dumont has used that design. It isn't efficient, and with the low
HP
engines which might have been available, high prop efficiency is critical
if
you want to fly.

Agree. The props on his craft would have wasted practically all of the HP the
magic engine produced.

Again, Whitehead's claims don't pan-out.

Yet the aircraft FLEW in 1901. The missing design of his engine does
not in any way discredit the flight. Because YOU can't figure it out.

A 'drawing' doesn't stand up very well to scrutiny when the Wrights produced a
*photo*, to go along with their achievement. Your desire to take people's word
for everything, in the absence of direct physical evidence, is not good for
your case, Rob - human observers aren't known for their accuracy when facing a
totally unfamiliar event, such as witnessing the inauguaral human flight.

Nice joke but you might want to reconsider since German disc aircraft
are still classified and the largest of those was reputed to have gone
several thousands of miles per hour in the '40s... long before the
SR-71.

Care to post the telemetry data or something else that can be checked..?

Which is higher - the drag coefficient of a disk, or a dart?

(Please ignore any questions that don't fit your preconcieved ideas.)

BTW, the X-15 was faster than the SR-71 and bears a rather
strong resemblence to the projected manned V-2

That's more than a stretch, that's grabbing at straws. Other than the fact
that they are rocket powered and had an occupant, the manned V-2 and the X-15
have very little in common. Not launched the same, controlled the same; one is
a vertically launched two-stage rocket, the other is a small, air-dropped
endo-atmospheric test aircraft. The X-15 used nose reaction motors to adjust
its trajectory - something the manned V-2 seems to lack. Only you could see a
connection here, Rob! LOL

v/r
Gordon

Surely this can easily be proved? Two Me 262s are for sale at this
moment. They are certainly better-built than the originals, with far
better engines. If the original could fly faster than Mach 1, then the
replicas can.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
Surely this can easily be proved? Two Me 262s are for sale at this
moment. They are certainly better-built than the originals, with far
better engines. If the original could fly faster than Mach 1, then the
replicas can.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

Agreed, but who would want to put their life on the line to prove it?
During WW2 the Germans piloting both the Me-262 and 163 were hitting
the barrier in high speed critical dives. The reason no other
Luftwaffe pilots have come forward to support the WW2 Mach 1 claim is
simple- none returned alive to tell about it.
One of the most famous Me-163 Versuchs machines in testing reached 702
mph in such a dive and barely survived with the Me-163s tail ripped to
shreds. He's very fortunate his a/c didn't explode with the volatile
fuel onboard (which would certainly be the case for those that in
combat did break the barrier and died in the process). Same for the
Me-262 except in Mutke's case his a/c WAS severly damaged with the
wings, engines, and body badly damaged. He himself did not realize the
significance of that flight until Mach flight was better known in the
years after the war. No mystery there...
The USAF is the final authority when it comes to the historical
accuracy of Mach flight and maybe someday will reveal what they
discovered in Germany in 1945 and exactly what was done at Wright
Patterson with the Me-262. But since the truth is still masked by
secrecy (in the name of national security) I don't see this happening
any time soon.

Rob

p.s. there are many cases in WW2 of missing Me-262 and 163 aircraft
that never reached their destination nor returned from combat. Its
easy to just write them off as accidents, shot down, ditched
someplace... but I believe at least a few of these broke the barrier
and their a/c became critically damaged beyond control resulting in
their death. The Luftwaffe simply didnt have the time and resources in
1945 to investigate Mach flight beyond the realization that their jet
and rocket a/c were hitting the barrier on occasion. That's why their
pilots were told specifically not to exceed critical speeds that
threatened their a/c. In combat, this just isn't reasonable and no
doubt many Luftwaffe pilots were forced into high speed dives that
cost them their lives.

The reason no other
Luftwaffe pilots have come forward to support the WW2 Mach 1 claim is
simple- none returned alive to tell about it.

Then who gave the US the "supersonic" info for their pilots manual? (Pssst
- it was engineers working the problem at O'trau.)

One of the most famous Me-163 Versuchs machines in testing reached 702
mph in such a dive and barely survived with the Me-163s tail ripped to
shreds.

Another sterling example of your accuracy, Rob? That particular aircraft was
damaged during a high speed _climb_, not a dive. Getting that sort of detail
wrong makes me believe you are going from memory here, when you should be
quoting from a document or book - try "Top Secret Bird"; it'll help you.

He's very fortunate his a/c didn't explode with the volatile
fuel onboard (which would certainly be the case for those that in
combat did break the barrier and died in the process).

C'mon, Rob - give me the name of ONE Luftwaffe pilot from EKdo 16 or JG 400
that died in the manner you just described. This statement is entirely
fabricated! ROB, NO one died in this manner - unless you can provide names and
circumstances (and I am able to provide corrections, from the German records).
Yer dreamin', dude. Oh, I forgot - in your world, aircraft with 2-foot thick
WOODEN wings and blunt noses are supersonic aircraft.

I am also puzzled about your 'break the barrier in combat' mention. What do
you base it on? Can you provide any examples of ANY aircraft engaging in a
supersonic dogfight?

Same for the
Me-262 except in Mutke's case his a/c WAS severly damaged with the
wings, engines, and body badly damaged.

NO photo - no proof. NO wartime statement by the pilot - no proof. NO
aircraft loss/damaged report - no proof. The "Silber" aircraft were strategic
assets of the Third Reich, not like the litter piles of Bf 109s and Focke Wulfs
that were all over Germany as the war ended: EVERY Me 262 was tracked by higher
authority and each one was haggled over by various units and Flots. To have
lost two (Mutkes + the guy he was supposedly going to rescue) and have neither
of them reported is just not possible. No "White 9" was removed from service
due to damage by JG 7, or any other LW unit, on the day he claims. Or, perhaps
you have some sort of proof that has eluded researchers like Richard Eger,
Manfred Boehme, and others..? Ignore me forever - but it won't change that
dozens of highly experienced pilots and engineers were approached by Mutke
PERSONALLY, and all refused to agree with his position, for the most basic of
reasons: he was wrong. Instead of parroting his website, why not INVESTIGATE
what he claims? Its not rocket science, but I have to warn you, you won't like
what you find.

He himself did not realize the
significance of that flight until Mach flight was better known in the
years after the war. No mystery there...

The mystery is how he could effectively destroy an Me 262 without it being
recorded. See, when they lost one or had one pranged, they had to notify
everyone - I have the page-by-page loss files for those that were dicked up due
to various causes. In fact, the only losses I am missing are the combat losses
(I have quite a few, but definitely not most) -- but the prangs are all in the
massive file (BTW, Rob, you should order it - it wont back up your position in
the least, but it will educate you a bit, with genuine, accurate, wartime
information). Mutke managed to screw up a 262, apparently right in front of
the Old Schoolmaster (Bär), but the instructor seems to have entirely missed
it. ODD, that, considering he was spring-loaded to ground any pilot that
damaged a 262 due to not following instructions. By Mutke's own statement, he
wasn't.

BTW, when you have written to Mutke, what was his reply? Wait, I forgot - you
don't actually research anything, you just accept what you read on the net.

The USAF is the final authority when it comes to the historical
accuracy of Mach flight

Ok.?

and maybe someday will reveal what they
discovered in Germany in 1945 and exactly what was done at Wright
Patterson with the Me-262.

Those files are _not_ closed. Have you EVER visited NARA, NARA II, or Wright
Pat?? Answer: NO.

But since the truth is still masked by
secrecy (in the name of national security) I don't see this happening
any time soon.

Go back to reading LW 46 comics, Rob. When you are interested in reading
original wartime documents, filled with all sorts of fascinating things every
bit as exciting as the warped versions you have accepted as truth, let me know
and I can give you some great file numbers to start with.

Gordon

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...

Nice joke but you might want to reconsider since German disc aircraft
are still classified and the largest of those was reputed to have gone
several thousands of miles per hour in the '40s... long before the
SR-71. BTW, the X-15 was faster than the SR-71 and bears a rather
strong resemblence to the projected manned V-2 (aka Peenemunde EMW
A-6). Coincidence? Maybe not...

Rob


Come on Rob. It wasn't so long ago that you were informing the group that
the SR-71 was flying missions over the Soviet Union!


TJ