If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
John Carrier wrote:
: Over the past couple days I've watched TV stories about a couple of programs : to celebrate the Wright Centennial (Dec 17th) with reenactments of the : famous flight. The key ingredient to both efforts (are there more?) is a : reproduction Wright Flyer in 1903 trim. This is trickier than it might seem : ... the Smithsonian flyer was damaged after the fourth flight and was : modified several times between 1903 and its presentation to the museum. : Notes/blueprints are not extensive. It's obviously a challenge to reverse : engineer the machine to an authentic configuration, right down to the : engine. : The Wright Experience is sponsored by Ford, EAA and others. They've got a : towed glider and a flight simulator for training. Several pilots chosen. : Scott Crossfield is a consultant (and test pilot for the glider!). : The Wright Stuff appears to be smaller scale. Never the less, their product : appears to be of similar quality and authenticity to the other program. The : apparent lack of flight training (the guy is practicing in a Citabria) looks : like a large hurdle. I suspect the flyer needs rather specialized technique : compared to conventional aircraft. : Anyone know of any other efforts in the reenactment effort? : R / John I only saw a small piece of the TV pr9ogram, and read a few snippest in the paper, but.... Do I understand correctly that the original Wright Flyer as well as the replicas, CANNOT fly unless there's sufficient wind? --- Gregg "Improvise, adapt, overcome." Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Phone: (617) 496-1558 ------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------- For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install, fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best! ---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ---- |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Gregg Germain wrote:
Do I understand correctly that the original Wright Flyer as well as the replicas, CANNOT fly unless there's sufficient wind? It could fly w/o sufficient wind, but just didn't have the oomph to take off by itself due to it's puny 12-hp engine tasked with getting 600 lbs. of airplane into the air. -Mike Marron |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Do I understand correctly that the original Wright Flyer as well as the replicas, CANNOT fly unless there's sufficient wind? Sure they can fly. An airplane in the air does not know whether the wind is blowing or not. *Taking off* however is a different matter. The steady wind at Kill Devil Hill was also essential for the kite trials that preceded powered flight in the Wright Flyer. Unlike an airplane, a kite is tethered to the ground and the airstream is provided not by a propeller but by the differential between the speed of the air and that of the ground. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|