Nazi aircraft

I don;t like the name of the topic , I for ones prefered the use of
aircraft of the german Luftwaffe.

They had great planes and great concepts like the horten flying wing the base of the b2 bomber

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
I don;t like the name of the topic , I for ones prefered the use of
aircraft of the german Luftwaffe.

They had great planes and great concepts like the horten flying wing the base of the b2 bomber

I agree, most Luftwaffe pilots were not Nazi's.

Originally posted by waynos
It was the British who used fake tanks to fool the Germans and defeat them in Africa, there was a special unit created specifically for the deception task and for a time they even had Douglas Fairbanks Jnr (Hollywood star) attached to them. This was one of Britains great wartime efforts and is often overlooked.

Oh, really? The Germans weren't nearly as fooled as the Brits. When Rommel first arrived to the deserts, he immediately called upon someone to get him a thousand tanks. The officer was taken aback, until Rommel instructed him that these tanks should be made of wood and other such materials that they were able to gather.

Rommel did not stop there, however. He instructed his troops to build hundreds of fake tanks made out of wood and cardboard to fool the British air reconnaissance. Some were mounted on ordinary trucks, others were stationary. Rommel's real Panzer tanks furthered the deception by spreading their tracks repeatedly over the desert sand in order to complete the illusion of a much larger force.

home.sandiego.edu...

It's obvious that Rommel's tank deception was far more successful than any British attempt because at the height of Rommel's advance, the Brits were so desperate and feeling hopeless; whereas they portrayed Rommel as an unbeatable commander. It was at the very same time that Winston Churchill gave his speech to the House of Commons that Great Britain was facing "a great general."

We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great General.

While there was all this desperation and chaos within Britain, Rommel was actually equally desperate and short of supplies and troops. However, Rommel was so successful at deceiving the Allies, he created the illusion of invincibility.

So desperate was the situation for the Brits that one of the British commanders in Africa was noted as saying that they were against overwhelming odds against an enemy that both "outnumbered" them and were "technologically superior" to them. Can't quite remember where I found this quote, but it's somewhere on the internet in one of the many Rommel sites.

Anyhow, I'm not a Nazi. I just sympathize toward the Wermacht mainly due to their ingenious commanders; hence, why I state so many times the incapability of Hitler to manage the military affairs of the country. Afterall, he was only a corporal...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
I don;t like the name of the topic , I for ones prefered the use of
aircraft of the german Luftwaffe.

They had great planes and great concepts like the horten flying wing the base of the b2 bomber

I agree, most Luftwaffe pilots were not Nazi's.

The problem with using the term "Luftwaffe" is that it can refer to more than just the German air force during WWII. It's also the name for the air force of WWI Germany, West Germany, and I believe it's the name of today's German air force.

I do, however, agree that most of the Luftwaffe (and Wermacht) soldiers were not Nazis. Some commanders were completely oblivious to the concentration camps and such.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Blackout]

Oh, really? The Germans weren't nearly as fooled as the Brits.

.

Really? Tell me which general led his army to victory in that campaign? Was it Rommel? Er, no, it was Montgomery and the Desert Rats who were victorious.

And if you think that the Germans didn't fall to British deceptions try reading up on the subject. Not just in Africa, it was a major part of the whole war effort and a very successful one.

Originally posted by waynos

Oh, really? The Germans weren't nearly as fooled as the Brits.

.

Really? Tell me which general led his army to victory in that campaign? Was it Rommel? Er, no, it was Montgomery and the Desert Rats who were victorious.

That's because Rommel, as I stated many times, was already desperate for supplies and troops. He didn't even have enough fuel for his tanks to move; let alone combat enemies. Also, Germany had no respect and nearly ignored all of the Allied deception attempts; whereas, Rommel obtained the nickname "the Desert Fox" from his deception schemes alone. Rommel KNEW he was going to lose eventually due to inadequate supplies, but you must remember that had Hitler sent him the supplies he demanded that the situation would have been much different. Afterall, the Brits were nearly pushed out of Africa; hence, their desperation for most of the time while fighting in that theater.

And what's your point about Montgomery being victorious? Does that make Montgomery a more clever trickster than Rommel? Have you forgotten what you were debating? Montgomery simply arrived with fresh troops and supplies at an oppurtune time to fight an already exhausted and undersupplied army.

Besides, it would be difficult for Montgomery to be respected among the enemy when he had trouble being respected among his allies. Allied commanders regarded him as incompetent and egotistical, often executing needless and poorly planned operations. Why do you think Eisenhower took over European Allied operations command versus Montgomery? Montgomery simply wasn't fit for the role, and if he had been chosen then death tolls would have been disastrous.

And if you think that the Germans didn't fall to British deceptions try reading up on the subject. Not just in Africa, it was a major part of the whole war effort and a very successful one.

I don't deny that the British have made attempts at deception such as the paratrooper foot-painting incident. However, on the tactical level, British commanders nearly never resorted to creating illusions.

I fo rone am all for the Nazi Lutwaffe if i had to choose a side that would be it! theose germans were brilliant, excluding the whole errdaication of the jews thing, they would have won the war not for hitler's stupid mistakes and his being parinoid that the German scientists working on lutwaffe planes were conspireing against him, they would have come out leaps and bounds ahead of where they were.

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
Me-262 will own all the others,no matter how common jet fighters are found today,the allies would not have suceeded in building today's jet fighters if not for captured Me-262s.

That slight eccentricity that you all feel in the orbit of the earth is Frank Whittle spinning in his grave.

Originally posted by waynos

Oh, really? The Germans weren't nearly as fooled as the Brits.

.

Really? Tell me which general led his army to victory in that campaign? Was it Rommel? Er, no, it was Montgomery and the Desert Rats who were victorious.

And if you think that the Germans didn't fall to British deceptions try reading up on the subject. Not just in Africa, it was a major part of the whole war effort and a very successful one.

True, but you cant deny that Rommel made fools of men like Wavell and Auchinleck before Montgomery took the upper hand. Fighting for the bad guys or not commanders like Rommel, Guderian and von Manstien were in another league to most of their contemporaries.

I don't deny Rommels brilliance but there appeared, rightly or wrongly, an inference that the Germans were brilliant but the British (or Monty) were bumbling fools who got lucky. This is quite wrong and if such inference wasn't intended then fair enough.

I think that Feldmarschall Rommel would be the first one to agree with you there waynos. Bumbling fools isnt one of the first things that comes to mind when considering the British Army which is a prestigious force with centuries of military achievements to back them up. Even in the Iraq conflict they seemed to lose more personell to friendly fire than the enemy.

Originally posted by waynos
I don't deny Rommels brilliance but there appeared, rightly or wrongly, an inference that the Germans were brilliant but the British (or Monty) were bumbling fools who got lucky. This is quite wrong and if such inference wasn't intended then fair enough.

Such was inference was not have been intended. I was mainly shooting down Montgomery, not British tacticians in general. Montgomery wasn't even favored among Allied generals. He was a daring risk-taker, but when you have so many lives under your control, risk-taking isn't necessarily a virtue imo.

There were several intelligent Brits, such as Major B.H. Liddell Hart - who was responsible for the basic concept of blitzkrieg. However, it was the refusal to accept his philosophy that caused so many military failures during WWII.

I'm new so I would like to return to some of the earlier comments and errors already made.

Jet engines: The Germans built both radial and axel jet engines. The Whipple engine (British) was what the Americans used. The British-American engines (radial) were much, much weaker than the German axel jet engines of the same time-frame. It was only after the war that the English began building very good jet engines. Besides the Junkers-Jumo and BMW jet engines, the Germans had a second generation jet engine which would have come on line very soon.

The Dornier Pfiel was the fastest piston driven aircraft of WW2.

Heini Ditmar flew the Me 163 to a speed of over 700 mph in LEVEL flight in 1943 but could not claim the speed record due to wartime secrecy. Remember the physics of falling bodies? Put this same Me 162 flown by Ditmar into a dive and---how many seconds until it breaks the sound barrier? One, two, three or four seconds? Chuck Yaeger put the Bell X-1 into a power dive to break the sound barrier.

Unlike aircraft developments in the USA, the Germans used more independent scientists and engineers which worked on private, one-off projects hoping to sell the concept to the military. This is the source for many of the concept aircraft, never built or built but not in production. Also, some small companies like Siebel for instance built or designed or consulted on aircraft which are unknown or little known today. The Kammler think-tank also probably had some surprises.

It never ceases to amaze me how smug some people are who specialize in German WW2 aircraft. I mean the Luft46' types. They honestly think they know everything so I love it when some independent researcher comes up with information on an aircraft unknown to them. There are more of these coming.

The British engines were centrifugal not radial and they were the best engines available to anyone during the war as, although the German axial engines weere technically more advanced, the lack of specialist metals meant they had to be produced out of inferior materials which is why they only had a 10 hour life. Also the British were producing axial engines too during the war, not just Germany. The Metrovick F.2 was an axial engine that powered a prototype Meteor and, via the F.9 led to the successful Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engine that was also produced in the US and powered several front line US aircraft so you see it didn't all come from Germany.

Originally posted by waynos
The British engines were centrifugal not radial and they were the best engines available to anyone during the war as, although the German axial engines weere technically more advanced, the lack of specialist metals meant they had to be produced out of inferior materials which is why they only had a 10 hour life. Also the British were producing axial engines too during the war, not just Germany. The Metrovick F.2 was an axial engine that powered a prototype Meteor and, via the F.9 led to the successful Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engine that was also produced in the US and powered several front line US aircraft so you see it didn't all come from Germany.

Waynos, unless you want to get into the Coanda or LeDuc engines, there are only two kinds of turbo-jet engines, the radial and axel. What you are calling centrifugal is the radial. Also, the first Heinkel jet (the first jet to fly) flew on a radial engine. The radial has several combustion chambers in the wall of the engine and each has a seperate exhaut. The axel, is just that, a one-shaft, in line engine with one exhaust. As far as I know, all British jews of the WW2 era were radials--count the exhausts on the engine. After the war and after the British had seen the Junkers-Jumo, Rolls Royce built their famous engine which was used by the British and found its way to the Soviets where a copy of that engine powered the Mig 15.

There is also the Schmidt-Rohr and the ramjet but I doubt we are discussing those.

Forschung, you are so so wrong on this, let me elaborate.

I am perfectly aware of the Coanda and Leduc types so we will leave that alone if you want.

There are two main types of piston engine, the in-line liquid cooled as used to power the Spitfire, Bf 109 etc and the air cooled radial where the cylinders are arranged around the crankshaft and exposed to the airflow, as used in the Fw-190 for example.

No when it comes to jets there is the axial, which you are perfectly aware of, and the centrifugal which you describe as a radial. Except that you are wrong about the number of exhausts as the various chambers merge into a common exhaust (see Nene pic below) look at the Gloster E28/39 for proof with its single small exhaust at the rear of the aircraft.
and here is the proof for you

Now, about your claims that Britain only produced 'radial' (centrifugal) engines during the war, I already told you about the Metrovick F.2 Beryl powered Meteor, whats up don't you believe me? Google it, then you will see that this engine was under development in Britain completely independantly of Whittles work before the war.

The Metrovick F2 Beryl axial engine as flown in a Gloster Meteor testbed


You are also completely wrong with this passage;

After the war and after the British had seen the Junkers-Jumo, Rolls Royce built their famous engine which was used by the British and found its way to the Soviets where a copy of that engine powered the Mig 15.

The Russians acquired the Junkers Jumo 004 all by themselves and used it on several early jet types completely independantly of the UK or Rolls Royce, the engine that became the RD-45 of the MiG 15 that was supplied by Rolls Royce was the R-R Nene which was a centrifugal type based upon the Whittle engine.

Apart from the Russian RD-45 the engine was also produced in the USA as the Pratt & Whitney J-48 as well as being built in Australia and China, in which latter country it stayed in production until 1979!


R-R Nene, pattern for the RD-45 and J-48


Trust me, I do know this subject.






[edit on 31-5-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
Forschung, you are so so wrong on this, let me elaborate.

I am perfectly aware of the Coanda and Leduc types so we will leave that alone if you want.

There are two main types of piston engine, the in-line liquid cooled as used to power the Spitfire, Bf 109 etc and the air cooled radial where the cylinders are arranged around the crankshaft and exposed to the airflow, as used in the Fw-190 for example.

No when it comes to jets there is the axial, which you are perfectly aware of, and the centrifugal which you describe as a radial. Except that you are wrong about the number of exhausts as the various chambers merge into a common exhaust (see Nene pic below) look at the Gloster E28/39 for proof with its single small exhaust at the rear of the aircraft.
and here is the proof for you

Now, about your claims that Britain only produced 'radial' (centrifugal) engines during the war, I already told you about the Metrovick F.2 Beryl powered Meteor, whats up don't you believe me? Google it, then you will see that this engine was under development in Britain completely independantly of Whittles work before the war.

The Metrovick F2 Beryl axial engine as flown in a Gloster Meteor testbed


You are also completely wrong with this passage;

After the war and after the British had seen the Junkers-Jumo, Rolls Royce built their famous engine which was used by the British and found its way to the Soviets where a copy of that engine powered the Mig 15.

The Russians acquired the Junkers Jumo 004 all by themselves and used it on several early jet types completely independantly of the UK or Rolls Royce, the engine that became the RD-45 of the MiG 15 that was supplied by Rolls Royce was the R-R Nene which was a centrifugal type based upon the Whittle engine.

Apart from the Russian RD-45 the engine was also produced in the USA as the Pratt & Whitney J-48 as well as being built in Australia and China, in which latter country it stayed in production until 1979!


R-R Nene, pattern for the RD-45 and J-48


Trust me, I do know this subject.

[edit on 31-5-2005 by waynos]

I do trust that you know the subject, now. We call this engine a "radial" and it resembles the radial piston engine in some ways but it is a jet and the one's I have seen all have seperate exhausts for each combustion chamber. The link you provided to the Metor engine did not come up so I cannot see that engine but to the best of my knowledge, the British only used radial jet engines until after the war. I would very much like to see the engine you are describing.

Regarding German jet engines, the British were very interested to examine a German jet because they were much better than anything Britain built. This is expecially true in terms of material but also in horsepower. That is unless this "new" engine you are talking about and which I have never heard of is something completely different.

I did include a photo of the Metrovick F.2 Beryl engine in the post but here it is again



and here is a picture of the Meteor wich was powered by these engines and which first flew in Nov 1943. Long before there was any British access to German technology.

from 'Gloster since 1917'

This Meteor was the only aircraft designed to fly with the Metrovick Beryl axial flow jet
engine, probably the most advanced aero engine in the world at the time

Here is a picture of a standard Welland powered Meteor F.1, as you can see the larger diameter of the centrifugal type made it necessary to mount the engine in a different way for ground clearance reasons


You are right that the British (and by necessity the Americans too) had only used centrifugal engines in service by the end of the war, this was because the centrifugal type was, at that time, more reliable, more powerful and much simpler to maintain than the axial type. and that is why the Meteor, Vampire, P-59A and P-80 were all powered by that type of engine.

I can honesly say that I have never heard of or seen a vcentrifugal engine with separate exhausts, after all it is the combined output of all the chambers which gives the engine its power, just look at any jet plane from the period and you will never see separate exhausts. Below is a diagram of a whittle centrfugal type and you will see in the cutaway section how there is one exhaust which the chambers feed into which is situated behind the compressor and between the chambers;


It is true that the British engineers were extremely keen to get their hands on German engine tech after the war, and Rolls Royce for one benefitted hugely as they had no axial engine experience of their own however your statement that they were much better than anything the British had is mistaken. Certainly not in materials as the Germans were so starved of the materials needed that engines like the Jumo 003 of the Me 262 were reduced to scrap after just 25 hours of operation, sometimes as little as 10 hours.

Also, as quoted above, Metrovick (Which is short for Metropolitan-Vickers) had the worlds most advanced engine tech at the time, this is also borne out by the fact that the A.S Sapphire (which began life as the Metrovick F.9 and was produced in the USA as the J-65) was far superior to Rolls Royces jumo derived Avon engine in terms of power, reliability and technology. It was only politics that led to the R-R Avon becoming the dominant engine in the UK as all Sapphire powered Hunters were reported to be faster and better handling than their Avon powered equivalents and this engine was entirely home grown. The German engine designers were more advance than Rolls Royce and De Havilland (whose Goblin and Ghost engines were also centrifugal) but not Metrovick, whose F.3 was an aft fan engine decades ahead of its time.

Waynos, Thank you for proving your point. You pictures did come through this time on your previous post as well as this one.

The Germans did know and have the high-grade material for turbines but as with everything else, it was in short supply and expensive. None of those engines had the life of modern engines.

What was the horse power output of the British axel jet?

Radial engines do have seperate exhausts but perhaps the word you are looking for is "exhaust ports". Apparently, the Leduc engine, a radial, used each exhaust seperately as an exhaust and apparently the object that the Americans describe as a Phoo Bomb used a radial and each exhaust provided a seperate thrust, mounted in a different direction although there is not a great deal of documentation.

The metrovick Beryl, as flown in the Meteor, by 1943 was producing 2,150lb thrust (more than the Welland but less than the Goblin) but was passed over for production as it was deemed 'too complex'. By 1945 this engine had been developed to produce 4,000lb thrust, almost identical to the jumo 004, but by 1947 it had already been superceded by the 7,500lb thrust F.9 Sapphire (the jumo based R-R Avon was at the time producing 6,500lb)

Here is a web page about the inventor of the Metrovick axial turbojet, A A Griffifth, and as you will see, his work not only predates that of Hans von Ohain and other German scientists but also Frank Whittle himself with an axial engine being bench tested in 1928, two years before whittle patented his design and 8 years before he bench tested an engine himself.

www.explore-biography.com...

I'm afraid I don't quite ubnderstand the point you are making in your last paragraph about exhausts and exhaust ports so I cannot comment on that.

Also I think you may be mistaken about the Leduc engine as it was not a centrifugal jet engine but a ramjet, indeed the first of its kind in the world when it was invented before the war.

post edited because dopey me forgot to include the link



[edit on 2-6-2005 by waynos]