Nazi aircraft

You beat me to it Waynos, I was going to say.

Leduc's lifes' work was his ramjets.

Originally posted by Forschung
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.

Exhausts: This goes back to our conversation on radial jet engines. Each combustion chamber is radial to what would be the centerline of the engine. Each combustion chamber is arranged side by side in a ring around the centerline. Coming out of each of these combustion chambers is an exhaust. Perhaps you call this an exhaust port. For me, it is a simple exhaust because they have been utilized seperately in some engines.

LeDuc made a funny engine during the war which is relatively unknown. It is even hard to figure out when looking at the one diagram I am seen. It is in a book by Renato Vesco, in Italian. The name of the book is "I Velivoli Del Mistero I segreti technici dei dischi volanti" I don't read Italian. This was Vesco's second book. A German guy translated a bit of it for me. This book is primarily about man-made saucers. It is Vesco's position that this engine was userpted by the Germans (LeDuc was in France) and used by them in saucer experimentation. I would call it a radial jet engine since this is the closest thing I can think of but it also reminds me of the Wankel engine. LeDuc went on after the war and this engine was forgotten.

[edit on 2-6-2005 by Forschung]

Right, I get you now. However I think it is fairly well established that the jet 'exhaust' is what comes out of the back of the engine and in this respect all jet engines have just one exhaust (re the diagram I posted before and the Nene photo in a post higher up). The only exceptions I can think of are the bifurcated Nene of the Sea Hawk, which involved the splitting of the single exhaust to emerge on either side behind the wing to avoid loss of thrust through a long jetpipe (a common problem in the 1940's) and the four poster arrangement of the Pegasus VTOL engine, which is an axial fan engine anyway and an arrangement soley aimed at producing vectored thrust.

I am not calling you a liar, it is only that I have never seen a multi exhaust centrifugal engine and I would be grateful for any examples or pictures you can give.

I was also intrigued by your mention of Leduc so I have spent the last hour and half searching up every resource I could find on him. I have to say that each and every one details his devotion to developing the ramjet and how he began construction of the Leduc 010 after a contract was signed in 1937, only for it to be destroyed in a raid and then a second one was built after the war which became the first ramjet aircraft to fly, all of which I knew. There is nothing about Leduc working on any other type of jet engine at all. Maybe you were looking at a drawing for an early scheme of ramjet rather than a centrifugal engine?

Originally posted by waynos
Right, I get you now. However I think it is fairly well established that the jet 'exhaust' is what comes out of the back of the engine and in this respect all jet engines have just one exhaust (re the diagram I posted before and the Nene photo in a post higher up). The only exceptions I can think of are the bifurcated Nene of the Sea Hawk, which involved the splitting of the single exhaust to emerge on either side behind the wing to avoid loss of thrust through a long jetpipe (a common problem in the 1940's) and the four poster arrangement of the Pegasus VTOL engine, which is an axial fan engine anyway and an arrangement soley aimed at producing vectored thrust.

I don't have a scanner and probably couldn't use it anyway. A multi-exhaust radial jet is what you would want for a flying saucer. One of the Avro designs (not the avrocar) used this idea. This drawing is published from time to time. I have the file Wright-Patterson sells regarding the Avro saucers which cost $110.00. In it are such designs. The Miethe saucer design published, for instance, in The German Saucer Story by Michael Barton, 1968, contains one such diagram. An earlier Meithe design contains and interally rotating (LeDuc) engine and has been published in obscure German magazines and newspapers. The Avro stuff is the best. The others are just diagrams. Vesco is the source of the radial LeDuc or whatever it is. Vesco, over the years, has proven accurate so he has to be taken seriously. There are probably a hundred junk-sites on the internet describing the work of Dr. Richard Meithe which show a diagram of a saucer with exhaust ports running around the edge. According to the Americans, the German Foo Fighter was round and was powered by a small jet engine--sounds like a radial to me.
I am not calling you a liar, it is only that I have never seen a multi exhaust centrifugal engine and I would be grateful for any examples or pictures you can give.

Originally posted by waynos
Right, I get you now. However I think it is fairly well established that the jet 'exhaust' is what comes out of the back of the engine and in this respect all jet engines have just one exhaust (re the diagram I posted before and the Nene photo in a post higher up). The only exceptions I can think of are the bifurcated Nene of the Sea Hawk, which involved the splitting of the single exhaust to emerge on either side behind the wing to avoid loss of thrust through a long jetpipe (a common problem in the 1940's) and the four poster arrangement of the Pegasus VTOL engine, which is an axial fan engine anyway and an arrangement soley aimed at producing vectored thrust.

I can't tell for certain about the Nene. The Heinkel-Ohain HeS 3B was a radial jet. Yes, ultimately, all these exhaust ports merged into one jet exhaust but the seperate combustion chambers themselves each had an exhaust. I am almost sure you consider these exhaust ports as an automobile has exhaust ports which are sometimes called a "header" which merge into a long exhaust pipe. The difference is that in the saucer engine of Miethe, for instance, each remained seperate and exhausted seperately or was fed into a ring around the saucer and exited through one of many ports as needed for direction and propulsion--this was the method used on one A.V.Roe design using a radial engine--all very complicated.

I am not calling you a liar, it is only that I have never seen a multi exhaust centrifugal engine and I would be grateful for any examples or pictures you can give.

Well, the junkers was one of their best planes... it had a radar and they even made 15 000 of them during the ww2... Amercas air-force today has about 3500 planes...

can anyone clarify the use of experimental p80s, 4 i think used operationally in italy in early 1945? i saw a doco with footage of them staging somewhere in the south of italy in an attempt at interdicting me262 flights. no contact between jet propelled fighters has ever been verified to my limited knowledge...anyway i'm not sure if a p80 would have been quick enough?

Forschung - I think we can put this to bed now. I do know what you mean with the exhausts of th saucer designs and the description of foo fighters, It was your mentioning (a long while ago now) of multi exhausts on British wartime jets that got me puzzled, I think we agree on most of this now.

Hatstand - I can confirm that early series P-80's were indeed sent to Italy in 1944.

from 'Jets45 Histories'
In December 1944 Four YP80As were deployed to Europe to boost the morale of the USAAF combat crews, the four YP-80A's were sent to England for tests and demonstrations were two crashed the first in mid December killing it's pilot and another in November 1945. Two were sent to Italy in April 1945, where they actually took part in operational sorties.

However it is true that in none of these sorties were enemy aircraft encountered.

The first jet v jet engagement in History took place between a 616 Sqn RAF Meteor F.3 and a V.1 Doodlebug, this squadron went on to account for 13 Doodlebugs during 1945. Of course the first combat between jet fighters had to wait until the Korean war.



[edit on 4-6-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Well, the junkers was one of their best planes.

- Sssshhh, don't mention the 2 original American stressed skin engineers!

Junkers had temporarily recruited two engineers, W.H. Evers and Alfred Gassner, from America to help design the new aircraft. These two had been pioneers in stressed-skin metal construction and Junkers was moving away from its traditional corrugated metal skin structure. (Evers was a German who had spent some time working in America, while Gassner was an American citizen who returned to the United States after his work on the Ju-88.)

www.studenten.net...

it had a radar

- Some of the versions did indeed have radar; the 'C' and 'G' versions.

The nightfighter 'G' series in particular was highly thought of.......although the long-wave metric radar almost all the German nightfigters were equiped with was not exactly 'cutting edge' by 1943 (which is why they ended up coping British centimetric radar as soon as they could lay their hands on one).
(That is not to deny they accounted for many allied airmen even so)

Unfortunately for them they only made about 10 aircraft of this type with the centimetric radar just before the war ended. (the G7c varient)

and they even made 15 000 of them during the ww2.

- Yeah but that is all versions from the first in dec 1936 to the last in early 1945.

Amercas air-force today has about 3500 planes...

- That's just a sign of the times and different days.
Check out the production numbers, everyone made the good ones by the multi-thousand in those days.......and there is no doubt the Ju88 was a very good versatile design.

For instance, there were 20 000+ Sptifires made; 15 500 Mustangs; 36 000 Ilyushin IL2 Stormoviks; 10 500 Mitsubishi Zero's and (even if they didn't have the fuel to fly them) around 1 500 Me 262's.

[edit on 4-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

whilst on the topic of early jet engines, is it known that the early l116(?) prototype was to be fitted with an afterburning turbine engine in 1940? i believe an engine was built and tested and is on display in the states??

Originally posted by hatstand
whilst on the topic of early jet engines, is it known that the early l116(?) prototype was to be fitted with an afterburning turbine engine in 1940? i believe an engine was built and tested and is on display in the states??

- Any references?

To the best of my knowledge the first afterburning jet was a Junkers Jumo 004 (the sub type depends on the source; I've seen 'C', 'D' & 'E' varients mentioned in various publications).

It is a matter of dispute as to whether this actually ran before the war ended or whether it was on the verge of running or even if it was simply a proposal.

A version of the Russian RD10 (their copy of the Jumo 004) certainly ran with an afterburner. (The Russians captured the Junkers factories which were mainly in the eastern part of Germany).

Early jet engines were notoriously thirsty beasties so simply dumping fuel into the exhaust was probably not high on anyones' agenda (other than maybe at the manufacturers labs and test rigs) for some time.

Waynos is very knowledgable on this stuff, maybe he can point you at some other examples of early afterburning jets.

(So many were similtaneously working on the idea it is no surprise that similar answers - physics having no nationality afterall! - appeared in each of the various countries working on this.)

Lampyridae, You simply don't know what you are talking about. The Germans built flying discs by the designers: Miethe, Schriever, Habermohl, they built a Feurerball device, Viktor Schauberger built at least one model disc which flew, another group a Peeneumende built a saucer which flew, according to the FBI the Germans built a field propulsion saucer (a large one) and these is some small evidence in the form of an eyewitness that they built a smaller field propulsion saucer.

The evidence for the "Vril" saucer mentioned is a history of it in book and film version by Norbert-Juergen Ratthofer and Ralf Ettl. The pictures these two have produced have never been debunked. Unfortunatley, their history and sequence of events have never been verified by another independent source. So what we have are some great pictures of the Virl and Haunebu but no other source or context that we are able to verify. The craft mentioned above all have sources of verification which I would be happy to share but, I warn you, they are not "on-line" for the most part.

Yes, the first afterburning jet was supposed to be a Whittle W2/700 which was intended for the Miles M.52 but a Junkers Jumo 004 fitted with an afterburner beat it on a bench test in early 1945. As a result of the cancellation of the M.52 I think (but I am not certain) that the W2/700 was never built.

*wonders* Why did the Germans even boither with afterburning jets when they already had gravity displacement devices?

[edit on 8-6-2005 by waynos]

I knew you'd have something useful to add Waynos!

Big respect to your knowledge of the jet mate!

Originally posted by waynos
Yes, the first afterburning jet was supposed to be a Whittle W2/700 which was intended for the Miles M.52 but a Junkers Jumo 004 fitted with an afterburner beat it on a bench test in early 1945. As a result of the cancellation of the M.52 I think (but I am not certain) that the W2/700 was never built.

*wonders* Why did the Germans even boither with afterburning jets when they already had gravity displacement devices?

[edit on 8-6-2005 by waynos]

The field propulsion drive the Germans built was experimental at the end of the war, not in production, obviously. The nature of this engine is unknown except for the fact that ignition-based engines near it failed and there was a hum of an electic motor to be heard. If you doubt my reporting of this event, I suggest you review the evidence.

Forschung:

>...The nature of this engine is unknown...

Hmmm...for what I know, I'll give a little clue as of the nature:

The motor (powered by batteries or whatever) is placed vertically and is connected to a wheel that is on the horizontal plane that has around six "spokes". At the end of these spokes, there is a certain "configuration"...and this configuration is "pulsed" via a very large coil that is placed under this "configuration".

I couldn't find the schematics before but somewhere on the Internet they exist (or did exist).

Cheers

JS

Originally posted by jumpspace
Forschung:

>...The nature of this engine is unknown...

Hmmm...for what I know, I'll give a little clue as of the nature:

The motor (powered by batteries or whatever) is placed vertically and is connected to a wheel that is on the horizontal plane that has around six "spokes". At the end of these spokes, there is a certain "configuration"...and this configuration is "pulsed" via a very large coil that is placed under this "configuration".

I couldn't find the schematics before but somewhere on the Internet they exist (or did exist).

Cheers

JS

Jumpspace,

This is a little similar to the Karl Schappeller device as Schappeller applied it to ship or submarine propulsion. The wheel you describe was fitted with components which caused it to repell from the central power source which was slightly offset from the wheel to make it go around. Schappeller used terms which translate to rotor and stator. It also used electret which was repelled by the stator engine (radiating body). For applications such as flying objects, it was suggested by the British engineer Cyril W. Davson in his book "The Physics of the Primary State of Matter" that the stator itself would power the craft. Incidently, the rotor, filled with electret, would yield an electric potential in the presence of the stator. This is all aether physics stuff. Is this what you are talking about?

what alarms me is that the germans were using flying saucers from the early 1930's, at this time the jet was being designed but not built the propeller would have been too weak and rockets had only a few minutes burst maximum and wouldnt have been able to perform any real manouveres.
so how did the hell did they power them? i heard many stories about flying saucers being shot down over germany around 1929, why would they shoot down their own aircraft? unless it wasnt. and germany was the most technically advanced nation in the world at that time followed by the u.k-who were ten years behind.
there was a book published by mattern freidrich called u.fo nazi secret weapon? he has some ideas to me it seems logical to that point but it all comes to an ugly conclusion about everything.
at this point i dont know how to upload links so apologies there.

reply to post by TheMajestic


Dont be alarmed, there is nothing to scared of.

the germans were using flying saucers from the early 1930's,

No they absolutely were not. They were experimenting on annular wings, which are not the same thing but these were also flying in other countries too and are as old as aeroplanes themselves. In fact the Sack AS-6, the one that always shows up in photos when this is debated, managed no more than a small hop and even this did not happen until 1944.

Flying saucers, the coanda effect and everything associated has fascinated designers in all countries throughout the history of powered flight and the Germans had no real practical advantage over anyone else, or we would have seen the results for certain.

i heard many stories about flying saucers being shot down over germany around 1929,

Unless these stories relate to clay pigeon shooting they are complete bollocks. Or how do you suppose a country with NO miitary managed to shoot anything down?

germany was the most technically advanced nation in the world at that time followed by the u.k-who were ten years behind.

That statement is wrong on both counts. If Britain was ten years behind how do you explain Jets and Radar, both pretty technically significant surely? Germany had a small lead in some areas (ie the fuel injection on the DB601 compared to the carburretor fed Merlin for example) and trailed in others, nothing remarkable. Also the USA was one of the most technically advanced nations on Earth at the time even if their military did not show it, it was US assistance that allowed the Ju-88 to be built, hardly a sign of a technically advanced country with a 10 year lead over its nearest rival.

What the Germans were was efficient and brilliant tactitians, it is always forgotten that the abject failure that was the Fairey Battle was actually faster, longer ranged, better armed and technically superior to the much feared Ju 87 Stuka. This difference in perception is nothing to do with the planes themselves but everything to do with how they were used, this was Germany's advantage. If these same people had access to flying saucers then Europe, and the world, would have known all about it PDQ, and not in a nice way.