It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Anti-Gravity tech copied from Nazi developments:Jane's ;Great conspiracy

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Forschung, you criticise sminkeypinkey for supposedly 'ignoring' your points but you are guilty of exactly the same thing.

Again you trot out this erroneous claim;


. B-2--Horton9 shared flying wing design, recessed air intakes, recessed exhausts, RAM coating.


Now I can claim no knowledge of the origins of RAM coating so I must leave that alone but the Horten and the B-2 DO NOT share a design, any more than the F-111 and Tornado do, just as those two are utterly different VG designs so the two aircraft we are concerned with here are utterly different flying wing designs, or are you so shallow as to think that all flying wings MUST be the same?

Likewise the air intakes are not recessed, but plainly exposed on the leading edge in exactly the same way as the DH Comet, now thats not trying to be stealthy is it?

Also the exhausts, I explained this before but you never responded. The fact that they exhaust over the top surface of the wing is true, but any stealth benefits here are purely accidental and only effective from directly below as there was no attempt made to 'disguise' the exhaust from any other aspect, the output of the early jets was so feeble that no designer would dare try anything that might reduce its effectiveness further.

And here we come to the real reason the exhausts are where they are, the engines are positioned on top of the wing spar for CG reasons, this meant that the exhausts HAD to be where they are simply because extending them to the wing trailing edge would cause severe loss of thrust. Designers of all the early jets were forced to keep the jet pipes as short as possible, hence the design of the DH Vampire with its twin booms, Hawker P1040 with its split jetpipe from its centrally mounted engine exhausting at the wing root trailing edge and the He 162 with its single engine plonked on top of the fuselager rather than being contained within it.

This is another example of people building up German tech to a higher level than it was really at by looking at the engine arrangement of the Horten and, in the light of modern knowledgeof the B-2, going 'Ooh stealthy' rather than in the context of 1940's engine inefficiency which was the real reason.


Note - exposed intakes



and short exhausts to prevent loss of thrust






[edit on 26-6-2005 by waynos]


Waynos, the picture is of a Gotha 229, not a Horton9. The air intakes are how you tell the difference. See my previous post.

Yes, Luft46 is cool, but after contacting one of its prinicpals, you quickly learn that these guys actually think they know everything. If you remember my comments about deutsche Flugscheiben you know that those who think they know everything are hopelessly lost. A new aircraft design has emerged recently which they know nothing about (as far as I know) so it will be a pleasue to see them upstaged somewhat. Their method seems to be to write to German aircraft manufactures of WW2 and ask for designs, questions, etc. What they don't seem to understand is that most German companies have very short memories of their WW2 involvement. This is for a variety of reasons which I don't want to get into but it extends even to companies like Siemens which didn't build aircraft.




posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
It seems that many forget the XB-35 and YB-49 both developed by the Northrop Corporation.

XB-35-first flight in 1946. Smaller version flew years before.


www.globalsecurity.org...

YB-49-first flight in 1948.






www.globalsecurity.org...

This is the aircraft that inspired the B-2. This aircraft and the B-2 even share the same wingspan.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I still wanna know how the B-2 can use antigravity, if they're trying to develop antigravity tech. Did the aliens give it to them? [/sarcam]


Yes, please, let's return to the subject at hand. Both Smikeypinkey and Waynos know where to find the threads on German atomic weaponry and the Horton9.

The question concerns the B-2, stealth, "anti-gravity" and a possible German basis for this knowledge. I will tell you what I know.

The US government admitts the B-2 uses leading wing tip ionization to bend or diflect radar. OK, how? According to Thomas Valone, "Electrongravitics Systems" this can be generated using a T.T. Brown electrojet generator. It is a simple device. You stick a negative electrode into the exhaut of the jet aircraft and it ionizes the exhaust strongly negative. If between the exhaust and the leading wing edges, an electric insulator is used, an automatic positive charge builds up on the leading wing edges--no further work necessary. But is this the end of the story?

Now, with this positive leading edge, negative exhaust, this aircraft is one big electrostatic charge. If it is strong enough, T. T. Brown found that movement would take place toward the positive edge. In other words, in the case of the B-2, if this were charged to the degree necessary and if the insulator held, the aircraft would move, as if flying downhill, toward the positive side. The flame jet generator can produce millions of volts of charge. But is this the method actually in use by the B-2? Is this the method for the slow-speed, almost hovering, movement of some flying triangles? I don't know.

Regarding the Germans, their method of field propulsion involved electrodynamics or more exotic propulsion methods, not electrostatics, at least in most cases. The field propulsion saucer and engine I posted in the three FBI reports rotated around the central cabin as do flying saucers. This movement indicates a dynamic force, not a static force. There is some new evidence that a static method of propulsion was going to be used for unmanned, antiaircraft vehicles which would somehow detonate in bomber formations but this is not my research and I know few details at this time and don't even want to mention the name of this device. There is also no evidence, that I can find, that the Germans used any Tesla technology in these flying craft but this is only negative evidence and could be overturned tomorrow. If you are interested in Tesla and the Germans, the writer William Lynn has published a couple books devoted to this topic. The Germans did know of the basic ideas behind T.T. Brown but, again, I have no direct evidence that it was ever employed.

In my opinion, the only aliens we have are the border-crossing kind. There is absolutely no evidence for an alien transfer of technology, anywhere, anytime unless you believe Bob Lusar.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Apologies to all concerned for dragging this away from anti grav again (I'm with you on this zaphod), but Forschung you dismiss my argument by saying I am showing the Gotha not the Horten. Well, please correct me if I'm wrong and show me pictures (which I always enjoy) but the Gotha 229 designation only denotes the production model of the Horten because all production was assigned to the Gotha factory as Horten didn't have the facilities, they are actaully the same plane.

I have tried to find the differences with a quick google search but EVERY single result came back as "Horten Ho IX/Gotha 229" suggesting that they are, indeed, one and the same. I did find several photographs specifically labelled 'Ho IX V2 on test' and such but they too had basically the same intake design in the wing leading edge but slightly narrower, same as the DH Comet airliner I referenced earlier. Please show me a picture of the 'stealthy' recessed intakes and I will shut up once and for all after acknowledging your victory



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Quite right Waynos.

The pics you have posted are indeed for the Go229 which was simply the company picked to handle the production version of the Ho 9.

(Strangely our wriggling friend now seems to be implying that they removed the stealth feature he is claiming the Hortens originally designed in!?
)

The only information I have seen regarding a change to the intakes is that the intake installation was changed when it was realised that the BMW 003 jet engine was not going to be ready in time and the (physically bigger) Jumo 004b was substituted.

These are some pics of the Ho 9 v2 (not the Gotha production model), I know you like the piccys!







As can be plainly seen no recessing of the intake from the frontal aspect and no shielding whatsoever of the exhaust.

In short except for the rather crude RAM application (sawdust, resin and charcoal, remember) there is nothing especially 'stealthy' about it......and even the use of wood and materials less likely to reflect radar was as much about the crushing situation regarding materials at the time as anything else IMO.......otherwise how come no-one else really picked up on this?

Once again our friend totally ignores the data about WW2 American RAM and RCS work (a far more advanced method too, as the article states, involving a prototype 'iron ball paint'; as opposed to charcoal, sawdust and resin, hmmm?).

Anyhoo, I have had enough of this nonsense.
Those with sense and the ability to read can see the truth, the B2 has no German roots, every single one of them is American.

But 'he wins'.

:lol;



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
You need to read 'The Hunt For Zero Point' by Nick Cook. He's a Jane's man who studied anti-grav tech for 10 years and found an undeniable link between the Nazi technology and current US black technology as used in the B2. Nothing major like a secret anti-grav engine hidden in the fuselage or anything wacky like that...just subtle things like charging the leading edge of the aircraft while forcing negative charge out of the engines and trailing edges. Apparently, this increases the amount of lift that can be obtained without increasing the actual surface area.

It's also worth remembering that although the great P51 did indeed stuff the Germans, if the war had lasted just one more year, thier advanced aircraft would have been serious trouble for the allies. The Me262 would have really turned the tables ahd they had enough fuel and resources to get a serious number of them airbourne. Unfortunately for the Nazis, it was too late by 1945 as we had pretty much screwed up the German's fuel supply and had air superiority which made getting anything off the ground in any numbers very tricky indeed.

The Me262 was just the tip of the iceberg though...they had all sorts of technically advanced ideas in the prototrype stages.

Rapture404



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Ok, but again, that doesn't answer my questions....There are posts here that say the B-2 DOES use antigravity, and there are posts here that Boeing and others are TRYING TO DEVELOP antigravity, so which is it. As far as the tech used on the B-2 it does wonders to kill the radar signature, as long as there is nothing to refeclt it sticking out in the wind.

And even if the war HAD lasted into 1946, Germany had no industry or resources left to build planes in large numbers. On top of that, most of their best pilots had been killed due to the fact that they flew the entire war, and we rotated our pilots in and out of theater. They didn't have the fuel to fly large numbers of planes, or the industry or materials to even build them. Add to that the fact that I've heard the ME-262 was notoriously difficult to fly, and had some problems with the engines if you didn't baby them. Yes the 262 and other projects MIGHT have caused problems with the Allies, but by 1945 Germany just didn't have the capability to put enough of them into service to change the outcome, beyond dragging things out a few more months, or a year.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Apologies to all concerned for dragging this away from anti grav again (I'm with you on this zaphod), but Forschung you dismiss my argument by saying I am showing the Gotha not the Horten. Well, please correct me if I'm wrong and show me pictures (which I always enjoy) but the Gotha 229 designation only denotes the production model of the Horten because all production was assigned to the Gotha factory as Horten didn't have the facilities, they are actaully the same plane.

I have tried to find the differences with a quick google search but EVERY single result came back as "Horten Ho IX/Gotha 229" suggesting that they are, indeed, one and the same. I did find several photographs specifically labelled 'Ho IX V2 on test' and such but they too had basically the same intake design in the wing leading edge but slightly narrower, same as the DH Comet airliner I referenced earlier. Please show me a picture of the 'stealthy' recessed intakes and I will shut up once and for all after acknowledging your victory




Waynos, my internet skills are very limited, as you know. I really don't do much research on the internet, so I wouldn't even know where to find a picture there. You are correct in your description of the two aircraft in that the Horton9 follows the edge of the wing rather than pops out in front. The "bible", "Die deutschen Flugzeuge 1933-1945" by Karlheinz Kens and Heinz Nowarra, J.F. Lehmanns Verlag, Munich probably has line drawings of both but I don't own that book. I do have something you can find in the library--by a British author: David Masters, "German Jet Genesis" which is based on Kens and Nowarra with better pictures. On pages 89-90 there is a standard description of the Horton9, with a few mistakes but OK. On pages 70-71 Masters describes the Gotha229 and even shows a picture of it partially assembled. He says: "The first Gotha prototype (Go 229 V-3) differed from the Horten versions in having a shallow buldg on the underside of teh centre section an d straight air intakes instead of the upswept arrangement used on the Ho IX." This book was published in 1982 and Masters had no idea of our discussion or stealth then.

I remember one Comet version and I would say this is close.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Quite right Waynos.

The pics you have posted are indeed for the Go229 which was simply the company picked to handle the production version of the Ho 9.

(Strangely our wriggling friend now seems to be implying that they removed the stealth feature he is claiming the Hortens originally designed in!?
)

The only information I have seen regarding a change to the intakes is that the intake installation was changed when it was realised that the BMW 003 jet engine was not going to be ready in time and the (physically bigger) Jumo 004b was substituted.

These are some pics of the Ho 9 v2 (not the Gotha production model), I know you like the piccys!







As can be plainly seen no recessing of the intake from the frontal aspect and no shielding whatsoever of the exhaust.

In short except for the rather crude RAM application (sawdust, resin and charcoal, remember) there is nothing especially 'stealthy' about it......and even the use of wood and materials less likely to reflect radar was as much about the crushing situation regarding materials at the time as anything else IMO.......otherwise how come no-one else really picked up on this?

Once again our friend totally ignores the data about WW2 American RAM and RCS work (a far more advanced method too, as the article states, involving a prototype 'iron ball paint'; as opposed to charcoal, sawdust and resin, hmmm?).

Anyhoo, I have had enough of this nonsense.
Those with sense and the ability to read can see the truth, the B2 has no German roots, every single one of them is American.

But 'he wins'.

:lol;


SmikeyPinkey, THank you. Compare this with the pictue posts of the Gotha 229. I rest my case.

Now, let's move on shall we?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Ok, but again, that doesn't answer my questions....There are posts here that say the B-2 DOES use antigravity, and there are posts here that Boeing and others are TRYING TO DEVELOP antigravity, so which is it. As far as the tech used on the B-2 it does wonders to kill the radar signature, as long as there is nothing to refeclt it sticking out in the wind.

And even if the war HAD lasted into 1946, Germany had no industry or resources left to build planes in large numbers. On top of that, most of their best pilots had been killed due to the fact that they flew the entire war, and we rotated our pilots in and out of theater. They didn't have the fuel to fly large numbers of planes, or the industry or materials to even build them. Add to that the fact that I've heard the ME-262 was notoriously difficult to fly, and had some problems with the engines if you didn't baby them. Yes the 262 and other projects MIGHT have caused problems with the Allies, but by 1945 Germany just didn't have the capability to put enough of them into service to change the outcome, beyond dragging things out a few more months, or a year.


Zaphod58, did you miss my 6/26/05 post in answer to your question? Comments?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Even if that ISN'T the 229 and is the Ho 9, I STILL don't see the recessed intakes, or extended exhaust that you talk about. Those are NOT recessed intakes. Recessed intakes would keep radar from bouncing off the turbines in the engines. There's nothing about those intakes would almost funnel the radar waves directly to the turbines which would cause a big RCS.

As far as the RAM goes, there's no way that the material they used would cause such a huge lowering of the RCS. The British Mosquito was made of wood and was routinely tracked on radar. Radar is capable of picking up birds, so just using would, and sawdust wouldn't make the huge difference in RCS that is claimed.

From what I know about jet engines back then they had enough trouble keeping them running sometimes, WITHOUT extended exhausts. The engines on the ME262 were notorious for stalling, and having other problems unless the throttles were slowly and smoothly advanced. If you extend the exhaust, you lose power. As most early jet engines were ALREADY underpowered you couldn't extend the exhaust without creating even more problems with the engines.

And I'm STILL not seeing any conclusive proof that Germany EVER developed antigravity technology, or how they can be developing antigravity, but already use it on the B-2.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rapture404
You need to read 'The Hunt For Zero Point' by Nick Cook. He's a Jane's man who studied anti-grav tech for 10 years and found an undeniable link between the Nazi technology and current US black technology as used in the B2. Nothing major like a secret anti-grav engine hidden in the fuselage or anything wacky like that...just subtle things like charging the leading edge of the aircraft while forcing negative charge out of the engines and trailing edges. Apparently, this increases the amount of lift that can be obtained without increasing the actual surface area.

It's also worth remembering that although the great P51 did indeed stuff the Germans, if the war had lasted just one more year, thier advanced aircraft would have been serious trouble for the allies. The Me262 would have really turned the tables ahd they had enough fuel and resources to get a serious number of them airbourne. Unfortunately for the Nazis, it was too late by 1945 as we had pretty much screwed up the German's fuel supply and had air superiority which made getting anything off the ground in any numbers very tricky indeed.

The Me262 was just the tip of the iceberg though...they had all sorts of technically advanced ideas in the prototrype stages.

Rapture404

Yes, Nick Cook did a great job although it was real wordy. He discusses two field propulsion types, Schauberger and Die Glocke (the Bell). The Schauberger method is not perfectly understood or agreed upon by Joerg Schauberger (Viktor's grandson) or anybody else. The Bell may be a field propulsion engine and it may be something else or it may be both. In any event, neither the Schauberger system nor the Bell has anything to do with the POSSIBLE electrostatic method which might be employed in the B-2.





posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Great answer to it Forschung, but it didn't answer the question. There are links provided in this topic that Boeing and other companies are DEVELOPING antigravity technology, and there are posts providing "proof" that the B-2 USES antigravity technology. You can't have it both ways, either it's been developed, or it's BEING developed.

"If it is strong enough, T. T. Brown found that movement would take place toward the positive edge. In other words, in the case of the B-2, if this were charged to the degree necessary and if the insulator held, the aircraft would move, as if flying downhill, toward the positive side. The flame jet generator can produce millions of volts of charge"

See the words in there that tell the whole story are "IF". If this condition is met, and If this condition is met then it CAN be used in this way. They wouldn't use a system like this in the B-2 for propulsion for that simple reason. IF the insulator failed, you just lost an airplane(probably).



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Sorry Forschung but I think you are reading too much into the differences, I really don't think there is a case to rest.

I will try to illustrate it as simply as I can (not that I think you are simple, clearly you are far removed from that).






posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Even if that ISN'T the 229 and is the Ho 9, I STILL don't see the recessed intakes


- Neither do I it's a clear 'look down the pipe' at the compressor's fanblades......even cutaway on the lowest edges! - which is absolutely not the case with the B2 - but I think we're being asked to move on.



As far as the RAM goes, there's no way that the material they used would cause such a huge lowering of the RCS. The British Mosquito was made of wood and was routinely tracked on radar. Radar is capable of picking up birds, so just using would, and sawdust wouldn't make the huge difference in RCS that is claimed.


- Well the reason for the choice of materials is open to debate (properly worked metals being scarce by late 1944/early 1945) but in fairness there was a documented specific intent to reduce the radar return.

Sadly we have little to go on as to whether it was in any way effective (I can't even find much comment about the U-boat matting that was used far far more extensively).


jet engines back then they had enough trouble keeping them running sometimes, WITHOUT extended exhausts.


- Yeah, apparantly long jet pipes robbed the - already fairly low power early engines - of power.


The engines on the ME262 were notorious for stalling, and having other problems unless the throttles were slowly and smoothly advanced.....

...... As most early jet engines were ALREADY underpowered you couldn't extend the exhaust without creating even more problems with the engines.


- This is apparantly true, the BMW 003 & the Jumo 004's were notorious (like all early jets) for needing the most careful handling.
The throttles needed babying and the quality of construction meant they could catch fire, disintegrate or flame out pretty easily.
IIRC this was amplified by the materials forced upon the manufacturers and because the design was 'frozen' and they were 'signed off' with a theoretical life of 25hrs (many barely made 10 before needing rebuilding).

In fact this hi-lights a point about all that 'Luftwaffe 46' stuff; interesting as the ideas and concepts were they were almost all just that, untried and untested idea rushed through due to the urgency of the situation.

IMO the Me262 and the Arado Ar234 were possibly the last dregs of any sanity in the German prototype aero 'system'.
They at least has some sort of proper serious and formal testing regime.......but even there, true to 3rd Reich form, they wasted huge amounts of effort, specialists' time, resources and materials on umteen prototypes and ideas when what was needed was to concentrate on a fully functional, tested and reliable fighter and bomber (and for all their brilliance each ended the war with several problems still unaddressed).

Their usual 'scatter-gun' approach that typified the 3rd Reich's war industry for the disaster that it undoubtedly was, was no help at all.
Duplication, obsessive uncoordinated cut-throat (sometimes litterally) competitiveness, personality cults, vendettas - in short they practically went out of their way to get it wrong, mainly thanks to a political philosophy that had a single strong leader surrounded by 'underlings' all encouraged to try to out do the other and please the leader(s).

Imagine a family (or practically any human endevour) attempting to function along similar lines and remain cohesive and effective!


(They could do micro-management superbly - without wishing to generalise it seems, at least back then, a German 'gift' they were well schooled in - but their utter inability to see beyond the tactical and focus on the strategic was without question one of the reason for the chaotic mess that typified much of German WW2 war industry's efforts).

What was intended to follow was a series of untried and hastily constructed concepts; accepted into 'service' in a condition no-one else would ever have accepted them in (including Germany before such utter reckless desperation set in) and flown by those remaining young men unfortunate enough to have been recruited to certain slaughter with almost no training.

I very much doubt that one extra year would have done anything at all to halt the inevitable defeat Germany faced then. It would just have prolonged the agony, ruin and death for all concerned.

Adolf Galland himself gave his opinion about the 'what ifs' of an earlier or more effective Me262 -

"I am of the opinion that with only 300 Messerchmitt Me262 jet fighters we could have on any day shot down a minimum of 200 bombers.
If this would have continued for a week or two, then the daybombing would have had to be stopped.
As a consequence, the dimensions of the destruction of the targets in Germany would have diminished.

As a negative consequence, the war would have been prolonged, and the Russians allowed more time to conquer fyrther German territory.

So let us now be satisfied with Hitler's mistakes towards the legendary Me262."



I'm STILL not seeing any conclusive proof that Germany EVER developed antigravity technology, or how they can be developing antigravity, but already use it on the B-2.


- I don't get this either.
A lift augmentation system (maybe something like the old boundry layer control system or blown wing/flap arrangements, something more like what rapture 404 was suggesting?) I can see but I'll believe anti-grav when I see it properly and generally described in the industry.

I just don't see how this could have been kept a secret when no-one got 'a single technology' from Germany after WW2.
In every ultra-secret and advanced field - bar none -whether it be nerve gas, jet engines, aerodynamics, rockets, electonics, submarines etc etc east and west got people from each field (and in fact so did France and the UK).

The idea that the USA alone got something like this - and, unlike every other secret, kept it secret for 60yrs+ now - is IMO stretching things waaaaaay too far.



[edit on 28-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
I guess i would have been forgiven for posting stuff like you guys about stealth before it was made public


The difference is that the basic fact of the existence of stealth technology and aircraft was NOT a secret, it was well known as far back as 1980, when the F-117 was still in development. What was not known was the material detail of how it had been done and what these aircraft actually looked like. The existence of Anti Grav vehicles however is entirely speculative and even the original article was full of might be's and maybe's. You can say anything and justify it with a maybe, how about some real hard fact?


Jane's is perhaps the most trustworthy source one can get. Go read the links i have provided, this has come straight out of Jane's editor........



Again the following piece is full of 'sources tell us' and 'rumours say' cop outs. It is fine as speculation but nothing real.

Likewise the pictures you posted are known fakes, except Avrocar, which used lifting fans and is well known, and the German one whose 'disc' area is actually just a circular wing, nothing earth shattering at all, and very similar to US prototypes of the immediate post war years.

If anti grav technology was taken from the Germans in 1945 (and I am not saying that work on it is not being done NOW, The TR-3B rumours MIGHT have some substance after all, or may simply be a smokescreen for something else), then why has the USA spent countless billions of dollars on winged aircraft since then and continues to do so? There is no sane reason why they would do this, certainly the vast amount spent on the F-22 could have been redirected. It just doesn't wash. The only earth shattering revolutions to emerge from WW2 were the Jet engine and the Atom bomb, look how commonplace those two inventions are 60 years on, that anti gravity technology was obtained at the same time and yet is still unseen and unheard of is an impossible fantasy.
[edit on 2-6-2005 by waynos]


I agree for the most part. But there *is* a scenario under which this is possible.

If the US recovered a partial gravitational propulsion/shielding technology, they may still be trying to get it to work. Maybe the Nazis couldn't make it work, or perhaps some key piece of technical data was lost or destroyed in the chaos at the end of the war.

There may be just enough data to show such a system is feasible, and keep funding going, but a key breakthrough or two may be elusive. I don't necessarily think this, but it *is* possible.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
That's just it, they might be CLOSE to making a system like this work, but some people in this post are trying to have it both ways. The claim is that the B-2 USES the system, and also that Boeing and others are still developing the system. Now you can't have it both ways, either it works, or it doesn't. If it is on the B-2, then it must work, and they aren't developing it. If they're developing it, then I can't see ANY way they would have put it on the B-2 and risk the plane on a untested system.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Sorry Forschung but I think you are reading too much into the differences, I really don't think there is a case to rest.

I will try to illustrate it as simply as I can (not that I think you are simple, clearly you are far removed from that).





Waynos, a couple of points. First, the Horten 9 is different from the Gotha229 in this regard, correct? Second, the Horten 9 is "stealthier" in all probability than the Gotha 229, right? You have to remember that the Horten 9 was built and being flown before the Germans ever realized that it had a low radar return. They were not building a stealth aircraft at first. They only realized this potential and made plans for a radar reflective coating. The Northop engineers didn't make the trip to Maryland (actually the Washington D.C. area) for nothing. Northrop is about 6 miles from the Pacific Ocean. These engineers all most likely live in real nice beach houses at one of these beach communities. Northrop would have needed a compelling reason for these guys to pile on an airplane and fly 5 or 6 hours "back east", into an absolute # hole. Northop probably had an aircraft historian research the Horten 9, the whole Horten Projects and all the differences between the Horten and the Gotha 229 and have a report for these engineers to read before departing. In the end, for whatever reason, they made this trip and their reason concerned stealth. I am not a stealth engineer and couldn't possibly obtain the necessary security clearance to find out but for some concern they had, they wanted to see the Gotha229.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
The Horton 9 and the Gotha 229 are NOT different aircraft.

Gotha Go 229 A-1 / Horten IX
Glide tests with the Ho IX V1 were sufficiently encouraging that the RLM decided that the Horten design was worthy of production. In early summer of 1944 a contract was issued to Gothaer Waggonfabrik for the production of the design under the designation Go 229. Control of the redesign for production was taken away from the Horten brothers but they continued to work on the testing of their Ho IX prototype.
Horten IX / Gotha 229 Flying Wing ( "Before & After" pics
EVERY link I found about the two says that they are the SAME AIRCRAFT. The Gotha 229 was the PRODUCTION version of the Horton 9.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Even if that ISN'T the 229 and is the Ho 9, I STILL don't see the recessed intakes


- Neither do I it's a clear 'look down the pipe' at the compressor's fanblades......even cutaway on the lowest edges! - which is absolutely not the case with the B2 - but I think we're being asked to move on.



As far as the RAM goes, there's no way that the material they used would cause such a huge lowering of the RCS. The British Mosquito was made of wood and was routinely tracked on radar. Radar is capable of picking up birds, so just using would, and sawdust wouldn't make the huge difference in RCS that is claimed.


- Well the reason for the choice of materials is open to debate (properly worked metals being scarce by late 1944/early 1945) but in fairness there was a documented specific intent to reduce the radar return.

Sadly we have little to go on as to whether it was in any way effective (I can't even find much comment about the U-boat matting that was used far far more extensively).


jet engines back then they had enough trouble keeping them running sometimes, WITHOUT extended exhausts.


- Yeah, apparantly long jet pipes robbed the - already fairly low power early engines - of power.


The engines on the ME262 were notorious for stalling, and having other problems unless the throttles were slowly and smoothly advanced.....

...... As most early jet engines were ALREADY underpowered you couldn't extend the exhaust without creating even more problems with the engines.


- This is apparantly true, the BMW 003 & the Jumo 004's were notorious (like all early jets) for needing the most careful handling.
The throttles needed babying and the quality of construction meant they could catch fire, disintegrate or flame out pretty easily.
IIRC this was amplified by the materials forced upon the manufacturers and because the design was 'frozen' and they were 'signed off' with a theoretical life of 25hrs (many barely made 10 before needing rebuilding).

In fact this hi-lights a point about all that 'Luftwaffe 46' stuff; interesting as the ideas and concepts were they were almost all just that, untried and untested idea rushed through due to the urgency of the situation.

IMO the Me262 and the Arado Ar234 were possibly the last dregs of any sanity in the German prototype aero 'system'.
They at least has some sort of proper serious and formal testing regime.......but even there, true to 3rd Reich form, they wasted huge amounts of effort, specialists' time, resources and materials on umteen prototypes and ideas when what was needed was to concentrate on a fully functional, tested and reliable fighter and bomber (and for all their brilliance each ended the war with several problems still unaddressed).

Their usual 'scatter-gun' approach that typified the 3rd Reich's war industry for the disaster that it undoubtedly was, was no help at all.
Duplication, obsessive uncoordinated cut-throat (sometimes litterally) competitiveness, personality cults, vendettas - in short they practically went out of their way to get it wrong, mainly thanks to a political philosophy that had a single strong leader surrounded by 'underlings' all encouraged to try to out do the other and please the leader(s).

Imagine a family (or practically any human endevour) attempting to function along similar lines and remain cohesive and effective!


(They could do micro-management superbly - without wishing to generalise it seems, at least back then, a German 'gift' they were well schooled in - but their utter inability to see beyond the tactical and focus on the strategic was without question one of the reason for the chaotic mess that typified much of German WW2 war industry's efforts).

What was intended to follow was a series of untried and hastily constructed concepts; accepted into 'service' in a condition no-one else would ever have accepted them in (including Germany before such utter reckless desperation set in) and flown by those remaining young men unfortunate enough to have been recruited to certain slaughter with almost no training.

I very much doubt that one extra year would have done anything at all to halt the inevitable defeat Germany faced then. It would just have prolonged the agony, ruin and death for all concerned.

Adolf Galland himself gave his opinion about the 'what ifs' of an earlier or more effective Me262 -

"I am of the opinion that with only 300 Messerchmitt Me262 jet fighters we could have on any day shot down a minimum of 200 bombers.
If this would have continued for a week or two, then the daybombing would have had to be stopped.
As a consequence, the dimensions of the destruction of the targets in Germany would have diminished.

As a negative consequence, the war would have been prolonged, and the Russians allowed more time to conquer fyrther German territory.

So let us now be satisfied with Hitler's mistakes towards the legendary Me262."



I'm STILL not seeing any conclusive proof that Germany EVER developed antigravity technology, or how they can be developing antigravity, but already use it on the B-2.


- I don't get this either.
A lift augmentation system (maybe something like the old boundry layer control system or blown wing/flap arrangements, something more like what rapture 404 was suggesting?) I can see but I'll believe anti-grav when I see it properly and generally described in the industry.

I just don't see how this could have been kept a secret when no-one got 'a single technology' from Germany after WW2.
In every ultra-secret and advanced field - bar none -whether it be nerve gas, jet engines, aerodynamics, rockets, electonics, submarines etc etc east and west got people from each field (and in fact so did France and the UK).

The idea that the USA alone got something like this - and, unlike every other secret, kept it secret for 60yrs+ now - is IMO stretching things waaaaaay too far.



[edit on 28-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join