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.

 

LUFWAFFE Secret Projects

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I recently obtained a book on German aircraft techonology during the WWII. I came away with the impression that many of there aircraft designs have become reality. Why is it that they are not given the credit for there advanced concepts?




posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by flycatch
 


Well if you talk to most aviation nuts they will give some credit most of the time to german designers for swept wing research and jets. Ofcourse though as it is with any war the winners right history so the german designers are only knowen to people who go looking for them and their planes. The US, Can, UK are not going to always point to the german projects and go yeah we "stole" or at least borrowed form them.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by flycatch
I recently obtained a book on German aircraft techonology during the WWII. Why is it that they are not given the credit for their advanced concepts?


Simple...history is written by the victors.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
True history is slanted towards the victors, however, many of the German wonder weapons were just concepts that never really made it past that. Yes there were numerous innovations, and given time, and a reprieve from the Allies bombing campaign they might have even flown during that time frame , but we will never know eh?



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by flycatch
I recently obtained a book on German aircraft techonology during the WWII. I came away with the impression that many of there aircraft designs have become reality. Why is it that they are not given the credit for there advanced concepts?


What advanced concepts do you have in mind? I think the Germans have received much credit for some of their work, but there was much wasted effort in dead-ends and projects which were impractical and a sure sign of a collapsing regime where mad ideas were taken seriously in the deluded belief they would win the war. The sheer number of designs produced seems to indicated scrabbling in the dark with little deep understanding of what they were really trying to do.

The P1109-02 was bonkers as were all designs of that ilk. Sure, the US may have tested some of the "movable wing" theories, (the "Switchblade" if I recall), but do these US designs trace a direct line back to the Nazi efforts? I would suggest not.

Regards



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
There some very real and direct links between the German design effort and later planes/projects. This is very different from thinking the Germans were on the cusp of building and flying these designs, but the roots are there. A huge amount of post war design and development went into making these ideas workable, not to mention that it is often forgotten that most leading German designers were re-employed in the postwar aircraft industry anyway, there were even a couple of Germans working on the design of Concorde while working for the British and French industry - doesn't make it German though, or mean it evolved from a wartime design .


The most striking of the aircraft that flew, in relation to direct predecessors in the German design effort, are the Northrop X-4 (Lippisch), Bell X-5 (Messerschmitt), Martin B-51 (Messerschmitt), SAAB 32 Lansen (Messerschmitt), Douglas B-42 (Focke Wulf), Vought Cutlass (Arado), Gloster Javelin & P275 (Lippisch - but thankfully the latter was unflown), HP Victor (Heinkel), Boeing B-47 (Junkers), (while even something as late as the SAAB Draken can be traced back to a wartime Arado concept of strikingly similar configuration.

Except for the Bell X-5 (Me P.1101) absolutely none of the above aircraft were direct rip offs of a pre-existing German design and they merely represent the application of 'speculative theory' to a NEW design in the real world for the first time, but in each case the design path that was followed is nevertheless plainly obvious.

Or so you would think, however it is easy to assume that all such developments came this way, which is not the case. For instance although the X-4 was based on a Lippisch design for a jet fighter, German design was not a feature of their own large flying wing bombers, this advanced layout was one which Northrop had spent just as much time testing as Horten for instance and although comparisons were of interest, the technology was not 'needed'.

There is also a design for a large pusher engined Messerschmitt flying wing bomber called the P.08.01, which is identical to a Handley Page design for a flying wing bomber in all respects except the German one has a single fin while the British one had wingtip mounted twin fins - the relationship would appear to be obvious. Except the HP design was in fact a four engined scale up of the HP 75 Manx (to be more accurate the HP 75 was a scale down of the bomber for test purposes) and this had already accumulated many hours of flight testing before the war ended and the P.08.01 was discovered, so there is actually no possible link unless the Germans copied the HP 75! I have also seen it claimed that the Focke Wulf Flitzer 'influenced' the DH Vampire, taking no account of the fact that the Vampire flew in 1943 while the Flitzer was still a mock up when the war ended in 1945.

Spotting which one are the influences and which ones are coincidences would make for a great card game; Junkers EF128 and Hawker P.1077? SNAP!




EDIT; before anyone else throws in the FMA Pulqui II, its not quite the same as Kurt Tank went to Argentina and did this one all by himself




[edit on 23-10-2007 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
The fact is that all designers (of anything, not only aircraft) are influenced by the work of others, the work of theorists, and the 'state of the art' in relation to powerplants, metallurgy, etc.

The only real influence that nationality plays upon designers is the specifications that are issued, and therefore funded by national authorities. This obviously is dependent upon how the politicians of the day see the situation. For instance during WWII the major powers independently decided to fund radical designs using 'non-strategic' materials in case there was a shortage of light alloys, resulting in designs such as the Miles M.20, Vultee XP-58, etc, none of which was put into service, because the light alloy shortage did not eventuate (with the exception of the He 162 in Germany)

So what flows from the drawing boards of designers is the result of what 'the customer' wants (or at least what the customer thinks they want) based on knowledge and research available to the designer within the time-frame of the design process. It is obvious that if a designer does not have the latest theoretical data then they will have little hope of designing a competitive design (within the constraints of the specification - that is, what the customer wants).

Where research data originates has been institutionalised in some cases particularly the US and Soviet Russia. In both cases (NASA and TsAGI) they investigate promising theory and then issue the results to industry, relieving the design companies of the cost burden and possible duplication of research validation. It was most marked in the USSR where basic research validation (such as related to the tailed delta vs the swept wing) was done by TsAGI then issued to the designers who then produced aircraft in relation to their own design speciality - fighter (MiG-21), heavy interceptor (Su-9 - Su-15), long range bomber (Mya M-50) - a truly co-operative effort. (It's also interesting to note the basic distrust between the Soviet designers and the TsAGI as well - note the swept wing prototypes on the road to MiG-21, Su-9/11 and the tailed delta alternative to the MiG-23 variable sweep fighter).

IMO another telling point concerning many designers is that some appear to latch onto a concept and stick with it long after technology has passed it by (beating a dead horse). For instance Yakovlev's fascination with the twin underslung jet arrangement (Yak-25…… Yak-28) and Dassault's infatuation with the tail-less delta. Indeed, as information on designs that never left the drawing board is being published it is clear that particular designers have tried to apply their particular 'hobby horse' configuration to any number of (even conflicting) requirements.

Personally, I find the designs of such as Ed Heinemann or Burt Rutan far more interesting from the perspective of where the inspiration for a particular design originated - these two in particular seem to have truly started with a 'clean sheet of paper' every time they've tackled a specification.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
For instance during WWII the major powers independently decided to fund radical designs using 'non-strategic' materials in case there was a shortage of light alloys, resulting in designs such as the Miles M.20, Vultee XP-58, etc, none of which was put into service, because the light alloy shortage did not eventuate (with the exception of the He 162 in Germany)



Although not funded as part of that effort, the DH Mosquito (and later Hornet) was designed with minimal usage of said materials in mind. [It was DH that actually funded the design privately]


It definitely entered service, and was probably the finest medium bomber of WW2.

[edit on 24/10/07 by kilcoo316]



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


I've always wondered Kilcoo not that you would know 100% either but wouldn't the wood construction of the Mosquito make it a ideal match to a restoration/rebuild project for most aviation mueseums?



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
I've always wondered Kilcoo not that you would know 100% either but wouldn't the wood construction of the Mosquito make it a ideal match to a restoration/rebuild project for most aviation mueseums?


I don't really know, but you'd imagine it would be easier to make wooden components than steel ones. The Merlins shouldn't be too hard to source either.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Of course many of their projects have become reality. THey had as much money in their military as we do today! Given it was stolen... wait a sec..!!!!!



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Canada_EH,

Wood is not a good medium for museums because of its tendency to rot (not to mention things like termites - yeah, a museum would love to introduce some termites to their buildings
). In fact that is a major factor in why there are so few remaining aircraft from the wooden era - many types were grounded and removed from registers due to rotting of the timber, particularly spars. In Australia both the Mosquito and the early Anson were permanently grounded during the 50's for exactly that reason. The Vampire is less of a problem, in that it is only the central nacelle that contains any significant wood content.

In the case of the Mosquito, the problem is exacerbated by the glue used to bond the panels (this was a major factor in the success or otherwise of high speed wooden aircraft and Germany - in the case of the He 162 - failed to match the characteristics of the bonding agent used in the Mosquito).

Waynos may be able to confirm this, but I seem to recall that the bonding agent used on the Mosquito became the product Araldyte - but I could be wrong there.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 24/10/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by The Winged Wombat
 


Well I don't think I could ask for a better answer to my question. Lots of great points WW. Now say for a replica being built and performing? Say I have lots of money to drop is it unrealistic to think that you could use remaining plans and so on to build a replica with wood construction?



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Canada_EH,

I'm sure it's possible, especially the structural side of things. There have been quite a number of WWI flying replicas done quite successfully.

I would imagine that the biggest problem would be the bonded plywood skinning and establishing that the bond was sound. I'm not at all sure that the skills are still available to do that kind of work. (WWI replicas are easier to examine because you can take the rag off and see the condition of the frame, but with the skin bonded to the frame, things can get a bit dodgy without you realising it.)

Bear in mind that aircraft like the Mosquito were built to have only a short airframe life - it has been said here that when we got some examples of the Mozzie from Britain that our engineers estimated that they had been built with an airframe life of about 5 hours! I think this says more about the life expectancy of pilots during WWII, more than the longevity of wooden airframe construction, in that it was probably a waste to build the aircraft to last 500 hours if they were going to get shot down after an average 50 hours. I used to know a guy who built Mozzies in Melbourne during WWII - he said the shortest life example was one that crashed on take-off from the factory - total time 2 minutes! (They finished it last thing one night and swept it up first thing the next morning - if we can follow the automobile analogy it must have been made on a Friday!
)

Didn't Kermit Weekes have an airworthy Mosquito at some stage?

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 24/10/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Anything is possible if you want to comit the time and unlimited $$$$ to undertake the project in question.

But back to the OP's question on credit. Its a tricky thing esp when you factor in the brutal nature of the Nazi regime. (A huge chunk of our knowledge about hypothermia and how to treat it came out of the death camps, but I for one do not want to give them credit). Its also hit and miss. The Horten brothers get alot of credit in regards to the flying wing and the ME-262 is universally known among av nuts etc.

As menioned before I have the same book you have. Alot of these innovative fighters were concepts and nothing more. I can write out a concept for a Hypersonic bomber, but getting it to production and making it work is a whole nother area. German scientist made plenty of innovative designs during the war, there is no doubting that



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
FredT,

I'd like to think that aircraft designers are far too busy designing aircraft to get too involved in politics - with the possible exception of the necessity of 'cultivating' the client, of course. Therefore, I tend to see the designers and their designs as somewhat of a scientific endeavor, divorced from who or what government runs the country that just happens to pay their bills.

As an aside to this question, have a look at a photo of Ernst Heinkel - does he look at all Aryan to you ? Interesting situation, perhaps, that has not been previously explored - perhaps Nazi policies were 'selectively' applied ?

Even at the dawn of aviation, designers often moved from one company to another, and from one country to another, for example Koolhoven (Dutch) spent the early part of his career designing for Handley Page and B.A.T. before returning to the Netherlands to build aircraft under his own name. There are a multitude of such examples.

So, I give credit for good design or brilliant inspiration, regardless of the regime under which is was designed.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by The Winged Wombat
 



I would hope so as well WW. But the reality of the Nazi regime will always factor in when considering their contributions to aviation. Yes it is the victors that write the history but...........

On the other hand they did have to play ball as well. Esp. in the case of some fo the Soviet era designers, I can imagine that working for the nazi's would be no different



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by flycatch
 


Maybe we had the same stuff, even more advanced, but since we (the allies) didn't lose, it never made it to the public?



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by edbaseball17
Maybe we had the same stuff, even more advanced, but since we (the allies) didn't lose, it never made it to the public?



Nope - otherwise the Soviets, the UK or US would not have been racing get as much data as they could from places like Pennemunde.


The Allies were (as regards aviation) light years behind the Germans in cutting edge technology, but ahead in quantities.


For instance, the Ta-183 morphed into the MiG-15... which was more than competitive against F-86s 10 years later in Korea.




top topics



 
1

log in

join