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.
Originally posted by waynos
Forschung, re your claim about Mutke (Sp?) being the first man to survive exceeding M=1.0. I say again, not in an Me 262 he didn't. the planes DESIGNER knew it was not capable of more than M=0.86 and post war research at Farnborough PROVED it. I dare say that the effect of diving the 262 at or near to this limit would have been very much like what we know know the 'sound barrier' to have felt like but he was approaching the limit of the airframe not the speed of sound, this has been scientifically proven while Mutke merely 'believes' he went supersonic, do you see the difference?.
Now moving onto the flying wing debate. Northrop was working on flying wings before the war and before anyhting was know about the Hortens work. It has happened quite a few times that entirely independant research has come up with the same solutions to a problem (the design of the Bell X-1 and Miles M.52 is a case in point). If Northrop did have contact with the Hortens it would have been by way of 'mutual interest' rather than gaining tech.
Also I find the talk (elsewhere on this board) that the B-2 is based upon the B-49 just a laughable as the talk that it owes anything to the Horten.
Just why would a state of the art stealth bomber be based upon an airframe designed in the 1940's? It is no more credible than saying the B-1 was based upon the company's 1940's B-45 Jet bomber. The B-2 and the YB-49 share a wingspan, a leading edge sweep angle and an overall aerodynamic philosophy, however these three elements are but the tip of the iceberg in the overall design of these two aircraft.
Originally posted by waynos
Forschung,
So tell me, how was the inherent lateral instability of the Horten 9 (and every other pure flying wing) going to be overcome several decades before FBW ? Bearing in mind that the collective brains at Northrop, Armstrong Whitworth, Handley Page Avro and Vickers all ended conceding defeat in the matter by the early 1950's after several years studying Hortens results. Indeed Northrop and Armstrong Whitworth both ended up fitting vertical fins to the YB 49 and AW 52 in an attempt to address the issue, as did Avro with the aforementioned Avro 698 (later becoming the Vulcan).
[edit on 2-6-2005 by waynos]
Mutke says he was in a Me262. Are you saying he was flying something else or are you saying it didn't happen.
The Me262 suffered sever buffetting and a loss of control, if I remember Mutke's words but he managed to pull it out.
some writers now claim an intentional downplaying of the capacity of German technology by the former Allied Powers and this may be an example of that.
Howard Hughes owned an Me262. .......... Howard Hughes (Hughes Aircraft) was said (I read this somewhere) to have challenged the USAF to a race against their new F-86 Sabre Jet with his Me-262 (presumably to show up the sabre-Hughes' rival company). The USAF declined.
What I said was that Northrop engineers visisted the Horton 9 (Gotha 229) in Maryland to survey ideas for their B-2. Think about it. The Horton9 had a low radar return, it was to be painted with radar reflecting paint, its surfaces were not faceted as the F-117 but rounded as the B-2 was going to be.
Its air intakes and jet exhausts were recessed just as were the B-2s.
You can call me all the names you wish and that fact will remain. I can't help or address any anit-German or anit-Nazi bias some of you people seem to hold
Unlike what was cited by a German test pilot who never flew the Horton9, I read (perhaps Die Deutschen Flugzeuge 1933-1945, Kens and Nowarra, that the Horton9 handled well. Remember a glider version was built first and fully tested. In my mind the real answer to your question is that the Horton9 was a much better aircraft than it is being given credit for.
Originally posted by waynos
They were pretty lengthy replies Forschung so I wuill try and address each point as I see it.
Mutke says he was in a Me262. Are you saying he was flying something else or are you saying it didn't happen.
I am sure he knew what plane he was flying, I am saying he didn't go supersonic.
The Me262 suffered sever buffetting and a loss of control, if I remember Mutke's words but he managed to pull it out.
I believe this, but I maintain that it was because he reached the limit of the airframe not the speed of sound.
I also believe that Mutke is genuine and really believes what he is claiming, however that doesn't change the fact that the RAE proved it was impossible and that their findings support the position of Willy Messerschmitt himself, are you saying that the designer of the 262 doesn't know what he is talking about? Also the RAE is a scientific establishment, not a political one, they would have nothing to gain by falsifying this information, especially as Britains own transonic research was largely dependant on these findings at the time due to the application of German technology in the DH 108. Any positive result from this research would have been siezed upon, not denied.
some writers now claim an intentional downplaying of the capacity of German technology by the former Allied Powers and this may be an example of that.
This is also quite a useful device for making believable that which was demonstrated to be preposterous at the time, don't you think? Conspiracy theorists and revisionist historians find such claims very useful.
Howard Hughes owned an Me262. .......... Howard Hughes (Hughes Aircraft) was said (I read this somewhere) to have challenged the USAF to a race against their new F-86 Sabre Jet with his Me-262 (presumably to show up the sabre-Hughes' rival company). The USAF declined.
But this only proves that the USAF was unwilling to satisfy the whim of a spoilt playboy. As the race never took place nothing can be deduced from it. Also the top speed of the 262 was over 100mph less than that of the (still subsonic) F-86. However over a closed circuit the 262 MAY have had an advantange, or it nmay not. Like I said it proves nothing about the 262.
What I said was that Northrop engineers visisted the Horton 9 (Gotha 229) in Maryland to survey ideas for their B-2. Think about it. The Horton9 had a low radar return, it was to be painted with radar reflecting paint, its surfaces were not faceted as the F-117 but rounded as the B-2 was going to be.
Yes, I haven't argued against that, I think it much more likely that the designers visited the Horten AFTER they had evolved the early outlines for their stealth bomber and they had noticed the similarity with the wartime design, then they decided to go take a look if there was anything useful in the German plane (they would have been daft not to at least have a look) and maybe there was something and maybe there wasn't. But to take that as proof that the B-2 has its roots in the Horten design is a huge assumption without any real proof.
Its air intakes and jet exhausts were recessed just as were the B-2s.
Here is another assumption based upon a superficial similarity. The engines of the Ho IX were mounted on top of the wing spar as it was the only place they would fit where a crash landing wouldn't scrape them off, the engines cowls were then faired into the upper surface for aerodynamic reasons and the intakes were fully exposed on the wing leading edge There was no attempt made to shield the engines, this is just a theory based on the look of the plane, not the design of it.
You can call me all the names you wish and that fact will remain. I can't help or address any anit-German or anit-Nazi bias some of you people seem to hold
Have I called you names? I don't think I have.
As for anti Nazi bias, you bet I am, they are evil scum, nothing less. However I am looking at the debate from a perspective of the designs being German, rather than Nazi, I have no problem with Germans, Nazi's can come from anywhere so don't let that distinction cloud the issue. I would never dream of dismissing an aircraft simply because of where it comes from, that would be extremely ignorant (as you may have seen me trying to tell the Airbus bashers). However the willingness to believe anything that makes extravagant claims for 60 year old tech without really looking beyond the surface is also not a good thing.
Unlike what was cited by a German test pilot who never flew the Horton9, I read (perhaps Die Deutschen Flugzeuge 1933-1945, Kens and Nowarra, that the Horton9 handled well. Remember a glider version was built first and fully tested. In my mind the real answer to your question is that the Horton9 was a much better aircraft than it is being given credit for.
Except for the fact that the glider was described by its own pilots as having the problem and the crash that killed the Ho IX pilot was caused by the problem of lateral instability when it went out of control and crashed sideways. Or are you simply switched off to this.
I have asked before, why did no flying wings become operational before the B-2? Even after the supposedly marvellous Ho IX had been thoroughly examined? Because they were inherently lethal due to a complete absence of side area which is crucial to lateral stability is why. I don't understand how you canniot see this.
[edit on 3-6-2005 by waynos]
You disparage the Hoton9 v-1 glider saying it didn't handle well. It certainly did or they wouldn't have gone ahead with the v-2, would they?
Originally posted by Forschung
2. Intensional Downplaying of German Capablilities: examples: German atomic bombs, U-234 and its uranium cargo, Hans Coler, exact cost of coal to gasoline conversion,German computers, German flying discs, to date unacknowledged large German rockets, fuel-air bomb. Care to discuss any of these?
Konrad Zuse (June 22, 1910 - December 18, 1995) was a German engineer and computer pioneer. His greatest achievement was the completion of the first functional tape-stored-program-controlled computer, the Z3, in 1941.
The Z3 is sometimes claimed to be "first computer" as such, though this depends on complex and subtle definitional issues, as the machine was not truly general-purpose in the manner of later machines (see the article of history of computing for a thorough discussion).
Zuse also designed a high-level programming language, Plankalkül, allegedly in 1945, although this was a theoretical contribution, since the language was never actually implemented within his lifetime and did not directly influence early implemented languages.
In addition to his technical work, Zuse founded the first computer startup company in 1946. This company built the Z4, which became the first commercial computer, leased to ETH Zürich in 1950.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Originally posted by Forschung
2. Intensional Downplaying of German Capablilities: examples: German atomic bombs, U-234 and its uranium cargo, Hans Coler, exact cost of coal to gasoline conversion,German computers, German flying discs, to date unacknowledged large German rockets, fuel-air bomb. Care to discuss any of these?
- Waynos has cover the other aspects you raised quite nicely so I thought I'd make a passing comment on these comments if I may. It's off topic but I think it fair to answer them as the impression is being given that there is a systematic denial of (the, now, rather ancient) german tech, which could hardly be further from the truth.....
......it's always being raked over in one form or another here.
I don't see anyone "intentionally downplaying German capabilities".
I do see people challenging the unsubstantiated extravegant claims that have been made.
1) The 'German Atomic bomb'.
There was no bomb......as in the Germans during WW2 did not have an actual atomic bomb.
(....er, we might have noticed if the truth was different.)
They were researching (like everyone else) but failed to produce a bomb.
End of story.
2) U 234 and it's uranium cargo.
That cargo of uranium oxide is reportedly part of what went into the US bomb.
......and so what?
An ironic, fast and sensible use of the suitable materials to hand to finally try to bring the war to a speedy end, IMO.
3) Lignite to gasoline.
Very old news.
Again, interesting tech and usage of limited resources but ultimately, again, so what? When has this ever been denied?
4) German computers.
I have never seen this denied, covered up or hidden in any way.
There is a legitimate dispute as to whether the Zuse machine merits the claim to be the "first computer".
.....and so what?
Konrad Zuse (June 22, 1910 - December 18, 1995) was a German engineer and computer pioneer. His greatest achievement was the completion of the first functional tape-stored-program-controlled computer, the Z3, in 1941.
The Z3 is sometimes claimed to be "first computer" as such, though this depends on complex and subtle definitional issues, as the machine was not truly general-purpose in the manner of later machines (see the article of history of computing for a thorough discussion).
Zuse also designed a high-level programming language, Plankalkül, allegedly in 1945, although this was a theoretical contribution, since the language was never actually implemented within his lifetime and did not directly influence early implemented languages.
In addition to his technical work, Zuse founded the first computer startup company in 1946. This company built the Z4, which became the first commercial computer, leased to ETH Zürich in 1950.
www.answers.com...
5) Flying discs.
Circular wings are no secret either......as well as being a dead end.
6)"unacknowledged large rockets"......would this be concepts like the 2 stage A4/A9?
Who on earth has ever denied German rocket tech?
We had it constantly referred to during the Apollo missions.
(did you miss that......are you too young to have experienced and remembered that?)
.......and if you want to make wild claims about what 'they were just about to do if only they had the chance' in WW2 I suggest you look at the post war period 1945 - 1957/8 (a period of 12yrs! no less).
In the US they had the most lavish funding aqnd resourcing possible (ditto in the USSR) and it took a long long time until they could even perfect a satellite launch.
7) Fuel air bomb.
So they experimented with chemical bombs, who didn't?
They also did things like the sound cannon, the wind cannon and formulated all sorts of strange and wacky ideas.
Why on earth should people be constantly going over old ground (now 60yrs + ago) just to acknowledge that (maybe) some German guys had what look like a similar-ish idea, or drew a sketch that looks a little like x, y or z, a long time ago?
Germany slugged it out with most of the developed world for 6yrs, they didn't keep it going that long because they were 'rubbish' or in some kind of manner biologically inferior; they had some excellent ideas and some extremely bright people.......... just like everyone else.
Pity about their political leadership back then.
Originally posted by Forschung
1. German Atomic Bomb: There was a bomb built by the Germans.
I am going to give you the easy references first: Rainer Karlsch and Mark Weller writing in the June issue of Physics World disclose actual plans for an German atomic bomb.
The pair says the rough schematic does not imply that the Nazis built or even were close to building a nuclear bomb, but it shows they had progressed farther toward that goal than is conventionally thought.
The article appears in the June issue of the British monthly Physics World.
And to really stick it to ya, it was a plutonium bomb and the Germans weren't even supposed to know this word according to the Farm Hill conversations.
Karlsch recently wrote a book, Hitlers Bombe, in which he describes all this and a German test of a bomb. Not only do we have this acedemic, we have eye witness testimony of Luigi Romersa, a person of responsibility during and after the war who has written an account of the test, October 1944, Ruegen Island.
Post war American teams were running around with Geiger counters at ground zero, getting high radiation.
2. U-234. Yes, German uranium oxide, U-235, did go to Oak Ridge after capture. This wasn't the only shipment to Japan, however. The point is that to this very day, the US National Archives has deleted all references to uranium oxide on the cargo list and flatly denies it was ever on-board. Is this undervaluation or just fraud?
Does this sound like a program which was inept and confused and unorganized as Robert Powers says in Heisenberg's War (the standard for undervaluation).
3.Unless you are getting gas at less than a dollar a gallon, this is undervaluation.
4. German Computers never covered up or denied?
Yet, the Allies let Zuse languish, not even offering him a contract---the Allies had never even seen a digital computer.
It took them until 1952 to realize their mistake and went back to Germany, begging Zuse to come to the USA or just to do consulting work if not. Zues told them Nein, he had formed a company in Germany and had things going his way.
By the way, the Germans also invented the first programmable language and magnetic storage tape.
5. German flying discs. "they are no secret and a dead end". Why do you think they "are no secret"?
I don't know what you think people see at Area 51, but the people I have talked to and who have shown me pictures (Gary Schultz for instance) describe saucer shapes.
Flying saucers are alive and well and are a German invention (many primary references available if your are interested).
6. Large German rockets. The Allies made the Peenemuende scientists deny anything larger than a V-2.
7. Fuel-air bomb:The Vortex Cannon never existed at all.
The fuel-air bomb is still feared today. This is a classic example of a US coverup and undervaluation.
You know, I once heard a guy of talk radio say the same thing: "Why do we keep going over old ground with Nazi technology? After all, and after 60 years, we know all there is to know about them". Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Every modern technology I know was either substantially improved by the Reich Germans (liquid fuel rockets for instance) or invented by them.
The only possible exception may be radar but the Germans did work of radar independently. I am no radar expert and there appear to be some here, so I will leave that to them.
I can tell you that these items are only a tip of the iceberg and may even seem insignificant developments once the full truth is known.
Originally posted by Forschung
SmikeyPinky,
Are you getting paid by the word?
The uranium oxide in question was U-235, if that doesn't mean something to you, check a reference on the subject.
The Arthur Sack airplane has nothing to do with German saucers anymore than the US flying flapjack. Go to the sources if you have a problem and specifically dispute what you don't like.
I am not going to debate you, you are going to debate the facts.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Originally posted by Forschung
The uranium oxide in question was U-235, if that doesn't mean something to you, check a reference on the subject.
- If you think 'uranium oxide = an atomic bomb' then clearly you have no clue whatsoever about the subject.
Quite true, Uranium Oxide is commonly nown as yellow cake is normally no more than 10% enriched U235. It has to undergo enrichment to reach a level of 93% ( from my memory ) , to be considered weapons grade.
The process of enrichment requires about the same level of investment and research needed to produce the rest of a bomb.
There has never been any evidence that the Germans were actively enriching uranium.
Quite frankly they would have needed an operation on par with the Manhattan Project to be able to produce a bomb before the end of the war.
Originally posted by Forschung
2. U-234 and its uranium cargo. SmikeyPinkey, the Japanese had their own supplies of yellow cake in North Korea and possible Manchuria. Nobody would ever bother to transport ordinary yellow cake in a cargo hold of a U-boat in special lead-lined steel cannisters. This was refined uranium 235 rendered to oxide for ease of transport and storage. Remember, the Japanese just had a warehouse accident with this chemical circa 1997-98 in which there was some sort of min-explosion becasue the uranium oxide was stored in too close a proximity and even though it was in oxide form, it had exceeded critical mass. I am not sure of the details as they were kept secret but there was definately a problem here.
Originally posted by Forschung
SmikeyPinkey,
OK, so out of all those objections you had to "German High-tech
Originally posted by waynos
Forschung, from these posts you appear to have an agenda beyond what was being discussed. We began by arguing the merits of the Horten flying wings and now you are going off like a scatter gun as if trying to prove the Germans invented SOMETHING. Well its all very well you trying to bamboozle people into submission but there really seems to be no point to your claims. All the research and development that was going on is understood and accepted but what are you trying to prove?
There are several pertinent questions that have gone completely ignored by you on this thread but why sould this be? When you cut to the chase and get over trying to impress everyone answer these points.
1 German A bombs. If Germany had even one of these why didn't Hitler ordered it detonated in the face of the allied advance? It would have done what he was trying to do with the V-1, V-2 etc at a stroke and stopped Germany being overrun and kept the Nazi's in power. So if they had one why not use it?
2 German flying discs, if we accept the argument that you are not discussing annular wings but 'UFO type' flying discs, what use were they and where are they? Germany was completely overrrun by Russian, US and British forces and the German technical archive was plundered for all it was worth. In this scenario how likely is it that, having failed to keep the A-bomb from the Russians for even 5 years a revolutionary new way of flying that was so much better than winged aeroplanes was ignored or 'kept secret' for more than 60 years?
The A-bomb was so important that the US made massive attempts to keep it from Russia even to the point of denying access to it from the UK who co-developed it, yet Russia and now several other countries too have the thing. So, seeing as the 'flying disc' in itself is NOT a weapon but an advance in aviation, where are the flying discs?
You see, common sense has a way of unravelling B/S when it is applied in a straight forward manner.
[edit on 8-6-2005 by waynos]