"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
(B2431) wrote in message
...
From: (robert arndt)


http://www.aerofiles.com/boe-b17gv1.jpg

Rob


Nice pic, but that's not a V-1. It's a USAF Loon which was U.S. made.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Sorry, the aerofiles site has that photo labeled as a captured V-1 but
since it came from Wright Field testing it had to be a JB-2 Loon.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/loon.htm

Notice, however, that the Loon is also described as being catapult
launched since the "pulsejet would only operate in forward flight". So
nice of that to be mentioned.

Too bad they are wrong in using that particular choice of verbage, since we
KNOW the Loon's engine could indeed operate and produce thrust in a static
mode; the catapult just shortens the required take-off length to a
manageable amount (there is no doubt that if you fired one up on a
long-enough runway that it could accelerate to a speed sufficient to get it
airborne, but then you'd have to have an undercarriage of sorts, etc.). As
has been pointed out to you by many posters, some of whom have demonstrated
one hell of a lot more expertise in the subject matter than you have, the
pulse jet can indeed operate and produce thrust in a static mount, and some
can even be started without any external forced air supply. Why you are
being so hard-headed in the face of proof, both verbal and visual, that your
rants are wrong is beyond me.

Brooks


Rob