G-loads in WW2

(Beethoven removed the dedication of the
9th Symphony when he found out what they were really like).

Of course you meant to type 3rd Symphony, the Eroica.

Slanting wildly OT, re your comments on French invasions of Germany and
anti-Germanism, how deep do you believe the rapprochement between France and
Germany really is? It's certainly cost the German taxpayer quite a bit of
money, with no end in sight.


Chris Mark

"Chris Mark" wrote in message
...
(Beethoven removed the dedication of the
9th Symphony when he found out what they were really like).

Of course you meant to type 3rd Symphony, the Eroica.


Beethoven removed the dedication after Napoleon
accepted the rank of Emperor, not because of his
behaviour to the Prussians. Beethoven was a fervent
republican and was shocked by what he saw as a
betrayal. He subsequently changed his mind however
as his writings in 1810 indicate when he wrote of his
Mass in C, "the mass could perhaps be dedicated to Napoleon."
This was AFTER Bonaparte had once more defeated
Austria and Prussia and annexed much of Germany.

Note there was no such nation as Germany to invade at this time.
Note also that Prussia, Austria and other German nations
were alternately allies and enemies of Napoleon as the
mood took them.

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Beethoven removed the dedication after Napoleon
accepted the rank of Emperor, not because of his
behaviour to the Prussians.

Well, if we want to get into this, the symphony was never "dedicated" to
Napoleon but was originally _entitled_ Bonaparte. Apparently the only source
for the story of Beethoven changing the title of the symphony because he was
angry that Napoleon had proclaimed himself emperor was a student of Beethoven's
named Ries. He claimed to have seen Beethoven, when he got the news, tear up
the title page of the score, fling it to the ground and stamp on it.
Unfortunately, the original score of the piece no longer exists, so there is no
way to verify the story. A copy (date unknown) with corrections by Beethoven
still bears on the title page "intitolata Bonaparte," but they have been
crossed out, presumably by Beethoven. Napoleon's coronation took place in May,
1804. In August, 1804, Beethoven offered the symphony to his Leipzig publisher
with the note, "The symphony is actually entitled Bonaparte..."
When the piece received its first public performance in April, 1805, it was as
the Eroica, not the Bonaparte. Joseph Schmidt-Gorg, who knows as much about
Beethoven as anyone--if not more--believed that as B. evolved his ideas about
this symphony he decided to make the work commemorate the idea of the great man
in general, rather than have it refer to one specific individual.
About the controvery over the original title, he writes, "In the case of the
Eroica, so many incorrect and misleading statements have been handed down that
it provides a perfect example of how difficult it often is to ascertain which
among contradictory accounts is the correct one."
Source for the above: "Ludwig van Beethoven" by Joseph Schmidt-Gorg & Hans
Schmidt, Beethoven-Archiv, Bonn.

As an aside, I found it astounding that anyone, particularly someone who tends
to put forward the German side of things, could possibly confuse the Eroica
with the Choral. Could it be that Mr. E's musical taste runs more to Bon Jovi
than Beethoven?

"GuiltyBystander9" wrote in message
...
Beethoven removed the dedication after Napoleon
accepted the rank of Emperor, not because of his
behaviour to the Prussians.

Well, if we want to get into this, the symphony was never "dedicated" to
Napoleon but was originally _entitled_ Bonaparte. Apparently the only
source
for the story of Beethoven changing the title of the symphony because he
was
angry that Napoleon had proclaimed himself emperor was a student of
Beethoven's
named Ries. He claimed to have seen Beethoven, when he got the news, tear
up
the title page of the score, fling it to the ground and stamp on it.
Unfortunately, the original score of the piece no longer exists, so there
is no
way to verify the story. A copy (date unknown) with corrections by
Beethoven
still bears on the title page "intitolata Bonaparte," but they have been
crossed out, presumably by Beethoven.

Sinfonia Grande Intitulata Bonaparte (A Great Symphony on Bonaparte)
to be precise.

Napoleon's coronation took place in May,
1804. In August, 1804, Beethoven offered the symphony to his Leipzig
publisher
with the note, "The symphony is actually entitled Bonaparte..."

Indeed but both Ries and Schindler insist that the new that Bonaparte
had accepted the crown only reached Beethoven in December

The document bears the pencilled annotation Geschrieben auf Bonapart but
in the main title, the name Bonapart has been scratched out so violently
that
the erasure has left a hole in the paper.

see

Anton Schindler, Beethoven as I Knew Him, edited by Donald W. MacArdle
(Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1966),

When the piece received its first public performance in April, 1805, it
was as
the Eroica, not the Bonaparte. Joseph Schmidt-Gorg, who knows as much
about
Beethoven as anyone--if not more--believed that as B. evolved his ideas
about
this symphony he decided to make the work commemorate the idea of the
great man
in general, rather than have it refer to one specific individual.

Especially as that man turned out to have feet of clay

About the controvery over the original title, he writes, "In the case of
the
Eroica, so many incorrect and misleading statements have been handed down
that
it provides a perfect example of how difficult it often is to ascertain
which
among contradictory accounts is the correct one."
Source for the above: "Ludwig van Beethoven" by Joseph Schmidt-Gorg &
Hans
Schmidt, Beethoven-Archiv, Bonn.

As an aside, I found it astounding that anyone, particularly someone who
tends
to put forward the German side of things, could possibly confuse the
Eroica
with the Choral. Could it be that Mr. E's musical taste runs more to Bon
Jovi
than Beethoven?

Nothing so refined I'm sure

Keith

ost (Chris Mark) wrote in message ...
(Beethoven removed the dedication of the
9th Symphony when he found out what they were really like).

Of course you meant to type 3rd Symphony, the Eroica.

Slanting wildly OT, re your comments on French invasions of Germany and
anti-Germanism, how deep do you believe the rapprochement between France and
Germany really is? It's certainly cost the German taxpayer quite a bit of
money, with no end in sight.

Not too great even now. Most of the problems in earlier centuries
seem to have come from the French Elite in my opinion with more
admiration than animosity.




Chris Mark

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Jack writes:
Cub Driver wrote:

Why does everyone get so bent out of shape over the Me-262? Its
contemporary, the P-80 in its two-seat trainer version, is still in
service....

If the -262 had survived this long it probably would have been a bit
better than it was in 1945, too. The last time a flew a T-33 was 1971,
and there were no -262s available to me for comparison.

The question is, was the P-80 better than the ME-262 in 45? We'll never
know, but we can say that the -262 was operational in '45, and that the
-80 was not.

SNIP


One bit of source material that has some bearing is Technical Report
F-TR-1133-ND, "Evaluation of the Me 262, (Project Number NAD-29)",
Headquarters Air Materiel Command, Technical Intelligence, Wright
Field, released February 1947, declassified and released under FOIA in
1994. It's the results of teh stateside evaluations of the Me 262
conducted at Freeman Field, after V-E Day.

The gist of the pilot's comments, discounting their experience in
single-engine handling (9 engine failures in 15.5 flight hours)
are these - handling was poor at speeds over 350 mph. Snaking was
severe enough to prevent effective gun aiming at speeds above 400 mph
IAS. Trim chages with power were objectionable. Stalling behavior was
good.

A November 1988 'Airpower' which, in it's general review of the
Luftwaffe, includes a paragraph on Me-262 comparitive tests with the
P-80 (presumably early A models) which found that the latter was
inferior in climb rate, top speed and acceleration but that the
latter's controls
harmonies and retained agility (powered servos were not avialable on
the 262 and pilots had a hard time of it using a telescoping joystick
to get enough leveredge) at speed plus overall guns stability.

The Schwalbe had a rep for high speed snaking that could only be cured
but on a machine-by-machine basis via ground crew tweaking of the
rudder
wobbles or some such with 'shim and trim' reshaping. The Meteor was
the
same at rather lower speeds but was more extensively 'fixed' post war.

As for armament the Schwalbe might have ended up with a configuration
of 4 of the MG-213a 20mm high velocity revolver cannon or c class
revolvers and with
these, an EZ-42 and the 262C rocket-boost for takeoff.

Cockpit visibility was poor. Excessive trim changes at low
speeds when lowering/raising the gear and flaps required a lot of
attention during approach and landiing.
The gneral maintenace load, given enough spare parts, wasn't
considered excessive, with the exception of constantly needing to pull
engines.

The final conclustions were that the Me 262 was about the same as an
F-80A, with slightly better acceleration and speed, and comparable
climb rates. The handling characteristics of the F-80A were much
superior, and the F-80 was a superior gun platform. (Albeit not as
hard hitting) It pretty much sounds like a wash.

Were German Generals better than American Generals? At least we have
some basis for comparison.

I've read quite a number of the Memoirs of German Generals. The
General Staff School apparently had an exceptionally good class in
finger-pointing. The constant running theme is that it's Always
Somebody Else's Fault. It's not at all unlike reading the memoirs of
Robert S. MacNamara or McGeorge Bundy.

Cub Driver wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:58:52 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

We could have pushed the F-80 into service
sooner, if we had needed to, but we didn't need to.

It was also completely useless to a nation on the offense, given the
range of 1945 turbojets. The British found employment for the Meteor
shooting down V-1s. They based a few in France toward the end of the
war, but I suspect that was mostly anxiety to get it deployed
"overseas".

The role of any of these planes in 1945 had to be as a bomber
interceptor. The U.S. didn't need a bomber interceptor in 1945; it
needed escort fighters, and that was a role the P-80 couldn't have
filled.

Considering that there were Spitfires based on the Continent in 1944 and
1945, the (even longer) range of the P-80 really wasn't an issue. And
the 9th AF's P-38s and P-47s were generally carrying bombs, not drop
tanks, so their combat radius wasn't all that high either. The P-80
wouldn't have needed to fly from England to Berlin, just a fair portion
of the way from eastern France, Belgium or the southern Netherlands to
there.

(Crikey, even now when turbojets/fans are more reliable than recips
ever were, I read of jet fighters being refueled over the base they
just took off from, in order to proceed toward the target.

If you have it's because the airfield was too short for them to take off
with a full load from it or because they're already at MTOGW, not
because they require it to have any combat radius. Tanking once you
reach a reasonable refueling height downrange is another matter, but
that's purely a question of extending the combat radius/endurance, which
is a factor with any a/c.

Guy

Cub Driver wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:58:52 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

Snaking was
severe enough to prevent effective gun aiming at speeds above 400 mph
IAS.

Interesting. A major reason why the Bell P-59A (first flight August?
1942 wasn't developed as a fighter was its instability as a gun
platform.

It seems to have been more of a proof-of-concept a/c than an operational
design. Its performance was lower than that of the piston engined
fighters it might have replaced, so there was no reason to put it into
production.

Guy

Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:46:03 -0500, Jack wrote:

but we can say that the -262 was operational in '45, and that the
-80 was not.

I suggest you look a little more, the P-80 was operational in italy before
the end of the war.

I looked: did you? The following is easy to find:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap37.htm

"Several early P-80s were sent to Europe for demonstration,
but WW II ended before the aircraft could be employed in combat."

And:

http://www.campusprogram.com/referen...ting_star.html

"The Shooting Star began to enter service in early 1945,
and 45 had been delivered before the war ended. Only two
actually made it to Europe, being tested in Italy, well
away from the front."

And:

http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html

"The Army Air Force planned to build the Shooting Star in
large numbers. However, only two of the machines arrived
in Italy before the end of the war in Europe, and these
were never used in operations.

Not even close to being "operational", Greg, and certainly without a
record comparable even to the limited combat exploits of the ME-262,
until the Korean war gave the F-80C an opportunity to make history.

The -262 design might have been able to support development to the level
we saw in the F-80C (or T-33) given a 15 year production run, a 50+ year
operational life, and the resources of a major world power behind it,
but that is just pointless speculation.


Jack

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:07:09 -0500, Jack wrote:


Not even close to being "operational", Greg, and certainly without a

There was 54 in service by wars end, that is 'operational' by any rational
assessment.


greg

--
Konnt ihr mich horen?
Konnt ihr mich sehen?
Konnt ihr mich fuhlen?
Ich versteh euch nicht