Hey, Germany Invented It... Face It

Erich Adler wrote:

snip

Popular Mechanics is doing a cover that shows "when the UFOs arrive".
Imagine for a brief second what would happen if the UFO that
eventually lands is bearing the Iron Cross.

Just think about it, don't rush to conclusions. I don't expect anyone
to believe what I believe. This is America and you can disagree. But
don't attack someone to do it. Just state why you don't think so.

Peace,

Erich Adler


There's a verse in the New Testament (KJV), Hebrews 11:1, that goes "Now
faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen." You, dude, are one highly religious individual.

David Windhorst -- former ministerial student turned atheist

I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?

I live in America now but don't like the blatant arrogance

snip, snip

Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull

snip, snip


But ignorant Americans choose to believe lies instead.

snip, snip


Just think about it, don't rush to conclusions. I don't expect anyone
to believe what I believe. This is America and you can disagree. But
don't attack someone to do it. Just state why you don't think so.

Well, if you want to debate with people, why not try leaving out claims of how
uniformly ignorant and arrogant we are? In exchange, I'll try not to picture
you roasting my relatives in an oven.


Imagine for a brief second what would happen if the UFO that
eventually lands is bearing the Iron Cross.

Funny thing for a "German" to say - they never marked -any- aircraft with an
"Iron Cross". Balkenk or Haken - crosses go on your airframe, but
"Eisenkreuz" was solely an award for bravery. Little oops there, buddy...?

Gordon

Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull

I know what you mean, after seeing some American write a crazy post about
Antarctic UFO bases..


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

U2 stealthy? If they copied German stealth no wonder the LW lost - I
used to intercept U2s at operational height and I gotta tell you the
weakest AI radar in the fleet, the ASG14T1, picked them up at 20
miles, the maximum range of its scope. Woo-woo alarm - On tinfoil
hats!
Walt BJ

In article ,
(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) writes:
In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Erich Adler" wrote in message
We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
run. German engineers told them that in 1945.

Uh, no. You're thinking "Metropolitan-Vickers in 1943"

Or GE in 1941 (TG-100/T-31)
Or GE in 1944 (TG-180/J35)
Or Westinghouse in 1943 (X19/J30)
Or...

Axial compressors, and their potential benefits, were well known long
before with Whittle or von Ohain ran their engines. In fact, one of
the reasons that the RAF was so reluctant to find Whittles'
experiements was becasue the Air Minitry's tame Gas Turbine expert,
Griffith, was so enamoured of his own over-complicated, unsuccessful
axial complressor designs that he refused to believe that compressors
could, in fact, be that simple.

American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
turned out to be correct.

And at twice the power of anything the Germans ever achieved. The J33
and J35 both ran in early 1944, The Rolls Nene, developed as a
response to the J33, ran in late '44. Westinghouse was running the
J30, mentioned above, the J32 9.5" diameter missile engine, and the
J34, and Metrovick had the Beryl in production adn were working on the
Sapphire by the time anyone on the Allied side got to touch a German
engine.


Yep. Metrovick had a very tasty axial-flow engine (the basis of
Armstrong-Siddeley and later Bristol-Siddeley engines to come)
flying in late 1943. Not a bad engine at all. And a fighter
powered by two of 'em was testing before the end of the war
(intended for pacific operations).

Bull**** , the Jumo 004B was a typical first generation engine in terms
of performance with woeful reliability and had poorer performance
than the Derwent. This is of course why the Soviets used the
RR centrifugal engine in the Mig-15

And why one Adolf Galland - who flew both - rated the Meteor as
a better fighter than the 262. It had *much* better engines.
I'll grant that he did say the 262 might have been better if it
had Derwents, but it would be interesting to try and mate the two.

An interesting noe in the report of U.S.A.A.F testing of war prize Me
262s at Freeman Field, Ohio, after the war is available on the Defence
Technical Information Center site:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/

One comment in the report was that they did no specific single-engine
testing - They got plenty of single-engine time due to engine failure.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
(Erich Adler) wrote:

I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?

[snip]

We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
run. German engineers told them that in 1945.

GE was working on axial-flow jet engines before they switched to
centrifugal versions based on British designs.

But ignorant Americans choose to believe lies instead. When confronted
with the truth they hide behind sour words like "you lost the war",
"Yeager broke the sound barrier", "the US invented everything military
aviation wise postwar". All of this is nonsense. It is patriotic and
endearing to veterans of World War II but the opposite of reality.

Yeager didn't break the sound barrier? (Granted, it was just the first
time it had been done in level flight, but still...)

[tinfoil bait snipped]

In article ,
Peter Stickney wrote:
In article ,
(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) writes:
In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Erich Adler" wrote in message
We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
run. German engineers told them that in 1945.

Uh, no. You're thinking "Metropolitan-Vickers in 1943"

Or GE in 1941 (TG-100/T-31)
Or GE in 1944 (TG-180/J35)
Or Westinghouse in 1943 (X19/J30)
Or...

Yep - though IIRC the Metrovick engine was the first allied axial-
flow turbine to fly (what's rather startling is that within
a few months M-V had developed it into a *turbofan* - the F3 -
although that never flew)

Axial compressors, and their potential benefits, were well known long
before with Whittle or von Ohain ran their engines. In fact, one of
the reasons that the RAF was so reluctant to find Whittles'
experiements was becasue the Air Minitry's tame Gas Turbine expert,
Griffith, was so enamoured of his own over-complicated, unsuccessful
axial complressor designs that he refused to believe that compressors
could, in fact, be that simple.

Agreed, seconded..
Once they did accept that something that simple could work, all marks
to the ministry (and to the allies in general) for deciding that a
slightly-less-than-ideal engine which could be built *right now*
and made reliable *real soon now* was prefereable to an obstensibly
better design which wasn't going to work well any time in the near
future (and you could always push the axial flow designs along while
productionising the centrifugal-flow engines)

American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
turned out to be correct.

Could argue that - in Britain at least - we lost interest in the
centrifugal flow engine just a touch too early. There was very little
interest in the Nene, IIRC, which is why it was regarded as OK to
sell the design to Russia (while hanging on tight to the Sapphire
and Avon). Of course, the Nene worked very well in MiG15 (and also,
IIRC, in the Tunnen as well as a few other designs). In fact it must
have been the last centrifugal flow engine to power an aircraft in
combat - when did the Indian Sea Hawks go?

And at twice the power of anything the Germans ever achieved. The J33
and J35 both ran in early 1944, The Rolls Nene, developed as a
response to the J33, ran in late '44. Westinghouse was running the
J30, mentioned above, the J32 9.5" diameter missile engine, and the
J34, and Metrovick had the Beryl in production adn were working on the
Sapphire by the time anyone on the Allied side got to touch a German
engine.

Surely the Avon must have been in early development by then as well,
though it didn't work very well until Hooker got put in charge of it.

And why one Adolf Galland - who flew both - rated the Meteor as
a better fighter than the 262. It had *much* better engines.
I'll grant that he did say the 262 might have been better if it
had Derwents, but it would be interesting to try and mate the two.

An interesting noe in the report of U.S.A.A.F testing of war prize Me
262s at Freeman Field, Ohio, after the war is available on the Defence
Technical Information Center site:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/

One comment in the report was that they did no specific single-engine
testing - They got plenty of single-engine time due to engine failure.

*lovely*. Just what you want.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

On 18 Feb 2004 00:20:03 -0000, (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:


Yep. Metrovick had a very tasty axial-flow engine (the basis of
Armstrong-Siddeley and later Bristol-Siddeley engines to come)
flying in late 1943. Not a bad engine at all. And a fighter
powered by two of 'em was testing before the end of the war
(intended for pacific operations).


That was the SR1A I take it. How did it compare performance wise with the
meteor and vampire ? One wonders how say a 'conventional' version would
have performed over the skies of Korea.


greg


--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

All the
Germans did was use radar absorbing paint. This does not qualify as
inventing "stealth", yet no German seems to understand this.

This was true of both sides, actually. The first stealthy warplane is
considered to be the Horten/Gotha nurflugel fighter-bomber, the second
the Northrop YB-49. Neither one was meant to be stealthy; the builders
were simply trying to build an all-wing aircraft. Only after it was
flying did the builders discover they couldn't be seen on the radar of
the time (in the case of the Horten, airborne radar).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote:
On 18 Feb 2004 00:20:03 -0000, (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:


Yep. Metrovick had a very tasty axial-flow engine (the basis of
Armstrong-Siddeley and later Bristol-Siddeley engines to come)
flying in late 1943. Not a bad engine at all. And a fighter
powered by two of 'em was testing before the end of the war
(intended for pacific operations).


That was the SR1A I take it. How did it compare performance wise with the
meteor and vampire ? One wonders how say a 'conventional' version would
have performed over the skies of Korea.

Suprisingly fast, IIRC. 500+ mph rings a bell.
Aha:

"The S.R.A.1 had a normal fuel capacity of 425 Imp. gal., and jettisonable
fuel tanks could be carried under the wing inboard of the retractable
stabilising floats. Loaded weight was l6,255 lb., and empty weight was
11,262 lb. The third prototype attained a maximum speed of 516 mph., and
initial climb rate exceeded 4,000 ft/min. Dimensions we span, 46
ft.; length 50 ft.; height, 16 ft. 9 in.; gross wing area, 415 sq. ft."

(quote from "The JET AIRCRAFT of the World" by William Green (February
1956) - probably reliable enough)

Range was about 500 miles (~830 km) without external tanks. I can't find
time-to-height or ceiling figures.

Vampire F1 was good for about 520 mph, range comparible or a bit longer,
same gun armament (the usual four hispanos) but a lighter bomb load.

"Engine 3,100lb de havilland Goblin DGn.2
Wing span 40ft
Length 30ft 9ins
Maximum speed (Kts)
at height (ft) 540
20,000
Service ceiling (ft) -
Rate of climb (ft/min) 4,200
Range (miles) 730
Armament 4 x 20mm cannon in nose"

(from http://www.609.org.uk/vampire.htm)

climb rate a little faster, and I'd be suprised if it wasn't more agile
than the big SaRo.

Meat Box F1 (with Wellands) was only good for about 410 mph, but the
F3 which was the first main production type and was in pretty extensive
squadron service before VE day was a lot better. The developed version
- the F4 - came in just post-war but is probably the best comparison
to the SaRo and the Vampi
Engines : two Derwent V turbojets of 3495 lbs thrust
Max speed : 510 Kts (Mach 0.76) at sea level, 430 Kts (Mach 0.76) at
10.000 ft, 235 Kts (Mach 0.78) at 40.000 ft
Cruising speed : 400 Kts - 480 Kts, Landing speed : 90 Kts - 100 Kts
Service ceiling : 40.000 ft, Max ceiling : 44.500 ft
Range : 530 Nm (755 Nm with external tanks)
Empty weight : 9995 lbs, Max take off weight : 17000 lbs
Dimensions : Span of 37 ft 2 in, Length of 40 ft 11 in, Height of 13 ft
Armement : four 20mm cannon + two 1000 lbs bombs or 8 x rockets of 90 lbs
each
Users : Belgium, UK, Netherlands, Argentina

So 598 mph maximum. For its day the Meteor was a very fast machine (it
held the air speed record for a fair while) and for an early jet its
acceleration was good. Not agile except in the hands of someone like
the late Zura, however.

The SaRo wasn't a lot worse than the Vamp in performance and would
certainly have overmatched any piston-engined fighter, let alone
any other seaplane. It would almost certainly have been at a disadvantage
against a Meteor, and although there were ideas of re-activating the
project early in the Korean war it's hard to see what would have been
achieved, even with more powerful engines. I doubt if anyone would
have wanted to take it up against MiG15s (though it'd possibly be no
worse than doing the same in a Firefly)

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)