PDA

View Full Version : Holy Moly, HO 219? (Flying wing)



XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:47 PM
Any one know specs for this plane?
Speed?
Guns?
Turn ability?
it looks like a mean machine cant wait to get my hands on her

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:47 PM
Any one know specs for this plane?
Speed?
Guns?
Turn ability?
it looks like a mean machine cant wait to get my hands on her

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 10:29 PM
If you do a Google search with the correct designation, Ho229 or Go229, you can find most of what you are looking for.

obw, the Horten is being modelled by Gib./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 10:37 PM
the wing would be nice, but so would the DO335?? the one with props front and back...

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 10:51 PM
It was also the worlds first truly "Stealth" aircraft due to it flying wing structure the radar operators couldn't track it with it's gear up for reason /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>________________________</center>

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Tgan92/CowboyMir.gif

"The day is mine!"


Message Edited on 10/17/0303:51PM by CowboyTodd41

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 11:05 PM
Northrop had a wing flying before the Hortens./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Do you have any radar test reports done with the Horten?


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 11:18 PM
Again, another noobie who things the Germans invented stealth and the B2 is a copy of the Go-229. Does anybody actually read hostory?

Gib


CowboyTodd41 wrote:
- It was also the worlds first truly "Stealth"
- aircraft due to it flying wing structure the radar
- operators couldn't track it with it's gear up for
- reason /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- <center>________________________</center>
-
- <img
- src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Tgan92/CowboyMi
- r.gif">
-
- "The day is mine!"
-
-
- Message Edited on 10/17/03 03:51PM by
- CowboyTodd41



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 12:49 AM
Nope sorry Gib. people around here tend to create their own make believe history.

<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
FOR INFORMATION ON THE 310TH FS OR 380TH BG Please visit the 310th FS Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 01:01 AM
On history channel they showed that US scientists visited museums with Flying wing during the construction of b2.

What history book says that US did NOT incomporate it into b2?

Gibbage1 wrote:
- Again, another noobie who things the Germans
- invented stealth and the B2 is a copy of the Go-229.
- Does anybody actually read hostory?
-
-
- Gib
-
-
- CowboyTodd41 wrote:
-- It was also the worlds first truly "Stealth"
-- aircraft due to it flying wing structure the radar
-- operators couldn't track it with it's gear up for
-- reason /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
--
-- <center>________________________</center>
--
-- <img
-- src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Tgan92/CowboyMi
-- r.gif">
--
-- "The day is mine!"
--
--
-- Message Edited on 10/17/03 03:51PM by
-- CowboyTodd41
-
-
-
-
- No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET



yay!

Message Edited on 10/19/0302:05AM by yay1

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 02:27 AM
Wow. Another noobie who gets all his facts from Discovery Channel. Ho-229 was NOT the first flying wing. That belongs to a French man in 1922-23. Yes, they may have visited the Go-229, but they did not take anything useful they did not already know. They were checking the aircraft for any aerodynamic theries they did not already know. Point out one thing thats similar between the B2 and the Go-229 other then it has tricycle landing gear. Also, do yourself a favor and look up the Northrop XB-35. Thats were the B2 came from, NOT the Go-229. Has the same wingspan, same controle surfaces, same number of engines. Stealth came along because some scientest found reports that his HUGE bomber could not be detected on radar. These reports were filed away in the 1940's as radar error.

Gib

yay1 wrote:
- On history channel they showed that US scientists
- visited museums with Flying wing during the
- construction of b2.
-
- It was literally first flying wing, what history
- book says that US did NOT incomporate it into b2?
-
-

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 03:46 AM
What do you have against discovery channel? You've agreed with more than 50% of what I've said.

Your abusing word noobie.

http://www.kheichhorn.de/html/body_horten_go_229.html

yay!

Message Edited on 10/18/03 02:48AM by yay1

Message Edited on 10/18/0302:49AM by yay1

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 04:56 AM
A little lesson for ya. Pick out the fighter, and pick out the bomber.

Gib

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/stealth.jpg


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 04:59 AM
The problem with Discovery channel or History channel is that they do have to get ratings and sometimes you have to make things exciting.

Sometimes that means loosing a few of the specifics that people around here so love (and for good reason).

Its like anything else, you cannot trust soley one source. They may be right...but not all right.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 06:13 AM
Wow! Can we expect to see those babies(besides the Gotha) in FB,Gib?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


http://www.gibbageart.com/images/stealth.jpg


47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 08:31 AM
IDK about that whole 40s aircraft being stealth thing, the curves on the B2 are very complicated. That is why the F117 is a bunch of flat panels at strange angles, it took more advanced computer to design curves that would reflect radar the right way. I remember reading somewhere that is was a russian mathametion (sp) that came up with the equations for stealth but it took modern computers to be able to solve them and apply them to aircraft. In any case, the flying wing is a beautiful design. Its simple beautiful efficiency is right up there with the diesel engine.


"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 08:46 AM
testing 1, 2, 3, we don't need another jet......

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 08:46 AM
i have seen it flying in real life

The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light
<CENTER>http://images.flagspot.net/i/id%5eaforo.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:58 AM
What? The Go/Ho-229?

<center>
---------------------------------------
Fokker G.I
http://www.defensie.nl:30280/home/pictures/7370.jpg
http://www.uvika.dn.ua/av/PLANE/HOLLAND/FOKKER_G-1/Fokker_G-1b_03a-n.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 03:39 PM
haha, you still have to agree that b2 and gos resemblence are quite similar. B2 is just 3x bigger.

Curves on the back, cockpit, two engines close to center, and they are jets.

Thanks for the pic though!

yay!

Tully__
10-18-2003, 03:52 PM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- ....I remember reading somewhere that is was a
- russian mathametion (sp) that came up with the
- equations for stealth but it took modern computers
- to be able to solve them and apply them to aircraft....



It's not the stealth design that's complex, it's flying it. The F-117 is not very stable and is virtually impossible to fly without computer aided flight corrections several thousand times per second. The fuselage/wing design is quite simple but rather unsound aerodynamically.

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>
<center> Sig size limits (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzrgs)</center>
<center><font size="-2" color="#88aadd">IL2 Forums Moderator</font></center>


Salut
Tully

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 04:48 PM
Again, noobie. Do some research. B2 has 4 engines, and so does the B-35. May I suggest not to state facts unless you research them? The B-35 had its engines inside the wing, so did the B2. Only the intakes were on top. The Go-229 had half (more like 1/3) of its engine on top of the wing and MUCH closer to the COG then the B2. In fact, if you bothered to look close, you would see the inboard engines on the B-35 line up EXACTLY with the B-2's engines. The B-2 used the same split aelaron flight controle system as the B-35 that was developed in 1939 were the Go uses small air brakes on the wings surfaces. A very inefficiant method. Just trimming it would kill the B-2's stealthyness if it used the Go's design. The B2 and B-35 have the EXACT same wing span! The only design aspect that I can say MAY have come from the Gotha is the "tail" section. The center aft section of the B-35 is a point were the B-2 and the Go-229's wing contenues to meet the aft section. This helps with high speed "flutter". Other then that, the similarity's stop there. Remember, visual silimarity's dont mean squat in the world of aerodynamics. Its technical.

Gib

yay1 wrote:
- haha, you still have to agree that b2 and gos
- resemblence are quite similar. B2 is just 3x bigger.
-
- Curves on the back, cockpit, two engines close to
- center, and they are jets.
-
- Thanks for the pic though!
-
- yay!



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 05:06 PM
The Stealth concept was discovered by a Soviet scientist in the 50's. It was published openly, because the Soviets didn't think it would have any practical use... Quite an irony of history that American scientists then read the article and put the thing to good use! :-)

Freycinet
<center>
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/delfin/SD/2001/flight/spitbf109/ellehammer-crop-for-il2-forum-reduced.jpg</center>
<center>My Il-2 web-site:</center><center><BIG>"Za Rodinu!"</BIG> (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/delfin/SD/2001/flight/il-2/index.htm)</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 05:22 PM
I find the YB-49 more interesting (which came from the YB-35)

http://www.danford.net/muroc.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 05:22 PM
The engineers of the B-2 got the idea from the B1b's low radar signature. During there research they found that the big Northrup B-35 and B-49 (More the B-49) could NOT be seen on radar. So they decided on a flying wing concept. Thats how I heard it.

Gib

Freycinet wrote:
- The Stealth concept was discovered by a Soviet
- scientist in the 50's. It was published openly,
- because the Soviets didn't think it would have any
- practical use... Quite an irony of history that
- American scientists then read the article and put
- the thing to good use! :-)
-
- Freycinet
- <center>
- <img
- src="http://perso.wanadoo.fr/delfin/SD/2001/flight
- /spitbf109/ellehammer-crop-for-il2-forum-reduced.j
- pg" ALT="First Heavier-than-Air Flight in Europe, by
- J.C.H. Ellehammer, Danish Aviation Pioneer (Sep. 12,
- 1906)"></center>
- <center>My Il-2 web-site:</center><center><a
- href="http://perso.wanadoo.fr/delfin/SD/2001/fligh
- t/il-2/index.htm"><BIG>"Za
- Rodinu!"</BIG></a></center>



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 05:26 PM
Your talking bs, if you ever bothered to read carefully you would find out that I never said anything about little details, b2 and go look like VERY similar, this is fact, and I did say that b2 is much bigger. I don't care about details.

THE END.

yay!

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 05:29 PM
Additionally, (and this is the most critical part), the B-2 does not have a bell shaped lift curve. The 229 does. Considering how that was the most critical part for creating the 229, that the B-2 does not have it, indicates that the 229 was not a significant influence on the design.

Side note, the 229 is not invisible on radar, and neither is the B-35. Both have reduced radar signatures, but they both have relatively large surfaces with direct reflection of radar back to the source. On the B-35, the entire propeller system was a very large reflective surfice, as well as the curved leading edge of the wing. On the 229, all those graceful curves practically guarantee that there will always be a direct return reflection from any radar that illuminates it.

For a quick way to think of stealth, think of the aircraft as being coverd in a big mirror. Any angle that you can see yourself from, a radar set can see the plane from. Any angle that you can't, is invisible to radar. If you look at the reflection from a back of a spoon, you'll see that there is almost no angle at which you can't see your reflection, but if you take a flat mirror and tilt it, you can't see yourself at all. That is basicly the principle behind stealth design.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 05:29 PM
If you dont care about details, then you dont care about the truth. Again, looks matter not.

Gib

yay1 wrote:
- Your talking bs, if you ever bothered to read
- carefully you would find out that I never said
- anything about little details, b2 and go look like
- VERY similar, this is fact, and I did say that b2 is
- much bigger. I don't care about details.
-
- THE END.
-
- yay!



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 05:42 PM
Hey Gibbige, did you make those two model of the XB-35 and the B-2?

And think B-29 and B-36.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif LOL

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 06:05 PM
I made the B-35 and the Go-229, but not the B2.

JV44Priller wrote:
- Hey Gibbige, did you make those two model of the
- XB-35 and the B-2?
-
- And think B-29 and B-36.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif LOL
-
-



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 06:08 PM
Actually Gib, the Germans did notice that their flying wing wasn't very visible on their radar screens.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>It's your fault... <center>
Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW
http://www.uploadit.org/files/220903-Boosher%20Sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 06:13 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- theries they did not already know. Point out one
- thing thats similar between the B2 and the Go-229
- other then it has tricycle landing gear.


They are both flying wings.

They both feature engines that exhaust above the wing
surface.

Sorry, that's two things!





Message Edited on 10/18/0305:15PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 06:16 PM
Boosher-PBNA wrote:
- Actually Gib, the Germans did notice that their
- flying wing wasn't very visible on their radar
- screens.

Although it was more a nice bonus of the construction
materials rather than intended, it was seen by the LW
as a nice advantage and was, indeed, duly noted.

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 06:25 PM
Gibbage, why don't you lighten up on the Mr.Attitude thing you got going. You sound like an ahole brother-in-law I've got who is, of course, better than any mere human could ever possibly be.

There are ways to point out differences without insulting everyone.

<center>http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetemp_both/language/www/US/TX/Dallas.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 07:51 PM
Lol. Does anybody ever LOOK at the Go-229? The intakes are on the LEADING EDGE. The turbines are very much exposed are make a huge radar signal. The engines in the B-35 and B-49 were barried in the wing and kept the turbines from reflecting back the radar. Something they learned from the B-35/49 that they used in the B2. Barrie the engines. If they used the Go-229's intake, it would not be stealth.

Gib

AaronGT wrote:
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-- theries they did not already know. Point out one
-- thing thats similar between the B2 and the Go-229
-- other then it has tricycle landing gear.
-
-
- They are both flying wings.
-
- They both feature engines that exhaust above the
- wing
- surface.
-
- Sorry, that's two things!
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 10/18/03 05:15PM by AaronGT



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 07:54 PM
Im just correcting ignorance. People who give the Luftwaffa more credit then it deserves tick me off. Germans did NOT invent Stealth, Flying wings, Swept wings, Rockets or jets, but people in these forums lead you into believing they did.

Gib


Weather_Man wrote:
- Gibbage, why don't you lighten up on the Mr.Attitude
- thing you got going. You sound like an ahole
- brother-in-law I've got who is, of course, better
- than any mere human could ever possibly be.
-
- There are ways to point out differences without
- insulting everyone.
-
- <center><img
- src="http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmot
- imetemp_both/language/www/US/TX/Dallas.gif"></cent
- er>

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 08:13 PM
I don't suppose Oleg would let THAT monster in.

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist-"
-Major General John Sedgwich, Battle of Spotsylvania

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 08:31 PM
He said maybe. I dont think I can get the poly count down enough.

Gib

Saturnalia wrote:
- I don't suppose Oleg would let THAT monster in.
-
- "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist-"
--Major General John Sedgwich, Battle of Spotsylvania



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 09:50 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Im just correcting ignorance. People who give the
- Luftwaffa more credit then it deserves tick me off.
- Germans did NOT invent Stealth, Flying wings, Swept
- wings, Rockets or jets, but people in these forums
- lead you into believing they did.
-
- Gib

Well gib, you should start correcting yourself then.

Did not invent Stealth ? I dunno who invented it, but Germans used a shape good stealth on the Gotha, and they also used a paint cover that HAD radar wave absorbing qualities, and I can`t think any earlier plane that did the same. Yeah, sure-sure, the jet intake. I guess the Allies didn`t have too much of a good radar as today neither to give much importance to that, inferiority of radar technology was the main limitation back then in acquisition, not minor imperfection in radar absorbing paint on the canopy edge.. At least they HAD problems picking up even an Uboot at heavy seas. 1000 tons of steel floating on the surface, whoa, and that`s a really stealtghy target.
Probably because, and that`s interesting to note, the Germans were very much aware of that phenomenon, the last, most advanced U-boot types had a rubber coating on the Scnnorkel to reduce the ASW radar`s abilility to notice them.

Didn`t invent flying wings ? They had one, Gib. Probably weren`t alone in developing them, Northop was toying with it, too, though the Northrop fantasy bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the prototype stage, while the Gotha did. Didn`t invent swept wings ? LOL, that`s funny, NASA says they pretty much did, just as they were the first to use forward-swept wings.

Didn`t invent rockets and jets - LOL, Gib, sure. Who did then ? I guess having built the first jet engine by v. Ohain (at the same time as Whitley sp? built his own of course), having built the first rocket and jet plane, the first cruise missile, the first operational ballistic missile, being the only country using jet fighters in LARGE numbers in large-scale combat..

Yeah I guess they didn`t invent internal combustion engine neither. I also wonder why it`s such a headache for you to admit facts.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 09:57 PM
Isegram said:

"Didn`t invent swept wings ? LOL, that`s funny, NASA says they pretty much did, just as they were the first to use
forward-swept wings."

"pretty much did" means what?




Barfly
Staffelkapitan
7./JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 09:58 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Lol. Does anybody ever LOOK at the Go-229? The
- intakes are on the LEADING EDGE. The turbines are
- very much exposed are make a huge radar signal.

- The
- engines in the B-35 and B-49 were barried in the
- wing and kept the turbines from reflecting back the
- radar.

Yeah, I guess about sixteen vibrating propellors right behind the wing running at 1000 or so RPM with HUGE dimater blade must have contributed a lot to the super-duper Northrop-flying-wing-bomber`s-that-never-flew radar signal.



- Something they learned from the B-35/49 that
- they used in the B2. Barrie the engines. If they
- used the Go-229's intake, it would not be stealth.

Nice theory Gib. What about reality ? You know, the place where the Go229 actually showed decreased radar reflection signal, despite all of Gib`s ideas on it. Theory and practice, you know...



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:01 PM
Panelboy wrote:
- Isegram said:
-
- "Didn`t invent swept wings ? LOL, that`s funny, NASA
- says they pretty much did, just as they were the
- first to use
- forward-swept wings."
-
- "pretty much did" means what?


It means the following:

"The whole idea of sweeping an aircraft's wing is to delay the drag rise caused by the formation of shock waves. The swept-wing concept had been appreciated by German aerodynamicists since the mid-1930s, and by 1942 a considerable amount of research had gone into it. However, in the United States and Great Britain, the concept of the swept wing remained virtually unknown until the end of the war. Due to the early research in this area, this allowed Germany to successfully introduce the swept wing in the jet fighter Messerschmitt ME-262 as early as 1941.

Early British and American jet aircraft were therefore of conventional straight-wing design, with a high-speed performance that was consequently limited. Such aircraft included the UKGloster Meteor F.4 , the U.S. Lockheed F-80 Sooting Star and the experimental U.S. jet, the Bell XP-59A Airacomet.

After the war German advanced aeronautical research data became available to the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) as well as Great Britain. This technology was then incorporated into their aircraft designs. Some early jets that took advantage of this technology were the North American F-86 Sabre, the Hawker Hunter F.4 and the Supermarine Swift FR.5.

Not to be outdone, the Soviet Union introduced the swept wing in the Mikoyan Mig-15 in 1947. This aircraft was the great rival of the North American F-86 Sabre during the Korean War. "

http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/swept-wing.htm





Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:11 PM
Funny thing is that americans and russians still use V-2's ww2 rocket technology to get into space. Yes, you heard it right! The combustion chambers of Semiorka (R-7) variant in use today to send astronauts to ISS are the 20t thrust combustion chambers from V-2!! There are 20 such combustion chambers on R-7. In '57 russians considered that combustion chambers of V-2 ensured the most stable combustion (the most difficult problem of a rocket engine) of any rocket engine they had at that time. And they still do today, they send people into space with the same rocket Gagarin had used, even though russians still are the greatest rocket designers in the world.

That's something worth knowing.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:16 PM
Panelboy wrote:
- Isegram said:
-
- "Didn`t invent swept wings ? LOL, that`s funny, NASA
- says they pretty much did, just as they were the
- first to use
- forward-swept wings."
-
- "pretty much did" means what?


"Pretty much did" means they did, if you ignore American Robert Thomas Jones.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:18 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Well gib, you should start correcting yourself then.
-

I need to correct your altered state of mind were the Luftwaffa invented everything.

-
- Did not invent Stealth ? I dunno who invented it,
- but Germans used a shape good stealth on the Gotha,
- and they also used a paint cover that HAD radar wave
- absorbing qualities, and I can`t think any earlier
- plane that did the same. Yeah, sure-sure, the jet
- intake. I guess the Allies didn`t have too much of a
- good radar as today neither to give much importance
- to that, inferiority of radar technology was the
- main limitation back then in acquisition, not minor
- imperfection in radar absorbing paint on the canopy
- edge.. At least they HAD problems picking up even an
- Uboot at heavy seas. 1000 tons of steel floating on
- the surface, whoa, and that`s a really stealtghy
- target.
- Probably because, and that`s interesting to note,
- the Germans were very much aware of that phenomenon,
- the last, most advanced U-boot types had a rubber
- coating on the Scnnorkel to reduce the ASW radar`s
- abilility to notice them.

They USED it? Were? Were? How? As for this mystery paint that absorbs radar is a myth. Horten contenued to work onGerman aircraft, but never EVER perfected stealth or this wonder paint. Why? Because he did not understand why the wing did not have a large radar signature and dismissed it as a fluke with no further research. If he did understand it, he would of perfected it since the Germans know how effectice radar was against there own air war (BoB).

- Didn`t invent flying wings ? They had one, Gib.
- Probably weren`t alone in developing them, Northop
- was toying with it, too, though the Northrop fantasy
- bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
- prototype stage, while the Gotha did. Didn`t invent
- swept wings ? LOL, that`s funny, NASA says they
- pretty much did, just as they were the first to use
- forward-swept wings.

I never said the US did. In fact, I think it goes to a French designer in 1922/23 that was flying a single wing tailess aircraft. This was found on a Horten web page. As for swept wings, I am not sure. The P-55 was flying in 1939 with swept wings. First German fighter flyign with swept wings was in 1943?

- Didn`t invent rockets and jets - LOL, Gib, sure. Who
- did then ? I guess having built the first jet engine
- by v. Ohain (at the same time as Whitley sp? built
- his own of course), having built the first rocket
- and jet plane, the first cruise missile, the first
- operational ballistic missile, being the only
- country using jet fighters in LARGE numbers in
- large-scale combat..

Lets get into history here. A little lesson.

Sir Frank Whittle, with private financial support, he began construction of his first engine in 1935. This engine, which had a single-stage centrifugal compressor coupled to a single-stage turbine, was successfully bench tested in April 1937; it was only a laboratory test rig, never intended for use in an aircraft, but it did demonstrate the feasibility of the turbojet concept. The modern turbojet engine used in many British and American aircraft is based on the prototype that Frank Whittle invented.

Hans Von Ohain joined Ernst Heinkel in 1936 and continued with the development of his concepts of jet propulsion. A successful bench test of one of his engines was accomplished in September 1937.

Accept history, it happened.

As for rockets. We need to go a LOT deeper into history.

All through the 13th to the 18th Century there were reports of many rocket experiments. For example, Joanes de Fontana of Italy designed a surface-running rocket-powered torpedo for setting enemy ships on fire. In 1650, a Polish artillery expert, Kazimierz Siemienowicz, published a series of drawings for a staged rocket. In 1696, Robert Anderson, an Englishman, published a two-part treatise on how to make rocket molds, prepare the propellants, and perform the calculations.

- though the Northrop fantasy
- bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
- prototype stage, while the Gotha did.

The award for the most ignorant post ever goes too you Issy. Here is a pif of Northrop's "fantisy" bomber flying.

http://www.aerofiles.com/north-xb35.jpg


Looks real to me. If you remember, the Gotha never made it past prototype also. Only the V2 (prototype) flew a few times. The V3 (production model) DID make it into production, but NONE were ever completed or flew. If going into production is how you justify passing prototype stage, then here.

http://www.yourzagi.com/history/xb35-waiting-small.jpg


The Go-229 was just as much of a fantisy as the B-35. Both had orders and production started, and none had any production models completed. The B-35 got a LOT more flight time then the Gothe's few hours.

- Yeah I guess they didn`t invent internal combustion
- engine neither. I also wonder why it`s such a
- headache for you to admit facts.

Your really reaching now.

1680 - Dutch physicist, Christian Huygens designed (but never built) an internal combustion engine that was be fueled with gunpowder.
1807 - Francois Isaac de Rivaz of Switzerland invented an internal combustion engine that used a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen for fuel. Rivaz designed a car for his engine - the first internal combustion powered automobile. However, this was a very unsuccessful vehicle.
1824 - English engineer, Samuel Brown adapted an old Newcomen steam engine to burn gas, and he used it to briefly power a vehicle up Shooter's Hill in London.

You have been proven utterly, and on all accounts, WRONG!!! Germany did NOT wing the war, nor did it invent any of these wonderful inventions. Wake up and smell reality.

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:20 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Didn`t invent flying wings ? They had one, Gib.
- Probably weren`t alone in developing them, Northop
- was toying with it, too, though the Northrop fantasy
- bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
- prototype stage, while the Gotha did. Didn`t invent
- swept wings ? LOL, that`s funny, NASA says they
- pretty much did, just as they were the first to use
- forward-swept wings.


When an "X" goes in front of the "B", it generally means it "got into the prototype stage." /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, how many Gothas built, say versus, Northrop flying wings?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:22 PM
Except for your spelling, a very good rebuttal Gibbage, and spot on!

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:23 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Germany did NOT wing the war, nor did it
- invent any of these wonderful inventions. Wake up
- and smell reality.

No, the germans did not invent those all, but they made them work. You see the difference.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:25 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- No, the germans did not invent those all, but they
- made them work. You see the difference.

No, I think they were the first ones to turn them into weapons.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Message Edited on 10/19/0301:26AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:27 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Yeah, I guess about sixteen vibrating propellors
- right behind the wing running at 1000 or so RPM with
- HUGE dimater blade must have contributed a lot to
- the super-duper
- Northrop-flying-wing-bomber`s-that-never-flew radar
- signal.

So your basing this on the therie that the bomber never flew? You dont know squat about US aircraft, so never pretend to know. Look above for a pic. It had a LOT more flight time then the Gotha ever did.

-
- Nice theory Gib. What about reality ? You know, the
- place where the Go229 actually showed decreased
- radar reflection signal, despite all of Gib`s ideas
- on it. Theory and practice, you know...
-

Decreased signal yes, stealth, no. Thats because the wings were wood and a good radar reflecting shape even if the body was not. So most aircraft reflect both the body and wings were the gotha had just the body. Depending on how the radar works, it would be 1/2 to 1/3 the signal. The B-49 was 4x its size and had NO radar reflection. US's radar was also far more advanced then German radar and still could not pick up this massive bomber.

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

Message Edited on 10/18/0301:35PM by Gibbage1

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:29 PM
I agree with that statement. They were the ones desperate enough to use unproven technology because there current weapons were being out-classed and out produced. They NEEDED them to work, so they made them work.

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-- Germany did NOT wing the war, nor did it
-- invent any of these wonderful inventions. Wake up
-- and smell reality.
-
- No, the germans did not invent those all, but they
- made them work. You see the difference.
-
-


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

ZG77_Nagual
10-18-2003, 10:32 PM
I love that flinty smell that gets in the air during these debates.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:33 PM
Thanks. I was inspired by you and Milo. Fight the good fight for what is right! This subject is something I know well and I am very passionate about. I did a LOT of research doing the Go-229 so I know how to tell the differance between myth and reality. Issy oviously knows NOTHING about the B-35 since he things it never even flew. I wonder how he is going to dismiss that fact of if he will admit he is wrong.

Gib

SkyChimp wrote:
- Except for your spelling, a very good rebuttal
- Gibbage, and spot on!
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-
<img
- src="http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.j
- pg">
-



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:44 PM
LOL just love it when the "uber twins" show up with their propaganda./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The Hortens had swept wings on their gliders and low powered a/c. It had nothing to do with 'speed' but on having a good C/G. Sweeping wings for G/G reasons had been around for a long time.

The "uber twins" should learn something about a Dr. Goddard. They can start here > http://www.roswellcvb.com/goddard.html


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:45 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
-
- I need to correct your altered state of mind were
- the Luftwaffa invented everything.
-

Yada-yada-yada. Do you still state the DB 605 was radial engine, LOL? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



-
--
-- Did not invent Stealth ? I dunno who invented it,
-- but Germans used a shape good stealth on the Gotha,
-- and they also used a paint cover that HAD radar wave
-- absorbing qualities, and I can`t think any earlier
-- plane that did the same. Yeah, sure-sure, the jet
-- intake. I guess the Allies didn`t have too much of a
-- good radar as today neither to give much importance
-- to that, inferiority of radar technology was the
-- main limitation back then in acquisition, not minor
-- imperfection in radar absorbing paint on the canopy
-- edge.. At least they HAD problems picking up even an
-- Uboot at heavy seas. 1000 tons of steel floating on
-- the surface, whoa, and that`s a really stealtghy
-- target.
-- Probably because, and that`s interesting to note,
-- the Germans were very much aware of that phenomenon,
-- the last, most advanced U-boot types had a rubber
-- coating on the Scnnorkel to reduce the ASW radar`s
-- abilility to notice them.
-
- They USED it? Were? Were? How? As for this
- mystery paint that absorbs radar is a myth.

- Horten
- contenued to work onGerman aircraft, but never EVER
- perfected stealth or this wonder paint. Why?
- Because he did not understand why the wing did not
- have a large radar signature and dismissed it as a
- fluke with no further research.


Sorry, all wrong. The Gotha had a paint that had radar absorbing qualities. You can share us your funny ideas



-
-- Didn`t invent flying wings ? They had one, Gib.
-- Probably weren`t alone in developing them, Northop
-- was toying with it, too, though the Northrop fantasy
-- bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
-- prototype stage, while the Gotha did. Didn`t invent
-- swept wings ? LOL, that`s funny, NASA says they
-- pretty much did, just as they were the first to use
-- forward-swept wings.
-
- I never said the US did. In fact, I think it goes
- to a French designer in 1922/23 that was flying a
- single wing tailess aircraft. This was found on a
- Horten web page. As for swept wings, I am not sure.
- The P-55 was flying in 1939 with swept wings.
- First German fighter flyign with swept wings was in
- 1943?
-
-



-- Didn`t invent rockets and jets - LOL, Gib, sure. Who
-- did then ? I guess having built the first jet engine
-- by v. Ohain (at the same time as Whitley sp? built
-- his own of course), having built the first rocket
-- and jet plane, the first cruise missile, the first
-- operational ballistic missile, being the only
-- country using jet fighters in LARGE numbers in
-- large-scale combat..
-
- Lets get into history here. A little lesson.
-
- Sir Frank Whittle, with private financial support,
- he began construction of his first engine in 1935.
- This engine, which had a single-stage centrifugal
- compressor coupled to a single-stage turbine, was
- successfully bench tested in April 1937; it was only
- a laboratory test rig, never intended for use in an
- aircraft, but it did demonstrate the feasibility of
- the turbojet concept. The modern turbojet engine
- used in many British and American aircraft is based
- on the prototype that Frank Whittle invented.
-
- Hans Von Ohain joined Ernst Heinkel in 1936 and
- continued with the development of his concepts of
- jet propulsion. A successful bench test of one of
- his engines was accomplished in September 1937.
-
- Accept history, it happened.



That`s what I do, Gib, unlike you. Your bigot bias prevents you from that. It`s been widely accepted that von Ohain and Whittle were working on jet engines completely independently from each other. Both Whittle and von Ohain run their first successful bench tests in 1937, Whittle was faster with a few months, however the first jet propulsed jet aircraft of the world, the He 178 V-1 made it`s first flight on 27th August 1939.



-
- As for rockets. We need to go a LOT deeper into
- history.
-
- All through the 13th to the 18th Century there were
- reports of many rocket experiments.
-
- For example,
- Joanes de Fontana of Italy designed a
- surface-running rocket-powered torpedo for setting
- enemy ships on fire.

Wasn`t a rocket.

- In 1650, a Polish artillery
- expert, Kazimierz Siemienowicz, published a series
- of drawings for a staged rocket.

Wow. He must been good drawer. I guess the English didn`t invent tanks then, Leonardo did that before.

- In 1696, Robert
- Anderson, an Englishman, published a two-part
- treatise on how to make rocket molds, prepare the
- propellants, and perform the calculations.

That`s great, too. Wasn`t a built, working rocket though. Jules Verne already described the voyage to the Moon. Still, I think, von Braun was a bit more closely related to space voyage than Verne.


Here`s another date to you : 1936 : Germany builds the words first massive rocket research center at Peenemunde, successfully develops the world`s first working ballistic missile, which is the first human object launched into space.



-
-- though the Northrop fantasy
-- bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
-- prototype stage, while the Gotha did.
-
- The award for the most ignorant post ever goes too
- you Issy. Here is a pif of Northrop's "fantisy"
- bomber flying.
-
http://www.aerofiles.com/north-xb35.jpg
-
-
- Looks real to me.

Except that`s it`s not a prototype. No full scale XB-35 was ever built to my knowladge, only much smaller scaled examples for testing purposes. Dang. Those didn`t flew until 1946, BTW, a whole year after the Gotha.


-
-- Yeah I guess they didn`t invent internal combustion
-- engine neither. I also wonder why it`s such a
-- headache for you to admit facts.
-
- Your really reaching now.
-
- 1680 - Dutch physicist, Christian Huygens designed
- (but never built) an internal combustion engine that
- was be fueled with gunpowder.

Keyword : "never built". Fueled with gunpowder, LOL. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- 1807 - Francois Isaac de Rivaz of Switzerland
- invented an internal combustion engine that used a
- mixture of hydrogen and oxygen for fuel. Rivaz
- designed a car for his engine - the first internal
- combustion powered automobile. However, this was a
- very unsuccessful vehicle.
-
- 1824 - English engineer, Samuel Brown adapted an old
- Newcomen steam engine to burn gas, and he used it to
- briefly power a vehicle up Shooter's Hill in London.
-


Gee, I didn`t know that. I belong to the 6 billion minority who actually believes that the two major type of internal combustion engines were developed by Herr Otto and Herr Diesel. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Basics Gib : steam enginer is not an internal combustion (also known as "Otto-engine" for some odd reason...).


- You have been proven utterly, and on all accounts,
- WRONG!!! Germany did NOT wing the war, nor did it
- invent any of these wonderful inventions. Wake up
- and smell reality.

Nurse ! He`s restless again. Give him a double dose. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:50 PM
The new technology was there, the germans were desperate enough to use it,just anything that would fly quick and shoot down bombers. a lot of these 'advanced' designs were unfeasible aircraft, scientists have proven some would not even be able to fly!

yet, german scientific reasearch was very good and advanced but saying that, so was allied research.

-shall we call it quits and say finland made them all

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/bender.jpg
Which Colossal Death Robot Are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/)

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 10:55 PM
"Except that`s it`s not a prototype. No full scale XB-35 was ever built to my knowladge, only much smaller scaled examples for testing purposes. Dang. Those didn`t flew until 1946, BTW, a whole year after the Gotha."

yes, but Horten had been making flying wings years before the GO229, so you can say the same about horten


http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/bender.jpg
Which Colossal Death Robot Are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/)

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 11:06 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-
- Except that`s it`s not a prototype. No full scale
- XB-35 was ever built to my knowladge, only much
- smaller scaled examples for testing purposes. Dang.
- Those didn`t flew until 1946, BTW, a whole year
- after the Gotha.
-
-

How many a/c in this photo Issy?

http://northrop.host.sk/images/yb35-1_small.jpg


Northrop built four(4) 60-foot wingspan (about one-third the size of the proposed B-35) N9M flying wing test aircraft.

Does this look like a 60' wingspan a/c flying in company with the 66' wingspan P-61?

http://northrop.host.sk/images/XB-35_06.jpg


-
-- 1807 - Francois Isaac de Rivaz of Switzerland
-- invented an internal combustion engine that used a
-- mixture of hydrogen and oxygen for fuel. Rivaz
-- designed a car for his engine - the first internal
-- combustion powered automobile. However, this was a
-- very unsuccessful vehicle.
--
-- 1824 - English engineer, Samuel Brown adapted an old
-- Newcomen steam engine to burn gas, and he used it to
-- briefly power a vehicle up Shooter's Hill in London.
--
-
-
- Gee, I didn`t know that. I belong to the 6 billion
- minority who actually believes that the two major
- type of internal combustion engines were developed
- by Herr Otto and Herr Diesel. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif -
-
-
-
- Basics Gib : steam enginer is not an internal
- combustion (also known as "Otto-engine" for some odd
- reason...).
-
-

Never seen an enigine that uses propane or natural gas for fuel Issy?


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 11:06 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Gibbage1 wrote:
--
-- I need to correct your altered state of mind were
-- the Luftwaffa invented everything.
--
-
- Yada-yada-yada. Do you still state the DB 605 was
- radial engine, LOL?

Quote me. I dare you. Find were I said this.

-
-
- Sorry, all wrong. The Gotha had a paint that had
- radar absorbing qualities. You can share us your
- funny ideas
-

Find it. Like I said, if its true, why didnt the germans carry on with the work?


-
- That`s what I do, Gib, unlike you. Your bigot bias
- prevents you from that. It`s been widely accepted
- that von Ohain and Whittle were working on jet
- engines completely independently from each other.
- Both Whittle and von Ohain run their first
- successful bench tests in 1937, Whittle was faster
- with a few months, however the first jet propulsed
- jet aircraft of the world, the He 178 V-1 made it`s
- first flight on 27th August 1939.
-

Look. I said the first jet, and you agree Whittle was first by a few months. Yes Germans were the first to put it in the air because the British dismissed the Jet engine. They thought it would never surpass props.


-
- Here`s another date to you : 1936 : Germany builds
- the words first massive rocket research center at
- Peenemunde, successfully develops the world`s first
- working ballistic missile, which is the first human
- object launched into space.
-

Does your history start in 1930's? MY point was just that rockets were hear a LOT sooner then 1930's.

-
-
- Except that`s it`s not a prototype. No full scale
- XB-35 was ever built to my knowladge, only much
- smaller scaled examples for testing purposes. Dang.
- Those didn`t flew until 1946, BTW, a whole year
- after the Gotha.
-
-

Again, you prove your ignorance of US aircraft. The scaled down prototypes first flew in 1940. They still have one of them flying today called the N9M. Two 600HP engines powering two props.

http://www.mucheswarbirds.com/N9MB1.jpg


As you can see, the aircraft above is MUCH larger. Here is a few more pics of this fantisy aircraft you say never flew.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/xb35-2.jpg


http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/xb35-9.jpg


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/xb35-1_300.jpg


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/xb35-2_300.jpg


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/xb-35-earlyfrt.jpg


Here are some stats on the aircraft above.

Engine: 4 Pratt & Whitney R4360-17/25 radial piston
Crew: 7
Speed: 391 mph.
Range: 2,500 miles
Ceiling: 40,000 ft.
Max Weight: 209,000 lb.
Height: 20 ft. 1 in.
Armament: 20 machine guns in seven barbettes, and
up to 10,000 lb of bombs

Here is yet another photo of the production line in Burbank California.

http://www.yourzagi.com/history/xb35-waiting.jpg


LOOK AT THE FRIGGEN CARS! ITS NO SCALED DOWN MODEL!

May I suggest you do some research before you open your mouth again? It may help you from looking like a complete fool.

-
- Gee, I didn`t know that. I belong to the 6 billion
- minority who actually believes that the two major
- type of internal combustion engines were developed
- by Herr Otto and Herr Diesel. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-

I did not know there were 6 billion people in Germany. Anyways, you asked about the invention of the "internal combustion engine" and I gave you it. The definition of "Internal combustion" does not spacify fuel. Otto and Diesel just made an internal combustion engine that worked with fuel like gas and and oil's.

- Basics Gib : steam enginer is not an internal
- combustion (also known as "Otto-engine" for some odd
- reason...).
-

I did not say steam. He converted a steam into internal combustion. Read it.

-- You have been proven utterly, and on all accounts,
-- WRONG!!! Germany did NOT wing the war, nor did it
-- invent any of these wonderful inventions. Wake up
-- and smell reality.
-


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 11:37 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Lol. Does anybody ever LOOK at the Go-229? The
- intakes are on the LEADING EDGE.

I mentioned the similarity of the location of the
exhausts, though.

- Something they learned from the B-35/49 that
- they used in the B2. Barrie the engines. If they
- used the Go-229's intake, it would not be stealth.

Calm down. Noone is saying that the 229 was perfect
with regards to radar signature, but it was better
than most of its size, partly due to shape, partly
due to its construction. The early Northrop designs were
better, although I doubt that the engine intake placement
was dictated by a desire to reduce radar signature, more
likely due to aerodynamics (plus it looks nicer).

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 11:45 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Im just correcting ignorance. People who give the
- Luftwaffa more credit then it deserves tick me off.
- Germans did NOT invent Stealth, Flying wings, Swept
- wings, Rockets or jets, but people in these forums
- lead you into believing they did.
-
- Gib
-
-
-
- Weather_Man wrote:
-- Gibbage, why don't you lighten up on the Mr.Attitude
-- thing you got going. You sound like an ahole
-- brother-in-law I've got who is, of course, better
-- than any mere human could ever possibly be.
--
-- There are ways to point out differences without
-- insulting everyone.
--


Neither did the Americans. Sorry, mr. Patriot.

EDIT: Oh, and it's "Luftwaffe", not "Luftwaffa". Same as it's "US Air-force" and not "US Air-farce".



<center>
---------------------------------------
Fokker G.I
http://www.defensie.nl:30280/home/pictures/7370.jpg
http://www.uvika.dn.ua/av/PLANE/HOLLAND/FOKKER_G-1/Fokker_G-1b_03a-n.jpg
</center>


Message Edited on 10/19/0312:55AM by Red_Storm

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 11:59 PM
I'd like to know more about this stealth paint Isegrim said the Germans developed. Does anyone have any info on it?

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:04 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- They USED it? Were? Were? How? As for this
- mystery paint that absorbs radar is a myth.

Radar absorbent paint at least isn't a myth. I have
no clue if it was used on the 229, though.

- I never said the US did. In fact, I think it goes
- to a French designer in 1922/23 that was flying a
- single wing tailess aircraft. This was found on a
- Horten web page. As for swept wings, I am not sure.
- The P-55 was flying in 1939 with swept wings.
- First German fighter flyign with swept wings was in
- 1943?

Swept wings were nothing new in 1939. They were tried
before WW1. Even Mescherschmitt was trialing swept
wings in 1939, although NACA didn't publish a study
on them until 1945, apparently. From memory some interwar
British biplane fighters had a mild sweep (circa 5 degrees)
although I'd need to find some pictures to remember which.
I can't find pictures to confirm, but I am fairly sure
that even Lillenthal was trialing swept wings. Mind you,
on that basis I suppose you could say that Cayley invented
the delta wing, but that would be pushing it since he
wasn't using an airfoil! I'm trying to remember who the
pioneer from Stamford Hall was too, now... I remember
seeing one of his gliders and I think that had moderately
swept wings.

Early (prior to 1920) people tried all sorts of bizzare
configurations, often to fix COG issues, or out of sheer
inventiveness.

What is significant is the use of swept wings to cope
with high/transonic speeds. I don't know if the P55 qualifies on this score, but I think it was designed to
be able to be later reengined with a jet (Anyone confirm
this?) but was not continued with.

- Hans Von Ohain joined Ernst Heinkel in 1936 and
- continued with the development of his concepts of
- jet propulsion. A successful bench test of one of
- his engines was accomplished in September 1937.

With the advantage of papers published by Whittle.
But then the history of some forms of primitive jet
seems to stretch back to 1910, so it has a surprisingly
long heritage (not as long as the rocket of course!)

-- though the Northrop fantasy
-- bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
-- prototype stage, while the Gotha did.
-
- The award for the most ignorant post ever goes too
- you Issy. Here is a pif of Northrop's "fantisy"
- bomber flying.

My father says he saw a flying wing flying over the
UK in the 1950s, although I have no idea if his recollection
is accurate. I have heard/seen many reports of the flying
wing flying in the 1940s and 50s. Certainly not a paper
plane.

- 1824 - English engineer, Samuel Brown adapted an old
- Newcomen steam engine to burn gas, and he used it to
- briefly power a vehicle up Shooter's Hill in London.

Ah - the first hill start :-)

- You have been proven utterly, and on all accounts,
- WRONG!!! Germany did NOT wing the war, nor did it
- invent any of these wonderful inventions. Wake up
- and smell reality.

Germany did make some solid contributions to aerodynamics
in WW2, though - (as did the US and UK - e.g. Miles M.52,
Whittle engine). Enough for there to be a clamour for the
scientists, and for Werner von Braun to be the father of
the US space program. I presume the USSR probably got some
German rocket scientists too, although the USSR was
traditional strong in rocketry in the 1920s, but I am
unsure if those scientists survived the Stalinist purges
in the 1930s.

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:14 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Im just correcting ignorance. People who give the
- Luftwaffa more credit then it deserves tick me off.
- Germans did NOT invent Stealth, Flying wings, Swept
- wings, Rockets or jets, but people in these forums
- lead you into believing they did.
-
- Gib
-
-
-
- Weather_Man wrote:
-- Gibbage, why don't you lighten up on the Mr.Attitude
-- thing you got going. You sound like an ahole
-- brother-in-law I've got who is, of course, better
-- than any mere human could ever possibly be.
--
-- There are ways to point out differences without
-- insulting everyone.
--
-- <center><img
-- src="http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmot
-- imetemp_both/language/www/US/TX/Dallas.gif"></cent
-- er>
-
- No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET


LOL Gibbage you're correcting ignorance? You've said many ignortant things before, but I didn't see people calling you a "noobie".



=======================================

(H).

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:25 AM
If you can't post in legible English don't bother posting at all

Message Edited on 10/19/0302:38PM by EURO_Snoopy

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:44 AM
Our modern military jet engines are much closer to the german design than the british one. Every current military engine I can think of is axial flow.

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:45 AM
Please point were I said the Americans did. In fact, later on, I posted all the European's that invented the listed inventions. I never even SUGGESTED that the US invented any of them. I just stated that the Germans did not.

Gib

Red_Storm wrote:
-
- Neither did the Americans. Sorry, mr. Patriot.
-
- EDIT: Oh, and it's "Luftwaffe", not "Luftwaffa".
- Same as it's "US Air-force" and not "US Air-farce".
-
-
-

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:45 AM
st3v3_pwnage wrote:
- G4Rb4GE IF U THINK T3H US INVUNTED ALL UV TAH STUFF
- AN D U SAY U HATE P33PZ SAYING TEH NAZIS DID U ARE
- BEING VERY IGNORANT LOL


No offence. But i know that i dont write perfect but what a heck is that???



<center>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
Fly at HL as <center>[b]Aceman[b]</center>
http://defence-data.com/storypic/spitfire.jpg

"Take off,is only the beginnigg
Bail out, is YOUR end."

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:58 AM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Radar absorbent paint at least isn't a myth. I have
- no clue if it was used on the 229, though.
-

True. B2 is coated in it. But did the Germans invent it in 1944 for the Go-229 is the question. I doubt it since not many people even understood how Radar even worked and the though of masking an aircraft from it was only made at a later date.

-
- Swept wings were nothing new in 1939. They were
- tried before WW1. Even Mescherschmitt was trialing swept
- wings in 1939, although NACA didn't publish a study
- on them until 1945, apparently. From memory some
- interwar

Thanks very much for the info. Again, I never said the US invented it. But they did use it in early aircraft before the NACA study. They just did not realize its benofits till the Me-262 showed it could be used to make an aircraft faster. The Me-262 itself never used it to go faster, but for the center of gravity benofits. The speed increase was an addid feature.


- Early (prior to 1920) people tried all sorts of
- bizzare
- configurations, often to fix COG issues, or out of
- sheer
- inventiveness.
-
- What is significant is the use of swept wings to
- cope
- with high/transonic speeds. I don't know if the P55
- qualifies on this score, but I think it was designed
- to
- be able to be later reengined with a jet (Anyone
- confirm
- this?) but was not continued with.
-

I doubt the P-55 was designed to take a jet. It was built much too early when the US felt the jet was not a viable engine.

-
- With the advantage of papers published by Whittle.
- But then the history of some forms of primitive jet
- seems to stretch back to 1910, so it has a
- surprisingly
- long heritage (not as long as the rocket of course!)
-

I remember seeing a jet type engine on a bi-plane. It did fly, but it caught on fire and crashed with the inventor. The engine was never really looked at till much later.

--- though the Northrop fantasy
--- bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
--- prototype stage, while the Gotha did.
--
-- The award for the most ignorant post ever goes too
-- you Issy. Here is a pif of Northrop's "fantisy"
-- bomber flying.
-
- My father says he saw a flying wing flying over the
- UK in the 1950s, although I have no idea if his
- recollection
- is accurate. I have heard/seen many reports of the
- flying
- wing flying in the 1940s and 50s. Certainly not a
- paper
- plane.

The British also had a flying wing, but after the war. I forgot what its name was, but you can see it in the new Bf1942 add-on. The Brits also had a rather good flying wing in 1929-1930 using a 32HP engine. It was the 2nd flying wing design known and well before Horten and Northrup. They were building a two engine version but one engine was destroyed. The engine was on loan from the British military.

-
-- 1824 - English engineer, Samuel Brown adapted an old
-- Newcomen steam engine to burn gas, and he used it to
-- briefly power a vehicle up Shooter's Hill in London.
-
- Ah - the first hill start :-)
-
-- You have been proven utterly, and on all accounts,
-- WRONG!!! Germany did NOT wing the war, nor did it
-- invent any of these wonderful inventions. Wake up
-- and smell reality.
-
- Germany did make some solid contributions to
- aerodynamics
- in WW2, though - (as did the US and UK - e.g. Miles
- M.52,
- Whittle engine). Enough for there to be a clamour
- for the
- scientists, and for Werner von Braun to be the
- father of
- the US space program. I presume the USSR probably
- got some
- German rocket scientists too, although the USSR was
- traditional strong in rocketry in the 1920s, but I
- am
- unsure if those scientists survived the Stalinist
- purges
- in the 1930s.
-
-

I agree the Germans had many MANY contributions and inproved technology's that were previously given up and made them work and work well. But to give them credit for inventing the things robs the people who are really responsable for its birth. Thats my point.

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 01:07 AM
This is true. But at the time, Centrafugal flow was much better. The Germans did not have the technology or materials to make a very good axial flow engine. It was too advanced for its time. This is demonstrated by the Me-262's 10-12 hour overhaul scedual. The centrafugal engine on the P-80 produced more power and was faster then BOTH Me-262's engines. So I can honestly say, at the time, Centrafugal engines were a better design given the times limited metals and technology.

Gib

lbhskier37 wrote:
- Our modern military jet engines are much closer to
- the german design than the british one. Every
- current military engine I can think of is axial
- flow.
-


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 01:28 AM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- Our modern military jet engines are much closer to
- the german design than the british one. Every
- current military engine I can think of is axial
- flow.
-
-

Maybe you should look a little closer at the history of early American and British jet engines before making such a statement./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Lockheed had an axial jet(L1000) engine design in the early '40s. Westinghouse had the X19A running in 1943. The #2 prototype was flown as a booster under a FG-1 in Jan. '44. The 9.5A was for missles(and this before the end of WW2). The Brits had axial engines (Metrovick) as well in the early '40s. In 1943, the F.3 ductedfan engine was running with 4600lb of thrust.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 02:01 AM
Its called L337 speek. (Leet) Its a language for the un-educated 10-14 year old computer user.

Gib

Juego wrote:
- st3v3_pwnage wrote:
-- G4Rb4GE IF U THINK T3H US INVUNTED ALL UV TAH STUFF
-- AN D U SAY U HATE P33PZ SAYING TEH NAZIS DID U ARE
-- BEING VERY IGNORANT LOL
-
-
- No offence. But i know that i dont write perfect but
- what a heck is that???
-
-
-
-
-

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 02:39 AM
I like my new sig pic. It's an airplane. Invented by the Germans.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 03:34 AM
Hay Issy. No reply about the B-35's existance? Or how about that quote were you say I said the DB-605 was radial? Not even Huck backed you up on your outlandish statements here. At least have the guts to admit you were wrong about something.

Gib



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 03:43 AM
I stopped posting here because I didn't want to destruct you from making planes for add-on. Please stop waisting your time here and do what you do best /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

yay!

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 03:56 AM
NP. I was takin a brake from the Spit and doing something fun. I started making the PBY cockpit. I also rant on the forums for fun!

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 03:59 AM
The Gib,Milo,Chimp vs. Issy and Huckebein debates are a very good read. And you usually learn something too.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg


Message Edited on 10/18/0310:00PM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 04:11 AM
necrobaron there posts are very good and i also have leared a bit but issey"s refusel to ever admit he is mistaken detracts from his credibility

U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 04:12 AM
Yeah I agree.

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 04:47 AM
What credibility? When I first came to this forum, I though Issy had a lot of knolege of Luftwaffa aircraft, till SkyChimp and Milo proved him wrong using proof and showing sources. Two things Issy has never done. I find it funny when you ask him for his referances, he says "I dont need to show you referances" but he always demands referances. When you provide them, he denies them and ask's for more!

Gib

tenmmike wrote:
- necrobaron there posts are very good and i also
- have leared a bit but issey"s refusel to ever admit
- he is mistaken detracts from his credibility
-
- U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 04:53 AM
I remember the first Damlier-Chrylser advertisement in the US after Damlier-Benz bought Chrysler.

It went something like this: "Germans invented the airplane. The adventerous Wright brothers took it a step further."

Invented the airplane? A step further? What a crock of chit that commercial was.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 05:02 AM
I think it should be the other way around. But EVERYONE took it one step further. There recent comercials are a little less politically involved. Germans invented the Frankfurt, Americans took it further (the hotdog).

Gib

SkyChimp wrote:
- I remember the first Damlier-Chrylser advertisement
- in the US after Damlier-Benz bought Chrysler.
-
- It went something like this: "Germans invented the
- airplane. The adventerous Wright brothers took it a
- step further."
-
- Invented the airplane? A step further? What a
- crock of chit that commercial was.
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-
<img
- src="http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.j
- pg">
-



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 09:42 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
-- Sorry, all wrong. The Gotha had a paint that had
-- radar absorbing qualities. You can share us your
-- funny ideas
--
-
- Find it. Like I said, if its true, why didnt the
- germans carry on with the work?

Let me hazard a guess... WW2 ended? 229 flies in early
1945. Doesn't leave much time to carry on with anything
before the end of the war!

- Does your history start in 1930's? MY point was
- just that rockets were hear a LOT sooner then
- 1930's.

Indeed - 1936 is also somewhat after the modern
rocketry of the USSR in the 1920s. Von Braun did
make a massive contribution all the same.

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 09:55 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- True. B2 is coated in it. But did the Germans
- invent it in 1944 for the Go-229 is the question. I
- doubt it since not many people even understood how
- Radar even worked and the though of masking an
- aircraft from it was only made at a later date.

I tend to agree, which is why I suspect the low radar
profile was a happy accident of some of the shape,
wooden construction, and paint properties.

- Thanks very much for the info. Again, I never said
- the US invented it.

I know - just adding a few more snippets of information
into the mix.

- I doubt the P-55 was designed to take a jet. It was
- built much too early when the US felt the jet was
- not a viable engine.

I don't have any books that mention the P55 so I'd be
reduced to searching on the internet for information
on the possibility. I don't think it would be necessarly
too early for a forward thinking engineer to create a
plane that could be adapted for a jet, since jets were
known, the Germans had a jet plane in 1939, and the
Italians also had a pseudo jet at the time.

- The British also had a flying wing, but after the
- war. I forgot what its name was, but you can see it
- in the new Bf1942 add-on. The Brits also had a
- rather good flying wing in 1929-1930 using a 32HP
- engine. It was the 2nd flying wing design known and
- well before Horten and Northrup. They were building
- a two engine version but one engine was destroyed.
- The engine was on loan from the British military.

THanks for that! I had no idea. THat was likely what
my father saw, then.

- I agree the Germans had many MANY contributions and
- inproved technology's that were previously given up
- and made them work and work well. But to give them
- credit for inventing the things robs the people who
- are really responsable for its birth. Thats my
- point.

Yep. THere are a whole load of inventions that people
wrongly ascribe. For example the phone wasn't invented
by Bell - the US patent office now ascribes it to an
Italian (he could only afford a temporary patent), the
TV was apparently invented not by Logie Baird, but by
the French in WW2, and people assume that the British
invented radar, but they just applied it to aircraft
detection. Radar was invented by the Germans, but for
ships to detect coastlines in fog. So the UK's down
3 inventions there. Now if Pilcher (the Stamford Hall
glider man) hadn't died in 1899 the UK would have had
the first powered flight in 1900. He had his engine on
order!

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 10:01 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- I remember the first Damlier-Chrylser advertisement
- in the US after Damlier-Benz bought Chrysler.
-
- It went something like this: "Germans invented the
- airplane. The adventerous Wright brothers took it a
- step further."
-
- Invented the airplane? A step further? What a
- crock of chit that commercial was.

I would presume that they were talking about Lilenthal.
He was one of the most important pioneers of aviation.


As everyone knows, though, the first flight was by
Cayley in Yorkshire in 1853.

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 11:25 AM
AaronGT wrote:

-

The flying wing could have been the DH108. It looked simular to the Me163 except was jet powered.

-
- Yep. THere are a whole load of inventions that
- people
- wrongly ascribe. For example the phone wasn't
- invented
- by Bell - the US patent office now ascribes it to an
- Italian (he could only afford a temporary patent),
- the
- TV was apparently invented not by Logie Baird, but
- by
- the French in WW2, and people assume that the
- British
- invented radar, but they just applied it to aircraft
- detection. Radar was invented by the Germans, but
- for
- ships to detect coastlines in fog. So the UK's down
- 3 inventions there. Now if Pilcher (the Stamford
- Hall
- glider man) hadn't died in 1899 the UK would have
- had
- the first powered flight in 1900. He had his engine
- on
- order!
-

AG Bell was born a Scotsman. Please don't group him with the English.

The Germans were broadcasting TV shows in the early 1940s.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 11:49 AM
The first TV-broadcast was in 1936 during the olympic-games in berlin...
and as far as i know the telephon was invented by Philipp Reiss not by Bell...

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:41 PM
Gibbage, it's Luftwaffe, not Luftwaffa. Just correcting ignorance

=======================================

(H).

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 02:01 PM
This thread is not making any sense now.

Message Edited on 10/19/0304:22PM by Red_Storm

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 02:04 PM
Fenna wrote:
- Gibbage, it's Luftwaffe, not Luftwaffa. Just
- correcting ignorance
-
-

"ignorance: the condition of being ignorant; lack of knowledge"


"ignorant: 1. without education or knowledge. 2. exhibiting lack of education or knowledge. 3. unaware or uninformed. 4. ill-mannered.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 02:24 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- This is true. But at the time, Centrafugal flow was
- much better. The Germans did not have the
- technology or materials to make a very good axial
- flow engine.

The technology they had, the materials that did not have...

And do not forget that the 009-004 engine shared a number of major components that were already being manufactured.

So combine limited resources with expedience and you have an engine like the Jumo, not the best but about as good as it can be for the situation at hand.

Glorifying the Germans is silly, but constantly down playing their technology, designs or decision making is just as dumb.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 03:08 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- The flying wing could have been the DH108. It looked
- simular to the Me163 except was jet powered.

Thanks for that. I'll have a look for the info.

- AG Bell was born a Scotsman. Please don't group him
- with the English.

Er... I said UK. That's not the same as England. Scotland
is in the UK.

- The Germans were broadcasting TV shows in the early
- 1940s.

From the 1930s I believe. The BBC started TV broadcasts
in 1936. (From Alexandra Palace AFAIK)

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 03:21 PM
Sqn81Blacksky wrote:
- The first TV-broadcast was in 1936 during the
- olympic-games in berlin...
- and as far as i know the telephon was invented by
- Philipp Reiss not by Bell...

According to the US Patent Office it is now ascribed
patented by Antonio Meucci in 1871 based on an invention
of his from 1849. The first telephone installation being in 1855 to allow him to talk to his bedridden sick wife from his workshop. First public demonstration in 1860. Bell's
patent dates from 1876. Technically Meucci's patent wasn't
a full one, but a temporary one (a patent caveat) as
Meucci was too poor to fully patent it due to the costs
from his wife's illness, apparently.


Most of this culled from the Guardian from about a year
ago (via my memory, admittedly, and backed up by checking
online).

I had a look at the Reiss claim, and that too seems
to predate Bell, but not Meucci, at least in that the
first public demonstration by Reiss was the year
after Meucci's first public demonstration.

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 05:20 PM
all this bickering... lol...

one thing is for sure, germany may not have invented all these neat toys, but they improved on them and made them work while other countries where scared and didnt have the balls to try them... and germany did all this while under constant bombing etc... that says something in it self, also the countries that beat germany basically threw their stuff away and took the german designs.. that also is a strong point on how good the german designers and luftwaffe really where..

also, i asked earlier, are we gonna get a DO335?



Message Edited on 10/19/0304:20PM by MGallun

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 05:29 PM
MGallun wrote:
also the countries
- that beat germany basically threw their stuff away
- and took the german designs.. that also is a strong
- point on how good the german designers and luftwaffe
- really where..

Like?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 08:32 PM
MGallun wrote:also, i asked earlier, are we gonna get a DO335?


I hope. Gib was modelling one,but stopped to work on the Spits and the Catalina interior. I don't know if the Pfeil is planned to be flyable or not....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 12:55 AM
Bump! Im still waiting for Issy to admit he was wrong.

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 01:21 AM
Cheranousky had one on the drawing board in 1935 ...BICh-17 http://www.geocities.com/unicraftmodels/on/bich17/bich17.htm

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 09:11 AM
The Horten brothers experimented with flying wings long before the HoIX design. Jack Northrop an his design office had nothing to do with it before during or since. The Horten brothers were pioneers in thier field along with a select few others who worked seperately, but almost in parallel. The U.S. designs failed miserably as anything but research material, however, whereas the HoIX had real combat potential. The small amount of flight performance they were able to qualify exceeded even the most sanguine of expectations. Northrop would not have fielded anything even remotely approaching the sophistaction and practicality, not to mention the actual performance of the Horten design. So with that in mind, I don't see where all of Gibbage's hostility comes from. It grows quite tiresome to read his ranting, despite the fine contributions he has made to the game.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 11:02 AM
PRAISE GREMANS THEY INVENTED TIGERBUNNIES!
http://www.skrattnet.se/djurisktroligt/bilder/tiger_hare.jpg

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/apocalypse/ninjachild.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/apocalypse/)
Which Survivor of the Impending Nuclear Apocalypse Are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/apocalypse/)
A Rum and Monkey joint. (http://rumandmonkey.com/)

<center>

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Death you die from, me you have to live with/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </p>

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 11:47 AM
I hear those two magicians are thinking of changing
to using tigerbunnies :-)

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 01:36 PM
lol. Chrysler has always built shiit. Mercedes builds overpriced shiit with leather interiors and GPS. I will never buy a product built by either company.


SkyChimp wrote:
- I remember the first Damlier-Chrylser advertisement
- in the US after Damlier-Benz bought Chrysler.
-
- It went something like this: "Germans invented the
- airplane. The adventerous Wright brothers took it a
- step further."
-
- Invented the airplane? A step further? What a
- crock of chit that commercial was.
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-
<img
- src="http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.j
- pg">
-

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 01:42 PM
I think it is ludicrous to assume that any prototype Horton combat aircraft were any more than that. The last flight of the fighter (I think it was prototype V2) had one engine flame out, and ending up in an unrecoverable spin at low altitude over the field - unrecoverable because the test pilot could not induce yaw sufficient to begin stall recovery. There was no effective yaw control! A very immature design IMO, and not something I would take into combat, any more than a Natter. Very promising, innovative design, but not mature! It will be safe to fly in FB with the FM's limited single engine yaw effect however.

Barfly
Staffelkapitan
7./JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

Message Edited on 10/20/0312:46PM by Panelboy

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 01:50 PM
-
- MGallun wrote:
- also the countries
-- that beat germany basically threw their stuff away
-- and took the german designs.. that also is a strong
-- point on how good the german designers and luftwaffe
-- really where..
-


lol, The allies built a whole bunch of Me262's, D0335's, King Tigers, Bismarcks, and Stg 44's after the war.

If they were so good why couldn't they build a successful long range bomber, aircraft carrier, or twin engine fighter?

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 01:53 PM
viperUSAF wrote:
- lol. Chrysler has always built shiit. Mercedes
- builds overpriced shiit with leather interiors and
- GPS. I will never buy a product built by either
- company.
-
-
- SkyChimp wrote:
-- I remember the first Damlier-Chrylser advertisement
-- in the US after Damlier-Benz bought Chrysler.
--
-- It went something like this: "Germans invented the
-- airplane. The adventerous Wright brothers took it a
-- step further."
--
-- Invented the airplane? A step further? What a
-- crock of chit that commercial was.


Have you guys ever heard about Otto Lilienthal????

Is history education really that bad there?

http://www.lilienthal-museum.de/olma/ehome.htm


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 01:55 PM
viperUSAF wrote:

- lol, The allies built a whole bunch of Me262's,
- D0335's, King Tigers, Bismarcks, and Stg 44's after
- the war.

Have you ever heard of Kalashnikov assault rifles?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 04:14 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- I made the B-35 and the Go-229, but not the B2.
-
- JV44Priller wrote:
-- Hey Gibbige, did you make those two model of the
-- XB-35 and the B-2?
--
-- And think B-29 and B-36.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif LOL
--
--
-
-
-
-
- No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET


Are you trying to have the B-35 in FB?
I guess it could be considered 1946.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 04:47 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- viperUSAF wrote:
-
-- lol, The allies built a whole bunch of Me262's,
-- D0335's, King Tigers, Bismarcks, and Stg 44's after
-- the war.
-
- Have you ever heard of Kalashnikov assault rifles?
-
-
--jippo
-
-

I will point out that the AK-47 uses a significan;ty different action than the StG.44. The Ak-47's action is actually loosely based on one developed by Browning in the early 1900's.

The Ak-47's action is based off of a gun developed in the early 40's chambered for the Japanese rifle round, which was declared obsolete. I'll have to check, but I belive the StG.44's action eveolved into the action on the H&K G3, which later became the basis for the most of H&K's automatic weapons, though their new G33 rifle used a new action.

Give me a little bit to check up on that though.

Harry Voyager

Addendum: Ok, it wasn't the G3 that the StG.44 evolved into. The G3 is a delayed blowback based weapon. I'm trying to find the weapon, but if I recall correctly, it has a very similare action to the StG.44, but flipped. It's like an upside down StG.44. It has the gas piston mounted under the barrel.

Are these guns are so blasted similare. It's hard to tell them apart at time. Seems there are only a certain number of ways one can pull a catridge out of a barrel, fling it over, and load a new round into the chamber.

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

Message Edited on 10/20/0311:01AM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 05:00 PM
You got um all stired up now

<CENTER> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1065290873.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 05:15 PM
Again, do some research. The B-35 had a LOT more flight time then the HoIX. Also the only HoIX that flew crashed. Sounds like HoIX failed miserably to me. As for performance, please. Point out a 4 engine prop bomber that could do 400MPH in level flight carrieing 50,000lb of bombs. Also, find a Horten wing thats flying today. Dont say it was because Germany lost the war. Horten contenued his work on aircraft in Germany after the war. There is still a Northrup flying wing today, and its a wonderful sight to see it fly. I have seen it many times in the air.

Gib

Bully_Lang wrote:
- The Horten brothers experimented with flying wings
- long before the HoIX design. Jack Northrop an his
- design office had nothing to do with it before
- during or since. The Horten brothers were pioneers
- in thier field along with a select few others who
- worked seperately, but almost in parallel. The U.S.
- designs failed miserably as anything but research
- material, however, whereas the HoIX had real combat
- potential. The small amount of flight performance
- they were able to qualify exceeded even the most
- sanguine of expectations. Northrop would not have
- fielded anything even remotely approaching the
- sophistaction and practicality, not to mention the
- actual performance of the Horten design. So with
- that in mind, I don't see where all of Gibbage's
- hostility comes from. It grows quite tiresome to
- read his ranting, despite the fine contributions he
- has made to the game.
-
-



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:20 PM
You conveniently left out a lot of fact and research and are severely glossing over the Northorp's achievments and do little to credit the Horten brothers for theirs. Your bias is showing though and it is sickening. Post-war Germany? LOL You really have a lot of gall to try and bring that up. I fully recommend you read Wolfgang Borchert's "Draussen vor der Tur" before you make anymore comments about post-war Germany and life thereof. Do me one more favor, leave the side bias at home, it isn't needed here.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:50 PM
otto engine and first airframe(lilienthal,was first person that has fly) was not invented in america,

the american had built up this both,

so had she the first powered flight,

but not first flight,

as otto has experimental with flight 1891 was the otto engine not especially strong and reliably.



Message Edited on 10/20/0309:10PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 07:01 PM
First, this is not about taking credit away from Germans and giving it to the US. Its about giving proper credit to the people who invented it. Saying Germany invented rockets is just STUPID considering Chineese were using them in the 1600's (gunpouder stuffed into bamboo). Otto may not have invented the engine, but he made it pratical. Horten DID NOT infent the flying wing, but he did a lot of work in making them pratical. AT NO TIME HAVE I EVER STATED THAT NORTHROP INVENTED IT OR THAT THE US INVENTED ANYTHING MENTIONED IN THIS THREAD! I IN FACT GAVE PROPER CREDIT TO THERE EUROPEAN INVENTORS! Your the one bies if you read my post's and think that I hate Germans. I am simply saying is that people credit them with inventions they did not make. This thread is clear proof of that! People are crediting the Germans with the flying wing, rockets, the internal combustion engine, EVERYTHING! The next thing you will tell me is they invented gun powder? Give it a rest, please. Your soiling the memories of the true inventors.

As for the flying wing, Northrup did his work without knolege of Hortens work. When Northrup began his work, Horten had only made flying wing gliders. This was nothing new at all, and many people had flying gliders already. In fact, flying wings were nothing new. Like I said, other country's besides US and Germany had flying wings before. Horten and Northrup just made them work good and gave them an application.

Put YOUR bies away and try to read with an open mind. I also CHALLANGE you to quote me were I am being anti-German.

Bully_Lang wrote:
- You conveniently left out a lot of fact and research
- and are severely glossing over the Northorp's
- achievments and do little to credit the Horten
- brothers for theirs. Your bias is showing though and
- it is sickening. Post-war Germany? LOL You really
- have a lot of gall to try and bring that up. I fully
- recommend you read Wolfgang Borchert's "Draussen vor
- der Tur" before you make anymore comments about
- post-war Germany and life thereof. Do me one more
- favor, leave the side bias at home, it isn't needed
- here.
-
-



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 07:07 PM
when they say rockets, i think they might mean V1 V2 ballastic missiles, which they were the first to use due in combat and develop, due to restrictions in the versailles treaty that made them focus more on developing rockets to deliver explosives (i think)

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/bender.jpg
Which Colossal Death Robot Are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/)

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 07:44 PM
Rockets is a very braud term. To credit the Germans with the invention of "rockets" is just ignoring history. To credit them with ballistic missiles and cruse missiles is much more accurate. This I give them credit for. See, I am not anti-German http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

P.S. What would the V2 be without Dr. Goddards work? The first liquid fiel rocket. An American invention?

As early as 1909, however, Goddard considered the idea of a liquid fuel rocket utilizing hydrogen and oxygen. In his studies he recognized that solid fuels produced a lower exhaust velocity than could be obtained by the use of liquid fuels. After 17 years of theoretical and experimental work, Dr. Goddard finally achieved flight of a liquid fueled rocket on March 16, 1926. The manner in which that rocket worked is described here.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/frocket/frocket.htm

Let the flames begin.

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 07:54 PM
Has someone seen the Dunne D.5? It was a pioneer biplane from the years before WW1. It was a biplane flying wing... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 07:57 PM
Cool! Thanks for the info! The BRITS invented the flying wing! Whoot!!!

J. Dunne, a mathematician, set out in 1908 to build a stable aircraft. Working in secrecy in Scotland, the D.5 was the first of his designs that flew. A later version, the D.8, flew from Scotland to Paris in 1912.

http://preferredimage.co.uk/mfisher/Images/Dunne.JPG


(Image from X-Plane flight sim, I cant find any other images)

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 08:54 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- Jippo01 wrote:
--
-- viperUSAF wrote:
--
--- lol, The allies built a whole bunch of Me262's,
--- D0335's, King Tigers, Bismarcks, and Stg 44's after
--- the war.
--
-- Have you ever heard of Kalashnikov assault rifles?
--
--
---jippo
--
--
-
- I will point out that the AK-47 uses a significan;ty
- different action than the StG.44. The Ak-47's
- action is actually loosely based on one developed by
- Browning in the early 1900's.
-
- The Ak-47's action is based off of a gun developed
- in the early 40's chambered for the Japanese rifle
- round, which was declared obsolete. I'll have to
- check, but I belive the StG.44's action eveolved
- into the action on the H&K G3, which later became
- the basis for the most of H&K's automatic weapons,
- though their new G33 rifle used a new action.
-
- Give me a little bit to check up on that though.
-
- Harry Voyager
-
- Addendum: Ok, it wasn't the G3 that the StG.44
- evolved into. The G3 is a delayed blowback based
- weapon. I'm trying to find the weapon, but if I
- recall correctly, it has a very similare action to
- the StG.44, but flipped. It's like an upside down
- StG.44. It has the gas piston mounted under the
- barrel.
-
- Are these guns are so blasted similare. It's hard
- to tell them apart at time. Seems there are only a
- certain number of ways one can pull a catridge out
- of a barrel, fling it over, and load a new round
- into the chamber.
-
-

Actually, the Mauser engineers who designed the Stg44 went to Spain after the war. They designed a rifle known as the CETME. It was delayed blowback automatic rifle chambered to 7.62x51mm. H&K eventually hired the engineers, made a few changes and produced the G3. Early G3's were even stamped with "CETME" on the receiver.

I do know the G.43 was based on the Russian SVT38 and SVT40 rifles.

The timeline is SVT38-->SVT-->G.43--)Stg44-->SKS-->AK47-->AK74

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 09:15 PM
Gib, if HoIX was recognized by all those that flew to have excellent controls, then this is the way it was. XB-35,49 had awful flight characteristics if you read any test pilot comment about them. I don't see the point in your intention to distort the real picture about those 2 designs.

Read here about XB-35,49 and the real contribution of Northrop in flying wing designs:

http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/Mag/Index/1997/JJ/teds.html


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 09:27 PM
The GO-229 was not design in any way to be a stealth aircraft the reasons for its shape were aerodynamic as the tail less layout is 30% more efficent in terms of drag than a conventional aircraft.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 09:38 PM
right, you cannot say that one country invented something, as the theories and stuff all came from different people and countries

so to put an end to it, cant we just say everybody invented everything and have done with it

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/bender.jpg
Which Colossal Death Robot Are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/)

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:31 PM
Well as for the Northrop flying wing design, I spoke with the pilot of the N9M and he says its a delight to fly! Very easy and forgiving. Its a scaled down mockup of the bigger B-35 to learn how well it would fly and give pilots a feel for it wile the B-35 was being constructed. I also read many reports on the B-35/49 and I even have the pilots manual. Nowere does is say anything about unfavorable flight conditions. Also, there was only 1 fatle crash of the B-49 during extreme stall testing. The aircraft stalled and the pilot gained too much speed before pulling out. The aircraft folded in half due to the extreme stress on the airframe and high lift wings. Were as the Go-229 lost and engine and could not be recovered. Thats very unforgiving. As for the page you gave me. Lets take a look.

"The plane flew surprisingly well," he concluded, ". . .far better than most would expect."

and

"Boy, that was quite an experience," he wrote that evening. "Quite different from flying anything else. It would take a good bit of practice to get really good at flying the little beauty."

Saying an aircraft flew differant then any other aircraft does NOT intail it was bad. Considering its radical shape, it should have flown differant! He was not being critical, but cautious.

"Northrop produced his first attempt at a powered flying wing in 1928. His Experimental No. 1, which does look suspiciously like the one Stadlman is holding in an old photograph, flew in 1929. Northrop financed the project with profits from the Vega, a sleek, high-wing, conventional airplane he had designed during his second stint with Lockheed."

This part was also interesting. I thought Northrup's first flying wing was in 1938/39, not 28/29. Horten bro's flew there first flying wing GLIDER in July 1933. WELL after Northrup's POWERED flyign wing? Interesting. Horten did not even fly a motorized flying wing till 1937.

Remember, this is info YOU gave me. It must be true http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Lol. Thanks for the interesting link.

Gib


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Gib, if HoIX was recognized by all those that flew
- to have excellent controls, then this is the way it
- was. XB-35,49 had awful flight characteristics if
- you read any test pilot comment about them. I don't
- see the point in your intention to distort the real
- picture about those 2 designs.
-
- Read here about XB-35,49 and the real contribution
- of Northrop in flying wing designs:
-


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:31 PM
Panelboy wrote:
- Isegram said:
-
- "Didn`t invent swept wings ? LOL, that`s funny, NASA
- says they pretty much did, just as they were the
- first to use
- forward-swept wings."
-
- "pretty much did" means what?

Like in the 109's "pretty much" had flettner tabs on the ailerions... sorry.. couldnt pass that one up! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:42 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Again, you prove your ignorance of US aircraft. The
- scaled down prototypes first flew in 1940. They
- still have one of them flying today called the N9M.
- Two 600HP engines powering two props.

http://www.mucheswarbirds.com/N9MB1.jpg

Actually.. I was out at chino a few times while they were restroing the N9MB1.. and they told me there were a few of them build... this is the only one left at chino.. but they said the first one flew around 1937. The one being restored I think was the 3rd and first flew in 1940.. but dont quote me on that.





<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/20/0302:43PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 11:00 PM
Actually, there were 9 of them built! N9M being the last one. N1M being the first. They were built to not only test the design, but to let test pilots get a feel for what the big one will be like. I have seen the N9M fly at Chino during the last airshow, and its the most graceful aircraft I have ever seen. Very butiful. I cant wait to see her fly again in Nov. For an aircraft that never existed, it sure fly's a lot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Even flew with the B2 during half-life at last years Super Bowl. Anyone catch that?

Gib

tagert wrote:
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-- Again, you prove your ignorance of US aircraft. The
-- scaled down prototypes first flew in 1940. They
-- still have one of them flying today called the N9M.
-- Two 600HP engines powering two props.
-
- http://www.mucheswarbirds.com/N9MB1.jpg
-
- Actually.. I was out at chino a few times while they
- were restroing the N9MB1.. and they told me there
- were a few of them build... this is the only one
- left at chino.. but they said the first one flew
- around 1937. The one being restored I think was the
- 3rd and first flew in 1940.. but dont quote me on
- that.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- <div
- style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:
- 24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your
- QUESTION?
- </div>
- <a
- href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=for
- um"
- target=_blank>http://dictionary.reference.com/sear
- ch?q=forum</a>
-
- <a
- href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dis
- cussion"
- target=_blank>http://dictionary.reference.com/sear
- ch?q=discussion</a>
-
-
- Message Edited on 10/20/03 02:43PM by tagert



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 12:10 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Actually, there were 9 of them built! N9M being the
- last one. N1M being the first. They were built to
- not only test the design, but to let test pilots get
- a feel for what the big one will be like. I have
- seen the N9M fly at Chino during the last airshow,
- and its the most graceful aircraft I have ever seen.
- Very butiful.

9 of them? WOW! I knew fer sure there were more than one.. Just wanst sure how many they did build.. thought they said 3, Oh well.. a few more that would alomost qualify as production! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- I cant wait to see her fly again in
- Nov. For an aircraft that never existed, it sure
- fly's a lot /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Even flew with the B2 during
- half-life at last years Super Bowl. Anyone catch
- that?

They actually brought her out to the B2 sight once and took a picture of them side by side.. I wish I could find that pciture.. I had it once. A good buddy of mine at Northrup at the time was there and took the picture.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 01:18 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Bump! Im still waiting for Issy to admit he was
- wrong.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.... Ah man that was a good one.... What? Oh, you were serious?


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:14 AM
I know I know. He will drop out of the forum for about a week till this thread "blown over" and then come back the next time someone faivorably compairs a US aircraft to a German one and start his normal BS till yet again he is proven wrong. Its the Issy cycle. Huck seems to fallow the Issy cycle also, but not so much. He wont drop off compleatly, but confuse the subject by talking about stuff that has nothing to do what-so-ever with the thread were he was proven wrong (I.E. Box Spar) till Issy comes it with false fact's for Huck to back up. You can almost set your watch to it. Did you know the Germans invented watches? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

tagert wrote:
- HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
- HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
- HA HA HA.... Ah man that was a good one.... What?
- Oh, you were serious?
-
-
-
- <div

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:00 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- What credibility? When I first came to this forum,
- I though Issy had a lot of knolege of Luftwaffa
- aircraft, till SkyChimp and Milo proved him wrong
- using proof and showing sources. Two things Issy
- has never done. I find it funny when you ask him
- for his referances, he says "I dont need to show you
- referances" but he always demands referances. When
- you provide them, he denies them and ask's for more!

Yupp be funny if it wasnt so sad /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:18 PM
viperUSAF wrote:
- lol. Chrysler has always built shiit. Mercedes
- builds overpriced shiit with leather interiors and
- GPS. I will never buy a product built by either
- company.


PHHHTTTT !!!!!!!

I am sorry ... but let me just throw this in there ..

426 Cubic Inch displacement hemi


CC



Message Edited on 10/21/0302:27PM by Coon-Chow

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:32 PM
OK, just let`s get through all the stupid nonsense Gib posted. I don`t want to get into an arguement with you, Gib, especially as you have already made a nice amount lies in ths thread, and I hate liars. I think you must have a lot of inferiority complex and insecurness in you, Gib, which you try to conceal with your ultra-natinalism.

Just let`s get trough all of your nonsense one by one:

1, Swept wing. Gib claimed the "P-55" had swept wings well before anything German (1943), in 1939.

Corrections:

a, No "P-55" ever existed, and it never flew in 1939. An experimental Curtiss plane with swept wings existed though, named XP-55.

The XP-55 project started on June 22, 1940. The prototype was completed July 13, 1943, and flew 6 days later.


For comparision, the both the Me 163 rocket and the Me 262 jet program, featuring swept wings, started in 1938 (two years before the XP-55`s).
Both prototypes planes were ready rather soon, the Me 163 making it`s first flight in 1941 and the Me 262 in spring/summer 1942, well before the XP-55. I didn`t look up other prototype, though.

2, Internal combustion engine:

"The Importance of Nicolaus Otto
One of the most important landmarks in engine design comes from Nicolaus August Otto who in 1876 invented an effective gas motor engine. Otto built the first practical four-stroke internal combustion engine called the "Otto Cycle Engine," and as soon as he had completed his engine, he built it into a motorcycle. Otto's contributions were very historically significant, it was his four-stoke engine that was universally adopted for all liquid-fueled automobiles going forward. (Learn more about Nicolaus Otto) ".

"The Importance of Gottlieb Daimler
In 1885, Gottlieb Daimler (together with his design partner Wilhelm Maybach) took Otto's internal combustion engine a step further and patented what is generally recognized as the prototype of the modern gas engine. Daimler's connection to Otto was a direct one; Daimler worked as technical director of Deutz Gasmotorenfabrik, which Nikolaus Otto co-owned in 1872. There is some controversy as to who built the first motorcycle Otto or Daimler.

The 1885 Daimler-Maybach engine was small, lightweight, fast, used a gasoline-injected carburetor, and had a vertical cylinder. The size, speed, and efficiency of the engine allowed for a revolution in car design. On March 8, 1886, Daimler took a stagecoach and adapted it to hold his engine, thereby designing the world's first four-wheeled automobile. Daimler is considered the first inventor to have invented a practical internal-combustion engine.

In 1889, Daimler invented a V-slanted two cylinder, four-stroke engine with mushroom-shaped valves. Just like Otto's 1876 engine, Daimler's new engine set the basis for all car engines going forward. Also in 1889, Daimler and Maybach built their first automobile from the ground up, they did not adapt another purpose vehicle as they had always been done previously. The new Daimler automobile had a four-speed transmission and obtained speeds of 10 mph.

Daimler founded the Daimler Motoren-Gesellschaft in 1890 to manufacture his designs. Eleven years later, Wilhelm Maybach designed the Mercedes automobile. (Learn more about Gottlieb Daimler & Wilhelm Maybach) "


"The Importance of Karl Benz
In 1885, German mechanical engineer, Karl Benz designed and built the world's first practical automobile to be powered by an internal-combustion engine. On January 29, 1886, Benz received the first patent (DRP No. 37435) for a gas-fueled car. It was a three-wheeler; Benz built his first four-wheeled car in 1891. Benz & Cie., the company started by the inventor, became the world's largest manufacturer of automobiles by 1900. Benz was the first inventor to integrate an internal combustion engine with a chassis - designing both togther. (Learn more about Karl Benz) "



But the very fundamental thing is... it`s was Otto who designed, AND built, AND perfected the first internal combustion engine. None of the others did all this, Otto made it a practically applyable invention. Lenoir could be the only one who could really claim himself the inventor of it, but he only made plans for it, never actually building an engine.



3, Gibbage`s utter ignorance about aircraft engines

When he was busy bashing the He 177s, he claimed that the Greiff`s DB 610 engine troubles were caused by "overheating rear cylinder banks of the engine"... now, Gibby, Gibby Gibby: apart from that you have no idea of the whole things, pray, tell me, since when does a liquied cooled double Vee-engine like the DB 610 have "rear cylinder banks"? Radials have these, m8. The DB 610 was made up by two DB 605s, for your information.


4, Jets. Gibbage`s statement : German did not invent jets.

Let`s see the facts :

von Ohain and Whittle working independently from each other, having no idea of the other`s work, invent, develop, and test run the first jet units of the world, both in 1936, Whittle a few months earlier than von Ohain. Whittle`s unit was unsuccessful at first, being uncontrollable :

"In 1935 Whittle secured financial backing and, with approval from the RAF, Power Jets Ltd. was formed. They started constructing a test engine in July 1936. It was a complicated process: they were pushing the compressor and turbine well beyond the limits of known technology and their combustion chamber was to have heating intensities twenty times normal levels. When the first tests were run the following April, the engine ran on both occasions, but ran out of control. The fault was found and rectified and the engine ran properly, but they were unable to accelerate it beyond about 8 500 rpm because any more fuel burned downstream of the turbine.

The tests had proved inconclusive: the compressor was operating well below its design efficiency and the engine was rapidly falling apart. Whittle concluded that a complete rebuild was required, but he lacked the necessary finances. Protracted negotiations with the Air Ministry followed. Eventually the project was secured in 1940, and work began once again."


So, basically, what Whittle had in 1936 was a failed experiment, a jet that barely run.

In 1939, the first jet aircraft of the world took off. It was built by Heinkel in Germany.

In 1944, the first combat by jet fighter took place, by a Messerscmitt Me 262, the only jet to see serious air combat in WW2.

5, Rockets. Not much too write on that. Up to 1936, all they built were small toys weighting a few kg, for fireworks at best, lacking any mean for controlling their path.

In 1936, the first Rocket research centre in the world was built in Peenemunde. By 1944, it produced a controlled rocket, that could reach several hundred kilometers away, exit into space, carry 1 ton of useful load.

Decades later, the same man who designed the V-3, Wernher von Braun, took mankind to the moon.




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:36 PM
More of the XB-35 "success story":

"
The first N-9M flew for the first time on December 27, 1942. It crashed on May 19, 1943, killing its pilot.

On the maiden flight of the second model on June 24, 1943, the cockpit canopy of the aircraft flew off while in flight, but the pilot was able to land successfully.


Nearly all the flight tests of the N-9M were shortened by mechanical failures of one kind or another, particular with failures in the Menasco engines. The fourth and last N9M (the N9M-B) flew for the first time on September 21, 1943.

"



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:38 PM
I wonder, which of the pathetic maggots Gibbage kisses from the underneath here EVER proved me wrong? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Don`t mix your wet dreams with dire reality, Garbage. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:04 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- 1, Swept wing. Gib claimed the "P-55" had swept
- wings well before anything German (1943), in 1939.
-
- Corrections:
-
- a, No "P-55" ever existed, and it never flew in
- 1939. An experimental Curtiss plane with swept wings
- existed though, named XP-55.
-
- The XP-55 project started on June 22, 1940. The
- prototype was completed July 13, 1943, and flew 6
- days later.
-

Again, stop pretending to know about US aircraft.

On June 22, 1940, the Curtiss-Wright company received an Army contract for preliminary engineering data and a powered wind tunnel model. The designation P-55 was reserved for the project.

Since the USAAC was not completely satisfied with the results of the wind tunnel tests, Curtiss-Wright took it upon itself to build a flying full-scale model. Designated CW-24B by the company, the flying testbed was powered by a 275 hp Menasco C68-5 engine. It had a fabric-covered, welded steel tube fuselage and a wooden wing. The undercarriage was fixed.

After completion, the CW-24B was shipped out to the Army flight test center at Muroc Dry Lake (later Edwards AFB) in California. It made its first flight there on December 2, 1941. Although the maximum speed was only 180 mph because of the low engine power, the CW-24B proved out the basic feasibility of the concept. However, early flights indicated that there was a certain amount of directional instability. The original auxiliary wingtip fins were increased in area and moved four feet farther outboard on the wings, which enhanced the directional stability. The wingtips were made longer, and further improvements were obtained by adding vertical fins to both the top and the bottom of the engine cowling. 169 flights with the CW-24B were made at Muroc between December 1941 and May 1942. After that, the airplane (having been assigned the USAAC serial number 42-39347) was transferred to Langley Field, Virginia, for further testing by NACA.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p55.html

-
- 2, Internal combustion engine:
-
- "The Importance of Nicolaus Otto
- One of the most important landmarks in engine design
- comes from Nicolaus August Otto who in 1876 invented
- an effective gas motor engine.

My point was there were people who had internal combustion before Otto. Its one thing to invent it, its another to make it work well. You should know the differance.

BTW. He invented the FOUR STROKE ENGINE!!! NOT INTERNAL COMBUSTION ya moron.

1807 - Francois Isaac de Rivaz of Switzerland invented an internal combustion engine that used a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen for fuel. Rivaz designed a car for his engine - the first internal combustion powered automobile. However, this was a very unsuccessful vehicle.

A full 69 ears before Otto. Explain that. Stop trying to credit Germany with inventions they did not invent. They do have credit for the 4 stroke.

-
-
-
- 3, Gibbage`s utter ignorance about aircraft engines
-
- When he was busy bashing the He 177s, he claimed
- that the Greiff`s DB 610 engine troubles were caused
- by "overheating rear cylinder banks of the
- engine"... now, Gibby, Gibby Gibby: apart from that
- you have no idea of the whole things, pray, tell me,
- since when does a liquied cooled double Vee-engine
- like the DB 610 have "rear cylinder banks"? Radials
- have these, m8. The DB 610 was made up by two DB
- 605s, for your information.
-

I dont claim to know about German aircraft like you claim to know US aircraft. Thanks for informing me of my mistake. At least I can admit when I am wrong. But you said I claimed the DB605 wad a radial. Were did I say that?

-
- 4, Jets. Gibbage`s statement : German did not invent
- jets.
-
- Let`s see the facts :
-
- von Ohain and Whittle working independently from
- each other, having no idea of the other`s work,
- invent, develop, and test run the first jet units of
- the world, both in 1936, Whittle a few months
- earlier than von Ohain. Whittle`s unit was
- unsuccessful at first, being uncontrollable :

But it ran, and ran before its German counterpart. Thats the key to invention. Get it to run, and then perfect it.

-
- 5, Rockets. Not much too write on that. Up to 1936,
- all they built were small toys weighting a few kg,
- for fireworks at best, lacking any mean for
- controlling their path.
-
- In 1936, the first Rocket research centre in the
- world was built in Peenemunde. By 1944, it produced
- a controlled rocket, that could reach several
- hundred kilometers away, exit into space, carry 1
- ton of useful load.
-
- Decades later, the same man who designed the V-3,
- Wernher von Braun, took mankind to the moon.
-

So you ADMIT that the Germans did not "invent" rockets? Just say it. Why cant you admit anything?

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:11 PM
Every test program has failures. The N-9M was not the only flying wing. If you did more then a yahoo search you would have found this out.

The N-1M was powered by two 65 hp Lycoming O-145 four-cylinder air-cooled engines driving two-bladed pusher propellers located at the end of ten foot shafts. The two engines were completely located within the wing.

There were significant weight and center-of-gravity problems with the N-1M before it took flight. After these problems were solved the aircraft was moved to Muroc dry lake for testing. While undergoing initial test runs, the N-1M could not get off of the ground except in low and short jumps. It was during these tests that the N-1M first took to the air on 3 July 1940. Upon studying the problem which was keeping the aircraft from attaining altitude, it was discovered that the N-1M was still 200 pounds over its weight limit. The test pilot, Vance Breese, flew the N-1M in these short, straight flights until the underpowered Lycomings were replaced with 117 hp Franklin 6AC264F2 engines driving three bladed propellers in early 1941.

Here is more for you, since your search engine capability's are rather limited.

The N-9M had a wingspan of 60 feet and was 17.79 feet long. The N-9M was powered by two 260 hp Menasco engines and had a top speed of 257 mph. Four N-9M aircraft were built and the first flight occurred on 27 December 1942. Several modifications of the N-9M were made with more than six variations within its first years. A little over a year into the testing of the aircraft, an N-9M was lost during stability testing. It was feared that the design had adverse stall and spin characteristics. As the crash investigation continued, the government requested that a model of both the N-9M and the XB-35 be constructed and sent to NACA's Langley Field, Virginia for wind tunnel testing. The testing that followed determined that the aircraft had acceptable characteristics.

The N-9M aircraft were having problems with the Menasco engines and it was decided to replace them with Franklin engines that had just become available. The flying characteristics of the N-9M were deemed satisfactory for longitudinal and lateral stability, control at high speed, and in cruising ranges. There was difficulty in obtaining satisfactory directional control, and severe reversal of elevator control forces at high lift coefficients was encountered.

It should be noted that most of the pilots who flew the N-9M found the handling characteristics to be satisfactory, although not exceptional. However, even this is a compliment when one considers the inherent instability of flying wing designs.

Four N9Ms, the N-9M-1, N-9M-2, N-9M-MA, and N-9MB, were eventually built. The N-9Ms continued the flight test program into 1945-46, by which time the XB-35 was in its flight test program.

The last surviving N-9M is on display at the Air Museum's Planes of Fame at the Chino Airport, Chino, California.


Im still waiting for you to ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG! Lets not get side tracked by inventions. Lets stick to the subject. THE FLYING WING! Did the B-35 exist? Ow yes, it did. Did it have more flight time then the Go-229? A LOT MORE! Admit that it existed Issy, then you can move on with your typical America bashing.

Gib

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- More of the XB-35 "success story":
-
- "
- The first N-9M flew for the first time on December
- 27, 1942. It crashed on May 19, 1943, killing its
- pilot.
-
- On the maiden flight of the second model on June 24,
- 1943, the cockpit canopy of the aircraft flew off
- while in flight, but the pilot was able to land
- successfully.
-
-
- Nearly all the flight tests of the N-9M were
- shortened by mechanical failures of one kind or
- another, particular with failures in the Menasco
- engines. The fourth and last N9M (the N9M-B) flew
- for the first time on September 21, 1943.
-
- "
-
-
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
- (Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto
- of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)
-
- Flight tests and other aviation performance data:
- http://www.pbase.com/isegrim



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:15 PM
Look who's taklking you moron! who want to call gibbage "garbage"? What the F&*% have you ever done for this community beside spew your german proganda & lies here?
Gibbage is an outstanding pillar of this community and you want to try & insult him? what in the h-ll are you thinking?






<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
Please visit the 310th FS & 380th BG Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> Get my Squadron Insignia Files @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=4206')
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:25 PM
LOL, the "outstanding pillar" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif sadly hasn`t got the slightest idea what he`s talking about. He might be usuful to the community in creating a few 3d models, but when it comes to avitation history, or technology, or just history in general, a 12 year old kid could best both his knowladge and arguements. No offense meant, he just doesn`t notices his own limits and makes himself ridiculus. He should do what he knows better.

As for you... LOL. That`s all I can say about you. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:29 PM
With so much fighting, it must be love. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Lets just all agree that its a wonderful thing WWII is over, and that none of us would want our very own WWII with some airplane fanatics typing like mad.

Each aircraft, and each nation that built them, can be judged by their measure of success more than by the date they flew. To suggested that Germany developed ideas of ballistics, stealth, and aerodynamics without outside input would be incorrect. Likewise, to fail to acknowledge the spirit of revolutionary advance that characterized German engineering would also be remiss. So in the spirit of brotherhood, lets agree that flying wing planes are neat.

And, if I may add, the P-51 won the war.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:33 PM
Your funny. Considering I offer a lot more to this comunity then you. You do have a better knolege of German aircraft then me, this I admit. But your knolege of US aircraft has been proven flawed over and over again. You base everything you know on US aircraft on the first hit in Yahoo. You never quote your sources for your outlandish claims. Then you DEMAND resources from everyone, but when we ask for your resources you say you dont need to provide any. This seems more like the actions of a 10 year old them someone who spends THOUSANDS of hours modeling aircraft to make the game better. Anyways, stick to the subject. Were you wrong about the existance of the B-35?

Simple question that you seem to be spending a great deal of energy and time in avoiding.

Gib

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- LOL, the "outstanding pillar" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif sadly hasn`t got the slightest
- idea what he`s talking about. He might be usuful to
- the community in creating a few 3d models, but when
- it comes to avitation history, or technology, or
- just history in general, a 12 year old kid could
- best both his knowladge and arguements. No offense
- meant, he just doesn`t notices his own limits and
- makes himself ridiculus. He should do what he knows
- better.
-
- As for you... LOL. That`s all I can say about you.
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
- (Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto
- of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)
-
- Flight tests and other aviation performance data:
- http://www.pbase.com/isegrim



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:42 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:

- You base everything you know on US
- aircraft on the first hit in Yahoo.

Wrong.

- You never quote
- your sources for your outlandish claims.

Wrong and untrue.

- Then you
- DEMAND resources from everyone, but when we ask for
- your resources you say you dont need to provide any.

Wrong and untrue.


- Anyways, stick to
- the subject. Were you wrong about the existance of
- the B-35?

In which way you claim I was wrong ?

Do you admit that you were wrong about the invention of :

-Rockets
-swept wings
-internal combustion engine
-jets ?



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:45 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<font color="black"> Notre Gates oui est a Seatle
Que ton Windows soit débogué
Que ton monopole s'impose
Que tes commandes soient éxécutées

Sur le web comme sur le disque-dur
Donnes nous aujourd'hui
Nos mise a jour quotidiennes
et pardonnes nous nos utilisation de linux
Comme nous pardonnons aussi
A ceux qui ont utilsé des Macs
Mais délivre nous du plantage
Car c'est a toi qu'appartiennent
Le copyrigth,les megahertz et les capitaux .

Amen(ne le fric)</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:47 PM
You said the B-35 never existed and never flew. I provided many photographs of it flying. This, you were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, wrong. You still cant admit this?

Rockets were not invented by Germans. Chinese had them in the 13th century.

Swept wings I have no idea who invented it, nor did I claim it. I just said the Germans did not invent it.

Internal Combustion the Germans did not invent. They did however invent 4 stroke engines.

Whittle was stiff first with a working jet, this you said yourself.

STICK TO THE SUBJECT! ENOUGH SMOKE AND MIRRORS! WERE YOU WRONG IN SAYING THE B-35 DID NOT EXIST?

Gib

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-- Anyways, stick to
-- the subject. Were you wrong about the existance of
-- the B-35?
-
- In which way you claim I was wrong ?
-
- Do you admit that you were wrong about the invention
- of :
-
--Rockets
--swept wings
--internal combustion engine
--jets ?
-
-

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:59 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
-
- You said the B-35 never existed and never flew. I
- provided many photographs of it flying. This, you
- were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, wrong. You
- still cant admit this?


No plane with the designation B-35 existed or ever flew.

To qoute your source : " None of the series production B-35A were ever built.

Quite clear.


-
- Rockets were not invented by Germans. Chinese had
- them in the 13th century.
-

You`re evading, Gib. Of course the Chinese had toys for fireworks. They didn`t have real rockets, though.


- Swept wings I have no idea who invented it, nor did
- I claim it. I just said the Germans did not invent
- it.


LOL, now that`s a Classic! "I have no idea who invented it, but it could be those blasted Germans!" Typical.

-
- Internal Combustion the Germans did not invent.
- They did however invent 4 stroke engines.
-

Curius ! I always though I have an 3.5 litre internal combustion engine (aka, the Otto-engine) in my car.

Now I know it`s really a 4 stroke engine, not an internal combustion one. Thanks Gib.


-
- Whittle was stiff first with a working jet, this you
- said yourself.
-

He was, however, the world - except Gib - readily admits that Whittle and von Ohain were co-inventors of the jet engine, working independently from each other.

As for Whittle`s "working jet"... it did not work.

As for who was "first"... a rather complicated question, in regars what..

"By Mary Bellis

Dr. Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle <u>are both recognized</u> as being the co-inventors of the jet engine. Each worked separately and knew nothing of the other's work. Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine. Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent for the turbojet engine in 1930. Hans von Ohain was granted a patent for his turbojet engine in 1936. However, Hans von Ohain's jet was the first to fly in 1939. Frank Whittle's jet first flew in in 1941.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm


You said Germans did not invent jets. I said they co-invented the engine together with the Brits, but were the first in employing them in practical use.



- STICK TO THE SUBJECT! ENOUGH SMOKE AND MIRRORS!
- WERE YOU WRONG IN SAYING THE B-35 DID NOT EXIST?

Can I qoute it again ?

"None of the series production B-35A were ever built."



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 08:04 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
--
-- You said the B-35 never existed and never flew. I
-- provided many photographs of it flying. This, you
-- were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, wrong. You
-- still cant admit this?
-
-
- No plane with the designation B-35 existed or ever
- flew.
-
- To qoute your source : " None of the series
- production B-35A were ever built.
-
- Quite clear.
-

Then the Go-229 never flew since in your theries prototypes dont count. Only the V2 prototype for the Go-229 flew.

Also, you thought the XB or YB-35 never flew. You thought only the smaller N-9m prototypes flew.

Enough smoke are mirrors ISsy. Admit it. It flew. Unless you admid the Go-229 never flew.

-- Rockets were not invented by Germans. Chinese had
-- them in the 13th century.
--
-
- You`re evading, Gib. Of course the Chinese had toys
- for fireworks. They didn`t have real rockets,
- though.
-

They may have been toys, but again. Invention is the process of making something work. It worked. If you want something more advanced,

Dr. Goddard finally achieved flight of a liquid fueled rocket on March 16, 1926.

-
-- Swept wings I have no idea who invented it, nor did
-- I claim it. I just said the Germans did not invent
-- it.
-
-
- LOL, now that`s a Classic! "I have no idea who
- invented it, but it could be those blasted Germans!"
- Typical.
-

You are trying to dirty my name and I find this insulting. You are changing my quote to make me look like a German hater and I demand you retract that. I have NEVER said those words. If you have proof that the Germans invented swept wing, BRING IT!!! Stop flapping your gums and editing my quotes to make me look like some German hater. This earliest swept wing design that I can find.

J. Dunne, a mathematician, set out in 1908 to build a stable aircraft. Working in secrecy in Scotland, the D.5 was the first of his designs that flew. A later version, the D.8, flew from Scotland to Paris in 1912.

This aircraft was a swept all wing design. Most likly the first swept wing and first flying wing. Again, I am just trying to make sure the proper inventor get the proper credit instead of everyone assuming the Germans invented it all in WWII.

--
-- Internal Combustion the Germans did not invent.
-- They did however invent 4 stroke engines.
--
-
- Curius ! I always though I have an 3.5 litre
- internal combustion engine (aka, the Otto-engine) in
- my car.
-
- Now I know it`s really a 4 stroke engine, not an
- internal combustion one. Thanks Gib.
-
-

Your welcome. Do you admit you were wrong in thinking Otto invented internal combustion? He did not, but he helped perfect it and made it useable.


-
--
-- Whittle was stiff first with a working jet, this you
-- said yourself.
--
-
- He was, however, the world - except Gib - readily
- admits that Whittle and von Ohain were co-inventors
- of the jet engine, working independently from each
- other.
-
- As for Whittle`s "working jet"... it did not work.
-
- As for who was "first"... a rather complicated
- question, in regars what..
-
- "By Mary Bellis
-
- Dr. Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle <u>are
- both recognized</u> as being the co-inventors of the
- jet engine. Each worked separately and knew
- nothing of the other's work. Hans von Ohain is
- considered the designer of the first operational
- turbojet engine. Frank Whittle was the first to
- register a patent for the turbojet engine in 1930.
- Hans von Ohain was granted a patent for his turbojet
- engine in 1936. However, Hans von Ohain's jet was
- the first to fly in 1939. Frank Whittle's jet first
- flew in in 1941.
-

Hans Von Ohain joined Ernst Heinkel in 1936 and continued with the development of his concepts of jet propulsion. A successful bench test of one of his engines was accomplished in September 1937.

With private financial support, Sir Frank Whittle began construction of his first engine in 1935. This engine, which had a single-stage centrifugal compressor coupled to a single-stage turbine, was successfully bench tested in April 1937.

5 months Issy. Very close, but Whittle was still first.


-
- You said Germans did not invent jets. I said they
- co-invented the engine together with the Brits, but
- were the first in employing them in practical use.
-

Its true. They were the first ones to fly a jet. The Nazi party saw a great deal of potential in his engin and gave him unlimited funding. They needed it as a weapon to win the war they would soon start. The British were rather ignorant in reguards to the jet. They thought it would never surpass prop aircraft so they never fully funded it.

-
-- STICK TO THE SUBJECT! ENOUGH SMOKE AND MIRRORS!
-- WERE YOU WRONG IN SAYING THE B-35 DID NOT EXIST?
-
- Can I qoute it again ?
-
- "None of the series production B-35A were ever
- built."
-

Then the Go-229 never existed since no Go-229 production models were completed. Only the V1 and V2 prototypes.

Gib


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 08:18 PM
Issy Said 3 pages back.

"Northop was toying with it, too, though the Northrop fantasy bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the prototype stage, while the Gotha did. "


Now your saying it never got past the prototype stage so thus never existed. Flip flop flip flop. Do you finally admit you were wrong?

That brings me to to this darling of a quote.

Issy said on this page.

I wonder, which of the pathetic maggots Gibbage kisses from the underneath here EVER proved me wrong?

Well I just proved you wrong. And you still cant admit it.

Gib


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 08:25 PM
Good observations and points in your last 2 posts Gib./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Will be definately looking with interest for Issy's reply to why the Horten wing is considered a production a/c even though they were assigned 'V' numbers given to prototypes.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 08:51 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:

-
- Then the Go-229 never flew since in your theries
- prototypes dont count. Only the V2 prototype for
- the Go-229 flew.

Blah-blah-blah.


-
- Also, you thought the XB or YB-35 never flew. You
- thought only the smaller N-9m prototypes flew.

Now which one, Gib ? I can`t see through your numerous versions what I did say...

"You said the B-35 never existed and never flew."

"Also, you thought the XB or YB-35 never flew."


Which one, Gib ? You seem to change your "qoutes" from em every time.



-
- Dr. Goddard finally achieved flight of a liquid
- fueled rocket on March 16, 1926.

Grats for finally finding Goddard. It only took you a week. Still, he was an early forerunner at best, whereas the major research work on modern rocketry was done Peenemunde between 1936-1945, by von Braun and his team.



--
--- Swept wings I have no idea who invented it, nor did
--- I claim it. I just said the Germans did not invent
--- it.
--
--
-- LOL, now that`s a Classic! "I have no idea who
-- invented it, but it could be those blasted Germans!"
-- Typical.
--
-
- You are trying to dirty my name and I find this
- insulting. You are changing my quote to make me
- look like a German hater and I demand you retract
- that. I have NEVER said those words. If you have
- proof that the Germans invented swept wing, BRING
- IT!!!

I already did, but you seem to ignore it :

Swept Wings


For many years, reducing the airfoil thickness ratio was the only known method of increasing the wing critical Mach number by any significant amount (ref. 139). Then in 1945, Robert T. Jones of NACA offered a fundamental breakthrough when he proposed the use of wing sweep as a means for increasing the critical Mach number (ref. 172). The use of wing sweep to increase the efficiency of aircraft intended for flight at supersonic speed was first suggested by Busemann in 1935 (ref. 142); the effectiveness of wing sweep as a means for increasing the critical Mach number had been recognized in Germany before 1945 (ref. 143), but this work was unknown in the United States until after World War II.


The wings illustrated in figures 10. 11 and 10. 12 are swept back, as are most of the wings seen on operational aircraft. But, according to the simple theory in which the streamwise velocity is resolved into components normal and parallel to the leading edge of the wing, the wing could just as well be swept forward. The experimental Junkers Ju 287-1, built in Germany during World War II and described in reference 201, had sweptforward wings, and one of the business jet transports described in chapter 14 also incorporates wings with forward sweep.



Delta Wings

A variation on the swept wing theme is the delta wing first proposed by the German aerodynamicist Alexander Lippisch in the years prior to World War II (ref. 175). This wing derives its name from the Greek letter , which describes the planform shape. Sweep of the leading edge varies with the application but usually falls in the range between 70 and 40. Shown in figure 10.13(a) is a simple 45? delta wing; three variations of the simple delta planform are shown in figures 10.13 (b), (c), and (d). Many other variants are possible. In fact, the wings of some modern fighter aircraft defy classification as simple delta....



The Swept Wing Emerges



[291] Described in chapter 10 are the advantages of wing sweepback as applied to aircraft designed for flight at high-subsonic or supersonic Mach numbers. At subsonic speeds, increasing sweepback angle increases the wing critical Mach number, that is, the Mach number at which the adverse effects of compressibility first begin to appear. The effect of sweepback on the critical Mach number was first pointed out in the United States by Robert T. Jones of NACA in 1945. German engineers under the leadership of A. Busemann were aware of the importance of wing sweep in high-speed-aircraft design at an earlier date; and, following the end of World War II, much experimental information that had accumulated in Germany became available in the United [292] States. Together with data obtained in NACA's wind tunnels, this information served as the basis for the first swept-wing fighters designed in this country. The early swept-wing fighters were strictly subsonic aircraft. Discussed in the following paragraphs are the first USAF and Navy fighters to incorporate wing sweepback. Both aircraft had long and distinguished careers, and both will find an important place in any account of the development of jet fighters.





About the Author



[547] Laurence K. Loftin, Jr. was born in Lynchburg, Virginia,. and was graduated from the University of Virginia with a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1943. He joined the staff of the Langley Research Center in 1944. In a variety of positions, he engaged in and supervised research in aerodynamics and aeroelasticity, and in 1958 was chosen to be Technical Assistant to the Langley Director. In 1961 he was named Assistant Director of the Langley Research Center with responsibility for all aeronautical research; and in 1970 was named Director for Aeronautics. Mr. Loftin, on assignment from NASA, served as Assistant for Aeronautics in the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Research and Development from July 1971 to July 1972. He was chief Aeronautical Engineer at Langley from July 1972 until his retirement from NASA in December 1973. Mr. Loftin is now actively engaged in teaching, writing, consulting, and research studies.

Mr. Loftin is the author of numerous technical papers dealing with various aspects of aeronautics, and has published a highly regarded textbook dealing with aircraft design and development.

He is a member of the American Aviation Historical Society, and the Experimental Aircraft Association, and is an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He has received the Langley Research Center Special Achievement Award for Outstanding Leadership and the NASA Exceptional Service Medal for his significant contributions to aeronautical development. He has also been cited by the Air Force and the FAA for contributions to aeronautics.

Mr. Loftin resides in Newport News, Virginia.



- J. Dunne, a mathematician, set out in 1908 to build
- a stable aircraft. Working in secrecy in Scotland,
- the D.5 was the first of his designs that flew. A
- later version, the D.8, flew from Scotland to Paris
- in 1912.
-
- This aircraft was a swept all wing design. Most
- likly the first swept wing and first flying wing.
- Again, I am just trying to make sure the proper
- inventor get the proper credit instead of everyone
- assuming the Germans invented it all in WWII.


Great, expect the guy wasn`t an inventor of swept wing, for the simple reason he had no idea if swept wings were good or bad. He didn`t intended it, or had any clue about the theory behind it. As Aaron mentioned, we could say Lilenthal or the Enlgish gentlemen in the 1850s did invented swept wings. Which of course, ridiculus.


-
- Your welcome. Do you admit you were wrong in
- thinking Otto invented internal combustion? He did
- not, but he helped perfect it and made it useable.
-

Out of the darkness of Gibworld, the rest of the world knows that Niklaus Otto is the inventor of the first working and usable internal combustion engine which`s layout all modern ones follow.




-
- 5 months Issy. Very close, but Whittle was still
- first.
-


OK, so let me conclude:

Me, and the rest of world thinks:

"Dr. Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle <u>are both recognized</u> as being the co-inventors of the jet engine.


Gibbage thinks not. Those bad Germans never ever invented anything. Especially not jets.


- Then the Go-229 never existed since no Go-229
- production models were completed. Only the V1 and
- V2 prototypes.

I think I will put that one in my sig. Go 229 did not exist. Said Gibbage. Great. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 09:11 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-
--
-- Then the Go-229 never flew since in your theries
-- prototypes dont count. Only the V2 prototype for
-- the Go-229 flew.
-
- Blah-blah-blah.
-
-

I call this denial. Using YOUR logic that "an aircraft does not exist if it never got past prototype stage" this this quote is true. But we all know that its false.


--
-- Also, you thought the XB or YB-35 never flew. You
-- thought only the smaller N-9m prototypes flew.
-
- Now which one, Gib ? I can`t see through your
- numerous versions what I did say...
-
- "You said the B-35 never existed and never flew."
-
- "Also, you thought the XB or YB-35 never flew."
-
-
- Which one, Gib ? You seem to change your "qoutes"
- from em every time.
-
-

Both. Your the one flip flopping. Read my post were I quote you saying that the prototype never flew, then you say the B-35 never existed because it never got past the prototype stage. Using that logic (Issy Logic) then the Go-229 never existed.

-
--
-- Dr. Goddard finally achieved flight of a liquid
-- fueled rocket on March 16, 1926.
-
- Grats for finally finding Goddard. It only took you
- a week. Still, he was an early forerunner at best,
- whereas the major research work on modern rocketry
- was done Peenemunde between 1936-1945, by von Braun
- and his team.
-

I said Goddard a few pages back, but YOU failed to mention him when YOU credited the Germans with the invention of rockets.

-
-
-
-
---
---- Swept wings I have no idea who invented it, nor did
---- I claim it. I just said the Germans did not invent
---- it.
---
---
--- LOL, now that`s a Classic! "I have no idea who
--- invented it, but it could be those blasted Germans!"
--- Typical.
---
--
-- You are trying to dirty my name and I find this
-- insulting. You are changing my quote to make me
-- look like a German hater and I demand you retract
-- that. I have NEVER said those words. If you have
-- proof that the Germans invented swept wing, BRING
-- IT!!!
-
- I already did, but you seem to ignore it :
-

Let me do an Issy dismissle. Blah Blah Blah.


-
-
-
-- J. Dunne, a mathematician, set out in 1908 to build
-- a stable aircraft. Working in secrecy in Scotland,
-- the D.5 was the first of his designs that flew. A
-- later version, the D.8, flew from Scotland to Paris
-- in 1912.
--
-- This aircraft was a swept all wing design. Most
-- likly the first swept wing and first flying wing.
-- Again, I am just trying to make sure the proper
-- inventor get the proper credit instead of everyone
-- assuming the Germans invented it all in WWII.
-
-
- Great, expect the guy wasn`t an inventor of swept
- wing, for the simple reason he had no idea if swept
- wings were good or bad. He didn`t intended it, or
- had any clue about the theory behind it. As Aaron
- mentioned, we could say Lilenthal or the Enlgish
- gentlemen in the 1850s did invented swept wings.
- Which of course, ridiculus.
-
-

So someone who build a swept wing aircraft that worked well is not the inventor? Specify your qualifications for someone to invent something?

--
-- Your welcome. Do you admit you were wrong in
-- thinking Otto invented internal combustion? He did
-- not, but he helped perfect it and made it useable.
--
-
- Out of the darkness of Gibworld, the rest of the
- world knows that Niklaus Otto is the inventor of the
- first working and usable internal combustion engine
- which`s layout all modern ones follow.
-
-

First usable internal combustion engine, yes. First working internal combustion engine, no.

-
-
-
-
--
-- 5 months Issy. Very close, but Whittle was still
-- first.
--
-
-
- OK, so let me conclude:
-
- Me, and the rest of world thinks:
-
- "Dr. Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle <u>are
- both recognized</u> as being the co-inventors of the
- jet engine.
-
-
- Gibbage thinks not. Those bad Germans never ever
- invented anything. Especially not jets.
-

Again, I am personally insulted by your insenuations that I think Germans are bad. Were do you get this ludicris thoughts? I am just making sure that the credit goes to those who deserve it. Whittle had his engine working 5 moths before Ohain, but you still find the need to make sure Ohain is credited? Why? His work in jet engines is very valuable, but he did not have the first working jet. Whittle did, by 5 months.


-
-- Then the Go-229 never existed since no Go-229
-- production models were completed. Only the V1 and
-- V2 prototypes.
-
- I think I will put that one in my sig. Go 229 did
- not exist. Said Gibbage. Great.

Again, this is the conclusion using YOUR flawed logic. You say the B-35 never existed because it never got past prototype stage. The Go-229 never got past prototype stage, so in your logic, it must have never existed? Or do you have a double standard? One standard for US aircraft, and other for German aircraft were prototypes count as aircraft? Your bies is clear if you DO have a double standard. Let me simplify things for you since you are having extreme difficulty understanding.

#1, Both Go-229 and B-35 did not exist because they never got past prototype stage.

#2, Go-229 existed but the B-35 did not, and your using a bies form of logic.

#3, both the Go-229 and B-35 existed because they both flew and were both in production.

What one is it Issy? Help clerify your logic to the rest of the world.

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 09:12 PM
Still no reply to this?

Gibbage1 wrote:
-
- Issy Said 3 pages back.
-
- "Northop was toying with it, too, though the
- Northrop fantasy bomber you want to add to Il-2
- never even got to the prototype stage, while the
- Gotha did. "
-
-
- Now your saying it never got past the prototype
- stage so thus never existed. Flip flop flip flop.
- Do you finally admit you were wrong?
-
- That brings me to to this darling of a quote.
-
- Issy said on this page.
-
- I wonder, which of the pathetic maggots Gibbage
- kisses from the underneath here EVER proved me
- wrong?
-
- Well I just proved you wrong. And you still cant
- admit it.
-
- Gib
-
-
-
- No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 09:19 PM
/runs out for more beer, will be back soon


(sorry, but /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigHolland.gif

'Smoke and a pancake?'</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 09:49 PM
Personally, I'd like to see an end to this genitalia length contest.

A lot of the "debate" going on here is semantical in nature, exploiting the gaps between theory and application.

However a few things seem clear:

Conceptually, rockets are far older than Von Braun's era. Apart from being mere toys, gunpowder fueled rockets had been used as weaponry. Modern rocketry begins with Goddard. Von Braun should be properly credited with the development of what became known as ballistic missiles, which were later adapted to carry humans into space.

Again, the internal combustion engine was conceptually older than any industrial age engineers. As a concept, internal combustion cannot be said to have been invented by Mr. Otto. However, Otto, Diesel, Maybach, Benz, and others all share varying credit for what parts of modern internal combustion technologies that still bear their mark, or even their names, through practical advances in theory and practical application.

It seems clear that conceptually, swept wing aeordynamic advances could only be credited to those who understood why such a wing might be desireable. I would agree that German engineers first worked this one out.

As to Northrup versus the Gotha--who cares? It does seem that Northrup is the only builder who ever did anything practical with the concept. If nothing else, they should get credit for the practical application of the flying wing concept, dating back to work begun in the 30s and continued on through this very day in the B-2 bomber. In that same vein, stealth technology could only be said to be invented by those who understood its implications. Perhaps the Germans get partial credit, but it wasn't really effectively applied until just recently, and then, by American builders.

Maybe next we can have a hissy fit about the invention and application of the helicopter?

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 10:27 PM
I'm thinking that partially we are seeing a difference in how someone defines "inventing". One side sees the most basic work as the invention, another sees something as only invented once it works to a certain level.

For example, with the recent launch of the first Chinese astronaut, there was a story running about an ancient Chinese gentleman who placed a bunch of skyrockets to his chair so he could reach the stars. By the story they were lit, there was a loud boom, and he was not to be found.

So, would be credit him with inventing spaceflight, or was he just somebody who had a beginning thought on something, but of course didn't quite get it right?

An extreme example, but illustrates some of the fight that I see here...

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 10:40 PM
NavyFlyer wrote:
- It seems clear that conceptually, swept wing
- aeordynamic advances could only be credited to those
- who understood why such a wing might be desireable.
- I would agree that German engineers first worked
- this one out.

That would be my point too.

Although I am fairly sure that Lilenthal tried a
modestly swept wing (from memory, not backed up
by checking photos again as I don't have those
books any more) and I think Pilcher also tried one,
and these were aviation pioneers, the sweep was
to solve a qualitativey different problems (centre
of lift issues) than the use of swept wings today.
The Germans in the 1940s, followed by NACA in 1945
seem to have come to the conclusion that sweep is
important for transonic flight. With regard to the
idea that the USA got their first, NACA and Boeing
seemed to find the German developments pivotal. This
is not to say that they were the only people looking
at wing sweep for transonic flight, but that the
German contribution was very important.

Isegrim - with regard to Cayley's glider - it was
not swept wing - it was more of a delta, but that
was more due to a heritage in kites than anything
else. I suppose in a sense Cayley lives on in the
hanglider.

- As to Northrup versus the Gotha--who cares? It does
- seem that Northrup is the only builder who ever did
- anything practical with the concept. If nothing
- else, they should get credit for the practical
- application of the flying wing concept, dating back
- to work begun in the 30s and continued on through
- this very day in the B-2 bomber. In that same vein,
- stealth technology could only be said to be invented
- by those who understood its implications. Perhaps
- the Germans get partial credit, but it wasn't really
- effectively applied until just recently, and then,
- by American builders.

To give the Hortens some credit, the stealth aspect
could not have been further developed by them, even
if they had recognised it, as the war end. Some forms
of stealth technology have been applied by others, namely
radar absorbent paint, applied to UK tanks and aircraft
from the late 1980s, but the USA seems to be the only
nation that has taken the 1950s radar reflection equations
and created aircraft that conform to them and also fly
AFAIK. Given the complexities involved, it takes a nation
with a big budget to take the risk on such unconventional
aircraft these days. More often it seems the more
conventional route is taken. In the UK it seems that
the last times radical designs were tried were the
Sauders Roe rocket interceptor, the Harrier, and the TSR2,
and only the Harrier was truly successful (although the
TSR2 begat the Concorde, which was a partial success).

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 11:11 PM
My definition of invention is the first person to understand and have a working model. There were working models of engines before Otto, and working rockets well before 1936. I need to stud swept wings a little more, but it looks like the Germans may actually have this one. At least I can admit it. Issy still has yet to admit he was wrong about the XB/YB/B-35 project and its existance.

Gib

WWRenevant wrote:
- An extreme example, but illustrates some of the
- fight that I see here...
-
-
-
-
-
-



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 11:17 PM
Any reply to this Issy? Or are you going to ignore this till someone post something for you to go on another tangent and ignore this.

Gibbage1 wrote:
-
- Issy Said 3 pages back.
-
- "Northop was toying with it, too, though the
- Northrop fantasy bomber you want to add to Il-2
- never even got to the prototype stage, while the
- Gotha did. "
-
-
- Now your saying it never got past the prototype
- stage so thus never existed. Flip flop flip flop.
- Do you finally admit you were wrong?
-
- That brings me to to this darling of a quote.
-
- Issy said on this page.
-
- I wonder, which of the pathetic maggots Gibbage
- kisses from the underneath here EVER proved me
- wrong?
-
- Well I just proved you wrong. And you still cant
- admit it.
-
- Gib
-
-
-
- No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 02:37 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Mr. Loftin resides in Newport News, Virginia.

So do I.

=====

I also find the assertion that swept wing technology was unavailable in the US prior to WWII absurd. Nothing is further from the truth.

Bell was interested in decreasing drag in future fighters and incorporated various innovative features in its XP-59 Model 20, including swept wings. And this feature wasn't included to effect CoG, swept wings were designed specifically to enhance speed by decreasing drag.

And as you know, developement of the XP-59 Model 20 began well before the US involvement in WWII, and ended in 1941.

In the US, some companies had the recognized the benefits of swept wings, some did not.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Message Edited on 10/22/0306:01AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 02:55 AM
I am lost too.

yay!
<img scr="http://www.typcap.com/sanjaypersonal/ganjaman.gif">

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 05:19 PM
Lets not let this little jem slip down without a reply from Issy. Anything yet?

Gibbage1 wrote:
- Any reply to this Issy? Or are you going to ignore
- this till someone post something for you to go on
- another tangent and ignore this.
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
--
-- Issy Said 3 pages back.
--
-- "Northop was toying with it, too, though the
-- Northrop fantasy bomber you want to add to Il-2
-- never even got to the prototype stage, while the
-- Gotha did. "
--
--
-- Now your saying it never got past the prototype
-- stage so thus never existed. Flip flop flip flop.
-- Do you finally admit you were wrong?
--
-- That brings me to to this darling of a quote.
--
-- Issy said on this page.
--
-- I wonder, which of the pathetic maggots Gibbage
-- kisses from the underneath here EVER proved me
-- wrong?
--
-- Well I just proved you wrong. And you still cant
-- admit it.
--
-- Gib
--
--
--
-- No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET
-
-
-
-
- No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 06:17 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Bell was interested in decreasing drag in future
- fighters and incorporated various innovative
- features in its XP-59 Model 20, including swept
- wings. And this feature wasn't included to effect
- CoG, swept wings were designed specifically to
- enhance speed by decreasing drag.
-
- And as you know, developement of the XP-59 Model 20
- began well before the US involvement in WWII, and
- ended in 1941.

The XP59 Model 20 derived from the Model 16. Neither
were built, even in prototype form, the competition
for which designs (including the Model 16) were
tendered for was after the begining of WW2 for most
people. It had a pusher configuration with twin booms
and 20 degree sweep.

The XP59A was not in anyway related to the
Model 16-derived XP59 It had straight wings, which
suggests that Bell weren't exactly confident about
the idea of swept wings for efficiency. Bell did
certainly do actual physical research on swept wings
post war. I don't know of any Bell test aircraft
pre-war or during the war which featured swept wings,
but I am prepared to be corrected on this.

Artists's impressions on line here
http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn2192/x-planes-bell.htm


The XP-55 is much more of a swept wing design, so
by way of visual comparasion:

http://sfstation.members.easyspace.com/xp55.htm



Message Edited on 10/22/03 05:21PM by AaronGT

Message Edited on 10/22/0305:24PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 06:34 PM
Northrop's fighter design, XP-56, flying Sept '43.

http://www.wmof.com/xp56test.jpg

http://www.wmof.com/xp56.jpg


http://northrop.host.sk/images/XP-56_3.JPG

http://northrop.host.sk/images/xp-56_schematic_top.gif

http://northrop.host.sk/images/xp-56_schematic_front.gif