PDA

View Full Version : Germans - best aero engineers of WW2?



MEGILE
10-11-2006, 12:36 PM
The 1946 addon got me thinking about the leap in technology nations made during ww2, and really how much further the Germans got.

While the UK was trying to squeeze 2,000 HP out of the Napier Sabre, and the Americans were coppying old Focke Wulf designs ala. the Bearcat, the Germans were dealing with Swept wings, slats, stealth technology, the first Jet fighter into mass production and were going super sonic way before the allies. The Allied advances in high octane fuel were obsolete to the new jet engines in the Luftwaffe.
Even after the war the US was struggling to figure out why P-47s wouldn't go supersonic in a dive.

I was thinking, if only the war had gone on for another six months the amazing designs on the drawing board may have become reality... and just maybe would have turned the tide of the war.

MEGILE
10-11-2006, 12:36 PM
The 1946 addon got me thinking about the leap in technology nations made during ww2, and really how much further the Germans got.

While the UK was trying to squeeze 2,000 HP out of the Napier Sabre, and the Americans were coppying old Focke Wulf designs ala. the Bearcat, the Germans were dealing with Swept wings, slats, stealth technology, the first Jet fighter into mass production and were going super sonic way before the allies. The Allied advances in high octane fuel were obsolete to the new jet engines in the Luftwaffe.
Even after the war the US was struggling to figure out why P-47s wouldn't go supersonic in a dive.

I was thinking, if only the war had gone on for another six months the amazing designs on the drawing board may have become reality... and just maybe would have turned the tide of the war.

berg417448
10-11-2006, 12:39 PM
Go fishing much?

LStarosta
10-11-2006, 12:41 PM
Yes, but Jesus Christ was on our team.

DuxCorvan
10-11-2006, 12:41 PM
Just browse post-war allied aircraft factories staffs, and find the nazi engineer. Every company had one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

KIMURA
10-11-2006, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
I was thinking, if only the war had gone on for another six months the amazing designs on the drawing board may have become reality... and just maybe would have turned the tide of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although it smells after a upcoming flamer.

Disagreed to the topic starter. Germany was exhausted by lack on sources, high blood toll, destroyed cities and lack on food and tired of the long lasting war. Even the best jet design would not turn the tide. The superiority on Allied quantity was overwhelming no Superwaffe could turned that.

Irish_Rogues
10-11-2006, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The superiority on Allied quantity was overwhelming no Superwaffe could turned that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that I disagree in this case, but post WWII history could make a strong arguement against it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ultraHun
10-11-2006, 12:55 PM
Megile, are you possibly British?

In that case I would like to return the compliment.

The British built

(i) useful, competitive planes
(ii) at the moment of need
(iii) with only limited resources available

This makes for up the best aero engineers of WWII.

bazzaah2
10-11-2006, 12:59 PM
Isn't that just a bit of a myth - not that the Germans had superb engineers, they did of course - but that the Allies were somehow plodding along blindly with outdated tech while the Germans were storming ahead? Only one area where that was true - rocketry - and that was mainly because of Werner von Braun.

No way would a few wonder jets make any appreciable difference to the outcome of the war. The 262 in '43 is possibly another matter but come late '44 early '45, no way. Not even the Lerche II (had it not fallen over).

AFJ_rsm
10-11-2006, 01:03 PM
Megile

To respond to your original (germans, best aero engineers?) question with a single word: yes

But people here are either too american or too british to accept it and move on.

MM-Zorin
10-11-2006, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ultraHun:
Megile, are you possibly British?

In that case I would like to return the compliment.

The British built

(i) useful, competitive planes
(ii) at the moment of need
(iii) with only limited resources available

This makes for up the best aero engineers of WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

(i) the Germans did too
(ii) they developed most of their early planes out of civil designs(planed as military machines but still under a lot of restrictions), especially bombers, which takes a bit more engineering qualitys I'd say
(iii) the Germans managed to build better planes and engines out of workarounds cause they had never enough high quality materials

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-11-2006, 01:05 PM
The best? NO

The most advanced? ABSOLUTELY

But it was more likely the focus of direction than being brighter/better. I could play Devil's advocate and ask: "Were the American scientists better than the German scientists in WWII?

We achieved success in the manhattan project before anyone else could develope a functional Atomic weapon. The answer is more likely the same though. The focus and volume of resources dedicated to its development were considerably higher for the Americans.


TB

LStarosta
10-11-2006, 01:07 PM
im pretty good at calculus

AFJ_rsm
10-11-2006, 01:07 PM
I stand corrected
The most advanced

Oleg: "TgD Thunderbolt is new best"

Gibbage1
10-11-2006, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
I was thinking, if only the war had gone on for another six months the amazing designs on the drawing board may have become reality... and just maybe would have turned the tide of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its been studied by a great deal of aeronotical engineers, but truth is most, if not all of the stuff you drool on the Luft46 web page simply would not of flown. The Luft46 design are touted as some great engineering feat, but in reality, getting them to work would of been. Anyone can design something that looks cool. The US had a great deal of advanced designs not only on the drawing board, but in flight! Here you talk about the great advancement of the German swept wing. Did you know the US had swept wing fighters flying in 1939-1940?

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/xp55-1.jpg

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Northrop/xp-56/xp-56_1.jpg

Also, when did the Germans go super sonic? Thats a total myth. Any aerodynamic engineer will tell you that the Me-262 and Me-163 is not capable of super sonic flight no matter what the pilot may or may not have felt.

Your being fed propaganda, and your biting hook, line, and sinker. Do some research yourself instead of reading the forums for your history.

ultraHun
10-11-2006, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
I was thinking, if only the war had gone on for another six months the amazing designs on the drawing board may have become reality... and just maybe would have turned the tide of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its been studied by a great deal of aeronotical engineers, but truth is most, if not all of the stuff you drool on the Luft46 web page simply would not of flown. The Luft46 design are touted as some great engineering feat, but in reality, getting them to work would of been. Anyone can design something that looks cool. The US had a great deal of advanced designs not only on the drawing board, but in flight! Here you talk about the great advancement of the German swept wing. Did you know the US had swept wing fighters flying in 1939-1940?

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/xp55-1.jpg

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Northrop/xp-56/xp-56_1.jpg

Also, when did the Germans go super sonic? Thats a total myth. Any aerodynamic engineer will tell you that the Me-262 and Me-163 is not capable of super sonic flight no matter what the pilot may or may not have felt.

Your being fed propaganda, and your biting hook, line, and sinker. Do some research yourself instead of reading the forums for your history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually these pictures illustrate why neither the American nor the German were the best or advanced aero engineers during WWII.

So the US had swept wings fighters in 1939 to 1940? Why weren't they brought to frontline service? We can only speculate about the details

- conventional designs were more cost-effective
- the maximum speed was not in the range for a swept wing to become effective

But it does not matter.

For the German side: Probably the Me-262 achieved speeds where swept wing design became effective, however, it came too late for its intended purpose: bomber intercept. Thus, it was an engineering and project management failure.

The award "best aeronautical engineers of WWII" goes either to the British or the Russian for building exactly the planes needed to win the war, at the right time, and for the money they could afford.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, if you can show me on financial terms that

total value of german fighters shot on average
by a particular allied fighter
----------------------------------------------
price of a single plane of this allied type

is better for US than UK or USSR planes.

P.S.: "most advanced" is just the most useful, else it is a white elephant.

HayateAce
10-11-2006, 01:41 PM
Indians make great doctors.

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/csk/CSK225/KS13788.jpg

faustnik
10-11-2006, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ultraHun:
building exactly the planes needed to win the war, at the right time, and for the money they could afford. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read this and all I thought was "P-51". The right plane at the right time.

Viper2005_
10-11-2006, 01:55 PM
The Germans had some very good scientists and engineers. But then again so did the rest of the world.

The major difference was that due in part to the deteriorating war situation they were inclined to try out some of the higher risk ideas put forward.

Had push come to shove, some rather "interesting" British and American fighters would probably have seen the light of day.

The Germans had a lot of knowledge in certain areas, and post war this was exploited by the Allies. But there is a big difference between having an edge in certain areas (air cooled turbine blades for example) and having an overall lead. My understanding is that actually by 1945 the Germans, British, Americans and Soviets were producing aeroplanes of roughly similar performance.

ultraHun
10-11-2006, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by ultraHun:
building exactly the planes needed to win the war, at the right time, and for the money they could afford.


I read this and all I thought was "P-51". The right plane at the right time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do agree (1944/45). Yet, so was the Me-109 (1939), the Spit (1940), the FW 190 (1941/42(?)), the La-5 (1943).

Then, I would like to know the "bang for your buck" ...

EDIT: P-51 finished LW off. However, all put together, I still award the prize to the British.

Bewolf
10-11-2006, 02:12 PM
Actually, given the dire situation in high quality fuel and natural ressources, espcially high quality alloys, I'd say what the germans did was quite a feat, especially in light of building more then competetive fighters till the very end. Had Germany the ressources as the allies had, who knows.

Btw, the argument the german rushed designs into production out of dispair is kinda flawed. That is kinda true to the very latest developments like the Salamander or the "Kraftei". But planes that proved to be revolutionary were developed from the 1940ies on, like the Me262. They could have been in regular service even earlier if development was not given such low priority. (and no, I am not speaking of the infamous Me262=bomber legend)

Just some food for thinking.

BorisGruschenko
10-11-2006, 02:17 PM
Time to swing the flamewar crowbar again, right ? Well, buddies, of course german concepts were superior in those days - corresponding to the fact that most of the nobel prizes during early 20th century went to german scientists. Look at the marvellous thermodynamic devices the allies built after wwII: ever seen a Lada ? Owned a Rover ? No ? At least the ami made it to the moon - endorsed by Wernher von Braun and his bunch who slightly changed the concept behind their "america-rocket". Oh, and surely the "swept wing fighter" posted above is a potemkin-plane. Just look at the fake shadow.

darkhorizon11
10-11-2006, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
The 1946 addon got me thinking about the leap in technology nations made during ww2, and really how much further the Germans got.

While the UK was trying to squeeze 2,000 HP out of the Napier Sabre, and the Americans were coppying old Focke Wulf designs ala. the Bearcat, the Germans were dealing with Swept wings, slats, stealth technology, the first Jet fighter into mass production and were going super sonic way before the allies. The Allied advances in high octane fuel were obsolete to the new jet engines in the Luftwaffe.
Even after the war the US was struggling to figure out why P-47s wouldn't go supersonic in a dive.

I was thinking, if only the war had gone on for another six months the amazing designs on the drawing board may have become reality... and just maybe would have turned the tide of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just a one-sided look at an argument that has never been settled in this forum. These sort of traits of bravery, ingenuity, and sheer smarts aren't limited to a certain side. We could go back and forth for days posting countless examples of both ingenious and stupidity on all sides of the conflict.

Also, remember that the Allies were WINNING THE WAR! THere was no need for uber-jets in 1943 and early 1944 for the Allies for we were winning air superiority and spent more of our efforts devising tactics to end the war as quick as possible. In fact production was scaled down by late 1944 since the Allies knew they already had the tools to finish the job. The war wasn't won or lost by some single type of aircraft or tank or gun, those were the tools used to do the job. It was won on the production floors of Detriot, London, Glasgow, Moscow, Chicago, the Ural Mountains, and the shipping yards and ports of Archangelsk, New York, San Francisco, Liverpool, Brighton, etc.

No aircraft or other innovation stem the massive onslaught from the air or the ground. The fact that Germany was being outproduced by something like 5 to 1.

WOLFMondo
10-11-2006, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:


While the UK was trying to squeeze 2,000 HP out of the Napier Sabre, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was trying to squeeze 3000 out :P The Sabre VA did it very easily in 1943.

darkhorizon11
10-11-2006, 02:35 PM
Also remember that the effectiveness of an innovation is just as important as the innovation itself.

The swept wing Me262, as cool as it was had a very much nil affect on the outcome of the war.

The Allies on the otherhand were working on antisub technology to protect their shipping which was a highly vulnerable link, along with smart shells capable automatically exploding within a certain range of their target, and all sorts of radar capable of being retrofitted to aircraft.

These innovations in my opinion had a much greater effect on the outcome of the war than the jet engine or many of the other technologies that the Germans were more advanced in.

In fact, the most important and effective technology the Germans developed was low light infrared technology. Giving their tanks the huge advantage to move and fire accurately at night. Luckily these systems weren't implemented until the Spring of 1945 when it was pretty much over anyway. Now that would have had a far greater effect than X4 missle.

ploughman
10-11-2006, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BorisGruschenko:
...corresponding to the fact that most of the nobel prizes during early 20th century went to german scientists... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might find this site (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Nobels.html) interesting.

Gibbage1
10-11-2006, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ultraHun:
Actually these pictures illustrate why neither the American nor the German were the best or advanced aero engineers during WWII.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that there was no "best" engineers. They all had amazing talen, and a lot of it went un-realized due too politics, budget, and limited thinking of the higher-ups.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
So the US had swept wings fighters in 1939 to 1940? Why weren't they brought to frontline service? We can only speculate about the details
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My speculation was politics. Advanced designs scared politiicians who wrote the checks at the end of the day. The two examples I posted above did not work for some reasons, but they could of been fixed. P-55 needed a good engine, and P-56 needed a re-design. My point about posting them is that the US built and flew aircraft that looked every pit as advanced as the stuff people tout on the Luft46 page, and it was done in 1939-40, not 46! Even the B-35 program started in 1939, but people point too the Gotha and say "Whooo, aaaa!!! look how ADVANCED it is!" and forget Northrop was flying wing in the 30's!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
But it does not matter.

For the German side: Probably the Me-262 achieved speeds where swept wing design became effective, however, it came too late for its intended purpose: bomber intercept. Thus, it was an engineering and project management failure.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

May I point out that the P-80 flew faster then the Me-262, with staight wings, and 1 engine? How much did the Me-262 REALLY benifit speed wise from the swept wings? Also, the degree of sweep was not all that drastic. Even the DC3 had some degree of sweep in its wings!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The award "best aeronautical engineers of WWII" goes either to the British or the Russian for building exactly the planes needed to win the war, at the right time, and for the money they could afford.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not agree with the Russians or Brits for this. Its easy to design a short range and nimble fighter. It takes much much more engineering to design a LONG rang and numble fighter, and only 1 country was successfull at doing just that. The USA. And we did it 3 times. P-47, P-51, and P-38. No other country had good, long range aircraft that could compete on even terms with the short rang defensive aircraft. Just look what good the Bf-109E series did the German bombers during BoB, or how the Spitfire was almost purely defensive the entire war because of its short legs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I am willing to be convinced otherwise, if you can show me on financial terms that

total value of german fighters shot on average
by a particular allied fighter
----------------------------------------------
price of a single plane of this allied type

is better for US than UK or USSR planes.

P.S.: "most advanced" is just the most useful, else it is a white elephant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im not getting into the math. Its pointless. In war, money had no real use. Lets put it into perspective. After BoB, both the 109 and Spitfire were pure defensive. You dont win a war on the defensive. Even the Me-262 was defensive with its short rang. P-51, P-47 and P-38 were pure offensive fighters.

luftluuver
10-11-2006, 02:58 PM
That is true Gibbage, for the Spits defended the 8th AF's heavy bombers on the initial outward leg and the last return leg of their missions.

Here is a hint. Don't tell any 2TAF Spitfire pilots they flew defensive missions.

Bewolf
10-11-2006, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would not agree with the Russians or Brits for this. Its easy to design a short range and nimble fighter. It takes much much more engineering to design a LONG rang and numble fighter, and only 1 country was successfull at doing just that. The USA. And we did it 3 times. P-47, P-51, and P-38. No other country had good, long range aircraft that could compete on even terms with the short rang defensive aircraft. Just look what good the Bf-109E series did the German bombers during BoB, or how the Spitfire was almost purely defensive the entire war because of its short legs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Zero

ploughman
10-11-2006, 03:05 PM
Eh? First you say "I agree that there was no "best" engineers. They all had amazing talen, and a lot of it went un-realized due too politics, budget, and limited thinking of the higher-ups."

And then you get hung up on Spits and 109s.

And then you say "...Its easy to design a short range and nimble fighter. It takes much much more engineering to design a LONG rang and numble fighter, and only 1 country was successfull at doing just that. The USA. And we did it 3 times. P-47, P-51, and P-38. No other country had good, long range aircraft that could compete on even terms with the short rang defensive aircraft. Just look what good the Bf-109E series did the German bombers during BoB, or how the Spitfire was almost purely defensive the entire war because of its short legs."

Well I reckon the Brits should get half a point for the Merlin that dragged one those excellent long range designs to Berlin and back.

F6_Ace
10-11-2006, 03:12 PM
Considering how much easier it must be to design things when your country isn't under constant attack, they did very well indeed. They produced some key designs which were copied extensively and they executed existing designs capably.

They were also good at designing armchairs

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v393/Xenolithe/mein-kampfy-chair.jpg

Gibbage1
10-11-2006, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Well I reckon the Brits should get half a point for the Merlin that dragged one those excellent long range designs to Berlin and back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets see a normal Spitfire cram enough fuel into its design to make it too Berlin and back, with ammo.

Yes, some models could of made the trip, but they were recon aircraft with no armorment. When the B-17 was pounding the heard of Germany, there were no Spitfires there to defend them, and even the 109's had to run home short on fuel after a few passes, and they were over there own base! Hell, the P-51's had enough fuel to fallow the Me-262's home, shoot them on landing, and then fly home. The limited rang is a huge drawback for fighters. Designing a heavy long range aircraft that could still fight with lighter short range aircraft took a lot of engineering. Something no other country was able to do during the war.

Im I saying the US engineers are more advanced overall? No! Im simply saying that in the field of long range fighters, the US was tops, be sure! But thats only 1 field in a world of many fields. Russia was #1 in short range numble and cheap aircraft. Something the US engineers could not match. German engineers were #1 at over-engineering stuff, and #1 at being desperate to push un-proven technology into a desperate battle. Each country had its own field of expertise, but in general were very equal.

Chuck_Older
10-11-2006, 03:48 PM
Germans best anything of WWII? Americans best anything? Brits best anything? Soviets best Anything? French? Chinese? Japanese? Thais? Phillipinos? Ethiopians? Aussies? New Zealanders? Tuks? Iraqis? Canucks? Greeks? Danish? Norwegians? Italians?

Oh yeah, American engineers were dumb, stupid old Jack Northrop, nice unstable plane. Glen Curtiss, learn to run a business, moron (Ok, partially true). Hey Kindelberger, get some Germans on staff and build something decent. Grumman, build something that Focke-Wulf hasn't already for Pete's sake. Of course, only Germans know how things work. Of course! They are German

Sidney Camm, what a dummy! Gurevich was an idiot. Mikoyan who?? No good engineer ever worked for that SuperMachu-Pichu firm or whatever they called it, either

Too bad they all weren't German Engineers, the Soviets would have had Moon bases and the Lerche would have been a primary trainer for the RAF. Of course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Only a German can make an advanced design http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif Good thing the US kidnapped the right German engineers, they could never have figured out rockets, it's like brain surgery or something. Face it- the Americans were never intended to leave the ground, because they are so dumb. What was the subject? Germans is the answer to the problem. More Germans. There's a Teutonic Gene that makes them the best aero engineers. Hey! That design isn't good enough- Quick! Put five more German Engineers on order! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Oh say, what's that shiny thing on that line? Gee I don't know but it looks tasty http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I think I'll swallow it and see what happens next

Megile, you're slipping http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
10-11-2006, 03:52 PM
gibb, i think your forgetting the zero http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and the russian designers where good. there task was different tho...

for western designers, there was the ability to reasonably pick whatever materials they wanted, for the russian designers, there was alot of pressure to use as little metal as possible, tobe made as quickly as possible, and you could *not* stop production to implement changes...

theres several types of engeering/design, and to produce something quickly, cheaply, with limited materials is a great challenge...

262 had swept wings for COG/ COL (center of lift), just like swordfish, il2, etc...

GerritJ9
10-11-2006, 04:05 PM
Fact remains that the He-280- often overlooked- could have entered service in 1942. NOT ONE Allied jet fighter design was as far advanced in 1941. It never entered service so we don't know how good (or bad) it might have been- but it was way ahead of anything Britain, the US or the USSR would have had in 1942.
("46" does not include Henschel's Hs-132 which in my opinion would have been a far more realistic addition than the Lerche. It was actually built, but the prototype was captured by Soviet forces before it could be flown and it ended up in the USSR. Wonder if the Soviets actually tested it.........)

Viper2005_
10-11-2006, 04:15 PM
What is it with swept wings in this thread?

The Tigermoth has a swept wing for goodness' sake!

So does the DC-3.

The 262's swept wing was really more about stability and control than transonic performance. The same could be said of the DC-3 and that entertaining flying wing posted earlier.

The Germans knew about swept wings and the area rule, but they didn't ever actually use either of them because the rest of their technology just wasn't there.

They had some very clever engineers who in certain respects put Jules Verne to shame, but they didn't actually get to hardware with their really clever stuff. The Sänger Amerika Bomber (http://www.luft46.com/misc/sanger.html) bomber is a classic example.

I'd pay good money for a sim that let me fly an accurate model of that! No need for AI - just provide a realistic FM and offer up a âŁ1000 prize for the first pilot to hand fly a successful* profile...

*ie hit the target, land on the eastern front and survive.

MEGILE
10-11-2006, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Good thing the US kidnapped the right German engineers, they could never have figured out rockets, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100%

Chuck_Older
10-11-2006, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GerritJ9:
Fact remains that the He-280- often overlooked- could have entered service in 1942. NOT ONE Allied jet fighter design was as far advanced in 1941. It never entered service so we don't know how good (or bad) it might have been- but it was way ahead of anything Britain, the US or the USSR would have had in 1942.
("46" does not include Henschel's Hs-132 which in my opinion would have been a far more realistic addition than the Lerche. It was actually built, but the prototype was captured by Soviet forces before it could be flown and it ended up in the USSR. Wonder if the Soviets actually tested it.........) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the fact also remains that this does not prove what any country was capable of, only what one country acheived

If for example, the USA had emphasised advanced design in the USAAC as did the Germans with the Luftwaffe, what could have been the result?

The assumed conclusion is that the Germans acheived these feats because they were the only ones capable, instead of the only ones in the enviable position of having the talent, means, and full support to do it.

At roughly the same time as these German "Miracles" were being begun, the USAAC had to do things like fool Congress into thinking that "Pursuit" planes like the P-40 were for defense only, to get funding. Where would the He-280 have been in that climate? What would the P-80 have been like had they been pushed forward with the German climate, and when?

Nobody knows. But the opportunity for Germany to take that next technological leap was there, and they took it. The Italians had been doing work with ducted-fan type power plants that looked very promising and were technically advanced, too. But nobody recalls how brilliant Italian Aero engineers were. People point to the sexy German jets and say, "See? Proof!". Today, the Italian designs are in books called things like "100 worst aircraft". At the time, they were promising paths.

The stage was set for a technological next step, Germany was at the point it could take that step. It was the result of many things, including but not limited to technical expertise. They took the step and made it work. Bravo. other countries with germany's series of circumstances could be argued to be capable of the same thing, but only Germany was historically in that position.

Rather than saying they had the best aero engineers, it can be said that they had the ONLY group of aero enginners who could take the tests of being the first into the Jet Age and not screw it all up, which is something not quite the same as being "best". And that ability to not screw it all up came from a unique set of circumstances set up by the way their country worked and prioritised funds and materials and favor

Sergio_101
10-11-2006, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Good thing the US kidnapped the right German engineers, they could never have figured out rockets, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bovine excretion!
Good thing for Dr. Robert Goddard developing
liquid fueled rockets in the 1920's and 30's.
If not for that Von Braughn and his team
would never have got off the ground!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

By the way, Goddard is NOT German. He's an American. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
Sergio

RCAF_Irish_403
10-11-2006, 04:29 PM
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/jds1978/trinity2.jpg

Viper2005_
10-11-2006, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GerritJ9:
Fact remains that the He-280- often overlooked- could have entered service in 1942. NOT ONE Allied jet fighter design was as far advanced in 1941. It never entered service so we don't know how good (or bad) it might have been- but it was way ahead of anything Britain, the US or the USSR would have had in 1942.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frank Whittle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle) could have had this country flying jet fighters in the early 1930s if he'd been given funding - he invented the turbojet in the 1920s. They didn't and he had to resort to private capital (made difficult to obtain by the Official Secrets Act). First run was April the 12th 1937.

The chances are that had Whittle been supported WWII might well not have happened in the first place because Hitler would have seen the writing on the wall. Written in VERY BIG LETTERS.

He had the turbofan nailed before the end of WWII. He also had reheat. He was a genius. Even Stanley ****** (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_******) couldn't improve the efficiency of his compressor (designed for 80% efficiency he managed 79% efficiency, an incredible performance given that the pressure ratio and mass flow were much greater than had ever been attempted before. For comparison, the Merlin's supercharger was amongst the best of the war, but it never came close...).

Making the jet engine work given his extremely limited funding is IMO one of the greatest achievements ever made. I'd rank it alongside Concorde and the US Space "Program" (when in Rome I suppose, but how I hate their spelling!). His engines started Rolls-Royce, General Electric and Pratt & Whitney in the jet engine business, and indirectly gave the Russians a leg up (thanks to the Labour Party... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif ).

DomJScott
10-11-2006, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Well I reckon the Brits should get half a point for the Merlin that dragged one those excellent long range designs to Berlin and back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually whole point because with the brits the P51 may well not have existed. The P51 was a british spec for a long range fighter. They didn't get the UK companies to design it simply because the where overburdened as it was.

Gibbage1
10-11-2006, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
If for example, the USA had emphasised advanced design in the USAAC as did the Germans with the Luftwaffe, what could have been the result?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something FAR FAR better then many of the German paper aircraft, in 1941.

May I present the viewers who think the Germans had a monopoly on interesting jet designs, the Lockheed Model L-133.

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L133/L133.htm

Now, just think what would of happened of they backed that project! The US could of entered the war with a 600MPH+ jet in 42.

Chuck_Older
10-11-2006, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Well I reckon the Brits should get half a point for the Merlin that dragged one those excellent long range designs to Berlin and back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually whole point because with the brits the P51 may well not have existed. The P51 was a british spec for a long range fighter. They didn't get the UK companies to design it simply because the where overburdened as it was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, maybe not. NAA was supposed to make P-40s, and they decided they could build a better P-40. They fulfilled a british spec, but were not told how to do it by the Brits. Those same people would still have been innovative and motivated had the Brits not come knocking, of course. Perhasp they would have even made a better aircraft had time constraints been removed, due to non-foreign demand? No one can say, but I find it interesting that it's never considered that NAA could have possibly made a better aircraft without the Brit influence, it's just stated that it ws because of that influnce it was made. The P-51 may never have existed, but what did the existence of the P-51 preclude? Nobody will ever know

SkyChimp
10-11-2006, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Yes, but Jesus Christ was on our team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he flew a Mustang.

faustnik
10-11-2006, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
If for example, the USA had emphasised advanced design in the USAAC as did the Germans with the Luftwaffe, what could have been the result?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say advanced design was emphasized in the USAAC. The P-38 was a very advanced design for its day. The P-39 was also novel in many ways. The P-51 used an advanced wing design to and ducting to reduce drag giving it its fantastic high speed performance and range.

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2006, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LStarosta:
Yes, but Jesus Christ was on our team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he flew a Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That could explain why the P-51 was 50mph faster than the Luftwaffe. Yes, advance google...

faster than the luftwaffe

and read the cached -51H link. Its really true.

Viper2005_
10-11-2006, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Maybe, maybe not. NAA was supposed to make P-40s, and they decided they could build a better P-40. They fulfilled a british spec, but were not told how to do it by the Brits. Those same people would still have been innovative and motivated had the Brits not come knocking, of course. Perhasp they would have even made a better aircraft had time constraints been removed, due to non-foreign demand? No one can say, but I find it interesting that it's never considered that NAA could have possibly made a better aircraft without the Brit influence, it's just stated that it ws because of that influnce it was made. The P-51 may never have existed, but what did the existence of the P-51 preclude? Nobody will ever know </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, look what happened when North American adopted British load factors in their design - P-51F, P-51G and eventually P-51H, all of which were superior to the earlier "American" P-51s.

And don't forget that the K-14 was actually a 1943 vintage British Mk.II Gyroscopic Gunsight built under license...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_gunsight

Gibbage1
10-11-2006, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I'd say advanced design was emphasized in the USAAC. The P-38 was a very advanced design for its day. The P-39 was also novel in many ways. The P-51 used an advanced wing design to and ducting to reduce drag giving it its fantastic high speed performance and range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-38 and P-39 did have some advanced features, but were still conventional at its core. The USAAC did propose a un-conventional fighter and 3 company's competed. That gave birth too the P-54, P-55, and P-56. 3 VERY un-conventional aircraft. All 3 designs had problems. P-54 and P-55 being all engine related. The USAAC dropped all 3 designs and never contenued investing in non-conventional designs after that even though many companies offered. Some US aircraft companies contenued non-conventional designs even without government funding. No matter how good the design was, unless it was conventional, the USAAC would not buy it. A good example of this is the B-42 Mix Master.

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Douglas-XB-42/XB-42_3.jpg

400MPH medium bomber that performed VERY well in 1943. Just think how hard a time the FW and 109 drivers would of had trying to shoot down a bomber that was just as fast as them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
10-11-2006, 05:05 PM
Does the American adoption of British radars count?

Would the P-80 have been as good as it was and appearing when it did, without the help of the Brits?

Chuck_Older
10-11-2006, 05:05 PM
Viper-

Yes, but this implies that nothing better could have been made by those people. They were more than useful subcontractors, you know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Why wouldn't they take advantage of good input from their Allies?

Sergio_101
10-11-2006, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/jds1978/trinity2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BRAVO!

Oh, and yes Luftlover.
The Brits developed microwave RADAR first
but they could not manufacture the magnetrons
in large numbers.
A crusty old tool maker at a small firm
called "Raytheon" stamped them out and assembled
them like layer cakes.

I'll add another invention from America, that
no one else came close on.
RADAR proximity fuses. They were operational
by the first battle of Guadalcanal allowing
the shooting down of Japanese planes by 5"
Naval guns.

Sergio
.
.
.

SkyChimp
10-11-2006, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Does the American adoption of British radars count?

Would the P-80 have been as good as it was and appearing when it did, without the help of the Brits? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germans invented the magnetron, and the Americans invented the cavity magnetron. Brits can thank the US for their radar. BTW, the US had its own working radar before the Brits "gave us the gift of radar."

Sergio_101
10-11-2006, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Zero </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, the A6M-* series had wonderful range.
The Zero was by far the best carrier fighter
in the world on Dec7, 1941.
No carrier fighter that saw service during WWII
could match it's range.

And there is no doubt it could dogfight on at least
equal terms with any US Navy fighter before the Hellcat.

Sergio

Sergio_101
10-11-2006, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Does the American adoption of British radars count?

Would the P-80 have been as good as it was and appearing when it did, without the help of the Brits? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germans invented the magnetron, and the Americans invented the cavity magnetron. Brits can thank the US for their radar. BTW, the US had its own working radar before the Brits "gave us the gift of radar." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a US designed and built RADAR at
Hawaii on Dec7. 1941. It did in fact
detect the Japanese long before they
arrived!
They wrote it off to a delivery of B-17s due
in that morning.

sergio

fordfan25
10-11-2006, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Indians make great doctors.

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/csk/CSK225/KS13788.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>not in madison florida. Mohamad Raffie is a local MD from indea and every one with half a brain stays far away. resone thay have half a brain is he removed the other half tryn to give them a flu shot lol

fordfan25
10-11-2006, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Does the American adoption of British radars count?

Would the P-80 have been as good as it was and appearing when it did, without the help of the Brits? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germans invented the magnetron, and the Americans invented the cavity magnetron. Brits can thank the US for their radar. BTW, the US had its own working radar before the Brits "gave us the gift of radar." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>shhhhhhh your disrupting the flow of history as beleaved in the UBI forums chimp.

luftluuver
10-11-2006, 06:11 PM
Should have been more specific &gt; a/c radar.

bhunter2112
10-11-2006, 06:17 PM
Nazi germany had some advanced stuff although if you research so did the allies. The allies often kept the "old" stuff because it was working.
Germany would have had atomic bombs dropped on her until she surrendered. The US did not fool around back then like we do today. No tech advances would have brought the war to 1946 for the germans.

SkyChimp
10-11-2006, 06:17 PM
Brits often claim they "gave" Americans radar. Actually, that's nonsense. Good and capable sets were installed on US warships in the late '30s, and many sets were in use on ships nd on the ground by the time of Pearl Harbor. In fact, during the "Tizard" mission, it was discovered that the US had sets fully the equal, and in some cases superior, to British radar.

HayateAce
10-11-2006, 06:22 PM
Mmmmm, UBI "History".


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Blutarski2004
10-11-2006, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BorisGruschenko:
Time to swing the flamewar crowbar again, right ? Well, buddies, of course german concepts were superior in those days - corresponding to the fact that most of the nobel prizes during early 20th century went to german scientists. Look at the marvellous thermodynamic devices the allies built after wwII: ever seen a Lada ? Owned a Rover ? No ? At least the ami made it to the moon - endorsed by Wernher von Braun and his bunch who slightly changed the concept behind their "america-rocket". Oh, and surely the "swept wing fighter" posted above is a potemkin-plane. Just look at the fake shadow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Before waxing too poetic over German success in the field of rocketry, look into the the pioneering pre-war work of Professor Robert Goddard of Worcester Polytechnic Institute in liquid-fueled rockets and Germany's avid interest in his research. This is not meant to disparage the great and noteworthy accomplishments of German science, which are manifest in so many fields, but does serve as a caution not to make simplistic assumptions about the parentage of any particular technology.

SkyChimp
10-11-2006, 06:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Should have been more specific &gt; a/c radar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anti-aircraft radar? Or air intercept radar?

The US already had ground based and ship-based radar to detect aircraft before the Brits gave it to us.

And air intercept radar did not become practical until duplexing was developed - the use of one antenna for sending and receiving. That was an American developement.

Here is a good source on what the British knew and what the Americans already had:

http://www.radarworld.org/england.html

heywooood
10-11-2006, 06:49 PM
god I love these threads...the din of the chest pounding almost drowns out the braying.

Blutarski2004
10-11-2006, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Brits often claim they "gave" Americans radar. Actually, that's nonsense. Good and capable sets were installed on US warships in the late '30s, and many sets were in use on ships nd on the ground by the time of Pearl Harbor. In fact, during the "Tizard" mission, it was discovered that the US had sets fully the equal, and in some cases superior, to British radar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... While the USN most certainly had its own radar development program, it was in fact British disclosure of the 10cm wavelength cavity magnetron which made possible the development of the series of compact lightweight S-band centimetric radar systms. The SG series radar of the USN was a direct result of the adoption of the British 10cm cavity magnetron design.

At least that is what Norman Friedman states in his book "Naval Radar".

SkyChimp
10-11-2006, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... While the USN most certainly had its own radar development program, it was in fact British disclosure of the 10cm wavelength cavity magnetron which made possible the development of the series of compact lightweight S-band centimetric radar systms. The SG series radar of the USN was a direct result of the adoption of the British 10cm cavity magnetron design.

At least that is what Norman Friedman states in his book "Naval Radar". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but not complete. The US was experimenting with 10cm-wavelength sets prior to the Bitish introducion of the cavity magnetron.

My main point is that the British did not bestow radar on the Americans. The Americans already had sets. From the site I referenced:
At the end of August, Tizard went to the US by air to make preliminary arrangements. The rest of the Mission followed by ship; they arrived in Halifax on 6th September and went on to Washington a few days later. Tizard had already established an office in the Shoreham Hotel, near the British Embassy and made the initial arrangements with the US Navy and Army. It was planned to hand over the British secrets to an Army team under the direction of General Mouborgne, the Chief Signals Officer and a Naval team under Admiral Harold Bowen, the Director of the Naval Research Laboratory. Another vital contact made by Tizard was with the National Defense Research Council which had recently been formed under the Chairmanship of Dr. Vannevar Bush, assisted by Karl Compton, the President of MIT and Dr.Conant, the president of Harvard.

The exchange of information with the US Army and Navy began on 12th September when a complete account of British radar developments was given; it covered the whole field of ground based, shipboard and airborne radar. The US responded by giving actual demonstrations of their equipment, at the Naval Research Laboratory in Anacostia and the Army Signals Research Establishment at Fort Monmouth NJ. It soon became clear that at metre wavelengths, the US had technology which matched that of Great Britain. The great difference was that US systems existed only in ones and twos and they had not seen much operational use. In Britain, by comparison, a sum of âŁl million sterling had been voted for the construction of a chain of air warning stations to protect the Thames Estuary in December 1935. By 1938, a total of âŁ10 million sterling had been allocated to the construction of 23 such air warning stations along the East Coast and a further six stations along the South Coast. When the Tizard Mission arrived in Washington, this system had been fully operational for over a year, and at that very moment was playing a decisive role in the Battle of Britain, from which England was already emerging as a certain winner.

Editors note: the multi cavity resonant magnetron was invented in 1935 by Hollmann. See US patent no. 2,151,766 which was known to Randall and Boot when they built their magnetron in England in 1940



In fact, the Tizard Mission was beneficial to both sides with respect to radar. The British came thinking they were giving radar to the Americans. They didn't. The US already had radar - and it came as a suprise to the British. The British did show the Americans how to incorporate the cavity magnetron into their systems. In return, the US gave duplexing technology to the British which made portable and airborne sets practical. Developement of wartime radar was truly a parallel and cooperative effort.

waffen-79
10-11-2006, 08:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bhunter2112:
Nazi germany had some advanced stuff although if you research so did the allies. The allies often kept the "old" stuff because it was working.
Germany would have had atomic bombs dropped on her until she surrendered. The US did not fool around back then like we do today. No tech advances would have brought the war to 1946 for the germans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germany nuked? in the 40's? by USA? I don't think so, Russia would do it perhaps... if they had the bomb

Viper2005_
10-11-2006, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Viper-

Yes, but this implies that nothing better could have been made by those people. They were more than useful subcontractors, you know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Why wouldn't they take advantage of good input from their Allies? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get me wrong - NA made a great aeroplane, but it was much more akin to JSF than F-16 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But the idea to add the Merlin was British, and the first Merlin Mustang was a British conversion made by Rolls-Royce at Hucknall. Several were made. They were designated Mustang X and some later saw service with the USAAF and possibl;y the RAF too. Performance was similar to the American version, though FTHs were different. It was clsoer to a V-1650-7 P-51B than anything...

The Mustang X had a chin radiator for its intercooler to simplify conversion. NA's version just enlarged the main radiator. This looks nicer, but actually didn't make much difference to performance.

NA were really a partner in the first truely multinational fighter programme. The Mustang is no more American than it is British, and actually the same may be said for F-35B.

Nationalists on both sides of the pond are apt to forget the contribution of their ally, but in reality, when it comes to aerospace, neither can perform to its full potential without the other.

Pirschjaeger
10-11-2006, 09:59 PM
I didn't read all the posts so forgive me if I post what someone else said.

The German pride was Germany's worst enemy, not the allies.

The Nazis could have ended the war much sooner with a very decisive victory but with their feeling of superiority they just wouldn't stop. It was pride that let the Dunkirk opportunity slip through their fingers. They could have forced Britain to sue for peace and the war would have been over. They could have taken a 5-10 year break to rearm and boost technology and amalgamate the war booty.

This same pride is what held the LW back from development. Too little too late comes to mind. Like someone said in the first page, Germany's raw materials was exhausted so even if the war continued, nothing more would have come out of the LW. The Me262's were grounded due to a lack of fuel and pilots. It was over anyway by 45'.

However, I think a more interesting question would have been "What if the German's Concentrated on Aero tech from the Beginning?".

The possibilities would have been endless and I'm sure the war would have been very different.

No matter what the weapons, an army is only as good as its leaders.

AKA_TAGERT
10-11-2006, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
The 1946 addon got me thinking about the leap in technology nations made during ww2, and really how much further the Germans got.

While the UK was trying to squeeze 2,000 HP out of the Napier Sabre, and the Americans were coppying old Focke Wulf designs ala. the Bearcat, the Germans were dealing with Swept wings, slats, stealth technology, the first Jet fighter into mass production and were going super sonic way before the allies. The Allied advances in high octane fuel were obsolete to the new jet engines in the Luftwaffe.
Even after the war the US was struggling to figure out why P-47s wouldn't go supersonic in a dive.

I was thinking, if only the war had gone on for another six months the amazing designs on the drawing board may have become reality... and just maybe would have turned the tide of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Pffffffffffffft

p1ngu666
10-11-2006, 10:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Viper-

Yes, but this implies that nothing better could have been made by those people. They were more than useful subcontractors, you know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Why wouldn't they take advantage of good input from their Allies? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get me wrong - NA made a great aeroplane, but it was much more akin to JSF than F-16 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But the idea to add the Merlin was British, and the first Merlin Mustang was a British conversion made by Rolls-Royce at Hucknall. Several were made. They were designated Mustang X and some later saw service with the USAAF and possibl;y the RAF too. Performance was similar to the American version, though FTHs were different. It was clsoer to a V-1650-7 P-51B than anything...

The Mustang X had a chin radiator for its intercooler to simplify conversion. NA's version just enlarged the main radiator. This looks nicer, but actually didn't make much difference to performance.

NA were really a partner in the first truely multinational fighter programme. The Mustang is no more American than it is British, and actually the same may be said for F-35B.

Nationalists on both sides of the pond are apt to forget the contribution of their ally, but in reality, when it comes to aerospace, neither can perform to its full potential without the other. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

when america entered WW1 they produced several designs from british and french designers, with varing degrees of success.

Pirschjaeger
10-12-2006, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
There is only one area where the US was clearly, without a doubt, no question about it, superior to every other country in the world:

http://www.dallasrailwaymuseum.com/image/up4018-dpl.jpg

Nobody, but nobody, had cooler choo-choos than the Americans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bad comparison Skychimp,

comparing German trains to American trains or vice-versa, is like comparing apples and oranges. The landscape of America allows for very long heavy trains, henceforth the articulated "Big Boy". Germany also developed smaller articulates but like the BigBoy was limited to radius. It's kinda the same issue with trucks.

Due to the landscape Germany was always more concerned with speed. Here's an example.

This part of GERMAN STEAM LOCOMOTIVE PERFORMANCE looks mainly to the 1930's when the UK, Germany and the USA were seeing very high steam locomotive speeds. It looks at Germany's streamlined 4-6-4 Hudson 05 002. Between 1935 and 1936 that loco put in an astounding series of very fast tests, including it's near level track 124.5 mph on 11th May 1936 achieved during a long, fast run from Hamburg to Berlin: perhaps the fastest ever long distance European steam run. A few days later the loco was in action again at 118 mph, hauling a train for English Railway Engineers, including that master of recording steam loco performance, Cecil J Allen. On the return of that run the maroon 4-6-4 set the world record for the fastest ever start to stop average speed by a steam locomotive. Staying in Germany, consideration will be given to the achievements and potential of currently operational three cylinder pacific 18 201. This loco, referred to as, The world's fastest still operational steam locomotive, was, albeit in a different form, part of Germany's high speed steam loco development in the 1930's. 18 201 saved some of it's very fast running for the later decades of the 20th century, before becoming the first steam loco in the world to be authentically recorded at over 100 mph, (102 mph), in the 21st Century.

A comparison is made with UK A4 class pacific Mallard which is said just passed the 124.5 mph of 05 002 on 3rd July 1938, as Mallard's designer, Sir Nigel Gresley only counted the 125 mph as the true maximum. But Mallard's dash was down Stoke bank against 05 002's near level track epic, and Mallard failed with an overheated big end bearing immediately after it's top speed. The comparison will ask if horsepower calculations support the partly erratic dynamometer car speeds recorded for Mallard, and whether railway "politics" or national pride influenced the speeds reported for that loco.

The achievements of the USA's Milwaukee "Hiawatha" A class Atlantics and F7 Hudsons will be examined: locos recorded at speeds very close to the European records. Did one of these locos have the capability and opportunity to set the world speed steam record? And how did the massize Pennsylvania R R duplex, #6100, ever get credited with 140 mph on a normal heavy weight service train, when all serious research shows it would have had difficulty reaching it's 120 mph design speed on even the lightest train? Research results are being posted here when they form a cohesive picture of fast steam running. We will start with a look at the achievements of German 05 002, and then make a comparison between that loco and Mallard's fastest run.

As for American locomotives, I like the early electrics and a couple diesels (GP9 and GP35).

But my all time favorite steam has got to be the BR23, last built in 56'.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/BR23.jpg

Fritz<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/Sig11.jpg

Valhalla Kittens (http://www.dennyweb.com/viking_kittens.htm)

"I furiously yelled an ancient Anglo-Saxon single syllable word referring to the act procreation about a dozen times." Blakduk as he was looking for Ctrl + E in his Ford Falcon XT

Bewolf
10-13-2006, 12:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:

RADAR guided bomb, hm? Any infos on that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoops. Im sorry. Did I just alter your perception of German superiority? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jup, completly changed my world view in that. I demand an apology for destroiyng all my illusions! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Where are the infos?=)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

stathem
10-13-2006, 01:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
For Mister Gibbage, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif for example Germans had thing called Pfau its an acousticc homing device
for torpedos which can detect and home on the noise of ship propellers. it was used just before end of the war . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get down FIDO.

Just before the end of the war you say? So what wouyld a similiar device that was killing a lot of U-Boats from 1943 onwards be classed as? Mid-war perhaps?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

Kurfurst__
10-13-2006, 02:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Yet its glossed over for something as trivial as the Fritz-X.. So what! The US had something similar at about the same time frame called the Azon bomb. Also, the US is the only country in WWII to field a RADAR GUIDED BOMB!!!! Did the Germans have any radar guided bombs? How many post's in this forum touting the first smart bomb in 1945? Non. Why? Its not German. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fritz X
1500 kg warhead for heavy naval targets (sink BBs Roma, damaged several BBs seriously inc. Roma's sister ship and HMS Warspite).
developed from 1939
operational 1943
(note:supersonic variant was being developed before the war ended)

Hs 293
500 kg warhead
rocket-assisted gliding bomb
developed from 1940
operational 1943
widespread use against merchant and other similiar and smaller ships


US Azon project
1000 lbs warhead
developed from 1942 onwards
operational 1944 MTO/ early 1945 PTO

It was little more than a standard bomb with a rudder mechanism, and nothing like a guided bomb.

"Azon was a standard high angle bomb equipped with a special tail assembly for remote radio control. Azimuth errors, which became apparent during the time of fall, were corrected from the parent aircraft. No range correction was possible. The Azon tail assembly was fitted to a standard 1,000-pound bomb and consisted of a radio receiver, gyro, servo motor, battery, movable fins, and flare for visual observation. The bombs' average accuracy was up to ten times greater than conventional bombing against pin point and long narrow targets. The weapon could only be used under good visual bombing conditions.

Since the bomb had to be guided to the target by the bombardier who was watching a 800,000 to 1,000,000 candlepower flare installed on the tail of the bomb, the bombing aircraft had to stay over the target area until the bomb hit. The Azon was particularly adapted to long narrow targets such as bridges, railroads, and docks.

The first tactical use of the Azon was in 1944 in Italy when B-17 crews dropped them in the Brenner Pass. Some of the first models were tested in Florida at Eglin Field in Pensacola.

The Azon project started in April, 1942 and lasted until late 1944. Azon was used with moderate success in the Mediterranean and European theaters and with great success in the China Burma India theater. Some 14,000 tail assemblies were manufactured at a cost of about $645.00 each. The cost of the bomb and fuses was about $120.00. The project was canceled in favor of weapons with built-in automatic homing systems."

As for those odd radar guided bombs, they didn't turn up until for the lenght of a couple of missions in the pacific in the last months of the war. I doubt they would be hugely reliable and effective considering the techological level of radar and electronics at the time simply didn't allow that - for some obscure reason, for decades to follow guided warheads would continue to rely upon manual guidence. the major difference is that the Germans were the first to introduce such smart weapons for practical use, and were also using them in a quite widespread operations from mid-war as opposed to a few odd launches of semi-experimental US smart weapons at the end of the war, which were about as much good operationally as fancy projects with heat seeking SAM, TV guided smart bombs etc of Germany.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Kurfurst__
10-13-2006, 02:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
For Mister Gibbage, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif for example Germans had thing called Pfau its an acousticc homing device
for torpedos which can detect and home on the noise of ship propellers. it was used just before end of the war . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get down FIDO.

Just before the end of the war you say? So what wouyld a similiar device that was killing a lot of U-Boats from 1943 onwards be classed as? Mid-war perhaps? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


"Falke, the first homing torpedo, was fitted with a passive acoustic homing device. It was introduced in March, 1943 and used by U-60 (Oblt. Bertelsmann), U-758 (Kptlt. Manseck) and U-221 (Kptlt. Trojer) against convoys HX-229 and SC-122. Few were used as it was replace by the T5 which was faster, had a greater range and could be used with either magnetic or contact detonators.

The Zaunköning (Gnat) came into service during the autumn of 1943. Intended to be an escort-killer, it achieved some early minor success only to be countered by the allied Foxer noise-making decoy. It was scoring hits against escort and merchants to the end of the war though."<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

stathem
10-13-2006, 02:09 AM
I know Kurfurst, wasn't me that claimed it was 'just before the end of the war'.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

WOLFMondo
10-13-2006, 02:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
There is only one area where the US was clearly, without a doubt, no question about it, superior to every other country in the world:

http://www.dallasrailwaymuseum.com/image/up4018-dpl.jpg

Nobody, but nobody, had cooler choo-choos than the Americans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bad comparison Skychimp,

comparing German trains to American trains or vice-versa, is like comparing apples and oranges. The landscape of America allows for very long heavy trains, henceforth the articulated "Big Boy". Germany also developed smaller articulates but like the BigBoy was limited to radius. It's kinda the same issue with trucks.

Due to the landscape Germany was always more concerned with speed. Here's an example.

This part of GERMAN STEAM LOCOMOTIVE PERFORMANCE looks mainly to the 1930's when the UK, Germany and the USA were seeing very high steam locomotive speeds. It looks at Germany's streamlined 4-6-4 Hudson 05 002. Between 1935 and 1936 that loco put in an astounding series of very fast tests, including it's near level track 124.5 mph on 11th May 1936 achieved during a long, fast run from Hamburg to Berlin: perhaps the fastest ever long distance European steam run. A few days later the loco was in action again at 118 mph, hauling a train for English Railway Engineers, including that master of recording steam loco performance, Cecil J Allen. On the return of that run the maroon 4-6-4 set the world record for the fastest ever start to stop average speed by a steam locomotive. Staying in Germany, consideration will be given to the achievements and potential of currently operational three cylinder pacific 18 201. This loco, referred to as, The world's fastest still operational steam locomotive, was, albeit in a different form, part of Germany's high speed steam loco development in the 1930's. 18 201 saved some of it's very fast running for the later decades of the 20th century, before becoming the first steam loco in the world to be authentically recorded at over 100 mph, (102 mph), in the 21st Century.

A comparison is made with UK A4 class pacific Mallard which is said just passed the 124.5 mph of 05 002 on 3rd July 1938, as Mallard's designer, Sir Nigel Gresley only counted the 125 mph as the true maximum. But Mallard's dash was down Stoke bank against 05 002's near level track epic, and Mallard failed with an overheated big end bearing immediately after it's top speed. The comparison will ask if horsepower calculations support the partly erratic dynamometer car speeds recorded for Mallard, and whether railway "politics" or national pride influenced the speeds reported for that loco.

The achievements of the USA's Milwaukee "Hiawatha" A class Atlantics and F7 Hudsons will be examined: locos recorded at speeds very close to the European records. Did one of these locos have the capability and opportunity to set the world speed steam record? And how did the massize Pennsylvania R R duplex, #6100, ever get credited with 140 mph on a normal heavy weight service train, when all serious research shows it would have had difficulty reaching it's 120 mph design speed on even the lightest train? Research results are being posted here when they form a cohesive picture of fast steam running. We will start with a look at the achievements of German 05 002, and then make a comparison between that loco and Mallard's fastest run.

As for American locomotives, I like the early electrics and a couple diesels (GP9 and GP35).

But my all time favorite steam has got to be the BR23, last built in 56'.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/BR23.jpg

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bah!

http://www.richprimarysites.com/images/photographs/mallard1.JPG
The British made the best choo choos. Its clear from this little number...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

Kurfurst__
10-13-2006, 02:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
I know Kurfurst, wasn't me that claimed it was 'just before the end of the war'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I just noted the Fido and jerry acoustic torps were contemporaries. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

fighter_966
10-13-2006, 04:17 AM
Mr gibb Torpedo homing device was USED just before war ended and Radar homing device was COMING to SERVICE but war ended before it came
So development work was done already in these
items....is this said clearly enough....?

fighter_966
10-13-2006, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
I know Kurfurst, wasn't me that claimed it was 'just before the end of the war'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Writer of the book says that in those words so
if I understand him correctly between 1944-45 so
before the end of war

KIMURA
10-13-2006, 04:44 AM
compared to BR 05-001 that british streamline looks like a child designed locohttp://www.dbtrains.com/resources/www.dbtrains.com/content/publications/locomotives/epochIII/BR05/05-001.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/Ki1.jpg

WOLFMondo
10-13-2006, 05:00 AM
Its the fastest steam power loco in the world! :P

That thing looks like a brick.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

cawimmer430
10-13-2006, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rammathorn_:
On the development of the A-bomb:

The Manhattan Project WAS primarily an engineering project. The physics had been worked out years before. Fermi had come so far as to create a nuclear chain reaction years before the project started. What the engineers and scientists did during the war was enrich Uranium (which to this day remains a difficult task) and design the implosion device.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. But in that case, why did the Germans fail? We've already seen that their engineers were just as brilliant. What was the difference?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Norwegian commandos blew up the heavy water plant in German-occupied Norway. A big setback.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-Christian W.

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/8240/il2sig018ll.jpg

WWMaxGunz
10-13-2006, 09:58 AM
Heavy water plant was just needed to make a reactor to start enriching fuel and a very slow
process doing it that way. That was recognized by US and another way made by Fermi. They
still had to come up with methods of isotope seperation which they never got to at all.

But hey, the Germans had automatics that would fire around corners!

Chuck_Older
10-13-2006, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

you don't understand that germany and the USA did not have the same political climate for advancing aeronautical designs in the '30s and '40s, then I really don't know what to say.

Do you think that Bayerische Flugzugwerke had to dupe the RLM into allowing them funds to build the Bf-109? Because that's what was going on in the USA at the time the Bf 109 was already a proven aircraft

QUOTE]


So your saying that the risk of having a bullit planted in your forehead for calling Hitler a moron because he wanted to use Me 262 as bomber initially is a waaay better political inviroment to work in then what US ingineers had to endure. Rgr. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Horse-hockey! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Wow, that's a good one, I'd no idea you worked in stand-up comedy before now!

It's very clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about, so I suggest you stay in the shallow end of this pool. You're in over your head over here

Pirschjaeger
10-13-2006, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KIMURA:
compared to BR 05-001 that british streamline looks like a child designed locohttp://www.dbtrains.com/resources/www.dbtrains.com/content/publications/locomotives/epochIII/BR05/05-001.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, I was in Nuernberg just this year visiting the traim museum. That engine is there. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Does anyone else feel this pi$$ing match has gone totally loco? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/Sig11.jpg

Valhalla Kittens (http://www.dennyweb.com/viking_kittens.htm)

"I furiously yelled an ancient Anglo-Saxon single syllable word referring to the act procreation about a dozen times." Blakduk as he was looking for Ctrl + E in his Ford Falcon XT

Low_Flyer_MkVb
10-13-2006, 10:55 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


http://www.smallfilms.co.uk/ivor/ivor1.jpg


http://www.thomasstation.com/cat/images/84013.jpg


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/26_8_111.gif <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/1822.jpg

F6_Ace
10-13-2006, 11:04 AM
My engineers are better than your engineers.
Really? My brother is bigger than your brother.
No he isn't
Yes he is and he'll kick your brothers head in
Well, that may well be but my dad is bigger than your dad.
No he's not. He's a ***.

etc
etc
etc

10 full marks to Megile for 'drawing the fighters up' which Kesselring never quite managed.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

Gibbage1
10-13-2006, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Jup, completly changed my world view in that. I demand an apology for destroiyng all my illusions! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Where are the infos?=) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you missed that post. Here is info on the US radar guided bomb.

http://biomicro.sdstate.edu/pederses/asmbat.html<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Wtornado_439th
10-13-2006, 11:08 AM
Who was the top rocket scientist who went
to NASA to send a man on the moon?

Who were the Top nuclear physicists that
worked on the atomic bomb and what country
were they exiled from?

Who made the first radio guided missle?(bomb)
(not talking about the mistel)

Who invented the first nightvision systems?.

JtD
10-15-2006, 03:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:

How long do you thnik it would of taken Von Braun to build a working V2 without all of Dr Goddards research in liquid fuel rockets, gyro stabilization, and rocket guidance? I doubt it would of been ready before the end of the war if he had too do all that himself. Yet nobody gives Dr Goddard credit for even INVENTING the liquid fuel rocket. Only Von Braun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the engineering business almost everything is based on the work of previous generations or other folks recent inventions. Where is the credit for the dude who found out a pickaxe applied to a mountain could dig a hole deep enough to retreive ore?

Guess Goddard has to be famous because he did his research in the US. God bless America! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOrtk3gX5H0) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

fighter_966
10-15-2006, 04:03 AM
Have anyone found info about Lerche? because In my books which other has list of every german secret weapon name. That list says that Lerche is torpedo gudance system which is operator controlled or can switched to a passive homing system.I also have book about Luftwaffes
secret fighter projects 1939-1945 no Lerche there either?? Books are pulished 1999 and 1997

Frequent_Flyer
10-15-2006, 01:51 PM
Good German engineering,organizational and leadership skills were a myth that was exposed many times in WW II. Goering admitted they never even engineered an aircraft engine that came close to the U.S. radial engines.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*****************************"Hitler Built A Fortress Around Europe,But He Forgot to Put A Roof On It" ~ FDR

mynameisroland
10-15-2006, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Goering admitted they never even engineered an aircraft engine that came close to the U.S. radial engines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Goering would find his technical knowledge exhausted after trying to scribble his thoughts on the back beer mat.

Daimlerbenz, BMW and Jumo designed very advanced engines. Dont try and claim that US engines were wonder engines because all three major aero engine manufacturing countries were pretty close across the board. US being radial focused and Britain and Germany slanted towards Inlines.

Centaurus http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/boemherTemp4.jpg

tigertalon
10-15-2006, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Goering admitted they never even engineered an aircraft engine that came close to the U.S. radial engines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Goering confidently started shifting the blame away from himself and top of LW brass after they started loosing. It was never his fault.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">?In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility,

WWMaxGunz
10-15-2006, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:

How long do you thnik it would of taken Von Braun to build a working V2 without all of Dr Goddards research in liquid fuel rockets, gyro stabilization, and rocket guidance? I doubt it would of been ready before the end of the war if he had too do all that himself. Yet nobody gives Dr Goddard credit for even INVENTING the liquid fuel rocket. Only Von Braun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the engineering business almost everything is based on the work of previous generations or other folks recent inventions. Where is the credit for the dude who found out a pickaxe applied to a mountain could dig a hole deep enough to retreive ore?

Guess Goddard has to be famous because he did his research in the US. God bless America! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOrtk3gX5H0) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, you got a problem with HIM then why make it a problem with an entire country?
Or you already got that?

IMO the rocket credit should go to the Chinese.

Goddard was only 1st to get liquid fuel engine to work and that's a refinement as are his
other basic contributions but as I read it, they were all publishing back then and had read
what Tsiolkovsky had worked out years before that was discussed and reported on. This was
a time with a society that made Jules Verne very well off in sales of his books, yeah there
was communication of ideas everywhere. Publishing then was the main forum.

So for Father of Modern Rocketry credit, really goes to Tsiolkovsky.
Goddard and Oberth were just two uncles who helped along the way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Frequent_Flyer
10-15-2006, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Goering admitted they never even engineered an aircraft engine that came close to the U.S. radial engines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Goering would find his technical knowledge exhausted after trying to scribble his thoughts on the back beer mat.

Daimlerbenz, BMW and Jumo designed very advanced engines. Dont try and claim that US engines were wonder engines because all three major aero engine manufacturing countries were pretty close across the board. US being radial focused and Britain and Germany slanted towards Inlines.

Centaurus http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The American radial design was much better than the German design... not close. The reason for the 190D could not get the performance from their radial design . The German tank engine was another example of poor engineering and design.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*****************************"Hitler Built A Fortress Around Europe,But He Forgot to Put A Roof On It" ~ FDR

Kurfurst__
10-16-2006, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The American radial design was much better than the German design... not close. The reason for the 190D could not get the performance from their radial design . The German tank engine was another example of poor engineering and design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While the comments on radial aero engines can even be worth for debate, the comment on the tank engines simply flushes down the whole thing on the toilet.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Puskás Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon Békében - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurfürst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Aaron_GT
10-16-2006, 02:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The American radial design was much better than the German design... not close. The reason for the 190D could not get the performance from their radial design . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 190D was designed as a high altitude aircraft. The only US fighter design with a radial to have excellent high altitude performance was the P-47, but this was due to the turbocharger around which the aircraft was designed. Since the 190 was an existing design it was difficult to retrofit a sufficiently large turbocharger (although it was tried in the 190C prototypes). Given the requirement to produce an aircraft based on an existing type in a reasonable timescale the correct decision was to use an inline engine with sufficient high altitude performance that did not require the turbocharger.

Saying that German radials were a failure due to the 190D using an inline makes as much sense as saying that the Allison engine was a failure because the P-39 and P-51 didn't marry it with a turbocharger and had mediocre high altitude performance.

WOLFMondo
10-16-2006, 02:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Good German engineering,organizational and leadership skills were a myth that was exposed many times in WW II. Goering admitted they never even engineered an aircraft engine that came close to the U.S. radial engines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Goering was a WW1 fighter pilot, who thought like a WW1 fighter pilot, who was self obsessed and didn't know squat about modern warfare. Quoting Goering is like quoting George Bush, all your going to get is uneducated rhetoric.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

joeap
10-16-2006, 02:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Goering was a WW1 fighter pilot, who thought like a WW1 fighter pilot, who was self obsessed and didn't know squat about modern warfare. Quoting Goering is like quoting George Bush, all your going to get is uneducated rhetoric. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, I like the last bit, think I might use that in my sig if you don't mind. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-16-2006, 04:03 AM
I think that Wolf insults a LOT of WWI pilots there.
Goering was just a fat lying weasel is all. Fit him in good with the gang he ran with.

MEGILE
10-16-2006, 05:56 AM
OMG Bush = teh hitler111

My thread is complete<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/7683/starostauc4.jpg
If you see this man.... it's probably too late
Oleg - I was dreaming to make Meteor, but third party didn't make it finally (left unfinished)

Viper2005_
10-16-2006, 06:46 AM
German engineers didn't have access to the same high performance fuels as the Allies since they relied for their fuel upon the Fischer-Tropsch process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch) which tends to produce straight chains rather than aromatics giving the resultant fuels rather poor octane numbers.

In this context, they did pretty well at getting high bmep from their engines.

Likewise, they had materials shortages which impacted their ability to use high-temperature alloys.

I think that the Germans did a good job with what they had for the most part, though their superchargers weren't very good.

Since the engineers in each of the major powers had different resources to work with, and a different set of objectives, it isn't actually that easy to come up with an objective comparison. We might as well argue apples vs oranges or blondes vs brunettes.

Gibbage1
10-16-2006, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I think that the Germans did a good job with what they had for the most part, though their superchargers weren't very good.

Since the engineers in each of the major powers had different resources to work with, and a different set of objectives, it isn't actually that easy to come up with an objective comparison. We might as well argue apples vs oranges or blondes vs brunettes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

luftluuver
10-16-2006, 11:41 AM
The C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the U. S. grade 130 gasoline, although the octane number of C-3 was specified to be only 95 and its lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer.

The composition of C-3 with a high aromatic content, resulted in that gasoline having a good rich mixture (less than 1.0) performance. It?s performance of allowable power output at lean mixture was not entirely satisfactory, however. If more isoparaffin had been included, the lean mixture performance would have been improved. This was recognized as the outstanding shortcoming in the German aviation fuel quality position. Had raw materials and equipment been available, more isoparaffins would have been included in the C-3 blend. As isoparaffin content increased the aromatic content could simultaneously have been decreased (by use of base stocks with octane numbers equal to those of the aromatic base stocks) and a gasoline with increased heat content would have resulted. However, because of the relatively greater was of manufacturing aromatics, they were used in large quantity to help gain a satisfactory lean mixture performance, with the result that rich mixture performance was no limiting.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_re...and%20Specifications (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm#Composition%20and%20Specificat ions)

Sergio_101
10-17-2006, 03:21 AM
German radial engines, notably BMW Radials
are either copies or adaptations of US P&W
or Wright designs. They are no better and no worse.
Some Seimens and BMW radials are outright copies
of Bristol, P&W or Wright radials.
For instance the JU-52 is powered by three P&W Hornets.

No, I am not taking anything away from BMW and Germany.
US radials of the era were the most numerous and the best.
Everyone built them under licence or pirated
their designs.
Japan's naval force that attacked Pearl Harbor
was powered by Pratt and Whitney with Hamilton Standard propellers!
all made in Japan of course.

German fuels never caught up with American fuels.
Truth is no one caught up during WWII.
I don't have the time to dig right now but
I seem to remember that US refinerys
were cracking 80-88 octane base in 1939!
Additives such as benzine and TEL would easily
bump the octane/PN to over 100.

sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif