PDA

View Full Version : The Death of the Bomber



Messervy
11-26-2004, 11:57 AM
I understand that some of you guys like flight sims. I was watching a 1972 "World at war" and stumbled upon this:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/antoine.lenormand/Images/Video/B-17.wmv

It is so fantastic that I instantly started to wonder whether it is documentary footage or it was some kind of experiment.

Check it out and let me know.
P.S. Thanks to u2336 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Messervy
11-26-2004, 11:57 AM
I understand that some of you guys like flight sims. I was watching a 1972 "World at war" and stumbled upon this:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/antoine.lenormand/Images/Video/B-17.wmv

It is so fantastic that I instantly started to wonder whether it is documentary footage or it was some kind of experiment.

Check it out and let me know.
P.S. Thanks to u2336 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SailorSteve
11-26-2004, 03:55 PM
As far as I know that is actual wartime footage. There are many shots of bombers going down, most notable is the B-24 getting hit by a flak round right at the wing root. The plane folded up like a piece of paper.

Seesack
11-26-2004, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is so fantastic that I instantly started to wonder whether it is documentary footage or it was some kind of experiment... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Experiment? It´s just war!

My father once told me, how he was on vacances from the navy and stood in front of our home, when a bomber-raid was going on over the town:

"...I saw a british Lancaster above, nearly over there where still today the gardens are - caught by a flak-searchlight; they tried to escape, but the light followed them, because these searchlights were radar-guided.

Then it was the first and only time, I could see a german night-fighter taking that plane under fire.

But really I could not see the fighter itself, because these planes all were painted black and it flew hidden in the dark area of the sky. I only could hear the intensive sound of its guns ´bang-bang-bang´ and see it´s tracer-ammunition - it looked as if the fighter "pissed" down upon the bomber out of the darkness, because of the ballistic-curve, the bullets followed for physical reasons. Really a strange show up in the sky I must say. Shortly after the bomber exploded."

And my father added, turning back to our house with an earnest expression on his face :"And, son - again about ten or twelfe hopeful young men have died in this moment!"

That impressed me deeply that time, I learned something important from him, which I kept in my mind further on. Still many years later, as a grown up, when my father was already dead for a long time, I had a dream: I stood again on the street by our former home, terrified cause all around everything stood on fire and it was a dusky and horrible scene in some way. Then my father appeared from the darkness, took my hand and said to me with the same earnest expression: "Come on, son, let´s go away, in a moment they will begin shooting here...!"

I woke up very disturbed and thoughtful, could this be an omen, and would I for myself one day find me in wartime...?

Mjollnir111675
11-26-2004, 05:42 PM
@ SAilor Steve:

I always thought from the angle of the cam recording that footage that it was a bomb that had been dropped from the a/c above and drifted into the wing root.Because of the way the wing folds down I always figured it was caused by a bomb dropping through it.

Seesack
11-26-2004, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
@ SAilor Steve:

Because of the way the wing folds down I always figured it was caused by a bomb dropping through it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am relatively sure, that plane was simply hit by one or two flak-shells. These granades were prepared to explode in a defined altitude, which was normally also the allied plane´s near altitude detected by Funkmeß (radar) from the ground; and they were fired in bundles of six to twelfe pieces at a time from the particular flak-batteries - just to increase the statistical likelihood for a hit. The load and concerning explosion of such a granade was very heavy - cause under normal circumstances it should already destroy the target definetely, even when it exploded in a nearby distance. In a sense that was somekind similar to a small bomb explosion.

I think a full hit by a flak-shell would cause exactly a scenario as it is to be seen in the film sequence. Also it could be, one of the wing-tanks of the bomber was hit, e.g. by a night-fighter´s gunfire resp. it´s explosive-ammunition and therefore exploded.

I can´t really imagine it was an american bomb dropped from above - because such a bomb would not have exploded in the air (already not for security-reasons), it´s igniters would have been switched to make it blow up only on near ground-altitude instead (5 - 10 meters above surface) or it was equipped with a delayed-action cap, to let it blow up on the ground later, just to kill german fire-fighters - or civilians coming back from the bunker, searching the ruins of their houses for something from their properties possibly to save...(again: that´s what war means - on every side)

Although the german airforce experimented with bombs dropped upon allied bomber-streams from german bombers flying higher above, this only lead to poor results and they gave it up soon, it seemed only to be a good idea but didn´t work in fact. These bombs too had altitude-ignition - and it wasn´t very likely that such a bomb would exactly hit a single plane just in that moment, when it´s altitude-igniter released the explosion.

But even if, in that case you would only have seen a big bright flash, I suppose, just as a mass of shrapnells and small pieces of the plane flying away. And not the plane´s structure itself anymore...

Pr0metheus 1962
11-26-2004, 06:54 PM
I agree with Seesack. This was almost certainly a direct hit by flak. A direct hit was quite rare, but it did happen.

... actually, I just watched the video again. If you watch every frame, you can see what looks like a rocket hitting the aircraft. It goes from the upper left edge of the screen and seems to hit the plane in the wing. It's only fully visible in one frame - it's moving really fast, but it has a definite jet propulsion and what appear to be guiding fins. I'm not sure what types of rockets (ground-to-air or air-to-air) the Germans had (I know they had some rudimentary types), but it looks like a rocket to me.

Mjollnir111675
11-26-2004, 07:39 PM
I dont have access to the footage but I never stated the bomb actually blew up.But an iron bomb of any type(he,ap,b.b) would fall easily through the wing without exploding.But if it ripped through a wing tank and the fuel ignited off the hot engine and atmospheric properties it could have that type of an effect. All I was trying to point out is that from the footage you obviously have a formation of planes above it and it COULD be a possibility thats all.As fer the rocket that you see that could be possible as well. But that particular footage is sorta like an optical illusion. Of course I would never expect any gov't to actually admit that it could've been an error on part of a bombardier in a higher flight let alone fer anyone in the offending plane to own up to it or just maybe the bomb got caught up in an atmospheric anomoly(propwash,windsheer,turbulence,etc.) which caused it to drift over.But if you look the formation is REALLY tight so thats where I always thought that.Problem is I DON'T know.I guess it could be the "Kennedy bullet" fer that particular aircraft.Second problem being that the framerates of the early cams were not fast enough to actually capture every thing that was going on in any given milli-second.

Alternatively the plane doesn't explode which would be more of a possibility if an explosive had hit it that close to its wing tanks.Instead it looks to ME that something falls through the wing and then a small fire seems to start aided by fuel leakage and alot of rushing oxygen flowing past it. Or if a higher flight either slowed down and that plane sped up or released bombs late that could decide if it was a bomb.Here timing plays a critical role.But in all reality there could be myriad causes fer that a/c to act the way it did.

Chock it up to wise ol MR.OWl I bet he knows!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seesack
11-26-2004, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
I agree with Seesack. This was almost certainly a direct hit by flak. A direct hit was quite rare, but it did happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guten Abend Beeryus, nice to hear from you again.

Yes, could also be a rocket. Either from a german fighter-plane or from a ground-installation, good investigation. Near the end of wartime the german air-defence was indeed equipped with quite effective radar-guided surface to air-missiles (SAM); they were launched from installations very similar to those used today. Also fighter-planes used e.g. wire-guided or infraread-target searching rockets, which were both methods also still in service today.

The final wartime was in many technical aspects already the beginning of what we nowadays are common with. Did you know for instance, the German Luftwaffe already used high-resolution televison in air-recognition planes? They got extremely precise pictures on the screen from cameras mounted outside under the plane.

It was invented by the ingenious Manfred von Ardenne ("Kann alles - Manfred"... "Can do everything-Manfred"), who also invented the colour-tv and many, many other innovations of our time. That was already - 1944 - exactly that tv-performance they nowadays intend to bring into our homes next time as is to be heard.

Another example are the todays big radio-telescopes resp. parabole-antennas as such (including our modern satellite-antennas); this principle was first realized within the big german "Würzburg-Riesen" ("Würzburg-Giants") - "Funkmeß" (radar) antennas for long-distance detection. Without that we today would neither have radio-astronomy nor satellite-reception.

War in a sense seems to be indeed the "father of all things" - as an old greek philosopher already said.

Seesack
11-26-2004, 08:04 PM
And, not to forget (Americans, shut your ears for a moment http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif): The "Nautilus" Americas first "atomic-submarine", simply was a german type XXI-boat they got from the end of WWII and put a reactor in. But reactor-technology came from german wartime-science - even in our days the german "Degussa" is still leading in this sector and not the US, although this is not common knowledge today http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Carlos1123
11-26-2004, 08:13 PM
I saw the Nautilus on TV, and I also thought it looked much like any common German U-Boat.
I suppose that if there was any trouble with the reactor and the submarine sunk, they didn't have much to lose, except for the reactor, which is less valuable than a brand new sub.

dse1010
11-26-2004, 08:36 PM
When you look at the very first part of the video, the plane seems to come out of a cloud, and you see a small trail, which does look like a rocket. But my guess would be that the trail we are seeing is fuel coming out of the tanks in the wings, and the explosion is caused by the fuel tanks igniting. I'm not sure, but that is what it looks like to me.

Seesack
11-26-2004, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
...But an iron bomb of any type(he,ap,b.b) would fall easily through the wing without exploding.But if it ripped through a wing tank and the fuel ignited off the hot engine and atmospheric properties it could have that type of an effect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure it could. But anyhow what is to be seen in the film is well known from several other concerning wartime-film sequences.

In other words it is not so extraordinary. Flying in a bomber over Germany was not a matter just to pass the time. As for all soldiers in war it means hard duty and fear instead, often losing good comrades resp. generally a high personal level of possibility not to come home (or only as an invalid) for all the airmen involved.

I think for them the same was valid, what a former german war-pilot said: "We were soldiers, and that means we had to face three things, which describes our duty - to obey, to kill, and to be killed, that´s all! And our superiors never wasted a thought to realize how we would feel with that!"

At the end of wartime things get better and they anyhow only must fly about fifteen missons until they were sent home, but less people know today how hard - before that- the air-war was also for the allied crews.

For a short time in 1943 the casualties and losses even came to such a high level, so that the british bomber-command even intended for a moment to give up the strategic bomber offensive over Germany. They got still enough planes - but not enough pilots anymore. You should recognize, forming a good pilot to substitute another who was shot down costs time!

Finally they continued but sent pilots on duty who got only poor training; some just were able to steer the plane among all the others left and right straight ahead, not much more, but were absolutely not prepared for any extraordinary situation. Many of these guys then became at first victims of highly experienced german fighter-pilots.

And remember at least: before the long-distance fighter P-51 "Mustang" finally appeared, there was no protection from allied fighter-planes at all for the bombers over Germany.

Yes, there were thousands of planes and airmen and most of them fortunately survived - but that should not let forget, how high the number of these men was, who did n o t survive. It was high enough...

The best movie I saw on this matter was "Memphis Bell" - the real and realistic history of an american B-17 crew. If you got a chance to - watch it.

Seesack
11-26-2004, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carlos1123:

I suppose that if there was any trouble with the reactor and the submarine sunk, they didn't have much to lose, except for the reactor, which is less valuable than a brand new sub. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and there is another aspect: the russians, who did not get german WW-II submarines to continue development upon, must evolve their own post-war submarines from the basis. Therefore their u-boats later were much better compared with the american types, because they invented some real new basic features.

But anyhow the Type XXI was good - in the post-war german navy they had one in service until 1984, now it´s exponated in a maritime-museum in Bremerhaven; and it was still the biggest and fastes u-boat they got, although they built several own new types after the war. But naturally some technical details were modernized inside.

Finally just in these days, by the way, a brand new type is ready, equipped with a high-tech engine that is driven by electric energy which comes from batteries on their part loaded by a special reactor ("Brennstoff-Zelle") which only needs hydrogenium as fuel-stuff. This boat, said to be the best worldwide today, you can say gets what it needs simply from water.

Already early in the second world war Professor Walter got a similar idea - realized then with the after him so called "Walter-U-Boot". But within these boats the hydrogenium-principle drove somekind of a steam-turbo-engine, not an e-machine. Several of these relatively small boats came to duty 1944, for the satisfaction of their commanders, who described them as "...perfect units for short-time missions under the enemy´s coast...". But it was too late - like it concerned the type XXI boats too - meanwhile the war was nearly over and u-boat missions anyway made no longer any sense.

The bigger type XXI too was in the beginning planned to be equippeed with walter-engines, but because time runs, they came to the decision, to use instead new-developed varta-batteries in a high number to drive traditional e-machines. Therefore this type was called "Elektro-Boot".

The British occupied some of the high-tech walter-submarines after Germany´s surrender, but failed to handle them correctly. As a few exploded on duty, they gave it up finally. Also the time of atomic-submarines began and everywhere research on Walter-Hydrogenium-Engines was no longer a matter of interest. Until today....

hauitsme
11-26-2004, 10:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mjollnir111675:
I always thought from the angle of the cam recording that footage that it was a bomb that had been dropped from the a/c above and drifted into the wing root.Because of the way the wing folds down I always figured it was caused by a bomb dropping through it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Almost right!I just saw the DVD footage of that a few weeks ago. The footage, taken by a war correspondent, showed that aircraft slowly drifting sideways as they were approaching the target. It just happened to be 'in the line of fire', being in the path of falling bombs from the flight of bombers a few hundred feet above it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Seesack:
The "Nautilus" Americas first "atomic-submarine", simply was a german type XXI-boat they got from the end of WWII and put a reactor in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is your national pride warping your mind, or is it just taking a vacation? U.S.S. Nautilus (http://www.ussnautilus.org/history.html)
"In July of 1951 Congress authorized construction. Her keel was laid by President Harry S. Truman at the Electric Boat Shipyard in Groton, Connecticut on June 14, 1952. After nearly 18 months of construction, NAUTILUS was launched on January 21, 1954."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Beeryus:
If you watch every frame, you can see what looks like a rocket hitting the aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Holy sh*t! We saw the same thing. Seen that film some time ago, don't think it was "World At War", but it was about the German 'Super Weapons'. Not many of those missiles made it into service, but they did do some damage now and then. Soon after introduction, the Allies countered them with counter-measures. When CM was used, they became useless.

Seesack
11-27-2004, 12:23 AM
Hallo Hauitsme,

hmmm - I learned it from a tv-docu I must admit, and was first astonished too. As far as I could find out until now, the official story says the construction of Nautilus was based upon type XXI in such a way, one can say it was de facto a re-built type XXI-boat equipped with a reactor.

Maybe the television-guys misunderstood or mixed up something, claiming the Nautilus was an original german wartime-submarine sample in fact. Or another conspiration-theory? True or not? Just a legend spreaded by the CIA´s desinformation-branche and motivated by american national pride, how they built the Nautilus from their own ideas? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Anyway I think there´s no great difference - a real type XXI or just a lightly varied copy.

In any case, allow me please to say that, especially the Americans show a typical tendency sometimes to claim as own inventions, what they in fact got from others. German national-pride or not - how would it have been with post-war american jet-fighter technology or NASA-space rockets for example without Wernher von Braun, Messerschmitt, Heinkel, Arado, Blohm & Voss and so on? Look at all the american jet-fighters used during war in Korea - nothing but copies of WW-II german Heinkel-projects etc.. Right?

But for that reason we must not get at loggerheads, I know naturally the Americans invented some useful things too - for instance the refrigiator, to keep the coke cool...http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

(Mr. Seesack left for unknown destination after dictation...)

Well, this is all for the moment, I could find in the net concerning the matter:

Like any project of this size, it took years to develop the design using lessons learned from World War Two. Most telling of these was the German Type XXI U-Boat, a revolutionary submarine in its own right. Able to do seventeen knots submerged and running silent enough to that anti-submarine vessels could not detect them, the Type XXI opened the eyes of American officers to the potentials of this submarine€s advanced technology. But the United States had only two examples to examine. The increasingly hostile Soviet Union had the shipyards and unbuilt Type XXI components in their possession...

http://www.hampton.lib.nh.us/hampton/history/ships/ussalbacore/albacoreanniversaryAN.htm

Messervy
11-27-2004, 01:17 AM
Judging from the angle of the camera and the way it pans I figured out it was on the ground and mounted on a tripod - very much like the Americans were experimenting with missiles - there is also a white streak of something if you look frame by frame.
Well just my thoughts.

hauitsme
11-27-2004, 02:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
...there is also a white streak of something if you look frame by frame. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where's this streak? I see the smoke(?)/fuel(?) trailing from the right of the #4 engine, and the exhaust smoke from the missile. Is there something other than these that I perhaps missed?

Dominicrigg
11-27-2004, 02:54 AM
This is war footage, its not an experiment.
The b17 has already been hit (you can see fuel leaking from the wing)

What happens next is either :

The fuel ignites blowing the wing off.
A rocket fired from an aircraft hits the wing in the same place as the leak and blows the plane up.

The camera is on the ground tracking it, good camera work!! I hope the guys got out alright :O but unlikely looking at the spin its in.


Americans built the Nautilus, it was like everything in military designed learning from other peoples designs, you cant claim it as german lol

Also the american jets are more derived from english technology then german. The germans used Rocket engines, which were flawed, the british invented the jet but as with all things british the government would not fund the inventer, the americans did...

hauitsme
11-27-2004, 03:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Dominicrigg:
What happens next is either :

The fuel ignites blowing the wing off.
A rocket fired from an aircraft hits the wing in the same place as the leak and blows the plane up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's clearly right there - a missile.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also the american jets are more derived from english technology then german. The germans used Rocket engines, which were flawed, the british invented the jet... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What screwball fed that cr*p to you? Three statements, and all three of them skewed.
At least the ending of the last line is correct.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...but as with all things british the government would not fund the inventer, the americans did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

u2336
11-27-2004, 03:51 AM
I dont want to play the smart *** but as the host of this video I have all the rightsss AAAAAAHAHAHHHHAAAA http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
oops sorry....

It was fun to see you debating this very funny video (yeah I can say funny as noone was injured during the filming http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif....hmmmm....maybe a desert snake that received a part of the B17 falling down within the missile range)

It is the test of a Nike guided missile in 1952.
Sorry guys, no nazi missile (well, for those whom wrote the nazi did have success with their missile project, please link me !)
This shot appeared to be the first plane downed by a guided missile.

The plane is a droned B17 (QB-17), please notice the lack of the ball and turrets, it would be strange for a B17G (it is a G as the tail turret is a cheyenne type) to fly over Germany without any weapons !!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/antoine.lenormand/Images/bild/bscap13.jpg

u2336
11-27-2004, 03:52 AM
I forgot....the smoke comes from a marker.

Mjollnir111675
11-27-2004, 07:42 AM
A-Ha thats the problem!!

I am referring to a B-24 lib video.Sorry I caught a case of the dumb@rse!! Ok I have NEVER seen that video of the B-17. I am sorry fer confusing yalls topic and furthermore fer not reading closer to what the original poster posted.I once again apologize fer not payng attention. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
But if anyone knows of the video of the lib that i am referring to please let me know your thoughts!!

Dominicrigg
11-27-2004, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hauitsme:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also the american jets are more derived from english technology then german. The germans used Rocket engines, which were flawed, the british invented the jet... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What screwball fed that cr*p to you? Three statements, and all three of them skewed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seriously dude you like showing off your ignorance, i dont even know you and i dislike you already lol

Frank Whittle inventer of the jet engine, born coventry england, swat up on some history before accusing people of spouting ****...

Mjollnir111675
11-27-2004, 11:04 AM
"Dr. Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle are both recognized as being the co-inventors of the jet engine. Each worked separately and knew nothing of the other's work. Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine. Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent for the turbojet engine in 1930. Hans von Ohain was granted a patent for his turbojet engine in 1936. However, Hans von Ohain's jet was the first to fly in 1939. Frank Whittle's jet first flew in in 1941."

This came from:

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

u2336
11-27-2004, 11:12 AM
Dom,

I would not completly agree with your statement too. You are 100% right when you say Whittle invented the jet engine. But I cant let you writing the german planes were mostly rocket powered, have you forgotten the Me262, the He162, the Arado Ar234, the He280...with junkers and BMW jet engines ?

The USA did bring back many german planes to study them. Some of the X planes were only finished german projects (see the X5 and Mess. P1101)

You are right for the P59 Airacoment though that was fitted with a copy of the Whittle engine.

SailorSteve
11-27-2004, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
@ SAilor Steve:

I always thought from the angle of the cam recording that footage that it was a bomb that had been dropped from the a/c above and drifted into the wing root.Because of the way the wing folds down I always figured it was caused by a bomb dropping through it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think we're talking about two different planes. In the one I'm thinkin of there is a sudden blast just inside of the port inboard engine. the plane rolls to the left as that wing folds upward and then comes off completely.

There also exists a series of photographs (which may actually come from a film) of a B-17 which had the misfortune to be under another at the time of release. One of the bombs went right through the starboard elevator, shearing it off and sending the plane into a death spin. Not pretty stuff.

Mjollnir111675
11-27-2004, 12:10 PM
@SailorSteve:

Yes I stated that above!! Yes I was referring to a b-24 flight. I stepped in a pile of dumb@rse!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
And where were you stationed at Steve?I was stationed @ Groton. H.T. here.

Messervy
11-27-2004, 12:23 PM
Thank You u2336 - well solved.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

This is a power of the Forum. A footage used in a WW ll documentary and we proved it was false.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hauitsme
11-27-2004, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>U2336:
You are right for the P59 Airacomet though that was fitted with a copy of the Whittle engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not a copy. It was reworked and improved. It was April of 1941 that the US Government was told of the British development of the turbojet engine. They asked and were given the blueprints of the new jet engine so that they could manufacture it in the USA. Since the US government was being so generous with its Lend-Lease aid to Britain, the RAF readily agreed. There's are differences between the XP-59A(3 built), the YP-59A(13 built), and the P-59A(50 built). But none of them used the original Whittle engine. The three XP-59As were powered by a pair of General Electric I-A centrifugal-flow turbojets rated at 1250 pounds of static thrust. Subsequent models of it, such as the I-14 (1400 pounds of static thrust) and the I-16 (1650 pounds of static thrust) powered the YP-59A preproduction test aircraft that were evaluated at Muroc in late 1943 and early 1944. The General Electric J31 turbojet engine was developed beginning in 1943. The J31 was the first turbojet engine produced in quantity in the United States (241 were produced between 1943 and 1945). It weighed 850 pounds and produced 1,650 pounds of thrust. BTW, the Airacomet flew 13 months before the Meteor.
Some more info: Bell P-59 Airacomet (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/p059.html)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Seesack:
Look at all the american jet-fighters used during war in Korea - nothing but copies of WW-II german Heinkel-projects etc.. Right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Partly. They did take most of the research in swept-wings to adapt into production A/C, noteably the F-86 from the F-84. It's the Russians and Chinese that have a history of copying others work. And it's still going on.

Dominicrigg
11-27-2004, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by u2336:
Dom,

I would not completly agree with your statement too. You are 100% right when you say Whittle invented the jet engine. But I cant let you writing the german planes were mostly rocket powered, have you forgotten the Me262, the He162, the Arado Ar234, the He280...with junkers and BMW jet engines ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes sorry, lol this forums got me so annoyed im making sweeping comments before i think about it lol.

As to modern jet engines they are derived from Whittles engine (both men had jet engines but they worked in very different ways) His turbo jet is just more feasable in modern equipment. I have a book somewhere which gives the differences but i cant find the **** thing at the moment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Saying that though, modern jet technology (the next phase) which america is working on at the moment to get mach 10 and plus is based off german designs. So maybe the german designers/inventers were just too far ahead of their time!!

QUOTE]Not a copy. It was reworked and improved. It was April of 1941 that the US Government was told of the British development of the turbojet engine.[/QUOTE]

Reworked and improved copy of british technology, no matter what fancy words you put on its still a copy.

hauitsme
11-27-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Reworked and improved copy of british technology, no matter what fancy words you put on its still a copy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, according to that logic(?), that new Porsche I'm looking at is nothing but a copy of that Ford I saw earlier. Yea, right. So that british technology isn't british! Seems I've seen some Romanian(Henri Coanda)working on it a few DECADES before. Henri Coandƒ (June 7, 1886 - November 25, 1972) was a Romanian inventor, aerodynamics pioneer and the parent of the modern jet aircraft.

u2336
11-27-2004, 05:54 PM
hauitsyou I cant let you saying that ! We all know that it was the squid that invented the jet engine... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I said !

hauitsme
11-27-2004, 06:16 PM
OOPS ! !

What came over me? Especially since I see them almost every day!

Jet engines are not a british invention. Nature came up with it millenia ago.

Good catch there u2336!!!

SailorSteve
11-27-2004, 09:25 PM
Does a squid have complete flow through? Is it a jet or a rocket? If it is a jet, how would you describe it (ramjet, turbojet, Joan Jett)?

SailorSteve
11-27-2004, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
@SailorSteve:

Yes I stated that above!! Yes I was referring to a b-24 flight. I stepped in a pile of dumb@rse!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
And where were you stationed at Steve?I was stationed @ Groton. H.T. here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry about that, I still wasn't sure we were talking about the same thing. Stupid Steve strikes again!
I served on a destroyer based out of Long Beach, California in 1969-71. Our "home away from home" was Subic Bay most of the time, and most of my major service was off the coast of Vietnam.

Dominicrigg
11-28-2004, 03:35 AM
Uhh lol i leave you to this one, you are the soldier marching differently to the rest of the platoon, but remember its them who are out of step hey? Cant be you...

If you look at the workings of a modern jet engine, study Whittles engine, study other jet engines made by the germans, tell me which technology tree modern jets are derived from. Tanks for example are a british invention, the german tanks (though different) were copied. Or easier still ask someone who manufactures modern jets to tell you who invented the technology they use...

The short sword (gladius) was a spanish invention Though the romans copied it and improved it, the gladius is still a spanish invention.

The porche is a petrol powered car, therefore its technology is derived from the inventer of the first petrol powered car.

In 1769 Nicolas Joseph Cugnot made the first steam powered vehicle. The porche IS NOT derived from this as it is NOT steam powered.

A the new porshe has the same shape as all the other porches therefore its facade is a copy of other porches.

The porche is not a copy of the ford no, that is a stupid comment.

Its engine technology (which is what we are arguing about i remind you before you get excited about squid) is derived from Daimler's (a german) combustion engine. Recognised by the world as the inventer of the first model in the tech tree of modern gas engines.

So the porche engine is derived from Daimlers technology, which has been copied and improved countless times over the last 100+years.

Like your romanian friend working on the jet there were countless failures before him, but the moment when the version of engine we now work with was created is by Daimler, who in his turn learnt from the countless failures to make a combustion engine before him.

Funny U2236 The squid joke is funny, unfortunatley a squid does not use turbo fan technology so its not what modern jet aircraft are based from. Wish it were, building a jet engine would not cost us so much...


People were working on tvs before they were invented, but the one we use comes from one invention, cathode ray tube.

People worked on steam trains but we no longer use that technology to power our trains. That tech tree has run its course.

Its basic design and invention principles.

Modern jet technology is taken from Sir Frank Whittles turbofan design. I will let you have last word though as i am sure you will have to and i am bored of arguing. Make it a funny one!

Jose.MaC
11-28-2004, 03:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seesack:
Hallo Hauitsme,

hmmm - I learned it from a tv-docu I must admit, and was first astonished too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never trust documentaries! I remember a german documentarie serial that explained about different european countries, lead by Dr. Soandso. In the Spanish episode, he explained than cartujan horses were descendant of lipizan horses. The main use of those horses were to bullfight... as the mount of picadores! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Exactly the inverse: lipizan horses came from cartujan ones -from the time of Emperor Charles I of Spain, V of Germany. Their use in bullfighting is for rejoneo -so they play a main role. And so on.

Just don't trust them, sometimes they act as journalists: they report something they don't know exactly, and they even doesn't try to know a little more than the superficial aspect.

oscar0072004
11-28-2004, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
I understand that some of you guys like flight sims. I was watching a 1972 "World at war" and stumbled upon this:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/antoine.lenormand/Images/Video/B-17.wmv

It is so fantastic that I instantly started to wonder whether it is documentary footage or it was some kind of experiment.

Check it out and let me know.
P.S. Thanks to u2336 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i had all the the world at war series and there was one with featured u-boats with great footage of u-boats and all the u-boat aces . i cant remember which one it was i think 6 and 7 . but i lost it anyway . could you give us some footage of this? or do you remember what epasodes it were?

Messervy
11-28-2004, 02:08 PM
It was episode 10!

You can get it via Bittorent. Not strictly legal but not ilegal.
Go to www.suprnova.org (http://www.suprnova.org) than search for it.
You need to have Bittorent client protocol installed.

I can send you an E-mail with protocol - just let me know: jurmik@amis.net

Seesack
11-28-2004, 02:38 PM
Hauitsme,

hope you considerded I was (partly) only joking with you and the Americans generally (half of my family are americans too).

But if you watch e.g. here in Germany the german-american partnership station "N-24" you really sometimes feel fed up with all that bigmouthed "...our wonderful carriers, and look here, that´s the fab F-16, let´s explain how fast she can go, how strong is her weapon-capacity..." etc. etc. nearly every day. Allright, it´s only actual war-propaganda, but at least therefore I liked to tease you a bit with these old stories.

It´s a fact, that everywhere scientific development takes place nearly on the same level; only the question is, who finally comes out first with the ready piece. That´s valid not only for technique and natural-science. Even Sigmund Freud for instance wasn´t really the founder of psychoanalystic principles - if you read a certain book on the "Kaspar Hauser-Case" written long time before by the famous and sharp-thinking lawyer Anselm von Feuerbach, who once cared for that displaced boy Kaspar and educated him at his home, you´ll find that many of Freuds basic ideas were in the air already decades before.

During WW-II not only the British (with their "Meteor") and Germans (Me-262, Arado, Heinkel, Blohm & Voss etc.) but also the Americans worked on jet-planes at a time. Correct is, that Germany came out first with various full-serving and really flying projects, from fighter-planes up to big twice- and fourth-engined bombers. Also they were in front with aerodynamics or some rescue-technique like e.g. the ejector-seat, which they used first in the Messerschmitt-262 jet.

Furthermore it´s an interesting matter, how they worked on a wide spreaded variablity of really fascinating projects, also leading already to some prototypes which partly remind to somekind of science-fiction (for example a "flying-saucer" made by BMW, which really flew).

http://www.reichsflugscheiben.de/bmw.htm

As another project (but yet without a prototype) you could even find among this some big jet-planes very similar e.g. to the later american "B-52" (the so called "New-York Bomber")etc.. But especially projects like that one were absolutely unrealistic on closer inspection, because the german ressources would never had allowed it to be realized in sufficient numbers.

Maybe that reflected a typical german engineering-mentality of searching for and playing around with "verrückten" (strange)and extraordinary solutions just "l´art pour l´art" in a way.

Under strategic aspects you can say it was not so helpful, rather totally the wrong doing. For example, in place of all the rocket-projects in Peenemünde or the enforced jet-development they easely could have doubbled their conventional airforce - and surely with more effectiveness at least!

What did Churchill say after war, what was one of the most effectful contributions to victory from his sight? The Jeep, he pointed - because of it´s technical simplicity. And referring to the also relatively simple-constructed russian tank "T-34", compared with german high-tech "Tiger" or "Panther", many former german soldiers could be heard with a similar opinion shortly after the war, when I was young.

The german side tend to dissipate their energies (by the way in strategical matters the same). Not least even two companies like Messerschmitt or Focke-Wulf worked on exactly the same important project - although only one finally could be realized naturally. Which means, afterwards one of two brand new finished planes was built for nothing. Waisted time, money and intellectual ressources - in a situation, all of that was already very limited.

That reminds me to what a friend once ironically pointed out: "Listen, every nation in fact does not show the characteristics they normally are well-known for. The British are not fair, the French not charming, the Americans not liberal and the Germans neither diligent workers nor good organizers!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

But of course after war all these german ready or half-ready projects ment a real bonanza for the winners. And just to quote a popular song - "...The winner takes it all...!".

Especially America could connect it with its big industrial and financial capacities coming altogether at last to the actual standard as a leading nation with its military-industrial complex.

hauitsme
11-28-2004, 03:02 PM
Thanks Seesack. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif No problems here!!

This 'ours are better than yours', 'we did it first' and 'mine is the only way' attitudes tend to start more sh*t than anything else. If someone doesn't agree with you/me, that's OK. But to skew the facts in your/my favor just doesn't won't do.

Sorry about that TV show. Always take anything you see or hear with a grain of salt(maybe a dump-truck full http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif ). Every 'historian' is biased, and they tend to write what they want you to know, not what really happened if it doesn't fit their version. It'll never change either.

Seesack
11-28-2004, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hauitsme:
Thanks Seesack. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif No problems here!!


Sorry about that TV show. Always take anything you see or hear with a grain of salt(maybe a dump-truck full http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif ). Every 'historian' is biased, and they tend to write what they want you to know, not what really happened if it doesn't fit their version. It'll never change either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks back. Yes, indeed, but they pointed it in such a convincing way, that I did not found it indicated to investigate more by myself (I´m not sure, but I suppose, it even was from the BBC, which you traditionally can trust in a high grade)

Seesack
11-28-2004, 03:20 PM
Look here, that´s a funny website on that theme, about the ideas they played with (and partly realized):

http://www.luft46.com/jhart/lufartjh.html


http://www.luft46.com/mmfwb-2a.jpg

Seesack
11-28-2004, 04:10 PM
To come to an end for today - but I just remember another thing, an uncle once told from wartime and which also concerns wonderful to the "typical german" way of thinking in technical connections.

He and his comrades were always bothered from all that confusion with an endless number of german lorry-types: Ford, BMW, Mercedes, Borgward, Hanomag, Volkswagen, Audi, MAN etc. etc. And of course, if one of these cars must be repaired, e.g. a Mercedes - the spare-parts in stock were exactly from Borgward or BMW. And next day they received another box with Hanomag-parts in...

He often told how they compared this grimly with the situation in the american forces on the opposite side; they only got two types of trucks there, he said, and just a number of different trailers for several purposes.

I think this shows very well the difference: "playing" with good ideas and hitech, but no sense for practical purposes and organization on one side but exactly the latter on the other side. As allies they both could have already been unbeatable... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

U-319
11-28-2004, 05:12 PM
I have a book that showed that a bomb from another bomber above took the wing off. I think it also said all crew members died.

U-319

Seesack
11-29-2004, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U-319:
I have a book that showed that a bomb from another bomber above took the wing off. I think it also said all crew members died.

U-319 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, U-319, because you cannot fly your plane with only one wing. But the matter of fact here was, there is an explosion to be seen in the film. A bomb could hit another plane in the air - but it would not blow up.

u2336
11-29-2004, 10:42 AM
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/antoine.lenormand/Images/bild/bscap13.jpg

and the little black thing coming from the left doesnt really look like a bomb...

hauitsme
11-30-2004, 08:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>u2336:
and the little black thing coming from the left doesnt really look like a bomb... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That 'little' thing is 21 ft. long with a 15 in. diameter, carrying a 300 lb. payload flying at 1900 mph.
The Nike Ajax had 3 warheads.
* Nose: M2, 4.5 lbs Composition B, 12 lbs total
* Mid-body: M3, 92 lbs Comp. B, 176.8 lbs total
* Aft: M4, 59 lbs Comp B, 121.3 lbs total

Each bomb was "Composition B" surrounded by two layers of 1/4 inch sharp cubes of hardened steel.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~epperson/nike/ajaxup.jpg

HeibgesU999
12-01-2004, 10:53 AM
My uncle on my Mom's side, was shot down in a B-17 and spent a couple of years in a POW camp.