PDA

View Full Version : What if He-280 would have been chosen to be buillt instead of the FW-190



Jaws2002
02-18-2008, 11:13 AM
What impact it would have had on the air war?

M_Gunz
02-18-2008, 11:26 AM
They would have built FW's for a while anyway as getting enough jet engines to fill need was
not going to happen without gross readjustment of German production priorities.

Xiolablu3
02-18-2008, 11:38 AM
Well, seeing as the FW190 gave the Western Allies a lot more trouble than the Bf109 (different in the East), then not too much would have changed IMO.

The Allies were playing catchup from the introduction of numbers of the FW190, until the new fighters like the Spitfire IXB and P51 came into service.

Once thing about the FW190, it started off with a big advantage, but whereas the Spitfire was to make tremendous leaps in top speed and rate of climb, FW190A performance remained very similar throughout the war.

Maybe more effort could have been made to improve the FW190A.

Jaws2002
02-18-2008, 11:48 AM
He 280 was way faster. Over 800km/h. The allies made up for the lost ground to FW 190 rather quick. With the He280 it would have been a lot harder to catch up.

But as M_Gunz posted i'm not sure how quick could the germans build enough reliable engines for the 280.

Xiolablu3
02-18-2008, 11:55 AM
Well, I guess if the He280 p[roved a big success for the Germans in 1941, then the Allies would have rushed the Meteor and Vampire into service rather quickly.

More effort would have been made to get ALlied Jet fighters into service.

But the truth is that Prop fighters still had a lot of performance left at this time. ANd there were too many problems to sort out on jets in 1941 to have them just 'appear' in service. The Germans didnt even have it properly sorted when the Me262 came into service, it had engines catching fire and was rather dangerous to its pilots.

HuninMunin
02-18-2008, 11:57 AM
Given a major change in focus and Hitler protegeing the developement for both the airplane and jet engines seriel production might have been feasible in early '43.
Not exactly an immidiate change in the tactical situation, but maybe early enough to create serious problems to overcome for the 8th and the RAF.

Bremspropeller
02-18-2008, 12:38 PM
Maybe more effort could have been made to improve the FW190A.

There were lots of projects that proposed a 190 with improved alt performance..even in '41.
But the tards in RLM (Udet being one of them!) wiped them under the carpet.

Ever wondered why the "Dora" was designated D?
Because the B and C never made it to production http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

They'd better have stopped the 110 and 210/410 and the production of bombers.
Look at what a/c they brought out when noone needed them...the He 117 being only the best known. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

JtD
02-18-2008, 01:42 PM
Had the Heinkel been a decent bomber there might have been a chance for it to get into service.

Gringo_UK1
02-18-2008, 09:19 PM
If Nazi Germany hadn't been led by a delusional ego-maniacal military incompetent and the Luftwaffe wasn't under the control of a heroin addicted moron then they could well of produced some outstanding aircraft.....But then again they wouldn't have got involved in a war that was un-winnable in the 1st place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daiichidoku
02-18-2008, 09:37 PM
the 185 would have been rushed into production? :P

BGs_Ricky
02-19-2008, 02:32 AM
Hitler would have asked to turn the He-280 into a fast bomber with dive-bombing capabilities, ruining the aircraft and delaying its development until 1945 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-19-2008, 07:41 AM
The P80 would have got higher priority and thus put into service sooner..

Or the war would have been delayed a few more months and the US would have nuked Berlin

jadger
02-19-2008, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Gringo_UK1:
If Nazi Germany hadn't been led by a delusional ego-maniacal military incompetent and the Luftwaffe wasn't under the control of a heroin addicted moron then they could well of produced some outstanding aircraft.....But then again they wouldn't have got involved in a war that was un-winnable in the 1st place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It was Morphine, not Heroin

Xiolablu3
02-19-2008, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gringo_UK1:
If Nazi Germany hadn't been led by a delusional ego-maniacal military incompetent and the Luftwaffe wasn't under the control of a heroin addicted moron then they could well of produced some outstanding aircraft.....But then again they wouldn't have got involved in a war that was un-winnable in the 1st place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It was Morphine, not Heroin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


SAme thing really, its all about Poppies...

Methadone, Morphine, Heroin, Hell even Codeine, all have the same effect just some stronger than others.

An addict will take any of these to relieve withdrawal/cold turkey.

M_Gunz
02-19-2008, 11:41 AM
I dunno about opiates but those clowns were bringing a lot of cocaine to Germany, which from
the coke heads I have seen would explain a LOT. Of course it is also a local anesthetic
with a applications in battlefield medicine where putting casualties under general would be bad.

I've heard one German soldier involved in the Battle for France say they were running on pep
pills, would be awake running and fighting three days at a time before resting while another
unit would leapfrog and continue the battle. That gives me the best explanation for why the
Germans delayed a mass attack of Dunkirk -- too many units local there were burned out and
needed to recover! What can I say, you have books that don't mention the use of drugs at all
yet by troop movements give lip to supermen stories and then one who was there telling about
day and night for three days awake and active on amphetamines.

Xiolablu3
02-19-2008, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I dunno about opiates but those clowns were bringing a lot of cocaine to Germany, which from
the coke heads I have seen would explain a LOT. Of course it is also a local anesthetic
with a applications in battlefield medicine where putting casualties under general would be bad.

I've heard one German soldier involved in the Battle for France say they were running on pep
pills, would be awake running and fighting three days at a time before resting while another
unit would leapfrog and continue the battle. That gives me the best explanation for why the
Germans delayed a mass attack of Dunkirk -- too many units local there were burned out and
needed to recover! What can I say, you have books that don't mention the use of drugs at all
yet by troop movements give lip to supermen stories and then one who was there telling about
day and night for three days awake and active on amphetamines.

Now we know what caused the Allied collapse at the Battle of France! It the chronic drug use in each of the opposing armies!

The Germans were all feeling like supermen whilst on Cocaine...



Meanwhile the British army in the summer of 1940 picked completely the wrong drug for warfare...:-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=517198059628627413

Retrofish
02-19-2008, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:



Meanwhile the British army in the summer of 1940 picked completely the wrong drug for warfare...:-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=517198059628627413

Thanks. That clip make my day. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

jadger
02-19-2008, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gringo_UK1:
If Nazi Germany hadn't been led by a delusional ego-maniacal military incompetent and the Luftwaffe wasn't under the control of a heroin addicted moron then they could well of produced some outstanding aircraft.....But then again they wouldn't have got involved in a war that was un-winnable in the 1st place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It was Morphine, not Heroin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


SAme thing really, its all about Poppies...

Methadone, Morphine, Heroin, Hell even Codeine, all have the same effect just some stronger than others.

An addict will take any of these to relieve withdrawal/cold turkey. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heroin was invented during WWI for the German military as a "less addicting" form of Morphine, or so they originally thought. Goering was wounded in WWI and that is when his Morphine addiction started.

Saying they are all the same is like me calling you a girl because both males and females are derived from the same source as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Xiolablu3
02-20-2008, 02:11 AM
To an opiate adddict, like Goering, they are all the same thing :- Less withdrawal/pain.

He was addicted to Opiates in general.

Aaron_GT
02-20-2008, 04:29 AM
which fromthe coke heads I have seen would explain a LOT.

What was being used when designing some of those bizzare paper napkin planes at the end of the war? Also what were they on in March 1945 planning production of new jet bombers, not realising the war was nearly over?

Aaron_GT
02-20-2008, 04:30 AM
Did Goering get addicted by using it for pain relief?

M_Gunz
02-20-2008, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">which fromthe coke heads I have seen would explain a LOT.

What was being used when designing some of those bizzare paper napkin planes at the end of the war? Also what were they on in March 1945 planning production of new jet bombers, not realising the war was nearly over? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that the engineers or scientists were using, but the Party members.. that's why
they called it the Nazi Party, right?

stathem
02-20-2008, 05:20 AM
What a difference a dioxy group and an extra methyl group can make.

If they'd have given the Storm troopers

(±)-1-(benzo[d][1,3]dioxol-5-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine

instead of

1-phenylpropan-2-amine,

the world would have been a much different place.

And a little more friendly.

Daiichidoku
02-20-2008, 07:59 AM
it was a shame the "war was almost over" for germany in 41, or perhaps lucky for us now, otherwise the 280 would have been a pure terror in the skies
US?Brit could play catchup all they wanted, Germany could have had a formidable lead in airframe production, training and tactics, maintenance, etc, to ensure a viable fighter arm for a long time
the real prize would have been the subsequent developments, they would liekly be on to their own next gen jet types, as the allies were still teething with their 1st gens

this would also allow for relatively few fighters in west (less than RL) to "hold back" RAF?USAAF, possibly allowing to free 109 porduction lines for more, and better jabos for eastern front (15,000 109Zs anyone?)

the 280 probably couldnt have materially changed the outcome of the war

but interesting if it DID, resulting in intercontinental war with amerika bombers and SBMs vs US's emerging high tech (B2s vs B2s! lol)

jadger
02-20-2008, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Did Goering get addicted by using it for pain relief?

He was wounded in aerial combat in WWI, and given morphine for the pain, and became addicted.

Hitler was also using crystal meth to fight the onset of Parkinson's Disease is a common thought... Geez, every crackhead wants to have lead the 3rd Reich http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Viper2005_
02-20-2008, 12:41 PM
He-280 may have been a great aircraft.
Me-262 was a great aircraft.

However, aircraft don't win wars.

Aircraft without engines, fuel or pilots don't do much at all.

Germany had major supply problems in several aviation fields:

- <span class="ev_code_red">Fuel.</span> Lacking oil reserves, Germany was forced to use synthetic oil. Contrary to popular belief, their fuel technology was quite advanced, but their starting point was coal and they never manage to produce a high PN avgas in useful quantity. As a result of this, the development potential of their piston aero-engines was limited, and they never achieved the bhp/litre performance available to the Allies.

This problem would have been sidestepped via the use of jets, whose fuel requirements are rather different from Otto cycle engines and would probably have been somewhat easier for the Germans to meet.

Against this however, jets are considerably more thirsty than piston engines due a combination of lower cycle efficiency (especially in early engines of low pressure ratio) and greatly increased power output.

Therefore, I suspect that wide-spread introduction of jet fighters would have proved extremely challenging for the Germans; their fuel quality problems being exchanged for fuel quantity problems. In particular, logistic problems of getting fuel to airfields would have proven considerably more formidable.

For this reason, 1:1 replacement of piston engined fighters with jets would have almost certainly been impossible.

- <span class="ev_code_red">High Temperature Materials.</span> The Germans were considerably behind in this regard, largely through a simple lack of raw materials. Piston engines have rather less demanding material requirements than gas turbines because although their peak cycle temperatures may be scary, the mean metal temperatures are generally rather pedestrian. Meanwhile, gas turbines are exposed to the full fury of their cycle temperature, at the same time as being placed under severe mechanical and aerodynamic loading.

For this reason, the Germans were at a considerable inherent disadvantage in gas turbine technology.

It is one thing to fly a few development aircraft, and quite another to field a practical fighter.

Engine lives for German jets were always short (overhaul lives were around 12 hours, scrap lives around 24), primarily as a result of the poor creep performance of the available materials. Indeed, such performance was only achieved via the ground-breaking introduction of cooled turbine technology.

When Germany started to press jets into service, the war situation was desperate, and safety standards were somewhat relaxed.

In 1941, with somewhat higher safety standards it is doubtful whether a German jet fighter would have seen operational service. If necessity is the mother of invention, desperation is the mother of rapid implementation.

Had the He-280 been selected as the next German fighter, it seems to me that it would have remained stuck at the prototype stage for a considerable length of time whilst the materials science problems were overcome, and would probably only have entered limited service once a state of desperation was reached with the military situation.

For this reason, I suspect that the introduction of the He-280 to squadron service in this alternative reality would have closely mirrored the actual introduction of the Me-262.

- <span class="ev_code_red">Pilots</span>. It takes a long time to train a pilot. It takes a short time to kill him. The Germans had an ever-increasing pilot attrition problem throughout the war, and were unable to make good their losses, electing to maintain numbers at the expense of quality.

The faster an aircraft flies, the faster things happen, and therefore the further "ahead of the aeroplane" the pilot must be.

Jets are inherently more difficult to fly on the approach due to their reduced speed stability and poor engine response.

Due to high engine failure rates, the chances of a single-engined approach would have been rather high. It is easy to see how limited training, low engine reliability and high aircraft performance might translate into a higher accident rate and increased pilot wastage.

Therefore, it seems likely that with the existing capital equipment available for pilot training, it would have been impossible for the Luftwaffe to replace piston pilots with jet pilots on anything like a 1:1 basis.

***

For these reasons I would suggest that the He-280's opportunity to materially affect the outcome of the war was non-existent.

Indeed, I would suggest that due to the precarious economic position of the Axis powers, their only chance of victory was Blitzkrieg, in the sense that as soon as the Allied powers switched their economies onto a full war-footing the game was up. Since the time taken to start the mass production of anything is pretty much a constant, it therefore follows that the only technologies which offered the Germans the ability to win WWII were those immediately available at the start of each Blitzkrieg campaign.

Xiolablu3
02-20-2008, 02:33 PM
Sorry for OT post, but why do we not use this 'synthetic oil' today where real Oil is so expensive?

Is it still cheaper to buy 'real' oil than make this synthetic oil? Or is there some other reason?

Could anyone enlighten me on this 'synthetic oil'? I have always gathered it was some man-made oil-substitute? Is that correct? And what are its advantages/disadvantages over real oil?

M_Gunz
02-20-2008, 02:41 PM
If the Blitz was the only way then the turning point of the war was the failure to take Britain.

Viper2005_
02-20-2008, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Sorry for OT post, but why do we not use this 'synthetic oil' today where real Oil is so expensive?

Is it still cheaper to buy 'real' oil than make this synthetic oil? Or is there some other reason?

Could anyone enlighten me on this 'synthetic oil'? I have always gathered it was some man-made oil-substitute? Is that correct? And what are its advantages/disadvantages over real oil?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process

luftluuver
02-20-2008, 03:47 PM
C3 fuel was the equivalent of Allied 100/130 fuel. Late war C3 was approaching 140PN.

2/3 of German produced avgas was C3.

Nice graphs of German fuel,

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Germanfuel-2.jpg

M_Gunz
02-20-2008, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Sorry for OT post, but why do we not use this 'synthetic oil' today where real Oil is so expensive?

Is it still cheaper to buy 'real' oil than make this synthetic oil? Or is there some other reason?

Could anyone enlighten me on this 'synthetic oil'? I have always gathered it was some man-made oil-substitute? Is that correct? And what are its advantages/disadvantages over real oil?

Go price synthetic down at Pep Boys. It's really good stuff though, stays clean longer cause
it starts cleaner and doesn't break down as easily. Great for bikes, cars, trucks, it's like
using silicon brake fluid instead of alcohol brake fluid. But it ain't cheap! BTW, it's been
around a long time now!

Frequent_Flyer
02-20-2008, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Sorry for OT post, but why do we not use this 'synthetic oil' today where real Oil is so expensive?

Is it still cheaper to buy 'real' oil than make this synthetic oil? Or is there some other reason?

Could anyone enlighten me on this 'synthetic oil'? I have always gathered it was some man-made oil-substitute? Is that correct? And what are its advantages/disadvantages over real oil?



Real oil is " Synthetically Expensive "!!!!

HerrGraf
02-20-2008, 06:06 PM
However, modern synthetic oil is used for lubrication, not as a fuel. It is not the synthetic oil Germany had in 1945.

M_Gunz
02-20-2008, 07:01 PM
The stuff we have now is not the same but the principle is.
Engines use oil as well as gas, check that synthetic oil was not used for lubrication please.
Synthetic oil to fuel is a process. Did BASF play a part in that or another company?
German chemistry made a difference even before WWI and some would say contributed strongly
to Germany being ready for that war. Oh the trouble a little fertilizer can make!

The-Pizza-Man
02-21-2008, 02:43 AM
Didn't the USAF test synthetic fuel in a B-52 just recently.

Sergio_101
02-21-2008, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Didn't the USAF test synthetic fuel in a B-52 just recently.

I believe it was bio fuel and not in a B-52.

German "synthetic" petrolium products were derived
from the hydrogynation of coal.
Yep, coal, no no true solution there, it's still
a fossil fuel.

He-280 was a good combat plane in a similar vein to the Gloster Meteor.
But there were no engines available in sufficent quantity for either the Me-262 or He-280.

Planes with no engines are of no threat.....

Sergio

AKA_TAGERT
02-21-2008, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Planes with no engines are of no threat..... ROTFL!

And when the engines show up and are heavier than expected they tend to cause problems too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
02-21-2008, 04:38 PM
I believe it was bio fuel and not in a B-52.


It was synthetic fuel, in a B-52 - mixed 50:50 with JP-8.

Klemm.co
02-21-2008, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Planes with no engines are of no threat..... ROTFL!

And when the engines show up and are heavier than expected they tend to cause problems too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What a revelation. Like when people get old they tend to die. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Radoye1
02-21-2008, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Did Goering get addicted by using it for pain relief?
He was wounded in aerial combat in WWI, and given morphine for the pain, and became addicted.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Uh, no. He got shot during the 1923 Putsch in a pretty sensitive area and then escaped from hospital to avoid arrest, self-medicating himself with morphine...

AKA_TAGERT
02-21-2008, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Klemm.co:
What a revelation. Like when people get old they tend to die. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
You poor thing..

Let it go before you pop! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jadger
02-22-2008, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Radoye1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Did Goering get addicted by using it for pain relief?
He was wounded in aerial combat in WWI, and given morphine for the pain, and became addicted.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Uh, no. He got shot during the 1923 Putsch in a pretty sensitive area and then escaped from hospital to avoid arrest, self-medicating himself with morphine... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

um, No... He spent most of 1916 recovering from his wounds after getting shot down, and that is when he became addicted to Morphine, why does it matter anyways? result was still the same.

M_Gunz
02-22-2008, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
German "synthetic" petrolium products were derived
from the hydrogynation of coal.
Yep, coal, no no true solution there, it's still
a fossil fuel.

Where else do you expect to find truely large quantities of usable high-density high-energy
bonds? Beach sand?

Yes it's "synthetic". They took one thing and synthesized another from it.
But I suppose that YOU can do better? And no, your posts don't count.

Patriot_Act
02-22-2008, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
German "synthetic" petrolium products were derived
from the hydrogynation of coal.
Yep, coal, no no true solution there, it's still
a fossil fuel.

Where else do you expect to find truely large quantities of usable high-density high-energy
bonds? Beach sand?

Yes it's "synthetic". They took one thing and synthesized another from it.
But I suppose that YOU can do better? And no, your posts don't count. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, GunZ, getting a little frustrated?
A bit like Mr. Daiichidoku. Getting things wrong all the time
may be getting to you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Yes, it's synthetic. And yes the germans developed it to a high art.
It was not a new technology at the time.
Converting coal to gas (propane like gas) and oil
on an industrial scale has been around since the 1870s.
A by product of the process is a high grade coke suitable
for heating and firing boilers for any use.
Also useful for steel production.

GunZ, you ought to learn to avoid being so snippy.

P.A.

luftluuver
02-22-2008, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Where else do you expect to find truely large quantities of usable high-density high-energy
bonds? Beach sand?

Yes it's "synthetic". They took one thing and synthesized another from it.
But I suppose that YOU can do better? And no, your posts don't count.
Tar sands is a common name of what are more properly called bituminous sands, but also commonly referred to as oil sands or (in Venezuela) extra-heavy oil. They are a mixture of sand or clay, water, and extremely heavy crude oil.

The Alberta and Utah oil sands were formally beaches.

Aaron_GT
02-22-2008, 04:45 AM
So it wasn't Hitler who had only one, er, but Goering?

Daiichidoku
02-22-2008, 08:24 AM
together, they made quite a pair, eh?

Daiichidoku
02-22-2008, 08:34 AM
btw, patriot, ive been looking at the sig youve been using for so long now for your sergio101 alias, JHC

loose /lus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[loos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, loos·er, loos·est, adverb, verb loosed, loos·ing.
–adjective 1. free or released from fastening or attachment: a loose end.
2. free from anything that binds or restrains; unfettered: loose cats prowling around in alleyways at night.
3. uncombined, as a chemical element.
4. not bound together: to wear one's hair loose.
5. not put up in a package or other container: loose mushrooms.
etc

lose /luz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[looz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, lost, los·ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it.
2. to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa.
3. to suffer the deprivation of: to lose one's job; to lose one's life.
4. to be sgt slaughter: to lose class.
5. to fail to keep, preserve, or maintain: to lose one's balance; to lose one's figure.

M_Gunz
02-22-2008, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Patriot_Act:
Hmmm, GunZ, getting a little frustrated?
A bit like Mr. Daiichidoku. Getting things wrong all the time
may be getting to you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Yes, it's synthetic. And yes the germans developed it to a high art.
It was not a new technology at the time.
Converting coal to gas (propane like gas) and oil
on an industrial scale has been around since the 1870s.
A by product of the process is a high grade coke suitable
for heating and firing boilers for any use.
Also useful for steel production.

GunZ, you ought to learn to avoid being so snippy.

P.A.

Keep it up, you're almost as good as 'Daddy Taggy' at putting words in other people's mouths.

I don't remember ever posting that the Germans had invented the process, why don't you show
where I did that?

AKA_TAGERT
02-22-2008, 09:00 AM
I got your Daddy..

Right Here! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-22-2008, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Where else do you expect to find truely large quantities of usable high-density high-energy
bonds? Beach sand?

Yes it's "synthetic". They took one thing and synthesized another from it.
But I suppose that YOU can do better? And no, your posts don't count.
Tar sands is a common name of what are more properly called bituminous sands, but also commonly referred to as oil sands or (in Venezuela) extra-heavy oil. They are a mixture of sand or clay, water, and extremely heavy crude oil.

The Alberta and Utah oil sands were formally beaches. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>oh SNAP! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
02-22-2008, 09:15 AM
Sand, not oil or tar mixed in sand. If you can't figure it out...........

Patriot_Act
02-22-2008, 11:46 AM
Is it a standard operating procedure around here
to accuse people of using multiple accounts
or whine about spellink whan one gets his butt handed to him?

"Daiichidoku", I am not attacking you.
I am only pointing out that in the three weeks
since I ran into you here you aint been correct yet.

Remember...
"Try googling it before posting"

P.A.

Daiichidoku
02-22-2008, 12:19 PM
you need help sgt slaughter

Sergio_101
02-22-2008, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
you need help sgt slaughter

Oh Daiichidoku, grow up, read a bit more and
dude; Google to verify your posts FIRST.

AND I am not Patroit Act. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Have a mod verify my IP# and it will be proven.

Sergio

Badsight-
02-22-2008, 04:06 PM
my IP is dynamic

sgt slaughter is the single worst loser i ever saw online

no one can act like a crybaby as good as "sgt_slaughter" can

Sergio_101
02-22-2008, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
my IP is dynamic

sgt slaughter is the single worst loser i ever saw online

no one can act like a crybaby as good as "sgt_slaughter" can

That's correctly spelled Sgt.Slaughter in Hyper Lobby, not Sgt_Slaughter.

As for IP addresses, it is unlikely that Patriot Act and I are on the same
rotating IP pool.
Could happen, but it is unlikely.
I have a static IP on a fiber optic network.

I purchased this block of IP addresses.
They are unique.

And badsight, from my many months of experiance with you.
You just say NO and hurl insult.

Sergio

Badsight-
02-22-2008, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
And badsight, from my many months of experiance with you.
You just say NO and hurl insult.
i didnt fly with losers - played to fly not argue .

& i dont debate with them either

your a spade , & im calling you on it

CUJO_1970
02-22-2008, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:

your a spade , & im calling you on it


LMAO