PDA

View Full Version : Hitler's Stealth Fighter replica built and tested for stealth



Tachyon1000
08-02-2009, 01:09 PM
Team builds full scale replica of Ho 229 from era materials and tests it for stealth capabilities.

http://channel.nationalgeograp...6845_00#tab-Photos/0 (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hitler-s-stealth-fighter-3942/blueprints/06845_00#tab-Photos/0)

JtD
08-02-2009, 01:16 PM
It's not Hitler's, it's not stealth and it's not even really a fighter.

Tachyon1000
08-02-2009, 01:20 PM
I'm sure you are right. Merely reporting National Geographic's own characterization of it.

AndyJWest
08-02-2009, 01:28 PM
'Wooden mock up of non-flying WWII-era plane has low radar cross-section'. Wow! Stop the presses, cancel all TV broadcasts, over to National Geographic for this latest breaking non-news story...

Two words: so what?

M_Gunz
08-02-2009, 01:43 PM
Here, save time and typing.... (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5431023667)

Tachyon1000
08-02-2009, 03:35 PM
Nothing of interest in that thread nearly as I can tell.

The scenarios that are spun in the show are a bit fantastical, but of interest to me was that given a best case scenario the RAF's response time would have been reduced to 2 minutes.

megalopsuche
08-02-2009, 03:52 PM
You gotta love media that calls anything German from WW2 "Hitler's."

M_Gunz
08-02-2009, 03:57 PM
Compare to the V-1 of which many were launched. They were very stealthy too.

How many Hortens would have been needed to equal the destruction of a 100 Heinkel raid in 1940?
Would that many be as invisible? Would most of them get back home? Given the lack of trained
crew in Germany late in the war, would they have been able to mount and sustain a worthy effort?

M_Gunz
08-02-2009, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
You gotta love media that calls anything German from WW2 "Hitler's."

LOL! I knew a guy who kept asking which German tank was "The Panzer" because in shows they kept saying "Hitler's Panzers".
I tried to tell him "all of them, panzer means armored as in tank!" but he said I was wrong because of what the show said.

Freiwillige
08-02-2009, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
It's not Hitler's, it's not stealth and it's not even really a fighter.

It was under the Fuhrer's absolute influence.
It was stealthier than any other comparable crate.
It is a fighter by argument of what it is not. It is not a bomber, Not a recon, Not a ground attack, Not a transport. Obviously the thing was a fighter\interceptor.

ElAurens
08-02-2009, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
It's not Hitler's, it's not stealth and it's not even really a fighter.

+1

AndyJWest
08-02-2009, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:

...

It is a fighter by argument of what it is not. It is not a bomber, Not a recon, Not a ground attack, Not a transport. Obviously the thing was a fighter\interceptor.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Crop_Duster.jpg/180px-Crop_Duster.jpg

It is not a bomber, Not a recon, Not a ground attack, Not a transport...

DuxCorvan
08-02-2009, 05:20 PM
Obviously a jet-powered "Zerstörer". But put that on the media...

M_Gunz
08-02-2009, 05:40 PM
Hitler had orders to make the Me-262, surely a fighter, as bombers so why not the Horten?

Saburo_0
08-02-2009, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Obviously a jet-powered "Zerstörer". But put that on the media...
LOL ur rite uv corse! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brain32
08-02-2009, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
It's not Hitler's, it's not stealth and it's not even really a fighter.

It most certainly has a reduced RCS, and this my friend is what stealth as we know it is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SILVERFISH1992
08-02-2009, 06:16 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Another 10 pages about a previously discussed plane!



Oh well....the GO-229 wouldn't realy be "stealth" but it would have a low RCS though.

I mean just look at the jet engine inlets!?

AndyJWest
08-02-2009, 06:53 PM
Pre-Hitler German aircraft with low Radar Cross-Section:

http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/Lilienthal.jpg

Also not a bomber, Not a recon, Not a ground attack, Not a transport. Unsure about the armament though...

Waldo.Pepper
08-02-2009, 07:07 PM
Pre-Hitler German aircraft with low Radar Cross-Section:

Die Kaiser's Stealth Aufklärer?

I started the first thread on this topic months ago. I think there have been four (at least) started since then.

Where's a cop (moderator) when you need one?

mortoma
08-02-2009, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It's not Hitler's, it's not stealth and it's not even really a fighter.

It was under the Fuhrer's absolute influence.
It was stealthier than any other comparable crate.
It is a fighter by argument of what it is not. It is not a bomber, Not a recon, Not a ground attack, Not a transport. Obviously the thing was a fighter\interceptor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Radar stealthiness was not an intention of the design nor had radar stealthiness even been thought of as an advantage in combat. If it was or would have been radar stealthy is was purely coincidence and accidental. The myth of German scientific superiority lives on only in the imaginations of a few desperate and wishful thinking people.

And please spare me the notions of Werner Von Braun being a huge pioneer in the American space program and eventual moon landings. He was useful with his rocket motor and fuel experience and probably gyroscopic stabilization but that was about it. We could have done it all without the German scientists eventually. nad it so happens that Von Braun and his German rocket science buddies got a lot of ideas and a giant boost from American rocket pioneers like Robert Goddard. I give Goddard far more credit for modern rocketry.

VW-IceFire
08-02-2009, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It's not Hitler's, it's not stealth and it's not even really a fighter.

It most certainly has a reduced RCS, and this my friend is what stealth as we know it is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By that thinking the Mosquito, LaGG-3, La-5/7, and earlier Yak fighters are also partially stealth because they were made of wood which is radar absorbent so they also sport a reduced RCS.

K_Freddie
08-03-2009, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
.. in the American space program ..
Ah.. I saw that on National Geographic too.
Was really there such a program ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gammelpreusse
08-03-2009, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It's not Hitler's, it's not stealth and it's not even really a fighter.

It was under the Fuhrer's absolute influence.
It was stealthier than any other comparable crate.
It is a fighter by argument of what it is not. It is not a bomber, Not a recon, Not a ground attack, Not a transport. Obviously the thing was a fighter\interceptor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Radar stealthiness was not an intention of the design nor had radar stealthiness even been thought of as an advantage in combat. If it was or would have been radar stealthy is was purely coincidence and accidental. The myth of German scientific superiority lives on only in the imaginations of a few desperate and wishful thinking people.

And please spare me the notions of Werner Von Braun being a huge pioneer in the American space program and eventual moon landings. He was useful with his rocket motor and fuel experience and probably gyroscopic stabilization but that was about it. We could have done it all without the German scientists eventually. nad it so happens that Von Braun and his German rocket science buddies got a lot of ideas and a giant boost from American rocket pioneers like Robert Goddard. I give Goddard far more credit for modern rocketry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh, by this definition you will have to thank the chinese for the american moon program and Otto Lilienthal for the developlment of modern aviation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
08-03-2009, 04:26 AM
We could have done it all without the German scientists eventually.

No you couldn't.
Not in '69.
Not in '79.
Maybe in '89. But that's a maybe.


nad it so happens that Von Braun and his German rocket science buddies got a lot of ideas and a giant boost from American rocket pioneers like Robert Goddard. I give Goddard far more credit for modern rocketry.

I guess you meant "form Robert Goddard".
You make it sound like there were rocket-engineers all over America just waiting to build a rocket for an institution that hasn't even been born.

BTW:
Had it not been for von Braun, there hadn't been any ICBM-projects after the war, which in turn led to SU's space-programme.
Korolev was fighting hard to get a manned space-programme parallel to his works on ICBMs.
When he eventually got the approval, he came with Sputnik and subsequently Gagarin.

Without Korolev and his visions (same for von Braun), there wouldn't have been a Moon landing in '69.

On top of that, Godards work surely was a breakthrough.
BUT: He never has launched a rocket with reasonable payload.
He never launched a rocket with enough thrust to get into the troublesome range of pogo-oscillations.
Has he ever built rockets with multiple stages?

To imply that von Braun merely stole Goddard's work is pathetic beyond any scale.

AndyJWest
08-03-2009, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We could have done it all without the German scientists eventually.

No you couldn't.
Not in '69.
Not in '79.
Maybe in '89. But that's a maybe.

...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your'e not suggesting the moon landings were real, are you? (Oops, sorry, wrong forum. I'll get my coat... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Bremspropeller
08-03-2009, 07:59 AM
Watch out for stalker... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Brain32
08-03-2009, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It's not Hitler's, it's not stealth and it's not even really a fighter.

It most certainly has a reduced RCS, and this my friend is what stealth as we know it is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By that thinking the Mosquito, LaGG-3, La-5/7, and earlier Yak fighters are also partially stealth because they were made of wood which is radar absorbent so they also sport a reduced RCS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could say so, most certainly.

I mean what do you guys think stealth really is? Mother Mary's grace spilled over the airplane?

Let's look at Raptor,Spirit and Nighthawk...

You know they are made of RAM materials right? But what is that you ask?
It's Radar Absorbent Material, if it's wood or some mad high-tech alloy used for USAF stealths that is irrelevant, the only thing differing will be efficiency of RAM materials...

Other part of the whole stealth story is design, nothing you see on those planes is done accidently, and while I suspect German designers were going after aerodynamics features with that design rather than stealth characteristics, Go-229 sure turned out as a pretty stealth looking design...

Also what makes modern US stealths, stealthy?
Low RCS, that's what, frontal RCS of F-22 sized target is probably 10m2(I'm basing that on F-15A), that's a huge speck on the radar screen, but due to it's design, high frequency radars will see it(allegedly) as a steel marble, or better said not see it at all or consider it as a clutter...
Also many today's and not so today's airplanes use stealth technology, meaning the have reduced RCS, Gripen,Rafale, EF-2000,F-18E/F/G all have drastically reduced RCS(0,5-1m2), same is true for some older fighter but in a lesser extent, F-15C, F-16C,Mirage2k etc...
People probably call Raptor,Nighthawk and Spirit as stealths because their RCS is far, FAAAAAAAAR more reduced than the above accounted for airplanes, but that does not make them non-stealth, just less stealth http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


We could have done it all without the German scientists eventually.
1.) Eventually when? Chineese were still not there and today's technology is more freeley available than ever and ofcourse most advanced than ever.

2.) If you could do everything alone then why calling Von Braun at all? It's like calling the electronics engineer to change the batteries in your remote control... Also why giving all the glory and credit to a forener which is also from the country you were in recent war with to take all the glory and fame if your own guys could do it - that would be moronic. So basically are you suggesting Americans are morons?

3.) Is it a shame he was hired to do what he did? I don't think so and also recognizing abilities of individuals and using them accordingly is a sign of wise employer/leadership http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Furthermore I see Appolo program as an achievement of humanity, and all men and women that worked on it I consider true heroes of humanity as a whole. Badmouthing any of them I can only see as a sign of primitive and shortsighted person...

Xiolablu3
08-03-2009, 01:24 PM
Von Braun was far far FAR ahead of anything else in 1944-5.


And he did all this pre-computers. (I think the first real, useful, programable computer was built around the same time in order to decrypt Ultra at a good speed wasnt it?)

To produce the world's first ballistic missile and first human artifact to achieve sub-orbital spaceflight was a phenomenal achievement. It wasnt just a rocket which flew up into the air, it was guided and mass produced.

Its just a shame that it was bult using slave labour, thousands of which died of exhaustion. We cannot forget that.

hathu2009
08-03-2009, 03:18 PM
The research in Peenemünde was not carried out by von Braun alone. It was a whole team of researchers and engineers, and it took several years of intense research to see a successful flight of an A-4 rocket aka V-2.

Of course, von Braun was an opportunist who did pretty much everything to keep his project going. Joining the NSDAP, later joining the SS, presenting the V-2 project to Hitler in person as war-winning wonderweapon, and finally, as it became clear that the war would be lost soon, guessing that getting captured together with his men, drawing and test results by the Americans would be dramatically more comfortable than getting captured by the Soviets... and hence he practically defected with said men and said results to Bavaria, where he waited for the Americans to arrive, eager to learn from him. He did not know that the V-2 was build by slave labour? Yeah, sure... But, of course, he was not the only one who made an exceptional career under the Nazi regime. Albert Speer springs to mind.

But back to topic.
Did the plane fly? Yes.
Was it a successful design? Probably.
Was it meant to be a stealth fighter? Who knows.
Would it have made a difference? No.

SILVERFISH1992
08-03-2009, 05:26 PM
It sure could have flown.

It would have been sucsesful, for sure!

By looking at the design it looks like they were trying to make it "stealth".

It would have made a diference by scareing the crap out of its enemy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

SeaFireLIV
08-03-2009, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
You gotta love media that calls anything German from WW2 "Hitler's."

Hitler was absolute ruler of Germany during WW2, ergo, anything done by his military, civilian authorities was under the authority of him. Basically, the buck stopped with Hitler. It doesn`t even really matter if he knew about it or not.

I`d love to see you (and others who say it wasn`t Hitler`s) there in WW2 Nazis Germany looking at the new secret plane and tell the other nazis officials `It`s NOT Hitler`s plane!`

I think you`d find yourself very quickly located somewhere else.

SILVERFISH1992
08-03-2009, 06:31 PM
Hitler was a dumb@ss, He wanted the Me-262 to be a bomber. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

He didnt ask for planes for the war, he wanted them for his amusement.

ElAurens
08-03-2009, 06:39 PM
Low radar signature was never a design consideration for the Horten or Northrup flying wings. It was merely an unexpected benefit of the flying wing profile, though I doubt the Germans ever even tested it for it's radar signature, the bloody thing only flew one time.

It was the USAF who discovered the "stealthy" attributes of the flying wing when they noted that the Northrup YB series wings were hard to spot on radar, and they were all metal.

danjama
08-03-2009, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Another 10 pages about a previously discussed plane!



Oh well....the GO-229 wouldn't realy be "stealth" but it would have a low RCS though.

I mean just look at the jet engine inlets!?

haha youve been here 3 months and your sick of it already, how do you think we feel??

Treetop64
08-03-2009, 07:33 PM
To the guys who are convinced that the Horton bros consciously and intentionally designed stealth features into the aircraft: Pick up a reliable book and read about its design history. Anything published by Osprey or Chartwell Books is a good place to start.

That the aircraft was, in it's day, "stealthy" at all was purely an unintended consequence of it's design.

SILVERFISH1992
08-03-2009, 07:33 PM
Matters not by time here, no. Matters by post count, yes? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

PanzerAce
08-03-2009, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
Radar stealthiness was not an intention of the design nor had radar stealthiness even been thought of as an advantage in combat. If it was or would have been radar stealthy is was purely coincidence and accidental. The myth of German scientific superiority lives on only in the imaginations of a few desperate and wishful thinking people.

And please spare me the notions of Werner Von Braun being a huge pioneer in the American space program and eventual moon landings. He was useful with his rocket motor and fuel experience and probably gyroscopic stabilization but that was about it. We could have done it all without the German scientists eventually. nad it so happens that Von Braun and his German rocket science buddies got a lot of ideas and a giant boost from American rocket pioneers like Robert Goddard. I give Goddard far more credit for modern rocketry.

WvB only useful for motor, fuel, and stabilization? What else *is* there then realistically? Yes, we could have done it eventually, but as (Pulls up senior thesis) Dik Daso, Gimbel, Lasby, Neufeld, and Siddiqi point out, vB and his team saved us better than ten years in the space race and ICBM development. And as for Goddard? Yah, he gets all the credit, but his nozzels weren't worth the materiel they were built with, and was so paranoid that he wouldn't share anything with anyone (which basically means that he didn't matter). Hell, when he went to work for the Navy during the war, he basically ignored the team he had to help him, and never really produced anything worth while.

And if you want to talk about American pioneers, it's sad that you don't mention the one that actually, you know, built stuff that worked consistently. von Karman was FAR more influential in American aerospace than Goddard could have ever dreamed about being. He had RATOs working in 1942, started the group that became the JPL, and was responsible for bringing over all the German scientists related to aerospace in the first place.


*deep breath*

Sorry, whenever I see something about what I wrote my senior thesis for my degree on, I kinda have to post, since it's the only time I get to use that info :/

VW-IceFire
08-03-2009, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
It sure could have flown.

It would have been sucsesful, for sure!

By looking at the design it looks like they were trying to make it "stealth".

It would have made a diference by scareing the crap out of its enemy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Just looking at it doesn't exactly make it so but there are a bunch of things in the design that make it clear the design was about aerodynamics...not stealth. The air intakes and the exposed fans are a huge radar reflector.

Do a little bit of reading about the plane...even a cursory glance will tell you that the Horten brothers were interested in the flying wing design to make more efficient gliders. Any of the stealth capabilities came about by accident...as it was with the Mosquito.

PanzerAce
08-03-2009, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Von Braun was far far FAR ahead of anything else in 1944-5.

Yup, just like the US was far ahead of anyone else nuke wise. The A-4/V-2 was Germany's Manhattan Project in terms of time/money/materiel/personel invested.


Originally posted by hathu2009:
The research in Peenemünde was not carried out by von Braun alone. It was a whole team of researchers and engineers, and it took several years of intense research to see a successful flight of an A-4 rocket aka V-2.

Of course, von Braun was an opportunist who did pretty much everything to keep his project going. Joining the NSDAP, later joining the SS, presenting the V-2 project to Hitler in person as war-winning wonderweapon, and finally, as it became clear that the war would be lost soon, guessing that getting captured together with his men, drawing and test results by the Americans would be dramatically more comfortable than getting captured by the Soviets... and hence he practically defected with said men and said results to Bavaria, where he waited for the Americans to arrive, eager to learn from him.


Scientists captured by the Russians didn't actually have as bad a time of it as much of the media would have you believe. In fact, by 1950 or so, basically all of them were back in Germany. The Russians basically only used them to get some A-4s working and train Russians how to use/build them, and after that they were basically put on their own island compound as a theoretical design bureau that was never really used...

SILVERFISH1992
08-04-2009, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
It sure could have flown.

It would have been sucsesful, for sure!

By looking at the design it looks like they were trying to make it "stealth".


It would have made a diference by scareing the crap out of its enemy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Just looking at it doesn't exactly make it so but there are a bunch of things in the design that make it clear the design was about aerodynamics...not stealth. The air intakes and the exposed fans are a huge radar reflector.

Do a little bit of reading about the plane...even a cursory glance will tell you that the Horten brothers were interested in the flying wing design to make more efficient gliders. Any of the stealth capabilities came about by accident...as it was with the Mosquito. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do a lot a reaserch on my planes.

I know it was a big problem with the air intakes.

It just seems odd that the lines are so... sharpish or smooth, I think it was supposed to be "stealth"

ElAurens
08-04-2009, 10:45 AM
No.

Just because you want it to be does not make it so.

The Horten wings had no design criteria for radar evasion. It was all about how it flew.

Designers were not thinking about what we now call "stealth" in the time this aircraft was concieved.

SILVERFISH1992
08-04-2009, 11:13 AM
I dont want it to be stealth, I dont even care about the plane.

VW-IceFire
08-04-2009, 08:30 PM
Its fallacy to go from "it looks smooth" to "its stealth". ELAurens is right ...the design criteria did not revolve around stealth. I doubt they even thought about it. Radar was in its infancy in the 1930s when the Horten brothers were doing their research on flying wing gliders.

There's absolutely no evidence in any literature I've ever read regarding their research that says that they were interested in radar or of its effects on an aircrafts shape. Aerodynamics was their thing and the flying wing design was their way of solving a number of problems relating to drag.

There was undoubtedly some RCS benefits from going without a horizontal stabilizer and going with the flying wing shape versus a more conventional aircraft but thats almost certainly an accidental byproduct.

na85
08-04-2009, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:

It just seems odd that the lines are so... sharpish or smooth, I think it was supposed to be "stealth"

Sorry bud, it wasn't designed with stealth in mind.

Waldo.Pepper
08-04-2009, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
ELAurens is right ...the design criteria did not revolve around stealth. I doubt they even thought about it.

This may not entirely be true. In one of the MANY OTHER THREADS about this documentary that was started here - there was some talk about the paint that was applied to the aircraft - and the suggestion that the paint was supposedly chosen with its stealth properties in mind. Also its wooden components are often seen as being chosen for their radar absorbent properties (rather than the more likely reason of strategic shortage of metals).

However, the detractors of this view pointed out that the Brother's in any of their wartime utterances and papers, never mention this supposed feature - and that they only mention it postwar.

The proponents of the Horton having Stealth as a design property go on to argue that the Germans were in fact using some stealth techniques - so on the national level it was being thought about. And perhaps the paint had some attention being paid to its Radar reflectivity. And that secrecy can account for no paper trail having made mention of this.

It is thin - but possible I suppose. But it is teetering on the precipice of incredible. If this were Mythbusters it would be plausible but only by the thickness of a human hair.

mortoma
08-04-2009, 10:22 PM
Maybe the Jack Northrup flying wings were designed for stealth? Not!! It was not a consideration for him either. Same with the Horten brothers.

Waldo.Pepper
08-04-2009, 10:30 PM
Maybe the Jack Northrup flying wings were designed for stealth?

Maybe if someone would take the time to investigate whether there is any evidence he selected his paint with radar absorbent properties we could say perhaps as well.

Or people could continue to keep posting opinions without looking into the matter. If you think that would be helpful please continue.

VW-IceFire
08-05-2009, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
ELAurens is right ...the design criteria did not revolve around stealth. I doubt they even thought about it.

This may not entirely be true. In one of the MANY OTHER THREADS about this documentary that was started here - there was some talk about the paint that was applied to the aircraft - and the suggestion that the paint was supposedly chosen with its stealth properties in mind. Also its wooden components are often seen as being chosen for their radar absorbent properties (rather than the more likely reason of strategic shortage of metals).

However, the detractors of this view pointed out that the Brother's in any of their wartime utterances and papers, never mention this supposed feature - and that they only mention it postwar.

The proponents of the Horton having Stealth as a design property go on to argue that the Germans were in fact using some stealth techniques - so on the national level it was being thought about. And perhaps the paint had some attention being paid to its Radar reflectivity. And that secrecy can account for no paper trail having made mention of this.

It is thin - but possible I suppose. But it is teetering on the precipice of incredible. If this were Mythbusters it would be plausible but only by the thickness of a human hair. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is interesting and thank you for a well reasoned approach. I do think its thin although if they were doing experiments with paint that absorbed radar I could see that being applied to this aircraft and any other.

The wooden construction I don't think had anything to do with it (and neither with the Mosquito). By 1945 strategic materials was very important for Germany and so we've seen the Go-229, the He-162, and the Ta-154 all being designs built out of wood in order to spare the precious materials.

Still the paint is interesting and yes if this were put up to a Mythbusters style set of tests I can see them saying something along those lines.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
To imply that von Braun merely stole Goddard's work is pathetic beyond any scale.
Well not everyone sees it your way, for example.


popular science 1959
TRAGIC SHOCK
In 1944, shortly before the Nazis began firing deadly V-2s at England, one rocket crashed in Sweden, Parts were sent to Annapolis lab where Goddard was doing research for the Navy. Sadly, he recognized that his brain child had been turned into a mass killer.
http://blog.modernmechanix.com...oddard/goddard_3.jpg (http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/PopularScience/5-1959/goddard/goddard_3.jpg)

IMHO a better discription would have been a random mass killing terror weapon in that it wasnt until after the war the guidance systems were up to the task of hitting an intended target. The US knew this early on and is why they didn't bother trying to build a terror wea.. I mean rocket. The US was more into working on weapons that would end/win the war.

berg417448
08-06-2009, 01:45 PM
The US made around a 1,000 of copies of the V-1 weapon and called it the JB-2 Loon. They were intended for launches against mainland Japan. Even with primitive guidance they were not exactly accurate weapons. Those civilians on the receiving end could well call it a terror weapon.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
The US made around a 1,000 of copies of the V-1 weapon and called it the JB-2 Loon. They were intended for launches against mainland Japan. Even with primitive guidance they were not exactly accurate weapons. Those civilians on the receiving end could well call it a terror weapon. Key word, intended.

But your missing the point here, it's not that the US didn't have or use terror weapons, the point is the US knew better than to put all those resorces into a weapon that could not hit the target, and thus not win/end the war.

Instead they put thier resorces into things like the ABOMB that did win/end a war.

berg417448
08-06-2009, 01:49 PM
You mean like the A-bomb? The largest random mass killing terror weapon ever actually used? No one's hands are ever clean in war.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
You mean like the A-bomb? The largest random mass killing terror weapon ever actually used? No one's hands are ever clean in war.
see my previous post, read it all and slowly this time

berg417448
08-06-2009, 01:51 PM
Nice back pedal post edit.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 01:51 PM
quote:
popular science 1959
TRAGIC SHOCK
In 1944, shortly before the Nazis began firing deadly V-2s at England, one rocket crashed in Sweden, Parts were sent to Annapolis lab where Goddard was doing research for the Navy. Sadly, he recognized that his brain child had been turned into a mass killer.
http://blog.modernmechanix.com...oddard/goddard_3.jpg


What it doesn't mention is that 1) goddard was always extremely tight lipped and secretive about his research even going so far as to make his patents very very general in nature so that they would help no one using them very much and

2) Goddard looked into the combustion chamber of the v2 and couldn't believe it's size. He was completely amazed. He never realized anything like this was possible at the time.

btw why do you think goddard was doing research for the NAVY? He was HELPING to design military rockets..!

"Sadly, he recognized that his brain child had been turned into a mass killer."


what BS! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
Nice back pedal post edit.
What?

Eitheway, your still missing the point.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
What it doesn't mention is that 1) goddard was always extremely tight lipped and secretive about his research even going so far as to make his patents very very general in nature so that they would help no one using them very much and
Most patents are general, if not all. Fact remains the patents existed before the V2 and that the V2 made use of them.


Originally posted by stalkervision:
2) Goddard looked into the combustion chamber of the v2 and couldn't believe it's size. He was amased. He never realized anything like this was possible at the time.
Ill bet, considering he did it all his rocket work on a shoe string buddget.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
What it doesn't mention is that 1) goddard was always extremely tight lipped and secretive about his research even going so far as to make his patents very very general in nature so that they would help no one using them very much and
Most patents are general, if not all


Originally posted by stalkervision:
2) Goddard looked into the combustion chamber of the v2 and couldn't believe it's size. He was amased. He never realized anything like this was possible at the time.
Ill bet, considering he did it all his rocket work on a shoe string buddget. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe more the truth is goddard could have gotten funding from the military but choose to keep his advances secret and to himself.

He wasn't one to share his break throughs to much. People often sent him letters asking for help in the rocket sciences but he declined to help them very much.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I believe more the truth is goddard could have gotten funding from the military but choose to keep his advances secret and to himself.

He wasn't one to share his break throughs to much. People often sent him letters asking for help in the rocket sciences but he declined to help them very much.
You can belive what ever you want, no skin off my back, but know that 'believing' does not make it true.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
What it doesn't mention is that 1) goddard was always extremely tight lipped and secretive about his research even going so far as to make his patents very very general in nature so that they would help no one using them very much and
Most patents are general, if not all. Fact remains the patents existed before the V2 and that the V2 made use of them.


Originally posted by stalkervision:
2) Goddard looked into the combustion chamber of the v2 and couldn't believe it's size. He was amased. He never realized anything like this was possible at the time.
Ill bet, considering he did it all his rocket work on a shoe string buddget. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


as for the patents lets put it this way. goddard wasn't a scientist that liked to share his secrets with anyone.

The wright brother's were the same way also.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
as for the patents lets put it this way. goddard wasn't a scientist that liked to share his secrets with anyone.

The wright brother's were the same way also.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Nah, lets put it the way I allready put it, All patents are general. And that they existed before the V2, were readly availabe, and were incorperated in the V2

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I believe more the truth is goddard could have gotten funding from the military but choose to keep his advances secret and to himself.

He wasn't one to share his break throughs to much. People often sent him letters asking for help in the rocket sciences but he declined to help them very much.
You can belive what ever you want, no skin off my back, but know that 'believing' does not make it true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You think this is what "I believe" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No, these are well known facts about Goddard. You need to do a bit of further research on him and quite being so enamored by the man's legion me thinks.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
You think this is what "I believe" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I based it off what you said, if you lied at that time, its not my fault. As for facts, you have presented none, dont confuse your opinion or what you belive as fact

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
You think this is what "I believe" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I based it off what you said, if you lied at that time, its not my fault. As for facts, you have presented none, dont confuse your opinion or what you belive as fact </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I'm not lying your just ignorant on the subject and choose to call me a liar because you obviously are.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 02:10 PM
The story I told you on goddard looking into the v2 combustion chamber amazed is completely true as is the rest of what i said. Why don't you try checking goddard out a bit more and find out?

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Sorry, I'm not lying your just ignorant on the subject and choose to call me a liar because you obviously are. Dont be sorry, your clearly confused is all, you asked me if that is what I think you belive, I told you I based it off what you said. Nothing more nothing less. As for ignorant and or liar, I can see your getting upset here with the info I provided. If you think you have some facts, please post them. In that thus far all you have posted is your belifs and/or opinons, both of which mean nothing to me.

With that said, the only facts thus far is Goddards rocket patents existed years before the V2, and that many of his patents were used on the V2.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 02:12 PM
btw Do you know the wright brothers were another bunch of ****ants when it came to sharing their secrets with the world. I could give you details about the lawsuits they filed on Glen Curtis but then I am just a liar and you wouldn't believe me therefore.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 02:14 PM
You can go off on as many tanget topics as you like. About the write brothers or who ever. It wont change the facts I listed, and only highlights how weak your argument is. That and the weak-arse name calling you feel is required here. Like calling me a liar and such, agian, only highlights how weak your argument is IMHO.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Sorry, I'm not lying your just ignorant on the subject and choose to call me a liar because you obviously are. Dont be sorry, your clearly confused is all, you asked me if that is what I think you belive, I told you I based it off what you said. Nothing more nothing less. As for ignorant and or liar, I can see your getting upset here with the info I provided. If you think you have some facts, please post them. In that thus far all you have posted is your belifs and/or opinons, both of which mean nothing to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No you are clearly confused AND IGNORANT ON THE SUBJECT AND TALKING OUT OF YOUR BACKSIDE.

F-POSTING FACTS FOR YOU DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH TOOL!

I would have but I don't take kindly to a numbskull who knows absolutely nothing about goddard except the highlight films tell me i am a liar.


beliefs and opinions! WoW! You I made this all up.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 02:16 PM
Still no facts?

Big suprise

AndyJWest
08-06-2009, 02:19 PM
Er, sorry guys, what exactly has this got to do with 'Hitler's Stealth Fighter'?

na85
08-06-2009, 02:19 PM
Troll1: I'm not your friend, buddy!
Troll2: I'm not your buddy, guy!
Troll1: I'm not your guy, friend!
Troll2: I'm not your friend, buddy!
Troll1: I'm not your buddy, guy!
Troll2: I'm not your guy, friend!
Troll1: I'm not your friend, buddy!
Troll2: I'm not your buddy, guy!
Troll1: I'm not your guy, friend!
Troll2: I'm not your friend, buddy!
Troll1: I'm not your buddy, guy!
Troll2: I'm not your guy, friend!
Troll1: I'm not your friend, buddy!
Troll2: I'm not your buddy, guy!
Troll1: I'm not your guy, friend!
Troll2: I'm not your friend, buddy!
Troll1: I'm not your buddy, guy!
Troll2: I'm not your guy, friend!
Troll1: I'm not your friend, buddy!
Troll2: I'm not your buddy, guy!
Troll1: I'm not your guy, friend!
Troll2: I'm not your friend, buddy!
Troll1: I'm not your buddy, guy!
Troll2: I'm not your guy, friend!

SILVERFISH1992
08-06-2009, 02:22 PM
IBTL

I'm on Stalkervisions side. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
Still no facts?

Big suprise


Ya I lying! Apparently PBS is too since they put on a really nice show on goddard I got all this info from.

also from a man that worked in the Navy's rocketry programs and complained goddard would n't share any of his findings with him whatsoever.

also from interviews from german rocket scientist that wrote him letters about rocketry he answered only in very general terms if at all.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Ya I lying!
Slow down and read what I wrote, I didn't call you a liar. Its simple, you said you BELIVE such and such, after which I told you BELIVING in such and such does not make is true, Next you ask me if I think such and such is what YOU BELIVE! To which I said I dont know (should have said I dont care, would have been more accurate) and that I based my reply off what you said, WHERE YOU SAID YOU BELIVE, and that if you WERE liaing when you said you BELIVE I can not be held responsable for taking you at your word if you WERE LIAING.

Now with that cleard up lets move on


Originally posted by stalkervision:
Apparently PBS is too since they put on a really nice show on goddard I got all this info from.
WOW! PBS! That is your sorce? I prefer books, but if that is what you consider 'research' sitting back and letting someone else tell you thier story on the boob toob, than you will love this one reference


science world:
Ironically, his ideas did not go unnoticed by the Germans, particularly Wernher von Braun who took Goddard's plans from various journals and incorporated them into building the A-4 series of rockets--better known as the V-2--which constantly struck at Europe in the last two years of World War Two
http://scienceworld.wolfram.co...ography/Goddard.html (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Goddard.html)

But that is just a science web site.

Personally I would rather you focus your efforts in trying to explane away the FACT that Goddards patents existed before the V2 and that the V2 incorperated them. I know you wont in that any atempt to do so would just weaking your argument. Im sure you will resort to likes of more name calling and tanget topics about what the wright brothers had for breakfast.


Originally posted by stalkervision:
also from a man that worked in the Navy's rocketry programs and complained goddard would n't share any of his findings with him whatsoever.
WOW! Let me get this straight, Goddard didn't talk about NAVY wepons programs he was working on with anyone that asked him about them? So they had that whole concept of 'on a need to know bases' even back than?


Originally posted by stalkervision:
also from interviews from german rocket scientist that wrote him letters about rocketry he answered only in very general terms if at all.
So, let me see if I understand you correctly here, Goddard is dammed because he didn't hand the Germans a blue print to build from?

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 02:42 PM
"Goddard's secretive nature

Goddard was generally secretive. In August 1936, he was visited by Frank Malina, who was then studying rocketry at the California Institute of Technology. Goddard declined to discuss any of his research, other than that which had already been published in Liquid-Propellant Rocket Development. This deeply troubled Theodore von Kármán, who was at that time Malina's mentor. Later, von Kármán wrote, "Naturally we at Caltech wanted as much information as we could get from Goddard for our mutual benefit. But Goddard believed in secrecy.... The trouble with secrecy is that one can easily go in the wrong direction and never know it." Goddard, however, offered Malina a job after his graduation. By 1939, von Kármán's Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory at Caltech had received Army Air Corps funding to develop rockets to assist in aircraft take-off. Goddard learned of this in 1940, and openly expressed his displeasure.[25] Malina could not understand why the Army did not arrange for an exchange of information between Goddard and Cal Tech, since both were under government contract at the same time. Goddard did not think he could be of that much help to Cal Tech because they were designing rockets with solid fuel and Goddard was using liquid fuels. Unfortunately the U.S. government did not become very seriously interested in rocketry until well after Goddard's death"

http://carsguide.110mb.com/?l=Robert_H._Goddard

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
"Goddard's secretive nature

Goddard was generally secretive. In August 1936, he was visited by Frank Malina, who was then studying rocketry at the California Institute of Technology. Goddard declined to discuss any of his research, other than that which had already been published in Liquid-Propellant Rocket Development. This deeply troubled Theodore von Kármán, who was at that time Malina's mentor. Later, von Kármán wrote, "Naturally we at Caltech wanted as much information as we could get from Goddard for our mutual benefit. But Goddard believed in secrecy.... The trouble with secrecy is that one can easily go in the wrong direction and never know it." Goddard, however, offered Malina a job after his graduation. By 1939, von Kármán's Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory at Caltech had received Army Air Corps funding to develop rockets to assist in aircraft take-off. Goddard learned of this in 1940, and openly expressed his displeasure.[25] Malina could not understand why the Army did not arrange for an exchange of information between Goddard and Cal Tech, since both were under government contract at the same time. Goddard did not think he could be of that much help to Cal Tech because they were designing rockets with solid fuel and Goddard was using liquid fuels. Unfortunately the U.S. government did not become very seriously interested in rocketry until well after Goddard's death"

http://carsguide.110mb.com/?l=Robert_H._Goddard
WOW

First a verbal reference to a PBS special and now a link to a website called 'Car Guide'

Which is nothing more than a copy of the wikipedia.org site

Keep up the good 'research' work! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SILVERFISH1992
08-06-2009, 02:54 PM
Dont be such a jerk to Stalkervision, please.

I'm leaving, as I'm probably goingto get banned.

By everyone!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

na85
08-06-2009, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Ya I lying!
Slow down and read what I wrote, I didn't call you a liar. Its simple, you said you BELIVE such and such, after which I told you BELIVING in such and such does not make is true, Next you ask me if I think such and such is what YOU BELIVE! To which I said I dont know (should have said I dont care, would have been more accurate) and that I based my reply off what you said, WHERE YOU SAID YOU BELIVE, and that if you WERE liaing when you said you BELIVE I can not be held responsable for taking you at your word if you WERE LIAING.

Now with that cleard up lets move on


Originally posted by stalkervision:
Apparently PBS is too since they put on a really nice show on goddard I got all this info from.
WOW! PBS! That is your sorce? I prefer books, but if that is what you consider 'research' sitting back and letting someone else tell you thier story on the boob toob, than you will love this one reference


science world:
Ironically, his ideas did not go unnoticed by the Germans, particularly Wernher von Braun who took Goddard's plans from various journals and incorporated them into building the A-4 series of rockets--better known as the V-2--which constantly struck at Europe in the last two years of World War Two
http://scienceworld.wolfram.co...ography/Goddard.html (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Goddard.html)

But that is just a science web site.

Personally I would rather you focus your efforts in trying to explane away the FACT that Goddards patents existed before the V2 and that the V2 incorperated them. I know you wont in that any atempt to do so would just weaking your argument. Im sure you will resort to likes of more name calling and tanget topics about what the wright brothers had for breakfast.


Originally posted by stalkervision:
also from a man that worked in the Navy's rocketry programs and complained goddard would n't share any of his findings with him whatsoever.
WOW! Let me get this straight, Goddard didn't talk about NAVY wepons programs he was working on with anyone that asked him about them? So they had that whole concept of 'on a need to know bases' even back than?


Originally posted by stalkervision:
also from interviews from german rocket scientist that wrote him letters about rocketry he answered only in very general terms if at all.
So, let me see if I understand you correctly here, Goddard is dammed because he didn't hand the Germans a blue print to build from? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh hey Tagert I didn't recognize u with that new name, but the way you word your posts is better than a fingerprint. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 02:55 PM
"Goddard had assistants throughout his career, but he never revealed his overall plans to them, and in fact had his workers sign agreements not to reveal details of what they knew of his research."

http://www.airspacemag.com/spa...ssor.html?c=y&page=3 (http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/The_Misunderstood_Professor.html?c=y&page=3)

So PBS shows are not considered to be "researched" now..

Amazing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Oh hey Tagert I didn't recognize u with that new name, but the way you word your posts is better than a fingerprint. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
WOW! I must have really hit a sore subject here, in that now they ignore the facts and accuse me of being someone else!?

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 02:59 PM
So, let me see if I understand you correctly here, Goddard is dammed because he didn't hand the Germans a blue print to build from?

goddard didn't hand anyone ANYTHING he didn't have to including the germans..or even his own countryman!

AndyJWest
08-06-2009, 03:00 PM
'Hitler's Stealth Fighter' anyone...

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
"Goddard had assistants throughout his career, but he never revealed his overall plans to them, and in fact had his workers sign agreements not to reveal details of what they knew of his research."

http://www.airspacemag.com/spa...ssor.html?c=y&page=3 (http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/The_Misunderstood_Professor.html?c=y&page=3)
So let me see if I understand you correctly, Because Goddard didn't tell everyone what he was thinking about down to the last detail there is no way the Germans could copy his patents that he published?

Pretty weak!

In that the fact remains, he did publish his patents, they existed years before the V2, and were incorperated into the V2

I predicted you would not address that FACT.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, let me see if I understand you correctly here, Goddard is dammed because he didn't hand the Germans a blue print to build from?

goddard didn't hand anyone ANYTHING he didn't have to including the germans..or even his own countryman! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong, he handed his work over to the patent office, they issued him his patents, his patents existed befroe the V2 and were incorperated into the V2 and rockets build by the US after the war

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:04 PM
from "air and space"

"Goddard began his rocketry career in 1899, when at 17 he daydreamed of a spacecraft that could fly to Mars. The vision came to him after he read two serialized stories in the Boston Post, an adaptation of The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells and Edison's Conquest of Mars by Garret P. Serviss. Goddard was so inspired that he vowed to devote his life to seeking a method to get into space.

Unknown to him, about 8,000 miles away, in Kaluga, Russia, a partly deaf schoolteacher named Konstantin Tsiolkovsky had already worked out the possibilities of spaceflight. In 1903, Tsiolkovsky's seminal article appeared in a popular scientific journal, Naouchnoe Obozrenie (Scientific Review). The title of the article, translated, was "The Exploration of Space by Means of Reactive Propelled Devices." The czarist authorities seized the journal because another piece in it was deemed politically subversive, but Tsiolkovsky continued to write about space. His articles were little known even in Russia, mainly because he could barely afford to pay for their private printing. Because of this, and the isolation of Russia from the West, his early works on space were then practically unknown in America."

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
from "air and space"

"Goddard began his rocketry career in 1899, when at 17 he daydreamed of a spacecraft that could fly to Mars. The vision came to him after he read two serialized stories in the Boston Post, an adaptation of The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells and Edison's Conquest of Mars by Garret P. Serviss. Goddard was so inspired that he vowed to devote his life to seeking a method to get into space.

Unknown to him, about 8,000 miles away, in Kaluga, Russia, a partly deaf schoolteacher named Konstantin Tsiolkovsky had already worked out the possibilities of spaceflight. In 1903, Tsiolkovsky's seminal article appeared in a popular scientific journal, Naouchnoe Obozrenie (Scientific Review). The title of the article, translated, was "The Exploration of Space by Means of Reactive Propelled Devices." The czarist authorities seized the journal because another piece in it was deemed politically subversive, but Tsiolkovsky continued to write about space. His articles were little known even in Russia, mainly because he could barely afford to pay for their private printing. Because of this, and the isolation of Russia from the West, his early works on space were then practically unknown in America."
Personally I would rather you focus your efforts in trying to explane away the FACT that Goddards patents existed before the V2 and that the V2 incorperated them. I know you wont in that any atempt to do so would just weaking your argument. Im sure you will resort to likes of more name calling and tanget topics about what the wright brothers or Tsiolkovsky had for breakfast.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, let me see if I understand you correctly here, Goddard is dammed because he didn't hand the Germans a blue print to build from?

goddard didn't hand anyone ANYTHING he didn't have to including the germans..or even his own countryman! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong, he handed his work over to the patent office, they issued him his patents, his patents existed befroe the V2 and were incorperated into the V2 and rockets build by the US after the war </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually your wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Goddard spread this story himself on the v-2 being directly related to his work. Some of it obviously was but a lot went far beyond what goddard envisioned.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, let me see if I understand you correctly here, Goddard is dammed because he didn't hand the Germans a blue print to build from?

goddard didn't hand anyone ANYTHING he didn't have to including the germans..or even his own countryman! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong, he handed his work over to the patent office, they issued him his patents, his patents existed befroe the V2 and were incorperated into the V2 and rockets build by the US after the war </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually your wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Goddard spread this story himself on the v-2 being directly related to his work. Some of it obviously was but a lot went far beyond what goddard envisioned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No link?

Not even to a car guide site?

I guess you missed where I said what you 'belive' does not make it true.

Nice try though!

Keep up the good 'research' work! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Still waiting on that explanation of how Goddards patents ended up on the V2!

But I am not holding my breath! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AndyJWest
08-06-2009, 03:10 PM
'Hitler's Stealth Fighter' ...

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
from "air and space"

"Goddard began his rocketry career in 1899, when at 17 he daydreamed of a spacecraft that could fly to Mars. The vision came to him after he read two serialized stories in the Boston Post, an adaptation of The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells and Edison's Conquest of Mars by Garret P. Serviss. Goddard was so inspired that he vowed to devote his life to seeking a method to get into space.

Unknown to him, about 8,000 miles away, in Kaluga, Russia, a partly deaf schoolteacher named Konstantin Tsiolkovsky had already worked out the possibilities of spaceflight. In 1903, Tsiolkovsky's seminal article appeared in a popular scientific journal, Naouchnoe Obozrenie (Scientific Review). The title of the article, translated, was "The Exploration of Space by Means of Reactive Propelled Devices." The czarist authorities seized the journal because another piece in it was deemed politically subversive, but Tsiolkovsky continued to write about space. His articles were little known even in Russia, mainly because he could barely afford to pay for their private printing. Because of this, and the isolation of Russia from the West, his early works on space were then practically unknown in America."
Personally I would rather you focus your efforts in trying to explane away the FACT that Goddards patents existed before the V2 and that the V2 incorperated them. I know you wont in that any atempt to do so would just weaking your argument. Im sure you will resort to likes of more name calling and tanget topics about what the wright brothers or Tsiolkovsky had for breakfast. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have built a strawman to argure with here. I never argued about goddards general patents did I? NO! I have been pointing out all along that goddard was extremely secretive and didn't like to share his work whatsoever if he could help it. Apparently you don't believe this. I have have proved this over and over again now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
Personally I would rather you focus your efforts in trying to explane away the FACT that Goddards patents existed before the V2 and that the V2 incorperated them. I know you wont in that any atempt to do so would just weaking your argument. Im sure you will resort to likes of more name calling and tanget topics about what the wright brothers or Tsiolkovsky had for breakfast.

You have built a strawman to argure with here. I never argued about goddards general patents did I? NO! I have been pointing out all along that goddard was extremely secretive and didn't like to share his work whatsoever if he could help it. Apparently you don't believe this. I have have proved this over and over again now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not at all, but nice try, In that I allready explane why he was secreative (need to know) and that patents are allways general in nature. Two things that you choose to ignore. It is clear to me that the only way you would acpet his patents is if he submited the blue prints to the V2. In that you are doing everything you can to avoid the subject.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:17 PM
Since your the research expert here and Smithsonian air and since magazine articles don't impress you whatsoever why don't you show us that goddard was more then willing to share all his engineering secrets with mankind and did so quite often..

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Since your the research expert here and Smithsonian air and since magazine articles don't impress you whatsoever why don't you show us that goddard was more then willing to share all his engineerinf secrets with mankind and did so quite often..
air and space was neat and all,

But not as impressive as your link to

http://carsguide.110mb.com

That was classic! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:18 PM
We all are waiting..

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:20 PM
By the way

I noticed you had NO COMMENT on the web site I provided

Where they clearly state the Von used Goddards work to build the V2

Where as you on the other hand have only been able to provide links to things that show how well Goddard could be trusted to keep a secret, that you try to twist into meaing something else.

Just encase you missed it, here it is again


science world:
Ironically, his ideas did not go unnoticed by the Germans, particularly Wernher von Braun who took Goddard's plans from various journals and incorporated them into building the A-4 series of rockets--better known as the V-2--which constantly struck at Europe in the last two years of World War Two
http://scienceworld.wolfram.co...ography/Goddard.html

Let me guess, you wont address this and force me to post it again later?

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Since your the research expert here and Smithsonian air and since magazine articles don't impress you whatsoever why don't you show us that goddard was more then willing to share all his engineerinf secrets with mankind and did so quite often..
air and space was neat and all,

But not as impressive as your link to

http://carsguide.110mb.com

That was classic! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so that article was repeated in "car guide" So what? Your just being naive again. Your newspapers are repeated articles from other sources too.

Find some original research that shows goddard to be the philanthropic research scientist to other researchers you claim he is or STFU..

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
so that article was repeated in "car guide" So what? Your just being naive again. Your newspapers are repeated articles from other sources too.
So what?

Nothing except is shows you level of 'research' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Originally posted by stalkervision:
Find some original research that shows goddard to be the philanthropic research scientist to other researchers you claim he is or STFU..

Been there done that

Just encase you missed it the first two times I posted it


science world:
Ironically, his ideas did not go unnoticed by the Germans, particularly Wernher von Braun who took Goddard's plans from various journals and incorporated them into building the A-4 series of rockets--better known as the V-2--which constantly struck at Europe in the last two years of World War Two
http://scienceworld.wolfram.co...ography/Goddard.html

Take note they make no bones about it, Von used Goddards work. Where as your links do nothing to dispute that.

hathu2009
08-06-2009, 03:26 PM
It appears that different people from different nations had quite similar idea (or visions). It further seems obvious that von Braun et al. studied Goddard's patents when working on rockets. However, having a patent which discloses or suggests brand-new technology (or visions about it) and actually building and getting said technology to work are two different things.

If the whole rocket thing von Braun et al. developed had been old news to the Allies (since they also had Goddard's patent in hands and had actually Goddard himself working for them), von Braun, his team, the drawings, the test results, the machinery and the rockets themselves would have been of very little use or interest to the allies. "Liquid-fueled rockets, heh? Boring. We already have them."

In contrast (and as I had posted before), the allies (with emphasis to the US) imported the Peenemünde-team etc. There was a reason for that..

In summary, Goddard had some good ideas, but von Braun et al. actually realized them together with their own and developed the whole rocket thing to a completely new and unseen level.

But back to topic again.

From my point of view, the Horton aircraft was not designed shape-wise with stealth in mind. However, it appears that the special paintwork was applied with a certain intention. As far as I know, the Germany had experimented with good results with radar- and asdic-absorbing (and this stealth-) materials for their submarines. With these results in mind, the carbon-containing paintwork might have actually intended to deliver some stealth-like properties to the aircraft. Quite interesting, actually.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Since your the research expert here and Smithsonian air and since magazine articles don't impress you whatsoever why don't you show us that goddard was more then willing to share all his engineerinf secrets with mankind and did so quite often..
air and space was neat and all,

But not as impressive as your link to

http://carsguide.110mb.com

That was classic! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so that article was repeated in "car guide" So what? Your just being naive again. Your newspapers are repeated articles from other sources too.

Find some original research that shows goddard to be the philanthropic research scientist to other researchers you claim he is or STFU.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what?

Nothing except is shows you level of 'research' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Still waiting on your comment with regards to the link I posted </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that car gude site goes to the wiki page on goddard. That shows YOUR level of research doesn't it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

na85
08-06-2009, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Oh hey Tagert I didn't recognize u with that new name, but the way you word your posts is better than a fingerprint. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
WOW! I must have really hit a sore subject here, in that now they ignore the facts and accuse me of being someone else!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


in that

Cmon, just say Poor Nancy and admit it already :P

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Since your the research expert here and Smithsonian air and since magazine articles don't impress you whatsoever why don't you show us that goddard was more then willing to share all his engineerinf secrets with mankind and did so quite often..
air and space was neat and all,

But not as impressive as your link to

http://carsguide.110mb.com

That was classic! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so that article was repeated in "car guide" So what? Your just being naive again. Your newspapers are repeated articles from other sources too.

Find some original research that shows goddard to be the philanthropic research scientist to other researchers you claim he is or STFU.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what?

Nothing except is shows you level of 'research' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Still waiting on your comment with regards to the link I posted </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that car gude site goes to the wiki page on goddard. That shows YOUR level of research doesn't it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

I allready told yout it coppied wiki

I dont know what is funnier

You thinking wiki is a valid sorce, or, you being in such a google rush that you stumbled upon the cars guide version befor the wiki one

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:29 PM
As I said and we all are still waiting shows us "GODDARD THE ALL SHARING INFORMATION ROCKET SCIENTIST" please or as I said..

STFU..

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
As I said and we all are still waiting shows us "GODDARD THE ALL SHARING INFORMATION ROCKET SCIENTIST" please or as I said..

STFU..
Patents are a form of sharing

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Since your the research expert here and Smithsonian air and since magazine articles don't impress you whatsoever why don't you show us that goddard was more then willing to share all his engineerinf secrets with mankind and did so quite often..
air and space was neat and all,

But not as impressive as your link to

http://carsguide.110mb.com

That was classic! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so that article was repeated in "car guide" So what? Your just being naive again. Your newspapers are repeated articles from other sources too.

Find some original research that shows goddard to be the philanthropic research scientist to other researchers you claim he is or STFU.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what?

Nothing except is shows you level of 'research' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Still waiting on your comment with regards to the link I posted </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that car gude site goes to the wiki page on goddard. That shows YOUR level of research doesn't it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

I allready told yout it coppied wiki </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you twisted the facts by only mentioning "Car Guide" as the source.

This clearly shows you to be the liar you claimed I was..

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:31 PM
Care to comment on


science world:
Ironically, his ideas did not go unnoticed by the Germans, particularly <span class="ev_code_yellow">Wernher von Braun who took Goddard's plans from various journals and incorporated them into building the A-4 series of rockets--better known as the V-2</span>--which constantly struck at Europe in the last two years of World War Two
http://scienceworld.wolfram.co...ography/Goddard.html

Paying close att to the yellow text

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
As I said and we all are still waiting shows us "GODDARD THE ALL SHARING INFORMATION ROCKET SCIENTIST" please or as I said..

STFU..
Patents are a form of sharing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Patents are written to protect ideas for financial gain. That was Goddards only reason in filing them.

If he truly wanted to share his ideas with the world and his engineering findings he wouldn't have patented them numbnut.

He would just have published them in scientific journals and shared them openly.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Patents are written to protect ideas for financial gain. That was Goddards only reason in filing them.

If he truly wanted to share his ideas with the world and his engineering findings he wouldn't have patented them numbnut.

He would just have published them in <span class="ev_code_yellow">scientific journals</span> and shared them openly.
Oh so it is a reference to 'journals' not 'patents' that will convince you?

Aparently your cars guide source didnt link to the science world site, where they clearly show Wernher used 'various journals'


science world:
Ironically, his ideas did not go unnoticed by the Germans, particularly Wernher von Braun who took Goddard's plans from various <span class="ev_code_yellow">journals</span> and incorporated them into building the A-4 series of rockets--better known as the V-2--which constantly struck at Europe in the last two years of World War Two
http://scienceworld.wolfram.co...ography/Goddard.html

Happy now?

Bremspropeller
08-06-2009, 03:36 PM
Horton

The first of tagert's alter-egos to spell "Horton" correctly gets an ice-cream.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
Care to comment on

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">science world:
Ironically, his ideas did not go unnoticed by the Germans, particularly <span class="ev_code_yellow">Wernher von Braun who took Goddard's plans from various journals and incorporated them into building the A-4 series of rockets--better known as the V-2</span>--which constantly struck at Europe in the last two years of World War Two
http://scienceworld.wolfram.co...ography/Goddard.html

Paying close att to the yellow text </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

again the strawman? Ya, many people took goddards original ideas.

This isn't what I have been saying is it though.

And many people asked goddard directly in letters for further information on his finding which he never ever answered except to be very vage about it.

This is what I Am saying.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Horton

The first of tagert's alter-egos to spell "Horton" correctly gets an ice-cream. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
Care to comment on

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">science world:
Ironically, his ideas did not go unnoticed by the Germans, particularly <span class="ev_code_yellow">Wernher von Braun who took Goddard's plans from various journals and incorporated them into building the A-4 series of rockets--better known as the V-2</span>--which constantly struck at Europe in the last two years of World War Two
http://scienceworld.wolfram.co...ography/Goddard.html

Paying close att to the yellow text </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

again the strawman? Ya, many people took goddards original ideas.

This isn't what I have been saying is it though.

And many people asked goddard directly in letters for further information on his finding which he never ever answered except to be very vage about it.

This is what I Am saying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No comment on Vons use of Goddards 'journals'?

Big suprise

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:42 PM
Goddard and the wright brothers have a lot in common. Not the least was Non-disclosure clauses" for their employees. Hay i wonder why they did that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

that's why I find neither Goddard or the Wrights the big american heros they are always made out to be.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
This is what I Am saying.
So your saying Goddard understood the notion of 'on a need to know basis'

Fine, and I agree with you!

But what does that have to do with the FACT that he did go as far as to post journals and patents that were both used by Von in building the V2?

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
Care to comment on

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">science world:
Ironically, his ideas did not go unnoticed by the Germans, particularly <span class="ev_code_yellow">Wernher von Braun who took Goddard's plans from various journals and incorporated them into building the A-4 series of rockets--better known as the V-2</span>--which constantly struck at Europe in the last two years of World War Two
http://scienceworld.wolfram.co...ography/Goddard.html

Paying close att to the yellow text </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

again the strawman? Ya, many people took goddards original ideas.

This isn't what I have been saying is it though.

And many people asked goddard directly in letters for further information on his finding which he never ever answered except to be very vage about it.

This is what I Am saying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No comment on Vons use of Goddards 'journals'?

Big suprise </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well for one thing you web site doesn't work.What a surprise. For another I don't know how the heck Von Braun could ever get Goddards "journals" This sound just completly ridiculous.

His patents yes..

oh you mean "after the war.." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
well for one thing you web site doesn't work.What a surprise.
My bad, cut n paste error, here you go

http://scienceworld.wolfram.co...ography/Goddard.html (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Goddard.html)


Originally posted by stalkervision:
For another I don't know how the heck Von Braun could ever get Goddards "journals" This sound just completly ridiculous.

His patents yes..

oh you mean "after the war.." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Hey dont get mad at me for providing a reference to journals after you asked for a reference to journals!

Anyway, its late, got to run. Just know that your reference to how secretive he was does not offset the FACT that he provided patents and journals for others to look at IMHO. It only highlights how much you want to continue to belive what you belive and have thus closed your mind to the topic at hand

Enjoy your belif system.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 03:55 PM
well your reference is as vague if not vager then the wiki site on goddard for one and two knowing more about "the man" Goddard then you obviously do I can just about guarantee you the journal information von braun greened from goddard' writings was hardly more then what his patents already said.

Since your the research expert here maybe you can show us all that isn't so..

Belief system again?

Nope.

Yours certainly if you can't admit goddard wasn't the american idol you obviously believe he was..

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
well your reference is as vague if not vager then the wiki site on goddard for one and two knowing more about "the man" Goddard then you obviously do I can just about guarantee you the journal information von braun greened from goddard' writings was hardly more then what his patents already said.

Since your the research expert here maybe you can show us all that isn't so..
so, cars guide GOOD, science world BAD http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

That is classic! And a good point to end this debate on!

I leave you now to your biases

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
well your reference is as vague if not vager then the wiki site on goddard for one and two knowing more about "the man" Goddard then you obviously do I can just about guarantee you the journal information von braun greened from goddard' writings was hardly more then what his patents already said.

Since your the research expert here maybe you can show us all that isn't so..
so, cars guide GOOD, scienceworld BAD

That is classic! And a good point to end this debate on! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO classic is that you keep saying 'carworld' for a link to wickipedia and trying to use it as some kind of argument that your right.

Classic StrawMAn


It also shows that you can't prove goddard wasn't the "all sharing scientist" you make him out to be.

You know why..?

because he wasn't. Any pertinent useful engineering info the germans or the Russians or even his own american scientists got from goddard wasn't because goddard wanted to share it freely.

More like he was forced to. Patents aren't sharing btw.

Now prove otherwise..

ElAurens
08-06-2009, 04:10 PM
German agents simply went to the New York Public Library and photographed all the published work of Goddard.

This has been known for some years.

As to The Horten wings, who cares?

They never were armed, never flew in combat, and would have done nothing to save Germany from her deserved fate.

Move along now kids.

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
German agents simply went to the New York Public Library and photographed all the published work of Goddard.

This has been known for some years.

As to The Horten wings, who cares?

They never were armed, never flew in combat, and would have done nothing to save Germany from her deserved fate.

Move along now kids.


Good advise. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

My contention still stands that Goddard was tighter with his secret information then a Scotsman is to a pound note! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Waldo.Pepper
08-06-2009, 05:58 PM
http://rlv.zcache.com/to_hell_in_a_handbasket_mousepad-p144376458873523008t51v_210.jpg

AndyJWest
08-06-2009, 06:24 PM
I'm beginning to suspect that ASH_HOUSEWARES and stalkervision are actually the same person...

ElAurens
08-06-2009, 07:05 PM
Nope.

Tuphlandng
08-06-2009, 07:19 PM
Tachyon1000 Cool Find

stalkervision
08-06-2009, 07:43 PM
I believe this discussion has changed from the original intention.

The original subject is pretty interesting IMO much more then what it is become now.

why don't we get back to it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Tuphlandng
08-06-2009, 07:59 PM
Bummer

Codex1971
08-09-2009, 01:35 AM
Well it is interesting that in the doco stated that the paint had charcol powder mixed in to it to absorb rader energy, this would indicate the designers were thinking about stealth technology at the time...as many forums I've read so far say the Germans were not. And...that the Prototype flew "several" test flights, with the last fatal flight involving a moch dog fight with a 262. I can not find any refernce to this in any books or websites, so the questions is: Did the produces uncover never before seen documents / evidence of this?

Kettenhunde
08-09-2009, 04:09 AM
the myth of German techological superiority

It is not a myth depending on what aspect of technology you want to discuss.

As a generalization all the warring powers technology was equal. In specific areas some were farther along than others.

The Germans led the race for the most part in metallurgy, chemical engineering, and rocketry.

Certainly ideas were exchanged by the participants in each field. Simply list the United States production rockets of comparable size and payload.

http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors...targaze/Srockhis.htm (http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/stargaze/Srockhis.htm)

Much of the “German scientific superiority” is completely transparent to the casual observer and would not be noticeable to anyone interested in seeking a game shape advantage. For example, their chemical engineering was significantly more advanced than the United States. The Wright Aero engine Company list’s some 120 areas of interest in it examination of a captured BMW801 series engine.

One of these areas was the nitriding techniques used in the manufacturer of the engine. The German techniques penetrated further and resulted in a much harder piece of steel than anything we were capable of at the time.

The rub is necessity is the mother of invention. The German raw steel was inferior to ours because they did not have the quality or abundance of natural resources available to the United States. In the end, there was no noteworthy difference in the engines produced. The German technology advantage came about in the effort to overcome the raw material disadvantage.

Kettenhunde
08-09-2009, 04:14 AM
suspect that ASH_HOUSEWARES


ASH_HOUSEWARES is Tagert.

Feathered_IV
08-09-2009, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">suspect that ASH_HOUSEWARES


ASH_HOUSEWARES is Tagert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-09-2009, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">suspect that ASH_HOUSEWARES


ASH_HOUSEWARES is Tagert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Bartender Ill have what their drinking!

blairgowrie
08-09-2009, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">suspect that ASH_HOUSEWARES


ASH_HOUSEWARES is Tagert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not much doubt about it is there?

Kettenhunde
08-09-2009, 04:56 PM
LOL

na85
08-09-2009, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by blairgowrie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">suspect that ASH_HOUSEWARES


ASH_HOUSEWARES is Tagert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not much doubt about it is there? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, no. I could spot him a mile away.

mortoma
08-09-2009, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the myth of German techological superiority

It is not a myth depending on what aspect of technology you want to discuss.

As a generalization all the warring powers technology was equal. In specific areas some were farther along than others.

The Germans led the race for the most part in metallurgy, chemical engineering, and rocketry.

Certainly ideas were exchanged by the participants in each field. Simply list the United States production rockets of comparable size and payload.

http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors...targaze/Srockhis.htm (http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/stargaze/Srockhis.htm)

Much of the “German scientific superiority” is completely transparent to the casual observer and would not be noticeable to anyone interested in seeking a game shape advantage. For example, their chemical engineering was significantly more advanced than the United States. The Wright Aero engine Company list’s some 120 areas of interest in it examination of a captured BMW801 series engine.

One of these areas was the nitriding techniques used in the manufacturer of the engine. The German techniques penetrated further and resulted in a much harder piece of steel than anything we were capable of at the time.

The rub is necessity is the mother of invention. The German raw steel was inferior to ours because they did not have the quality or abundance of natural resources available to the United States. In the end, there was no noteworthy difference in the engines produced. The German technology advantage came about in the effort to overcome the raw material disadvantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh I'm sorry, I forgot about the Nordic and Aryan people being the Master Race!! So of course their scientists were superior as well. They stole nothing at all from Goddard or England's Whittle. Silly me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
08-09-2009, 09:10 PM
Mortoma, history is loaded with examples of ideas and inventions traveling between countries and cultures.
Goddard didn't invent rocketry in total though he was the first I know of using liquid fuel. The Wright
brothers didn't invent flight and did read everything coming out of Europe before and during their development.
The chains of who talked or wrote to who that brought about every major invention we have is a fascinating
study that certainly crosses major global distances and cultures on this planet without which NONE of it
would be in use now.
So how about just leave the shoulder chip in the useless things drawer or better yet throw it in the trash?
If need be, get more educated. Start by finding James Burke's Connections series and a good supply of popcorn.

PanzerAce
08-10-2009, 12:49 AM
Actually Mort, the germans didn't steal much in the way of jet technology from Whittle. The basics were laid out for it before the first world war in thermo-jet experimentals. And while Whittle may have had the first patents on the design, he was running a centrifugal setup, which really means that you should be crediting whoever was the first to build a centrifugal supercharger or pump instead of him for the invention. The Germans, on the other hand, built, ran, and perfected axial flow jets, which, given that basically every jet built today is one, is pretty clearly the superior option.

And as for goddard, see my posts a few pages earlier.

M_Gunz
08-10-2009, 02:13 AM
There was an Italian jet-thrust design that flew but wasn't worth pursuing. The first jet thrust plane I know
of failed because it caught on fire during takeoff. That was Henri Coanda's plane that used the jet to make
lift as well as thrust, IIRC it was supposed to have left the ground though it was on fire by then. Slight
miscalculation and not enough money to try again. Hehe, that would make a Romanian to have designed and built
the first jet plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif There's nothing that says a jet can't be driven by a piston engine, is there?
Even if rockets count, the first rocket powered plane wasn't until 1928 and it wasn't Goddard who did it.

Bremspropeller
08-10-2009, 07:53 AM
England's Whittle

centrifugal flow vs. axial flow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

E- for attempt, though.

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-10-2009, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blairgowrie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">suspect that ASH_HOUSEWARES


ASH_HOUSEWARES is Tagert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not much doubt about it is there? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, no. I could spot him a mile away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What in the world are you guys smoking?

Urufu_Shinjiro
08-10-2009, 12:02 PM
Cmon, stop acting like my 4yr old or I'll have to put you guys in Time Out...