1940 Caproni-Campini Jet Bomber Project
Rob Arndt
guy
> http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c84/AviationImages/Campinibimotore1...
>
> Rob
Any idea what engines were proposed? They look more like centrifugal
rather than axial types.
Guy
Rob Arndt
Two 1,350 hp thermal jets.
Wingspan: 18.8 m
Wing surface: 48 square m
Weight: 8,400 kg
Take-off run: 500 m
Range: 3,000 km
Cruise speed: 750 km/h
Max. speed: 1,050 km/h (estimated)
In a postwar interview, Campini stated that he started to develop a
3,000hp gas turbine for this aircraft which would push maximum speed
to 1,250 km/h.
Rob
p.s. Campini also had a thermal jet fighter design to be powered by an
internal DB-605 :)
Keith Willshaw
"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:18316553-0af1-44e8...@n38g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 28, 5:06?am, guy <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Any idea what engines were proposed? They look more like centrifugal
>> rather than axial types.
>>
>> Guy
> Two 1,350 hp thermal jets.
> Wingspan: 18.8 m
> Wing surface: 48 square m
> Weight: 8,400 kg
> Take-off run: 500 m
> Range: 3,000 km
> Cruise speed: 750 km/h
> Max. speed: 1,050 km/h (estimated)
> In a postwar interview, Campini stated that he started to develop a
> 3,000hp gas turbine for this aircraft which would push maximum speed
> to 1,250 km/h.
> Rob
There's not a hope in hell of pushing that airframe at 1250 km/hr
no matter how big the engines.
This aircraft would have had a similar planform to
the Canberra which with two 7,000 lb turbojets could hit
around 900km/hr
Keith
Dan
section peeled off.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Rob Arndt
http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/picturesd/it3.jpg
Another Italian jet bomber design...
Rob
LIBERATOR
LOL... you're just mean cuz you're retired...
LIBERATOR
Doesn't look as dynamic as the other one.
Eunometic
> "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:18316553-0af1-44e8...@n38g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 28, 5:06?am, guy <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Any idea what engines were proposed? They look more like centrifugal
> >> rather than axial types.
>
> >> Guy
> > Two 1,350 hp thermal jets.
> > Wingspan: 18.8 m
> > Wing surface: 48 square m
> > Weight: 8,400 kg
> > Take-off run: 500 m
> > Range: 3,000 km
> > Cruise speed: 750 km/h
> > Max. speed: 1,050 km/h (estimated)
> > In a postwar interview, Campini stated that he started to develop a
> > 3,000hp gas turbine for this aircraft which would push maximum speed
> > to 1,250 km/h.
> > Rob
>
> There's not a hope in hell of pushing that airframe at 1250 km/hr
> no matter how big the engines.
A 1350hp thermal motor jet would produce 2500lbs thrust if the
experimental Campini N1's performance is scaled up.
(Campini N1 had 750kg/1650lbs thrust from a 750hp or 900hp motor)
I imagine they would be slightly improved given that the Campini
hadn't solved the burner problem yet.
The 3000hp version might thus produce 5500lbs thrust which isn't too
far of the 7000lbs you mention for the Canberra below though the
engines might be rather heavier at about 3500-4000 lbs a pieced To be
fair though the 'thrust' may be mostly from the ducted fan portion
than jet thrust though it must be said the Campini engines also
recover ram pressure to help generate thrust.
>
> This aircraft would have had a similar planform to
> the Canberra which with two 7,000 lb turbojets could hit
> around 900km/hr
Well, motorjets don't have the same limitations as gas turbines which
are limited by RPM, turbine inlet temperatures and surge limits.
A piston engine, by virtue of being supercharged, can be set up to
maintain power to higher altitude without the proportional fall of in
performance that decreases linearly in proportion to air density that
is associated with gas turbines. So long as the fan/compressor
portion can absorb the power in the reduced density the thrust won't
decline as rapidly. Perhaps this is why Whittle felt he could talk
about flight at 100,000ft using a motorjet concept.
The Horn Balances on the vertical tails suggest that aerodynamically
the Italians either didn't know what they were expecting that this
aircraft could do 1250km/h let alone 1000km/h or that more likely this
was a publicity design intended to 'inspire' funding. Germany,
Austria, Switzerland and Italy had all invested in supersonic wind
tunnels so they should have known better. The NACA's Jakes Jeep was
expected to be capable of at least Mach 0.75 (perhaps more, the
Americans didn't want to spoil their credibility so they were very
conservative). This to me suggests that Mach 0,9 was possible.
Eunometic
Keith Willshaw
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2a6f9200-b561-48d3...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 29, 8:29 am, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:18316553-0af1-44e8...@n38g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 28, 5:06?am, guy <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Any idea what engines were proposed? They look more like centrifugal
>> >> rather than axial types.
>>
>> >> Guy
>> > Two 1,350 hp thermal jets.
>> > Wingspan: 18.8 m
>> > Wing surface: 48 square m
>> > Weight: 8,400 kg
>> > Take-off run: 500 m
>> > Range: 3,000 km
>> > Cruise speed: 750 km/h
>> > Max. speed: 1,050 km/h (estimated)
>> > In a postwar interview, Campini stated that he started to develop a
>> > 3,000hp gas turbine for this aircraft which would push maximum speed
>> > to 1,250 km/h.
>> > Rob
>>
>> There's not a hope in hell of pushing that airframe at 1250 km/hr
>> no matter how big the engines.
>
> A 1350hp thermal motor jet would produce 2500lbs thrust if the
> experimental Campini N1's performance is scaled up.
Campiin N1 never exceeded 250 mph
> (Campini N1 had 750kg/1650lbs thrust from a 750hp or 900hp motor)
> I imagine they would be slightly improved given that the Campini
> hadn't solved the burner problem yet.
>
Imagination is no substitue for aerodynamics
> The 3000hp version might thus produce 5500lbs thrust which isn't too
> far of the 7000lbs you mention for the Canberra below though the
> engines might be rather heavier at about 3500-4000 lbs a pieced
If you can build a gas turbine why not just build a turbojet ?
> To be
> fair though the 'thrust' may be mostly from the ducted fan portion
> than jet thrust though it must be said the Campini engines also
> recover ram pressure to help generate thrust.
>
very inefficiently
>>
>> This aircraft would have had a similar planform to
>> the Canberra which with two 7,000 lb turbojets could hit
>> around 900km/hr
>
> Well, motorjets don't have the same limitations as gas turbines which
> are limited by RPM, turbine inlet temperatures and surge limits.
Wrong - piston engines are very much limited by RPM and inlet
temperature. If you dont believe me put your car in neutral, start
the engine and push the gas pedal to the floor.
> A piston engine, by virtue of being supercharged, can be set up to
> maintain power to higher altitude without the proportional fall of in
> performance that decreases linearly in proportion to air density that
> is associated with gas turbines.
Wrong - you must have missed the bit in thermodynamics classes
where they explain that the front end of a gas turbine is a
compressor that provides a far higher compression ration than
can be achieved by piston engines.
Feel free to explain how a supercharger is different to a compressor.
> So long as the fan/compressor
> portion can absorb the power in the reduced density the thrust won't
> decline as rapidly.
<Irony Mode On>
Which presumably is why high altitude aircraft use motorjets
<Irony Mode Off>
> Perhaps this is why Whittle felt he could talk
> about flight at 100,000ft using a motorjet concept.
>
Whittle (and von Hain) decided against motorjets when he realised that gas
turbines
were MORE efficient at high altude than piston engines due to the
low air temperatures at altitude.
> The Horn Balances on the vertical tails suggest that aerodynamically
> the Italians either didn't know what they were expecting that this
> aircraft could do 1250km/h let alone 1000km/h or that more likely this
> was a publicity design intended to 'inspire' funding. Germany,
> Austria, Switzerland and Italy had all invested in supersonic wind
> tunnels so they should have known better. The NACA's Jakes Jeep was
> expected to be capable of at least Mach 0.75 (perhaps more, the
> Americans didn't want to spoil their credibility so they were very
> conservative). This to me suggests that Mach 0,9 was possible.
>
> Eunometic
You seem to be very suggestible, personally I'd be amazed if it
hit mach 0.6.
Keith
Eunometic
> "Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
Yet it demonstrated jet propulsion. What did the Gloster E.28/39 ever
achieve? At most 338mph, which is ;less than a Hawker Hurricane.
>
> > (Campini N1 had 750kg/1650lbs thrust from a 750hp or 900hp motor)
> > I imagine they would be slightly improved given that the Campini
> > hadn't solved the burner problem yet.
>
> Imagination is no substitute for aerodynamics
You seem to be lacking a little in imagination. The Campini's
'afterburner transferred heat to the compressor indirectly via the
'afterburner' duct wall. The American Stanford Moss of GE
demonstrated turbo superchargers in 1918 and continued to develop them
from that point on. From that point on the turbojet was a proven
concept. All Whittle and von Ohain and Max Hahn did that is new is
develop burners. This is what the so called 'garage mechanic' that
was Max Hahn did, he was an expert at welding torches.
>
> > The 3000hp version might thus produce 5500lbs thrust which isn't too
> > far of the 7000lbs you mention for the Canberra below though the
> > engines might be rather heavier at about 3500-4000 lbs a pieced
>
> If you can build a gas turbine why not just build a turbojet ?
Because motorjets transcend material limitations in the turbine and
also simplify control issues.
>
> > To be
> > fair though the 'thrust' may be mostly from the ducted fan portion
> > than jet thrust though it must be said the Campini engines also
> > recover ram pressure to help generate thrust.
>
> very inefficiently
They could be improved.
>
>
>
> >> This aircraft would have had a similar planform to
> >> the Canberra which with two 7,000 lb turbojets could hit
> >> around 900km/hr
>
> > Well, motorjets don't have the same limitations as gas turbines which
> > are limited by RPM, turbine inlet temperatures and surge limits.
>
> Wrong - piston engines are very much limited by RPM and inlet
> temperature. If you dont believe me put your car in neutral, start
> the engine and push the gas pedal to the floor.
This is an out of context example.
A gas turbine opperates at a fuel to air ratio of around 40:1; anymore
leads to the turbine failing from heat stress.
Piston engines opperate at around 14.2:1.
It takes relatively little investment in supercharging to maintain
airflow at sea level rates.
>
> > A piston engine, by virtue of being supercharged, can be set up to
> > maintain power to higher altitude without the proportional fall of in
> > performance that decreases linearly in proportion to air density that
> > is associated with gas turbines.
>
> Wrong - you must have missed the bit in thermodynamics classes
> where they explain that the front end of a gas turbine is a
> compressor that provides a far higher compression ration than
> can be achieved by piston engines.
>
> Feel free to explain how a supercharger is different to a compressor.
A gas turbine opperates at a fuel to air ratio of around 40:1; anymore
leads to the turbine failing from heat stress.
Piston engines opperate at around 14.2:1.
Thus to maintain sea level conditions at the engine inlet of a piston
engine requires about 1/3rd less investment in
additional compressors weight and power. It's much easier to
maintain power (in hp or kw terms) in a piston engine
than a gas turbine.
>
> > So long as the fan/compressor
> > portion can absorb the power in the reduced density the thrust won't
> > decline as rapidly.
>
> <Irony Mode On>
> Which presumably is why high altitude aircraft use motorjets
> <Irony Mode Off>
>
> > Perhaps this is why Whittle felt he could talk
> > about flight at 100,000ft using a motorjet concept.
>
> Whittle (and von Hain) decided against motorjets when he realised that gas
> turbines
> were MORE efficient at high altude than piston engines due to the
> low air temperatures at altitude.
Wrong.
1 Whittle decicded against motorjets because he realised they didn't
save any weight over prop driven systems
2 that piston engines were reaching their practical development limits
in terms of hp and complexity, of course WW2 developments showed that
there was still a triplication of outputs possible from the piston
powers whittle was seeing when he made that decision.
Still he saw well beyond that.
3 von Ohain had all the technical reasons but was inspired by the
vulgar noise and vibration of pistons which he disliked.
His biography is thus called 'elegance in flight'.
>
> > The Horn Balances on the vertical tails suggest that aerodynamically
> > the Italians either didn't know what they were expecting that this
> > aircraft could do 1250km/h let alone 1000km/h or that more likely this
> > was a publicity design intended to 'inspire' funding. Germany,
> > Austria, Switzerland and Italy had all invested in supersonic wind
> > tunnels so they should have known better. The NACA's Jakes Jeep was
> > expected to be capable of at least Mach 0.75 (perhaps more, the
> > Americans didn't want to spoil their credibility so they were very
> > conservative). This to me suggests that Mach 0,9 was possible.
>
> > Eunometic
>
> You seem to be very suggestible, personally I'd be amazed if it
> hit mach 0.6.
The motorjet by using a piston engine to drive an after burning
compressor instead of a propellor transcended the limitations of
propellors.
Once this is done the only limitations are those to do with the
aerodynamics of the airframe. That in itself pushes performance to
the Mach limit of the airframes typical of aircraft of WW2 eg Mustang,
Spitifre, Me 109, Fw 190 which were all around Mach 0.75.
The British muddled their way quite succesfully to Mach 0.9 without
too much knowledge of transonic and supersonic aerodynamics
simply by extending existing know how: streamlineing more and making
wings very thin basically and getting rid of the shock problem of the
tailplane elevator interface simply by making it all moving something
which also gave the authority to overcome Mach tuck.
The Italians were quite capable of streamlining and pushing existing
know how.
>
> Keith
Eunometic
Fascinating. This is a turbojet or perhaps turbofan powered
aircraft. What is interesting is the liquid cooled
turbine. These work very well as they allow very high turbine inlet
temperatures with very ordinary materials
and several were built and tested though not flown. The disadvantage
is that you need to find a way to get rid
of the heat: the duct around the turbofan probably being the best.
There was a stationary gas turbine developed by Siemens in the early
1950s to run of blast furnace gas and the USAF/NACA
did some work on them as well and showed 2800F opperation temperatures
out of ordinary chromium steels. Quite effective
though the interest was more a way of ensuring the USAF had a way of
making jets if the supplies of special metals
became short.
Keith Willshaw
On Aug 31, 12:51 am, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
>
>> > A 1350hp thermal motor jet would produce 2500lbs thrust if the
>> > experimental Campini N1's performance is scaled up.
>>
>> Campiin N1 never exceeded 250 mph
>Yet it demonstrated jet propulsion.
So does a childs balloon thats inflated and resleased without being tied.
> What did the Gloster E.28/39 ever achieve? At most 338mph, which is
> less than a Hawker Hurricane.
It was the flying testbed for Whittles engines
>
>> > (Campini N1 had 750kg/1650lbs thrust from a 750hp or 900hp motor)
>> > I imagine they would be slightly improved given that the Campini
>> > hadn't solved the burner problem yet.
>>
>> Imagination is no substitute for aerodynamics
> You seem to be lacking a little in imagination.
No I just have more engineering knowledge than you.
> The Campini's
> 'afterburner transferred heat to the compressor indirectly via the
> 'afterburner' duct wall. The American Stanford Moss of GE
> demonstrated turbo superchargers in 1918 and continued to develop them
> from that point on. From that point on the turbojet was a proven
> concept.
Wrong what Moss did was lay the ground work for gas turbines.
The early work on jet propulsion was done by Henri Coanda
> All Whittle and von Ohain and Max Hahn did that is new is
> develop burners. This is what the so called 'garage mechanic' that
> was Max Hahn did, he was an expert at welding torches.
Actually whay they did was develop lightweight engines usable
in aircraft, there were already land based gas turbines in service
by 1938
>
>> > The 3000hp version might thus produce 5500lbs thrust which isn't too
>> > far of the 7000lbs you mention for the Canberra below though the
>> > engines might be rather heavier at about 3500-4000 lbs a pieced
>>
>> If you can build a gas turbine why not just build a turbojet ?
> Because motorjets transcend material limitations in the turbine and
> also simplify control issues.
An interesting assertion - prove it
>
>> > To be
>> > fair though the 'thrust' may be mostly from the ducted fan portion
>> > than jet thrust though it must be said the Campini engines also
>> > recover ram pressure to help generate thrust.
>
>> very inefficiently
An interesting assertion - prove it
> They could be improved.
<snip>
>>> Well, motorjets don't have the same limitations as gas turbines which
>>> are limited by RPM, turbine inlet temperatures and surge limits.
>
>> Wrong - piston engines are very much limited by RPM and inlet
>> temperature. If you dont believe me put your car in neutral, start
>> the engine and push the gas pedal to the floor.
> This is an out of context example.
Inability to counter noted
> A gas turbine opperates at a fuel to air ratio of around 40:1; anymore
> leads to the turbine failing from heat stress.
> Piston engines opperate at around 14.2:1.
Precisely , a MUCH lower compression ratio, due in large
part to operating restrictions. Piston engines had strict limits
on operation at high levels of boost
> It takes relatively little investment in supercharging to maintain
> airflow at sea level rates.
An interesting assertion - prove it
>
>> > A piston engine, by virtue of being supercharged, can be set up to
>> > maintain power to higher altitude without the proportional fall of in
>> > performance that decreases linearly in proportion to air density that
>> > is associated with gas turbines.
>
>> Wrong - you must have missed the bit in thermodynamics classes
>> where they explain that the front end of a gas turbine is a
>> compressor that provides a far higher compression ration than
>> can be achieved by piston engines.
>
>> Feel free to explain how a supercharger is different to a compressor.
> A gas turbine opperates at a fuel to air ratio of around 40:1; anymore
> leads to the turbine failing from heat stress.
> Piston engines opperate at around 14.2:1.
You already said this and it simply disproves your case
> Thus to maintain sea level conditions at the engine inlet of a piston
> engine requires about 1/3rd less investment in
> additional compressors weight and power. It's much easier to
> maintain power (in hp or kw terms) in a piston engine
> than a gas turbine.
Thank you for demonstrating your abysmal ignorance of thermodynamics.
The energy required to compress a volume of gas is set by the
laws of physics. The simple reality is that a piston engine operates
at a max compression ratio of around 14 to 1 because that is
the limit imposed by the technology. Have you heard of pre-ignition
or detonation ?
Sheesh
.
>
>> Whittle (and von Hain) decided against motorjets when he realised that
>> gas
>> turbines
>> were MORE efficient at high altude than piston engines due to the
>> low air temperatures at altitude.
> Wrong.
> 1 Whittle decicded against motorjets because he realised they didn't
> save any weight over prop driven systems
Whittle didnt build prop driven systems and his writings
contradict your claim
> 2 that piston engines were reaching their practical development limits
> in terms of hp and complexity, of course WW2 developments showed that
> there was still a triplication of outputs possible from the piston
> powers whittle was seeing when he made that decision.
> Still he saw well beyond that.
Yet you are claiming that piston engines can be used to provide jet
propulsion in an efficient manner
> 3 von Ohain had all the technical reasons but was inspired by the
> vulgar noise and vibration of pistons which he disliked.
> His biography is thus called 'elegance in flight'.
Indeed , they saw further than you it seems
>
>> > The Horn Balances on the vertical tails suggest that aerodynamically
>> > the Italians either didn't know what they were expecting that this
>> > aircraft could do 1250km/h let alone 1000km/h or that more likely this
>> > was a publicity design intended to 'inspire' funding. Germany,
>> > Austria, Switzerland and Italy had all invested in supersonic wind
>> > tunnels so they should have known better. The NACA's Jakes Jeep was
>> > expected to be capable of at least Mach 0.75 (perhaps more, the
>> > Americans didn't want to spoil their credibility so they were very
>> > conservative). This to me suggests that Mach 0,9 was possible.
>
>> > Eunometic
>
>> You seem to be very suggestible, personally I'd be amazed if it
>> hit mach 0.6.
>The motorjet by using a piston engine to drive an after burning
>compressor instead of a propellor transcended the limitations of
>propellors.
Feel free to give examples of motorjets that are faster than a P-51
> Once this is done the only limitations are those to do with the
> aerodynamics of the airframe. That in itself pushes performance to
> the Mach limit of the airframes typical of aircraft of WW2 eg Mustang,
> Spitifre, Me 109, Fw 190 which were all around Mach 0.75.
And the airframe of the Campini aircraft could exceed Mach 1 if you
strapped a Saturn V booster to its ass
> The British muddled their way quite succesfully to Mach 0.9 without
> too much knowledge of transonic and supersonic aerodynamics
Actually the RAE did a great deal of work on transonic flow.
> simply by extending existing know how: streamlineing more and making
> wings very thin basically and getting rid of the shock problem of the
> tailplane elevator interface simply by making it all moving something
> which also gave the authority to overcome Mach tuck.
Which was the result of a great deal of theoretical work and
testing.
> The Italians were quite capable of streamlining and pushing existing
> know how.
Maybe but the Campini design illustrated showed little sign of it
Keith
>
> Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g9dr93$fks$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>> Once this is done the only limitations are those to do with the
>> aerodynamics of the airframe. That in itself pushes performance to
>> the Mach limit of the airframes typical of aircraft of WW2 eg Mustang,
>> Spitifre, Me 109, Fw 190 which were all around Mach 0.75.
>
> And the airframe of the Campini aircraft could exceed Mach 1 if you
> strapped a Saturn V booster to its ass
>
This should of course read
> And the airframe of the Campini aircraft could *NOT* exceed Mach 1 if you
> strapped a Saturn V booster to its ass
Well not in one piece anyway :)
Keith
Rob Arndt
> "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
Keith is just jealous that the primitive Italians actually flew a jet
before they did (1940 vs 1941) and that the Italians (as well as the
Japanese) had designs for jet bombers while Britain did not.
Germany of course had two (Ar-234 and Ju-287) as well as the He-343 in
development (components manufactured before collapse).
Rob :)
Dan
Jealousy has nothing to do with it, science does. Take a look at the
vertical stabs for example. There's a reason supersonic aircraft don't
tend to have oval shaped surfaces, it's called drag. The wing is a slow
speed airfoil, compressibility would be massive. Brute force can only go
so far in overcoming drag. Even your Nazi Ar-234 and Me-262 couldn't go
supersonic and they had cleaner lines.
Rob Arndt
>
Where's the US WW2 jet bomber in action? Nowhere.
For its small production, the Ar-234 Blitz did really well in WW2, not
so much as a bomber, but as a fast recon bird that could outrun most
anything from a Mustang to a Mosquito @ 461 mph.
BTW, it's GERMAN Ar-234 and Me-262. Machines are not political and you
show how much you hate Germans once again with your labels. I'm so
glad Germans are around in the Fatherland and are the single largest
ethnic Caucasian majority in this nation as well :)
And since you don't speak Hebrew, what a great pleasure it is to know
you speak English which is of the Germanic language group!
Rob
Dan
What's that got to do with the discussion at hand?
>
> For its small production, the Ar-234 Blitz did really well in WW2, not
> so much as a bomber, but as a fast recon bird that could outrun most
> anything from a Mustang to a Mosquito @ 461 mph.
In your opinion.
>
> BTW, it's GERMAN Ar-234 and Me-262. Machines are not political and you
> show how much you hate Germans once again with your labels. I'm so
> glad Germans are around in the Fatherland and are the single largest
> ethnic Caucasian majority in this nation as well :)
Racism noted. Caucasian is a term referring to an ethnic group that
arose in the Caucuses, not Germany. The Germanic tribes immigrated from
elsewhere. So much for your master waste.
>
> And since you don't speak Hebrew, what a great pleasure it is to know
> you speak English which is of the Germanic language group!
>
> Rob
>
And German is derived from Proto-indo-european, your point?
Evasive response noted.
Keith Willshaw
>
> This should of course read
>
> > And the airframe of the Campini aircraft could *NOT* exceed Mach 1 if
> > you
> > strapped a Saturn V booster to its ass
>
> Well not in one piece anyway :)
>
> Keith
> Keith is just jealous that the primitive Italians actually flew a jet
> before they did (1940 vs 1941) and that the Italians (as well as the
> Japanese) had designs for jet bombers while Britain did not.
Incorrect, the Italians made some fine aircraft - this wasnt one of them
> Germany of course had two (Ar-234 and Ju-287) as well as the He-343 in
> development (components manufactured before collapse).
The Ar-234 was a truly revolutionary aircraft.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Dan" <B24...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:LRAuk.6814$3A4....@newsfe04.iad...
>>
>> Germany of course had two (Ar-234 and Ju-287) as well as the He-343 in
>> development (components manufactured before collapse).
>>
>> Rob :)
>
> Jealousy has nothing to do with it, science does. Take a look at the
> vertical stabs for example. There's a reason supersonic aircraft don't
> tend to have oval shaped surfaces, it's called drag. The wing is a slow
> speed airfoil, compressibility would be massive. Brute force can only go
> so far in overcoming drag. Even your Nazi Ar-234 and Me-262 couldn't go
> supersonic and they had cleaner lines.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
At last a sensible post
Keith
Andrew Chaplin
It was even æsthetically pleasing, but that does not change who built it and
why: they were NAZI swine.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Dan
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:g9eovj$2cg$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> "Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:5f5023a9-89d8-4772...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> This should of course read
>>>
>>>> And the airframe of the Campini aircraft could *NOT* exceed Mach 1 if you
>>>> strapped a Saturn V booster to its ass
>>> Well not in one piece anyway :)
>>>
>>> Keith
>>> Keith is just jealous that the primitive Italians actually flew a jet
>>> before they did (1940 vs 1941) and that the Italians (as well as the
>>> Japanese) had designs for jet bombers while Britain did not.
>> Incorrect, the Italians made some fine aircraft - this wasnt one of them
>>
>>> Germany of course had two (Ar-234 and Ju-287) as well as the He-343 in
>>> development (components manufactured before collapse).
>> The Ar-234 was a truly revolutionary aircraft.
>
> It was even æsthetically pleasing, but that does not change who built it and
> why: they were NAZI swine.
And it was built with forced labour who suffered and died.
Rob Arndt
<ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:g9eovj$2cg$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:5f5023a9-89d8-4772...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> This should of course read
>
> >> > And the airframe of the Campini aircraft could *NOT* exceed Mach 1 if you
> >> > strapped a Saturn V booster to its ass
>
> >> Well not in one piece anyway :)
>
> >> Keith
>
> >> Keith is just jealous that the primitive Italians actually flew a jet
> >> before they did (1940 vs 1941) and that the Italians (as well as the
> >> Japanese) had designs for jet bombers while Britain did not.
>
> > Incorrect, the Italians made some fine aircraft - this wasnt one of them
>
> >> Germany of course had two (Ar-234 and Ju-287) as well as the He-343 in
> >> development (components manufactured before collapse).
>
> > The Ar-234 was a truly revolutionary aircraft.
>
> why: they were NAZI swine.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
>
> - Show quoted text -
Boo hoo, Andrew... fucking whiner... wimp
Rob
Rob Arndt
> >news:g9eovj$2cg$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >> "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>news:5f5023a9-89d8-4772...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> This should of course read
>
> >>>> And the airframe of the Campini aircraft could *NOT* exceed Mach 1 if you
> >>>> strapped a Saturn V booster to its ass
> >>> Well not in one piece anyway :)
>
> >>> Keith
> >>> Keith is just jealous that the primitive Italians actually flew a jet
> >>> before they did (1940 vs 1941) and that the Italians (as well as the
> >>> Japanese) had designs for jet bombers while Britain did not.
> >> Incorrect, the Italians made some fine aircraft - this wasnt one of them
>
> >>> Germany of course had two (Ar-234 and Ju-287) as well as the He-343 in
> >>> development (components manufactured before collapse).
> >> The Ar-234 was a truly revolutionary aircraft.
>
> > why: they were NAZI swine.
>
> � And it was built with forced labour who suffered and died.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who gives a fuck?
BTW, here's what's left of the failed XB-43:
http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/fot/fot097.jpg
Rob
LIBERATOR
How much sharing did Germany do with Italy?
Who was Goering associated with in Italy under Mussolini?
LIBERATOR
Danny, you are amazing me with that high level of knowledge you have,
but are you testing me?
A German has stated the the sound barrier was first broken by a pilot
during WW2 using the ME262 in a dive. I cannot remember the book or
the pilots name right now. I do believe it might be Henry Stevens
book.
LIBERATOR
*BIG BEAR HUG TO ROBBIE*
LIBERATOR
Can you validate this other than reading a Jewish published book? What
do the German published books say about the origin of German race?
> Evasive response noted.
I'll call that milkman again Danny...!
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired-
blah blah blah blah...
LIBERATOR
>
> news:g9eovj$2cg$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:5f5023a9-89d8-4772...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> This should of course read
>
> >> > And the airframe of the Campini aircraft could *NOT* exceed Mach 1 if you
> >> > strapped a Saturn V booster to its ass
>
> >> Well not in one piece anyway :)
>
> >> Keith
>
> >> Keith is just jealous that the primitive Italians actually flew a jet
> >> before they did (1940 vs 1941) and that the Italians (as well as the
> >> Japanese) had designs for jet bombers while Britain did not.
>
> > Incorrect, the Italians made some fine aircraft - this wasnt one of them
>
> >> Germany of course had two (Ar-234 and Ju-287) as well as the He-343 in
> >> development (components manufactured before collapse).
>
> > The Ar-234 was a truly revolutionary aircraft.
>
> It was even æsthetically pleasing, but that does not change who built it and
> why: they were NAZI swine.
No NAZI was a swine. The bad guys were in America, wearing beanies and
they called themselves Jews.
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO