"Watson's Wizards" and the Me-262
Rob Arndt
Keith Willshaw
"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e10d30de-be09-4680...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105lusty.asp
>
> Rob
I recommend Eric Browns recent book 'Wings on my Sleeve'
the story of his career as a service pilot and test pilot.
Not only did he test most German aircraft after the war
but pre-war he visited Germany as the guest of Ernst Udet
where he met Hannah Reitsch. In Sept 1939 he was still
in Germany when war broke out but to his surprise was
simply escorted to the Swiss frontier and allowed to leave.
He not only flew most Germany types including the Me-109,
Me-110, Me-163, Me-262, Horten IV, Arado-234 , He-177 etc
but he also flew many allied types from the Aeronca Grasshopper
to the Boeing B-29. He was also fully carrier qualified and made
the first landing and takeoffs of a jet from a carrier deck.
Keith
Rob Arndt
> "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
Not impressed really.
I like Eric Brown, of course (Wings of the Luftwaffe), and give him
credit for his test piloting skills.
But he was not a pioneer of the a/c he tested. Hanna Reitsch was
(gliders, amphibians, helicopters, jets, rocket a/c, and even a
piloted missile) and did things Eric Brown never did in peace time,
during the war, and even postwar (she holds many aviation records).
Like many around the world, I am on her side as best test pilot of the
20th century.
And I do not care if she was a diehard Nazi and that she loved Hitler.
Those things have nothing to do with her piloting skills. She was a
natural, gifted flyer.
Rob
Gordon
I think he beats her in carrier landings, takeoffs, total flight
hours, etc. Hanna had an amazing career - Eric certainly not less so.
> Like many around the world, I am on her side as best test pilot of the
> 20th century.
Eric flew far more types and his evaluation skills are generally
regarded as better than anyone elses. Hanna only flew German types
while Eric flew literally everything.
> And I do not care if she was a diehard Nazi and that she loved Hitler.
> Those things have nothing to do with her piloting skills. She was a
> natural, gifted flyer.
But as you know, many in the Luftwaffe resented and marginalized her.
It doesn't diminish her accomplishments but I cannot find a single
British airman that considers Captain Brown anything less than
phenomenal in the performance of his duties. I don't want to argue
about Hanna v. Eric, but she never had to land on a carrier (much less
thousands of times!), which most aviators agree is the most harrowing
career choice you can make.
G
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eric Brown never pioneered helicopter flight, flew a V-1, nor landed a
Fi-156 Storch under Soviet fire directly in front of the Brandenburg
Gate to get Von Greim to Hitler's bunker. He also never was a little
girl compared to male test pilots and yet she piloted the Me-321 which
usually took TWO strong male pilots to T/O and control- by HERSELF.
And she flew pioneering jet and rocket a/c as well as Germany's two
main fighters and a wide range of other types of German a/c.
Hanna also established a great many glider records and other aviation
records unrelated to anything Brown did and continued to do so
postwar.
The fact that he flew a greater number of a/c than Hanna overall and
carrier landings to... whatever... means nothing as she flew for the
Third Reich and when that ended, her options were severely limited
compared to his. Germany had and still has never possessed a real a/c
carrier, so that is a moot point. And he had access to a range of
military a/c as a military pilot that she could not gain access to as
a civilian.
Or do you imply that Hanna b/c she was a female and Nazi was incapable
of flying ANY a/c Brown flew or any non-German a/c???
If so, that is utterly absurd. She never was given the chance and yet
still set new records postwar in what she COULD fly legally across the
globe.
I'm surprised at you Gordon. Had she been a Luftwaffe Expert you would
be singing her praises, especially if she was a 109 or 262 Expert. And
if you never met her if you had a chance in your life, you sorely
missed out.
Be sure that Black Sun WILL be posting all the aircraft and rotorcraft
she ever flew and ALL of her records of her life. She was a pioneer
aviatrix and test pilot supreme with courage, determination, skill,
and efficiency Brown could never hope to possess. And if her
inspiration was Adolf Hitler and Nazi ideology- so be it.
Rob
p.s. Hanna Reitsch is heralded around the globe, not just in Germany.
Dan
A Hanna vs. Brown comparison really is apples and oranges for several
reasons; she lost access to military types post war, she was limited to
Nazi military aircraft and the like. She was also not a trained combat
pilot. There are many test pilots who experimented with early types of
fixed and rotary wing aircraft whose names are not well known. Hanna
would probably have been one of them had it not been for the Nazi
propaganda machine as well as her social climbing. Would Howard Hughes
be known for his flying accomplishments if he wasn't a publicity hound?
Yes, Hannah did a few things no one else did like fly into Berlin
just before Hitler became a good Nazi. Could any competent Storch or
Allied equivalent aircraft pilot have done the same thing? Of course,
but it's a matter of opportunity rather than capability just like Hannah
never having the opportunity to do carrier flying. She might have been
able to do it, but we will never know. She became a good Nazi without
the chance to prove one way or the other.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Gordon
> Eric Brown never pioneered helicopter flight, flew a V-1, nor landed a
> Fi-156 Storch under Soviet fire directly in front of the Brandenburg
> Gate to get Von Greim to Hitler's bunker.
She flew a helicopter in a building (many other people flew them, so I
do not see why she gets the honor of supposedly "pioneering helicopter
flight). She rode in a missile. She tried to rescue Hitler. Three
things that did zip to advance aviation.
> He also never was a little
> girl compared to male test pilots and yet she piloted the Me-321 which
> usually took TWO strong male pilots to T/O and control- by HERSELF.
So I guess it didn't take two strong male pilots, did it?
> And she flew pioneering jet and rocket a/c as well as Germany's two
> main fighters and a wide range of other types of German a/c.
I know that Winkle flew the 162, 163, and 262 - not sure that Hanna
did. You can give Hanna credit for the 163, but she also wrote off
that aircraft and nearly got killed in the process.
> Hanna also established a great many glider records and other aviation
> records unrelated to anything Brown did and continued to do so
> postwar.
Same with Brown as far as gaining postwar records. If you want me to
agree that she was a better glider pilot, I agree. Who was the better
test pilot? To establish that, we need to compare their total flight
hours without writing off an aircraft, number of different types flown
for evaluation purposes, etc. No question who wins that round.
> The fact that he flew a greater number of a/c than Hanna overall and
> carrier landings to... whatever... means nothing as she flew for the
> Third Reich and when that ended, her options were severely limited
> compared to his.
That sounds like an excuse for why he accomplished more?
> Germany had and still has never possessed a real a/c
> carrier, so that is a moot point.
Carrier aviation is a vibrant and important aspect of manned flight
and Winkle played a very important part in it. Hanna flew in a
guided missile. One of these two activities was a dead end. *That*
was the moot point.
> And he had access to a range of
> military a/c as a military pilot that she could not gain access to as
> a civilian.
>
> Or do you imply that Hanna b/c she was a female and Nazi was incapable
> of flying ANY a/c Brown flew or any non-German a/c???
I imply no such thing. I *state* that Eric Brown flew quite a few
more types and accomplished quite a bit more than she did, not because
he is male, or not a Nazi, but because - simply - he accomplished
more. She did all these one-off things that didn't really advance
aviation, while Brown was quietly filling the history books.
> If so, that is utterly absurd. She never was given the chance and yet
> still set new records postwar in what she COULD fly legally across the
> globe.
I never said anything like that so I would appreciate it if you would
not make it sound like I did.
> I'm surprised at you Gordon. Had she been a Luftwaffe Expert you would
> be singing her praises, especially if she was a 109 or 262 Expert.
I've never said one bad thing about her. She was a competent and
accomplished pilot. I enjoyed her book. She was a GREAT glider
pilot. She cracked up several aircraft throughout her career,
something Winkle never did. He walked away from every landing. He
amassed four times as many flight hours as she did, flew many times as
many aircraft types, often without so much as a cockpit brief, and
wrote many books, not just an autobiography.
> And if you never met her if you had a chance in your life, you sorely
> missed out.
Did you?
> Be sure that Black Sun WILL be posting all the aircraft and rotorcraft
> she ever flew and ALL of her records of her life. She was a pioneer
> aviatrix and test pilot supreme with courage, determination, skill,
> and efficiency Brown could never hope to possess.
You base that desparaging slam against him with absolutely no evidence
to support it. Eric Brown is also a World Record Holder and
accomplished far more for the advancement of aviation than Hanna did -
while she flew a 163, an aviation dead end, he was making the first
jet takeoff and landings from a carrier. While she was flying the Me
321 for no real reason (unless it was to prove you did NOT need two
strapping young men to fly it), he was evaluating captured aircraft
and his evaluations were used by front line forces to develop tactics
to help win the war. I believe he helped his nation win the war.
> And if her
> inspiration was Adolf Hitler and Nazi ideology- so be it.
Rob, that is _not_ a good thing.
Rob Arndt
> On Apr 20, 12:09�am, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric Brown never pioneered helicopter flight, flew a V-1, nor landed a
> > Fi-156 Storch under Soviet fire directly in front of the Brandenburg
> > Gate to get Von Greim to Hitler's bunker.
>
> She flew a helicopter in a building (many other people flew them, so I
> do not see why she gets the honor of supposedly "pioneering helicopter
> flight). �She rode in a missile. �She tried to rescue Hitler. �Three
> things that did zip to advance aviation.
1) Prior to Hanna's demonstrations of the Fw-61 (world's first
practical helicopter) in Berlin in front of 40,000 people, helicopter
development was not taken seriously in aviation circles and not
considered as a potential military weapon. Hanna's demonstrations
changed all of that as the helicopter gained immediate recognition due
to HER flights. I would consider that significant in helicopter
development.
2) Hanna didn't just "ride" in a missile, she corrected technical
problems with the V-1 through her evaluations which led to it being
used during the war. The V-1 is the ancestor of ALL cruise missiles
and the US even copied it during the war as the Loon to be used
against Japan. I'd say her contribution was significant then and
towards the future of that weapon system.
3) She may have tried to rescue Hitler but if you have read her book
as well as the many biographies, you would know Hitler rejected that
and Hanna then wanted to DIE in the bunker with Hitler. He refused.
Her achievement in that incident is the incredible feat of landing the
Storch under intense fire with wounded Von Greim and gas leaks right
near the Brandenburg Gate. It has been argued that any competent male
could have done the same thing. But I beg to differ. it is little-
known that Hanna had previously conducted aerial surveys of Berlins
air corridors, landmarks, and memorized all compass bearings to
perform that feat. No male pilot had done that in preparation. You
will notice that the male Fw-190 pilot that got Von Greim and Hanna to
the Storch had memorized all Soviet fire batteries along the route he
took and evaded all of them. So I would say her attention to detail
mixed with her piloting skills made even the deadly flight to Berlin
seem like precision clock-work compared to any other male pilot. Von
Greim, hit in the foot by Soviet AA fire had to be rescued by Hanna.
Had the roles been reversed, Hanna a) would probably not took that
route and avoided the fire or b) would have taken the hit to the foot
and STILL made it to the LZ!
You also failed to mention Hanna's 40 pre-war flight records and
postwar records. While Brown was a military pilot and was racking up
two major records (number of aircraft flown and carrier landings)
Hanna was forbidden to fly for 7 years after the war ended but
immediately returned to CIVILIAN flight and established new female and
world records up to her 60s.
She had the opportunity to join Von Braun and the rocket scientists
via US request, but declined. She was highly regarded by the US as an
aviation expert (US National Archive, Interrogation Record) and was
consulted by President John F. Kennedy on rocket flight and the future
of the US space program. She achieved many US records and was 1972 US
Pilot of the Year.
She also was honored in Spain, India, Ghana (where they called her
lovingly- Mother) and other nations where she met foreign dignitaries,
diplomats, and aeronautical engineers. She was welcomed almost
everywhere around the world except Poland, for obvious reasons.
Where is Eric Brown comparable in these regards? He isn't in any way.
Also, she is certainly the World's Greatest Female Pilot (Test or
otherwise) and the Third Reich's Greatest Test Pilot as well as
aviation pioneer.
>
> > He also never was a little
> > girl compared to male test pilots and yet she piloted the Me-321 which
> > usually took TWO strong male pilots to T/O and control- by HERSELF.
>
> So I guess it didn't take two strong male pilots, did it?
No, you got it all wrong again. She flew the initial single seater
glider version and helped pioneer the Troika-Schlepp. It was due to
HER assessment of the Me-321 that the subsequent Me-323 had TWO pilots
handling the controls! I would say that was a valuable contribution as
well as her helping to plan the glider assault on Eben Emael in
Belgium in 1940 (oh... you forgot that fact?).
>
> > And she flew pioneering jet and rocket a/c as well as Germany's two
> > main fighters and a wide range of other types of German a/c.
>
> I know that Winkle flew the 162, 163, and 262 - not sure that Hanna
> did. �You can give Hanna credit for the 163, but she also wrote off
> that aircraft and nearly got killed in the process.
She flew the Me-262, Me-163, Me-328, and Reichenberg models of suicide
jet a/c. Again, although she almost got killed with the 163, it was
her total dedication with a fraactured skull and nose cleft that she
used up all of her consciousness to write down the flaws before
passing out- despite the intense pain and shock of the crash. Male
pilots would have IMHO just passed out. I cannot think of ANYONE other
THAN Hanna that could manage such courage and determination even at
the expense of her life to carry out her work with precision. She
should be commended for her superior test pilot skills for that flight
and crash. I doubt Brown in similar circumstances would have taken the
time and trouble to perform a critical review when his life and/or
career was on the line.
>
> > Hanna also established a great many glider records and other aviation
> > records unrelated to anything Brown did and continued to do so
> > postwar.
>
> Same with Brown as far as gaining postwar records. �If you want me to
> agree that she was a better glider pilot, I agree. �Who was the better
> test pilot? �To establish that, we need to compare their total flight
> hours without writing off an aircraft, number of different types flown
> for evaluation purposes, etc. �No question who wins that round.
You don't get it, do you? She was a female civilian pilot and had no
access to military a/c. So Brown could rack up military a/c numbers
and perform all the fucking carrier landings he wanted. Hanna set new
female and civilian altitude and endurance records. She even flew a
glider over the Alps. Brown doesn't even compare in that territory and
had Hanna had Brown's military opportunities, she could have flown any
damn a/c he could and performed carrier landings as well. I'll even
wager she would have been more efficient at it.
>
> > The fact that he flew a greater number of a/c than Hanna overall and
> > carrier landings to... whatever... means nothing as she flew for the
> > Third Reich and when that ended, her options were severely limited
> > compared to his.
>
> That sounds like an excuse for why he accomplished more?
No, it is an unchallenged FACT that his circumstances ALLOWED for
those types of records that Hanna had no way to fairly compete
against.
>
> > Germany had and still has never possessed a real a/c
> > carrier, so that is a moot point.
>
> Carrier aviation is a vibrant and important aspect of manned flight
> and Winkle played a very important part in it. � Hanna flew in a
> guided missile. �One of these two activities was a dead end. �*That*
> was the moot point.
No it wasn't as the carrier ultimately is a dead target to a cruise
missile, especially one with a nuke warhead. Hanna's help in
developing the V-1 led to all modern cruise missiles and in the end
the missile will live on longer than the carrier which, BTW, is being
planned to be phased out by some form of missile ship in the future.
Makes sense. Eliminate floating cities crewed by 6000 souls and all
that wasted space for a/c and hangars and fuel and weapons storage for
a much smaller vessel that has purely 500 missiles of various types
and a massive radar detection system crewed by a few hundred souls and
capable of doing more overall damage than 80 a/c. The carrier as we
know it is a dead end at some future point. Beam weapons will probably
replace the missile... but it will take far longer than replacing the
carrier.
>
> > And he had access to a range of
> > military a/c as a military pilot that she could not gain access to as
> > a civilian.
>
> > Or do you imply that Hanna b/c she was a female and Nazi was incapable
> > of flying ANY a/c Brown flew or any non-German a/c???
>
> I imply no such thing. �I *state* that Eric Brown flew quite a few
> more types and accomplished quite a bit more than she did, not because
> he is male, or not a Nazi, but because - simply - he accomplished
> more. �She did all these one-off things that didn't really advance
> aviation, while Brown was quietly filling the history books.
You obviously have never read her book nor all the biographies on
Hanna. She accomplished a hell of a lot for aviation, female fliers,
German technological innovations that benefitted the world's postwar
AFs, and was internationally recognized as an aviation pioneer that
died doing what she did best- flying. As she wrote, "Flying is My
Life".
For Brown it was his job.
>
> > If so, that is utterly absurd. She never was given the chance and yet
> > still set new records postwar in what she COULD fly legally across the
> > globe.
>
> I never said anything like that so I would appreciate it if you would
> not make it sound like I did.
You DID imply that through your constant bragging about Brown's
postwar carrier landings and total a/c flown. I responded fairly and
in context.
>
> > I'm surprised at you Gordon. Had she been a Luftwaffe Expert you would
> > be singing her praises, especially if she was a 109 or 262 Expert.
>
> I've never said one bad thing about her. �She was a competent and
> accomplished pilot. �I enjoyed her book. �She was a GREAT glider
> pilot. �She cracked up several aircraft throughout her career,
> something Winkle never did. �He walked away from every landing. �He
> amassed four times as many flight hours as she did, flew many times as
> many aircraft types, often without so much as a cockpit brief, and
> wrote many books, not just an autobiography.
So she cracked up several a/cduring her career- they were well beyond
anything the Allies had at the time. Where is the Allied equivalent of
the Me-321/323 with the revolutionary clamshell doors and load
equivalent? Where is the Allied rocket interceptor? Please...
>
> > And if you never met her if you had a chance in your life, you sorely
> > missed out.
>
> Did you?
No, she died in 1979 when I was only 15 years old. You are older than
me and by the way you brag about your Luftwaffe Experten connections
and other aviation aquaintences... I would have well expected that you
might have come across her. She was in the US frequently in the 1970s.
>
> > Be sure that Black Sun WILL be posting all the aircraft and rotorcraft
> > she ever flew and ALL of her records of her life. She was a pioneer
> > aviatrix and test pilot supreme with courage, determination, skill,
> > and efficiency Brown could never hope to possess.
>
> You base that desparaging slam against him with absolutely no evidence
> to support it. � Eric Brown is also a World Record Holder and
> accomplished far more for the advancement of aviation than Hanna did -
> while she flew a 163, an aviation dead end, he was making the first
> jet takeoff and landings from a carrier. �While she was flying the Me
> 321 for no real reason (unless it was to prove you did NOT need two
> strapping young men to fly it), he was evaluating captured aircraft
> and his evaluations were used by front line forces to develop tactics
> to help win the war. �I believe he helped his nation win the war.
See above.
>
> > And if her
> > inspiration was Adolf Hitler and Nazi ideology- so be it.
>
> Rob, that is _not_ a good thing
It is relevent to HER dedication and devotion in Nazi pioneer
aviation.
Rob
Dean A. Markley
snipped to save electrons...
> 2) Hanna didn't just "ride" in a missile, she corrected technical
> problems with the V-1 through her evaluations which led to it being
> used during the war. The V-1 is the ancestor of ALL cruise missiles
> and the US even copied it during the war as the Loon to be used
> against Japan. I'd say her contribution was significant then and
> towards the future of that weapon system.
> Rob
The V-1 is most certainly not the ancestor of all cruise missiles. That
would be the Kettering Bug of 1918, a decidedly American invention.
Dean
Vaughn Simon
>The V-1 is the ancestor of ALL cruise missiles
The V-1 is hardly the "ancestor of all cruise missiles", though I suppose it
was the first cruise missile deployed in mass numbers. For example, the British
Larynx put a payload within five miles of its target on only the third attempt,
and did so in 1927. For whatever reason, the Brits decided that they would
rather have pilots in their aircraft and never deployed the system, but they
certainly had the technology to do so.
I have not done extensive research, but I am sure that one could produce
earlier examples of cruise missiles. The V-1 was an amazing weapon in its day
and represented a true advance in the state of the art, but it was not a
revolutionary idea.
Vaughn
Rob Arndt
wrote:
Sorry Dean but Siemens as of Occtober 1914 came up with the glidebomb
and started testing in January 1915. Zeppelins had dropped quite a few
of them which came in two versions- 300 and 1000 kg. By 1917, it was
planned to use them with the giant R-Bombers, but the R.VII ran into
1918 and the war ended before they could be used in combat.
BTW, a glidebomb, is NOT a cruise missile for lack of a propulsion
system.
Here is the Siemens WW1glidebomb that PRECEDED the Kettering Bug:
http://warandgame.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/siemtopglider.jpg
Try again...
Rob
p.s. Isn't it ironic that BOTH the US and USSR developed postwar
cruise missiles initially copied from German V-1s?
You know the Loon, you want photos of the Soviet V-1s?
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Soviet Petlyakov Pe-8 bomber prepares to air-launch Chelomei 10X V-1
copy:
http://www.project1947.com/gr/pe810kh.jpg
This was ordered into limited production in the USSR on Jan 18, 1945
as Chelomei attempted to design further cruise missiles based on the
German technology which stretched well into the 1950s.
The "Ghost Rockets" that plagued the Baltic and Scandanavian nations
immediately postwar were almost certainly Soviet adaptations or
modifications of German cruise missile technology either related to
the V-1 (Fi-103/FZG-76) or the Henschel V-4 found on Misdroy.
Rob
Vaughn Simon
On Apr 20, 10:15?am, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>> The V-1 is most certainly not the ancestor of all cruise missiles. That
>> would be the Kettering Bug of 1918, a decidedly American invention.
>>
> >Dean
>Sorry Dean but Siemens as of Occtober 1914 came up with the glidebomb
>and started testing in January 1915. Zeppelins had dropped quite a few
>of them which came in two versions- 300 and 1000 kg. By 1917, it was
>planned to use them with the giant R-Bombers, but the R.VII ran into
>1918 and the war ended before they could be used in combat.
>BTW, a glidebomb, is NOT a cruise missile for lack of a propulsion
>system.
>Here is the Siemens WW1glidebomb that PRECEDED the Kettering Bug:
>http://warandgame.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/siemtopglider.jpg
...but you yourself just stated that glidebombs are not cruise missiles, so
why did you even bring them up?
The Kettering Bug was (of course) powered.
>Try again...
Why? Dean seems to have gotten it right the first time.
>p.s. Isn't it ironic that BOTH the US and USSR developed postwar
>cruise missiles initially copied from German V-1s?
Not ironic, just good business.
Vaughn
Rob Arndt
<vaughnsimonHATESS...@att.FAKE.net> wrote:
> "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a8119519-4323-4cd1...@m1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 20, 10:15?am, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> The V-1 is most certainly not the ancestor of all cruise missiles. That
> >> would be the Kettering Bug of 1918, a decidedly American invention.
>
> > >Dean
> >Sorry Dean but Siemens as of Occtober 1914 came up with the glidebomb
> >and started testing in January 1915. Zeppelins had dropped quite a few
> >of them which came in two versions- 300 and 1000 kg. By 1917, it was
> >planned to use them with the giant R-Bombers, but the R.VII ran into
> >1918 and the war ended before they could be used in combat.
> >BTW, a glidebomb, is NOT a cruise missile for lack of a propulsion
> >system.
> >Here is the Siemens WW1glidebomb that PRECEDED the Kettering Bug:
> >http://warandgame.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/siemtopglider.jpg
>
> � �...but you yourself just stated that glidebombs are not cruise missiles, so
> why did you even bring them up?
Because Dean stated that the Kettering Bug was FIRST and even though
it is a glidebomb which is not the same thing as a modern cruise
missile, he was wrong. Both the Siemens (SSW) glidebomb and the
British Low Aerial Target (A.T.) of 1914 PRECEDED the Kettering Bug.
Now some people will claim that a glidebomb is the forerunner of both
the UAV and cruise missile; others, definately not. If so, the Germans
and British had the FIRST based on Dean's view. BTW, the Kettering Bug
and Siemens glidebombs were actually glidetorpedos and do not qualify
as a true cruise missile which can be used against a range of civilian
and military targets, not just restricted to ships.
>
> The Kettering Bug was (of course) powered.
Thank you, I stand corrected on that. It had a 40 hp Ford engine while
the British A.T. had a 35 hp motor. The A.T. prototypes both crashed
in 1917 and that program was deemed a failure with no future
potential. The Kettering Bug and Siemens glidetorpedos were ready by
1918 and both could have been used in combat for the same purpose.
Both were successful development programs with potential.
>
> >Try again...
>
> Why? �Dean seems to have gotten it right the first time.
No he didn't- the Kettering Bug and the 2 others are all debated as
whether or not they count towards cruise missile development. The
German Fritz-X was a glidebomb as well, but definately not a cruise
missile. So the WW1 forerunners as cruise missiles is a matter of
opinion.
But in 1944 Britain, the V-1 was recognized as a "flying bomb" (NOT a
glider) designed to fly across the Channel for attacks against British
targets. The Germans used fixed sites at first, but then used He-111s
to drop them. THAT is the point where it truly becomes a modern cruise
missile IMO. The Germans further tested a V-1 off a U-boat (which the
US copied as well). All of these methods (land, air, sea) are part of
modern cruise missile capability. None of the previous glidebombs met
these standards.
>
> >p.s. Isn't it ironic that BOTH the US and USSR developed postwar
> >cruise missiles initially copied from German V-1s?
>
> Not ironic, just good business.
AND the impetus for US and Soviet cruise missile development ;)
>
> Vaughn
Rob
CJ Adams
> "Rob Arndt" wrote
>> p.s. Isn't it ironic that BOTH the US and USSR developed postwar
>> cruise missiles initially copied from German V-1s?
>
Irony is a literary device in which there is an incongruity
between what is said and what is meant or understood.
Cheers
CJ Adams
Gordon
> 3) She may have tried to rescue Hitler but if you have read her book
> as well as the many biographies, you would know Hitler rejected that
> and Hanna then wanted to DIE in the bunker with Hitler. He refused.
Yeah, that's that exactly a secret. And as I stated, I have read her
book.
> Her achievement in that incident is the incredible feat of landing the
> Storch under intense fire with wounded Von Greim and gas leaks right
> near the Brandenburg Gate. It has been argued that any competent male
> could have done the same thing. But I beg to differ. it is little-
> known that Hanna had previously conducted aerial surveys of Berlins
> air corridors, landmarks, and memorized all compass bearings to
> perform that feat. No male pilot had done that in preparation.
So when she has the opportunity to do something unique, its because
she is a fantastic pilot. When Brown does, its because he somehow
unfairly has access to military aircraft, ruling his skills out? You
toss out a debate point and then refuse to apply it to both sides.
> You
> will notice that the male Fw-190 pilot that got Von Greim and Hanna to
> the Storch had memorized all Soviet fire batteries along the route he
> took and evaded all of them. So I would say her attention to detail
> mixed with her piloting skills made even the deadly flight to Berlin
> seem like precision clock-work compared to any other male pilot.
Rob, that's a guess on your part. No one else did it, so no one else
COULD do it? That doesn't follow.
> Von
> Greim, hit in the foot by Soviet AA fire had to be rescued by Hanna.
> Had the roles been reversed, Hanna a) would probably not took that
> route and avoided the fire or b) would have taken the hit to the foot
> and STILL made it to the LZ!
"Probably" = a guess.
> You also failed to mention Hanna's 40 pre-war flight records and
> postwar records.
Hardly. I did mention her records and her abilities as a glider
pilot.
> While Brown was a military pilot and was racking up
> two major records (number of aircraft flown and carrier landings)
> Hanna was forbidden to fly for 7 years after the war ended but
> immediately returned to CIVILIAN flight and established new female and
> world records up to her 60s.
While she was a civilian, she had access to dozens of German warplanes
- you want her to get credit for not having access to military
aircraft, then you want her to get credit for flying the 328, 163,
190, 109, and other military planes. Which is it?
> She had the opportunity to join Von Braun and the rocket scientists
> via US request, but declined. She was highly regarded by the US as an
> aviation expert (US National Archive, Interrogation Record) and was
> consulted by President John F. Kennedy on rocket flight and the future
> of the US space program. She achieved many US records and was 1972 US
> Pilot of the Year.
>
> She also was honored in Spain, India, Ghana (where they called her
> lovingly- Mother) and other nations where she met foreign dignitaries,
> diplomats, and aeronautical engineers. She was welcomed almost
> everywhere around the world except Poland, for obvious reasons.
>
> Where is Eric Brown comparable in these regards? He isn't in any way.
You're right - I don't believe anyone called him "Mother", lovingly or
not.
> Also, she is certainly the World's Greatest Female Pilot (Test or
> otherwise) and the Third Reich's Greatest Test Pilot as well as
> aviation pioneer.
Winkle would not be a competitor of hers in either category.
>
>
> > > He also never was a little
> > > girl compared to male test pilots and yet she piloted the Me-321 which
> > > usually took TWO strong male pilots to T/O and control- by HERSELF.
>
> > So I guess it didn't take two strong male pilots, did it?
>
> No, you got it all wrong again. She flew the initial single seater
> glider version and helped pioneer the Troika-Schlepp. It was due to
> HER assessment of the Me-321 that the subsequent Me-323 had TWO pilots
> handling the controls! I would say that was a valuable contribution as
> well as her helping to plan the glider assault on Eben Emael in
> Belgium in 1940 (oh... you forgot that fact?).
Look, YOU said it took "two strong men" to fly that ship, now you are
saying it doesn't. How did her flying the Gigant help in the glider
assault on Eben Emael if the 321 was not used in that assault?
>
>
> > > And she flew pioneering jet and rocket a/c as well as Germany's two
> > > main fighters and a wide range of other types of German a/c.
>
> > I know that Winkle flew the 162, 163, and 262 - not sure that Hanna
> > did. �You can give Hanna credit for the 163, but she also wrote off
> > that aircraft and nearly got killed in the process.
>
> She flew the Me-262, Me-163, Me-328, and Reichenberg models of suicide
> jet a/c. Again, although she almost got killed with the 163, it was
> her total dedication with a fraactured skull and nose cleft that she
> used up all of her consciousness to write down the flaws before
> passing out- despite the intense pain and shock of the crash. Male
> pilots would have IMHO just passed out.
Guess.
> I cannot think of ANYONE other
> THAN Hanna that could manage such courage and determination even at
> the expense of her life to carry out her work with precision. She
> should be commended for her superior test pilot skills for that flight
> and crash. I doubt Brown in similar circumstances would have taken the
> time and trouble to perform a critical review when his life and/or
> career was on the line.
Again, you base that guess on nothing but your own feelings. Brown
didn't crash any of his rides, so MY guess is that in the same
situation, he would have not wrecked.
>
> > > Hanna also established a great many glider records and other aviation
> > > records unrelated to anything Brown did and continued to do so
> > > postwar.
>
> > Same with Brown as far as gaining postwar records. �If you want me to
> > agree that she was a better glider pilot, I agree. �Who was the better
> > test pilot? �To establish that, we need to compare their total flight
> > hours without writing off an aircraft, number of different types flown
> > for evaluation purposes, etc. �No question who wins that round.
>
> You don't get it, do you? She was a female civilian pilot and had no
> access to military a/c.
....like the Me 321, Me 163, etc., etc., etc. Look - I am not here
to argue with you but you can't squee on about her and then complain
she had no access to military aircraft when she obviously did.
> So Brown could rack up military a/c numbers
> and perform all the fucking carrier landings he wanted.
It was his profession, and you can't dismiss it all simply because he
did things Hanna did not. Could she have? Possibly. Just like he
possibly could have flown everything that she did. Then, to be
objective, we have to discount all the "possiblies" and stick to what
each of these test pilots actually accomplished.
> Hanna set new
> female and civilian altitude and endurance records. She even flew a
> glider over the Alps.
That's wonderful.
> Brown doesn't even compare in that territory and
> had Hanna had Brown's military opportunities, she could have flown any
> damn a/c he could and performed carrier landings as well. I'll even
> wager she would have been more efficient at it.
Again, a guess. Again, you make it sound like she could accomplish
anything, but didn't, and he accomplished a lot, but shouldn't get
credit for it because he was a military pilot. There were many other
British military test pilots and none managed to amass his number of
flight hours, number of types flown, etc.
> > > The fact that he flew a greater number of a/c than Hanna overall and
> > > carrier landings to... whatever... means nothing as she flew for the
> > > Third Reich and when that ended, her options were severely limited
> > > compared to his.
>
> > That sounds like an excuse for why he accomplished more?
>
> No, it is an unchallenged FACT that his circumstances ALLOWED for
> those types of records that Hanna had no way to fairly compete
> against.
Well, then I am as good an Me 163 pilot as Hanna because I was
unfairly kept from flying it. Right? You cannot penalize Brownie
for doing things that only he had acces and then give her credit for
things that only she had access.
> > > Germany had and still has never possessed a real a/c
> > > carrier, so that is a moot point.
>
> > Carrier aviation is a vibrant and important aspect of manned flight
> > and Winkle played a very important part in it. � Hanna flew in a
> > guided missile. �One of these two activities was a dead end. �*That*
> > was the moot point.
>
> No it wasn't as the carrier ultimately is a dead target to a cruise
> missile, especially one with a nuke warhead.
To date, there are almost three dozen aircraft carriers in service
around the world. There are currently no manned missiles.
> Hanna's help in
> developing the V-1 led to all modern cruise missiles and in the end
> the missile will live on longer than the carrier which, BTW, is being
> planned to be phased out by some form of missile ship in the future.
After what, a hundred+ years of shaping the world? That's not a bad
run.
> Makes sense. Eliminate floating cities crewed by 6000 souls and all
> that wasted space for a/c and hangars and fuel and weapons storage for
> a much smaller vessel that has purely 500 missiles of various types
> and a massive radar detection system crewed by a few hundred souls and
> capable of doing more overall damage than 80 a/c. The carrier as we
> know it is a dead end at some future point. Beam weapons will probably
> replace the missile... but it will take far longer than replacing the
> carrier.
"4.5 acres of sovereign American soil..." with the ability to be
placed just about anywhere we want it. You and I will be worm food
long before the US gives up that asset.
> > I imply no such thing. �I *state* that Eric Brown flew quite a few
> > more types and accomplished quite a bit more than she did, not because
> > he is male, or not a Nazi, but because - simply - he accomplished
> > more. �She did all these one-off things that didn't really advance
> > aviation, while Brown was quietly filling the history books.
>
> You obviously have never read her book nor all the biographies on
> Hanna. She accomplished a hell of a lot for aviation, female fliers,
> German technological innovations that benefitted the world's postwar
> AFs, and was internationally recognized as an aviation pioneer that
> died doing what she did best- flying. As she wrote, "Flying is My
> Life".
>
> For Brown it was his job.
Wow, that stung. You really think he devoted his entire life to test
flying and only saw it as a job? What do you base that on? His many
best-selling books are filled with humor and true joy for his
"job". Your desire to demean this man at all costs, while building
up Hanna, is really quite telling.
> > > If so, that is utterly absurd. She never was given the chance and yet
> > > still set new records postwar in what she COULD fly legally across the
> > > globe.
>
> > I never said anything like that so I would appreciate it if you would
> > not make it sound like I did.
>
> You DID imply that through your constant bragging about Brown's
> postwar carrier landings and total a/c flown. I responded fairly and
> in context.
Ok, how come when I point out his accomplishments, I'm "bragging" -
but when you positively simper on about Reitsch, somehow its "fair and
in context"? You debate like crap, Rob.
> > > I'm surprised at you Gordon. Had she been a Luftwaffe Expert you would
> > > be singing her praises, especially if she was a 109 or 262 Expert.
>
> > I've never said one bad thing about her. �She was a competent and
> > accomplished pilot. �I enjoyed her book. �She was a GREAT glider
> > pilot. �She cracked up several aircraft throughout her career,
> > something Winkle never did. �He walked away from every landing. �He
> > amassed four times as many flight hours as she did, flew many times as
> > many aircraft types, often without so much as a cockpit brief, and
> > wrote many books, not just an autobiography.
>
> So she cracked up several a/cduring her career- they were well beyond
> anything the Allies had at the time. Where is the Allied equivalent of
> the Me-321/323 with the revolutionary clamshell doors and load
> equivalent? Where is the Allied rocket interceptor? Please...
What do either of those have to do with my statement? Btw, we have
the patent model for the first aircraft with clamshell doors in our
basement and hint: it is not a 321. And the Allies didn't have or
need a rocket interceptor, because the German bombers were incapable
of laying waste to the entire country of Britain. The Germans needed
one, desperately, and they never managed to defend a single target
with them - so her efforts were entirely in vain. Not a good example
of German superiority.
> > > And if you never met her if you had a chance in your life, you sorely
> > > missed out.
>
> > Did you?
>
> No, she died in 1979 when I was only 15 years old. You are older than
> me
I was 17 for most of 1979. Unlike you, I spent my 17th year at sea
aboard an aircraft carrier. Different choices.
> and by the way you brag about your Luftwaffe Experten connections
> and other aviation aquaintences... I would have well expected that you
> might have come across her. She was in the US frequently in the 1970s.
I was living out in the desert outside of Phoenix during most of the
1970s, combing the desert with my dog. I was a boy, building models
by the dozens. I began flying as a SAR observer for the CAP in 1977
when I was 15. I'm sure I knew her name but I was quite careful to
separate my admiration for excellent pilots from any interest at all
in Nazis. Her repugnant beliefs, even long after the war, is enough
for me to have no interest in her.
> > > Be sure that Black Sun WILL be posting all the aircraft and rotorcraft
> > > she ever flew and ALL of her records of her life. She was a pioneer
> > > aviatrix and test pilot supreme with courage, determination, skill,
> > > and efficiency Brown could never hope to possess.
>
> > You base that desparaging slam against him with absolutely no evidence
> > to support it. � Eric Brown is also a World Record Holder and
> > accomplished far more for the advancement of aviation than Hanna did -
> > while she flew a 163, an aviation dead end, he was making the first
> > jet takeoff and landings from a carrier. �While she was flying the Me
> > 321 for no real reason (unless it was to prove you did NOT need two
> > strapping young men to fly it), he was evaluating captured aircraft
> > and his evaluations were used by front line forces to develop tactics
> > to help win the war. �I believe he helped his nation win the war.
>
> See above.
That is called a "non answer".
We've come around to our usual stopping point in our annual debate
over the merits of these two test pilots. I will not convince you and
you will not convince me. Time to move on..
G
Rob Arndt
They were both Cold War adversaries and yet used the same despised
Nazi technology (of their common enemy) to develop cruise missiles for
use against each other.
You do not think that is ironic?
Rob
Vaughn Simon
On Apr 20, 11:32?am, "Vaughn Simon"
>. None of the previous glidebombs met these standards.
Again, you are the only person who mentioned glide bombs.
Vaughn
Rob Arndt
You admire Luftwaffe Experten who ALL flew under the Hakenkreuz, yet
want to denounce Hanna Reitsch for flying for both the Fatherland and
Hitler?
That makes no sense at all.
Second, you and I both KNOW that she could not pursue military a/c
testing past the Third Reich and Eric Brown could. Hell, she wasn't
even ALLOWED to fly at all for 7 years after the war.
Third, you want to claim Brown was better b/c he never crashed an a/c.
That's plain old luck more than skill. Had Brown flew the Me-163 under
the same circumstances, he would have crashed as well. She was
pioneering jet and rocket flight, he was not. And he never climbed
into a cruise missile to fly it. Had he been offered a chance to
postwar in one I bet the coward would have refused. Hanna would have
done it again, even for the US. Nazi ideology aside, she was a gifted
flier and flying was her life. Again, it was Brown's job. He was no
aviation pioneer and never accomplished new aviation altitude and
endurance records. Hanna could do military and civilian equally
impressive. Brown is all military. So he's not as versatile as Hanna.
Fourth, I bet you can't accept that the US, USAF, and NACA/NASA wanted
Hanna for the space program. She could have set all kinds of records
with rocket a/c in the US and might have become an astronaut herself.
Who asked Brown to join a space program? No one. Hanna met President
John F. Kennedy for a consult on the US space program- what Prime
Minister asked Brown for a consult? None AFAIK.
I like Eric Brown and take nothing away from his achievements. I have
his books and Hanna's.
We just disagree to who was the greatest test pilot of the 20th
century and yet this is not some kind of crazy one-person concept.
There are many people besides me in the world that firmly believe
Hanna Reitsch was. I am in that category and you have every right to
be in Brown's.
I also admire Hanna Reitsch no matter what her Nazi beliefs were- so
do people from around the world up to world leaders. Brown never
reached that level. You must hate it that she is loved by many.
A pity that you sing the praises of the Nazi Experten but cannot
admire courageous and highly skilled Hanna Reitsch.
That says a lot about you my friend.
Rob
CJ Adams
>
>
> They were both Cold War adversaries and yet used the same despised
> Nazi technology (of their common enemy) to develop cruise missiles for
> use against each other.
>
> You do not think that is ironic?
>
Nope. Nor should you.
Cheers
CJ Adams
Dan
Forget rational debate, Gordon, aren't is in love.
I think a comparison of Nazi aircraft they BOTH flew and how many of
those each crashed would be a fair indication of capability in those types.
Dan
I wonder why Kittering's bug would be considered a glide bomb. It was
a powered biplane. It would be interesting to have seen it perform in
actual combat conditions, but the war ended too soon.
Rob Arndt
> � �Forget rational debate, Gordon, aren't is in love.
>
> � �I think a comparison of Nazi aircraft they BOTH flew and how many of
> those each crashed would be a fair indication of capability in those types.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
No fair Dan- she could fly rotorcraft and piloted missiles. Brown
couldn't ;)
Rob
Keith Willshaw
On Apr 19, 3:47?pm, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Not impressed really.
Of course not he isnt German
> I like Eric Brown, of course (Wings of the Luftwaffe), and give him
> credit for his test piloting skills.
> But he was not a pioneer of the a/c he tested.
Incorrect - he was the senior pilot at the RAE and flew many types
of new aircraft as well captured enemy types
> Hanna Reitsch was
> (gliders, amphibians, helicopters, jets, rocket a/c, and even a
> piloted missile) and did things Eric Brown never did in peace time,
> during the war, and even postwar (she holds many aviation records).
Wrong again , he was involved in the test program of the Meteor and
Vampire and was the first British pilot to fly a helicopter, all during
wartime
There are no other pilots I know of who can honestly say
they flew the major fighters and bombers of all the European
combatants of WW2.
> Like many around the world, I am on her side as best test pilot of the
> 20th century.
That because she was German
Interestingly Reitsch thought very highly of Brown and wrote to him
shortly before her death
By the way she never flew the Me-163 under power , only
on tow but she briefed Brown on its hanling characteristics
as one test pilot to another. He did fly it under rocket
power.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Dan" <B2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bMBOj.28363$KJ1....@newsfe19.lga...
> Gordon wrote:
>
> Yes, Hannah did a few things no one else did like fly into Berlin just
> before Hitler became a good Nazi. Could any competent Storch or Allied
> equivalent aircraft pilot have done the same thing? Of course, but it's a
> matter of opportunity rather than capability just like Hannah never having
> the opportunity to do carrier flying. She might have been able to do it,
> but we will never know. She became a good Nazi without the chance to prove
> one way or the other.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
She wasnt even the pilot on that flight, Ritter von Greim actually
flew the plane until he was wounded just before landing when she
helped with the controls.
The real heroes there were the poor bloody Luftwaffe pilots
who died providing top cover for this pointless mission
Keith
Dan
That's why I specified they be compared only in Nazi aircraft they
both flew, try using logic for a change. If the comparison is limited to
the types I specified it's a fair comparison in THOSE types and only
those types.
I wonder if your blind adoration for Hannah would still hold if she
weren't a Nazi or German. Would you feel the same had she been a U.S.
citizen doing the same thing?
Dean A. Markley
Rob Arndt
> By the way she never flew the Me-163 under power , only
> on tow but she briefed Brown on its hanling characteristics
> as one test pilot to another. He did fly it under rocket
> power.
>
> Keith
Hanna tested both the Me-163A and B. It was the B-model that had the
faulty release mechanism for the launch dolley that caused that
accident. Nevertheless, Hanna, seriously injured to the point of
almost being killed outright, remained calm and wrote down as much as
she could before allowing herself to pass out. She even used a
handkerchief to cover her cleft nose so as not to upset the medical
rescuers and when she was to be taken to the hospital, she opted to
ride in the front seat of a car rather than the ambulance! She had
surgery in Regensburg and faced not flying for the rest of her life.
During that time she was awarded a second Iron Cross for bravery and
was able to recover within 10 months.
The fact that she never flew the Me-163 powered is irrelevent as
Dittmar had proven that unpowered the Komet could reach over 400 mph
easily- faster than any powered prop fighter of that time.
And don't try to make Brown look good in German a/c. He flew them
captured, she flew firsthand and often as pioneer.
Also, his helo flight is probably more due to Hanna's flying the Fw-61
in front of the world with German television. That is what turned the
helicopter from a novelty item into a military rotorcraft. Be sure
that the Allies payed attention to Hanna Reitsch and German
aeronautical developments well before the war. When Hanna flew the
Fw-61, Cierva was out of the spotlight.
Brown was even advised of Hanna Reitsch and the top-secret a/c she was
flying during the war. He considered her just a Nazi heroine
propaganda tool since he could not really accept that she was as
skilled a flyer as him and most probably better as she was more
versatile and eager to fly every new a/c that Germany produced. It was
for this reason that Luftwaffe and company male test pilots of the
Reich hated her and her connections to Udet, Lippisch, Messerschmitt,
Hitler, etc... that meant that their objections were largely over-
ruled on her behalf.
Rob
Leadfoot
"Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimo...@att.FAKE.net> wrote in message
news:ZnLOj.114069$D_3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Extensive research???
This guy did it here.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA162646&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Rob Arndt
Von Greim only flew that Storch b/c the helo waiting at Rechlin was
destroyed the previous night before their arrival from Neu-Bieberg via
Ju-188, therefore, Hanna's mission to fly Von Greim officially ended.
However, she felt it her duty to accompany him to the bunker and so
they traveled in a two-seat Fw-190 under another pilot with Hanna
crammed into a space in the rear fuselage under escort of 30-40
fighters for the trip to Gatow- as close as the Fw-190 could get to
the bunker. Gatow was under attack, so the Fw-190 pilot dumped them
off and took off right away. At Gatow, all that was left for them were
2 Storchs and one was hit by Soviet artillery fire, leaving just that
one. Hanna insisted on flying but Von Greim made the decision to fly
himself b/c she had not flown in combat. Von Greim chose to fly what
he believed was the safe military route. Hanna would have flown a
predetermined landmark trip and with the city ablaze in smoke probably
would have only faced light small arms fire. Von Greim came in from
the Grunewald instead and the Storch took a flak hit that shattered
Von Greim's foot and caused fuel tank leakage. Hanna grabbed the
controls and diverted the plane over to the compass bearing for a flak
tower she knew by heart which led to a broad highway that ended with
the Brandenburg Gate. Had Von Greim continued on his route, they would
have been shot down. So Hanna saved both their lives. She landed the
Storch with the precision of a helo pilot even with all the potholes
and rubble strewn about and signaled for the first German lorry to
pick them up.
The mission also was not pointless. Hitler had wanted to replace
Goering with Von Greim for a long time, but Goering had been Hitler's
friend until his betrayal. It then became imperative that Von greim
contact Doenitz concerning second Fuhrer status and relieve Goering of
command of what was left of the Luftwaffe.
Rob
Keith Willshaw
>
>
> Also, his helo flight is probably more due to Hanna's flying the Fw-61
> in front of the world with German television. That is what turned the
> helicopter from a novelty item into a military rotorcraft. Be sure
> that the Allies payed attention to Hanna Reitsch and German
> aeronautical developments well before the war. When Hanna flew the
> Fw-61, Cierva was out of the spotlight.
>
Actually Brown was present for that flight and talked to her before
and after the event and mentions the fact that the first attempt to get
the thing out of ground eefect failed. It wasnt until they opened the
roof and let cooler air in that it operated correctly.
His testing on the other hand was not televised, it was part of the
acceptance trials of a new aircraft into squadron service and
was not publicised at the time.
You really should read the book old boy.
> Brown was even advised of Hanna Reitsch and the top-secret a/c she was
> flying during the war. He considered her just a Nazi heroine
Well no, he knew her in 1938 and respected her flying abilities
but not her politics
> propaganda tool since he could not really accept that she was as
> skilled a flyer as him and most probably better as she was more
> versatile and eager to fly every new a/c that Germany produced. It was
> for this reason that Luftwaffe and company male test pilots of the
> Reich hated her and her connections to Udet, Lippisch, Messerschmitt,
> Hitler, etc... that meant that their objections were largely over-
> ruled on her behalf.
>
You havent actually been reasing what I posted have you.
Brown was partying with Reitsch and Udet after her flight
in the Deutschlanderhalle.
Keith
Rob Arndt
> "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
According to the book "Flying for the Fatherland" by Judy Lomax, Brown
made those statements in reports during the war as he could not
seriously believe she was used in development of such incredible a/c
on purpose. Perhaps b/c he did know her back before the war caused him
to err in judgement during the war when those reports of her came to
him frequently. She was involved with the Me-262, Me-163, Me-328, and
Reichenburg a/c.
BTW, before Brown flew the Me-163 postwar, he asked permission of the
Americans to interrogate Hanna over the technical details of the
Me-163 and how it handled. She told him to train on the Stummel-
Habicht gliders first like the Komet pilots did and then attempt a
flight. That is exactly what Brown did at Bad Zwischenahn (Wings of
the Luftwaffe, pg 169).
- July 1945, Salzburg Prison
Rob
tankfixer
@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, teut...@aol.com says...
>
> > ? ?Forget rational debate, Gordon, aren't is in love.
> >
> > ? ?I think a comparison of Nazi aircraft they BOTH flew and how many of
> > those each crashed would be a fair indication of capability in those types.
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> No fair Dan- she could fly rotorcraft and piloted missiles. Brown
> couldn't ;)
No proof he couldn't.
Just that he didn't.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
Daryl Hunt
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
news:MPG.227579868...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> In article <149723e1-c706-45f3-902f-96e709544fc4
> @f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, teut...@aol.com says...
>>
>> > ? ?Forget rational debate, Gordon, aren't is in love.
>> >
>> > ? ?I think a comparison of Nazi aircraft they BOTH flew and how many of
>> > those each crashed would be a fair indication of capability in those
>> > types.
>> >
>> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> No fair Dan- she could fly rotorcraft and piloted missiles. Brown
>> couldn't ;)
>
>
> No proof he couldn't.
> Just that he didn't.
Troll less. We just got Dan and Rob talking to each other. Both have some
good inputs.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Dan
OK, then the mission was a colossal waste of time. Feel better?
Combat pilots were sacrificed for no reason.
As for Hannah landing with "the precision of a helo pilot" you are
way off, she did a STOL approach and landing. A "helo pilot" could have
landed with zero airspeed, Storch had to have airspeed. She didn't do
anything most pilots trained in STOL aircraft couldn't have done.
tankfixer
dh...@nospami70west.com says...
You on the other hand everyone is still laughing at....
Dan
>
<snip>We just got Dan and Rob talking to each other.
Please don't take credit for that. Aren't was kill filed because of
her hissy fit with bernie et al. That seems to have abated for now.
Daryl Hunt
No credit due here. The credit goes to you and Rob.
Bob Matthews
> On Apr 20, 12:10�am, Gordon <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 12:09�am, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Brown never pioneered helicopter flight, flew a V-1, nor landed a
>>> Fi-156 Storch under Soviet fire directly in front of the Brandenburg
>>> Gate to get Von Greim to Hitler's bunker.
>> She flew a helicopter in a building (many other people flew them, so I
>> do not see why she gets the honor of supposedly "pioneering helicopter
>> flight). �She rode in a missile. �She tried to rescue Hitler. �Three
>> things that did zip to advance aviation.
>
> 1) Prior to Hanna's demonstrations of the Fw-61 (world's first
> practical helicopter) in Berlin in front of 40,000 people, helicopter
> development was not taken seriously in aviation circles and not
> considered as a potential military weapon. Hanna's demonstrations
> changed all of that as the helicopter gained immediate recognition due
> to HER flights. I would consider that significant in helicopter
> development.
> 2) Hanna didn't just "ride" in a missile, she corrected technical
> problems with the V-1 through her evaluations which led to it being
> used during the war. The V-1 is the ancestor of ALL cruise missiles
> and the US even copied it during the war as the Loon to be used
> against Japan. I'd say her contribution was significant then and
> towards the future of that weapon system.
> 3) She may have tried to rescue Hitler but if you have read her book
> as well as the many biographies, you would know Hitler rejected that
> and Hanna then wanted to DIE in the bunker with Hitler. He refused.
> Storch under intense fire with wounded Von Greim and gas leaks right
> near the Brandenburg Gate. It has been argued that any competent male
> could have done the same thing. But I beg to differ. it is little-
> known that Hanna had previously conducted aerial surveys of Berlins
> air corridors, landmarks, and memorized all compass bearings to
> will notice that the male Fw-190 pilot that got Von Greim and Hanna to
> the Storch had memorized all Soviet fire batteries along the route he
> took and evaded all of them. So I would say her attention to detail
> mixed with her piloting skills made even the deadly flight to Berlin
> Greim, hit in the foot by Soviet AA fire had to be rescued by Hanna.
> Had the roles been reversed, Hanna a) would probably not took that
> route and avoided the fire or b) would have taken the hit to the foot
> and STILL made it to the LZ!
>
> two major records (number of aircraft flown and carrier landings)
> Hanna was forbidden to fly for 7 years after the war ended but
> immediately returned to CIVILIAN flight and established new female and
> world records up to her 60s.
>
> via US request, but declined. She was highly regarded by the US as an
> aviation expert (US National Archive, Interrogation Record) and was
> consulted by President John F. Kennedy on rocket flight and the future
> of the US space program.
So, did she ride JFK's rocket?
Cheers
==bob
She achieved many US records and was 1972 US
> Pilot of the Year.
>
> She also was honored in Spain, India, Ghana (where they called her
> lovingly- Mother) and other nations where she met foreign dignitaries,
> diplomats, and aeronautical engineers. She was welcomed almost
> everywhere around the world except Poland, for obvious reasons.
>
> Where is Eric Brown comparable in these regards? He isn't in any way.
>
> Also, she is certainly the World's Greatest Female Pilot (Test or
> otherwise) and the Third Reich's Greatest Test Pilot as well as
> aviation pioneer.
>>> He also never was a little
>>> girl compared to male test pilots and yet she piloted the Me-321 which
>>> usually took TWO strong male pilots to T/O and control- by HERSELF.
>> So I guess it didn't take two strong male pilots, did it?
>
> No, you got it all wrong again. She flew the initial single seater
> glider version and helped pioneer the Troika-Schlepp. It was due to
> HER assessment of the Me-321 that the subsequent Me-323 had TWO pilots
> handling the controls! I would say that was a valuable contribution as
> well as her helping to plan the glider assault on Eben Emael in
> Belgium in 1940 (oh... you forgot that fact?).
>>> And she flew pioneering jet and rocket a/c as well as Germany's two
>>> main fighters and a wide range of other types of German a/c.
>> I know that Winkle flew the 162, 163, and 262 - not sure that Hanna
>> did. �You can give Hanna credit for the 163, but she also wrote off
>> that aircraft and nearly got killed in the process.
>
> She flew the Me-262, Me-163, Me-328, and Reichenberg models of suicide
> jet a/c. Again, although she almost got killed with the 163, it was
> her total dedication with a fraactured skull and nose cleft that she
> used up all of her consciousness to write down the flaws before
> passing out- despite the intense pain and shock of the crash. Male
> pilots would have IMHO just passed out. I cannot think of ANYONE other
> THAN Hanna that could manage such courage and determination even at
> the expense of her life to carry out her work with precision. She
> should be commended for her superior test pilot skills for that flight
> and crash. I doubt Brown in similar circumstances would have taken the
> time and trouble to perform a critical review when his life and/or
> career was on the line.
>>> Hanna also established a great many glider records and other aviation
>>> records unrelated to anything Brown did and continued to do so
>>> postwar.
>> Same with Brown as far as gaining postwar records. �If you want me to
>> agree that she was a better glider pilot, I agree. �Who was the better
>> test pilot? �To establish that, we need to compare their total flight
>> hours without writing off an aircraft, number of different types flown
>> for evaluation purposes, etc. �No question who wins that round.
>
> You don't get it, do you? She was a female civilian pilot and had no
> access to military a/c. So Brown could rack up military a/c numbers
> and perform all the fucking carrier landings he wanted. Hanna set new
> female and civilian altitude and endurance records. She even flew a
> glider over the Alps. Brown doesn't even compare in that territory and
> had Hanna had Brown's military opportunities, she could have flown any
> damn a/c he could and performed carrier landings as well. I'll even
> wager she would have been more efficient at it.
>>> The fact that he flew a greater number of a/c than Hanna overall and
>>> carrier landings to... whatever... means nothing as she flew for the
>>> Third Reich and when that ended, her options were severely limited
>>> compared to his.
>> That sounds like an excuse for why he accomplished more?
>
> No, it is an unchallenged FACT that his circumstances ALLOWED for
> those types of records that Hanna had no way to fairly compete
> against.
>>> Germany had and still has never possessed a real a/c
>>> carrier, so that is a moot point.
>> Carrier aviation is a vibrant and important aspect of manned flight
>> and Winkle played a very important part in it. � Hanna flew in a
>> guided missile. �One of these two activities was a dead end. �*That*
>> was the moot point.
>
> No it wasn't as the carrier ultimately is a dead target to a cruise
> missile, especially one with a nuke warhead. Hanna's help in
> developing the V-1 led to all modern cruise missiles and in the end
> the missile will live on longer than the carrier which, BTW, is being
> planned to be phased out by some form of missile ship in the future.
> Makes sense. Eliminate floating cities crewed by 6000 souls and all
> that wasted space for a/c and hangars and fuel and weapons storage for
> a much smaller vessel that has purely 500 missiles of various types
> and a massive radar detection system crewed by a few hundred souls and
> capable of doing more overall damage than 80 a/c. The carrier as we
> know it is a dead end at some future point. Beam weapons will probably
> replace the missile... but it will take far longer than replacing the
> carrier.
>>> And he had access to a range of
>>> military a/c as a military pilot that she could not gain access to as
>>> a civilian.
>>> Or do you imply that Hanna b/c she was a female and Nazi was incapable
>>> of flying ANY a/c Brown flew or any non-German a/c???
>> I imply no such thing. �I *state* that Eric Brown flew quite a few
>> more types and accomplished quite a bit more than she did, not because
>> he is male, or not a Nazi, but because - simply - he accomplished
>> more. �She did all these one-off things that didn't really advance
>> aviation, while Brown was quietly filling the history books.
>
> You obviously have never read her book nor all the biographies on
> Hanna. She accomplished a hell of a lot for aviation, female fliers,
> German technological innovations that benefitted the world's postwar
> AFs, and was internationally recognized as an aviation pioneer that
> died doing what she did best- flying. As she wrote, "Flying is My
> Life".
>
> For Brown it was his job.
>>> If so, that is utterly absurd. She never was given the chance and yet
>>> still set new records postwar in what she COULD fly legally across the
>>> globe.
>> I never said anything like that so I would appreciate it if you would
>> not make it sound like I did.
>
> You DID imply that through your constant bragging about Brown's
> postwar carrier landings and total a/c flown. I responded fairly and
> in context.
>>> I'm surprised at you Gordon. Had she been a Luftwaffe Expert you would
>>> be singing her praises, especially if she was a 109 or 262 Expert.
>> I've never said one bad thing about her. �She was a competent and
>> accomplished pilot. �I enjoyed her book. �She was a GREAT glider
>> pilot. �She cracked up several aircraft throughout her career,
>> something Winkle never did. �He walked away from every landing. �He
>> amassed four times as many flight hours as she did, flew many times as
>> many aircraft types, often without so much as a cockpit brief, and
>> wrote many books, not just an autobiography.
>
> So she cracked up several a/cduring her career- they were well beyond
> anything the Allies had at the time. Where is the Allied equivalent of
> the Me-321/323 with the revolutionary clamshell doors and load
> equivalent? Where is the Allied rocket interceptor? Please...
>>> And if you never met her if you had a chance in your life, you sorely
>>> missed out.
>> Did you?
>
> No, she died in 1979 when I was only 15 years old. You are older than
> me and by the way you brag about your Luftwaffe Experten connections
> and other aviation aquaintences... I would have well expected that you
> might have come across her. She was in the US frequently in the 1970s.
>>> Be sure that Black Sun WILL be posting all the aircraft and rotorcraft
>>> she ever flew and ALL of her records of her life. She was a pioneer
>>> aviatrix and test pilot supreme with courage, determination, skill,
>>> and efficiency Brown could never hope to possess.
>> You base that desparaging slam against him with absolutely no evidence
>> to support it. � Eric Brown is also a World Record Holder and
>> accomplished far more for the advancement of aviation than Hanna did -
>> while she flew a 163, an aviation dead end, he was making the first
>> jet takeoff and landings from a carrier. �While she was flying the Me
>> 321 for no real reason (unless it was to prove you did NOT need two
>> strapping young men to fly it), he was evaluating captured aircraft
>> and his evaluations were used by front line forces to develop tactics
>> to help win the war. �I believe he helped his nation win the war.
>
> See above.
>>> And if her
>>> inspiration was Adolf Hitler and Nazi ideology- so be it.
>> Rob, that is _not_ a good thing
>
> It is relevent to HER dedication and devotion in Nazi pioneer
> aviation.
>
> Rob
Rob Arndt
that Von Greim should have abandoned his mission at Rechlin when the
helo wasn't available?
As someone who has served his country as you so boldly proclaim, do
you honestly believe that Von Greim should have disobeyed orders? Even
a General has to obey the Commander-in-Chief. So much more for the
Fuhrer who was the greatest dictator on earth thus far...
Rob
p.s. BTW, he did carry out subsequent orders from Hitler to Doenitz
before killing himself with cyanide on May 24th IIRC.
Rob Arndt
Hanna was way too old for JFK by then and only had two real loves of
her life- Hitler and Von Greim.
Rob
tankfixer
@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, teut...@aol.com says...
> > >> "Dan" <B2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >>news:bMBOj.28363$KJ1....@newsfe19.lga...
> >
> > >>> Gordon wrote:
That kind of thinking lead to the blood baths of WW1....
>
> As someone who has served his country as you so boldly proclaim, do
> you honestly believe that Von Greim should have disobeyed orders? Even
> a General has to obey the Commander-in-Chief. So much more for the
> Fuhrer who was the greatest dictator on earth thus far...
Why do you think he was the greatest ?
>
> Rob
>
> p.s. BTW, he did carry out subsequent orders from Hitler to Doenitz
> before killing himself with cyanide on May 24th IIRC.
>
>
--
Dan
Yes, he should have. The assets lost would have been better used in
an albeit futile defense of the Reich. His job at that point in the war
was to save the lives of as many of his men as he could. He knew the war
was lost.
>
> As someone who has served his country as you so boldly proclaim, do
> you honestly believe that Von Greim should have disobeyed orders? Even
> a General has to obey the Commander-in-Chief.
Yes, he should have disobeyed. He should have tried to save Germany
from the Nazi die hards who only wanted to cover their own worthless asses.
I'm sorry my military service bothers you so much. I am not
responsible for your inferiority complex, however.
So much more for the
> Fuhrer who was the greatest dictator on earth thus far...
Stalin and Genghis Kahn might disagree. Your pagan idolatry of Hitler
is duly noted.
>
> Rob
>
> p.s. BTW, he did carry out subsequent orders from Hitler to Doenitz
> before killing himself with cyanide on May 24th IIRC.
>
Yes, he suicided rather than be a man and help rebuild the nation
after the war. Then again, that's typical of the Nazi untermenschen.
Rob Arndt
> > Mindboggling, even for you Dan. Orders are orders. Are you suggesting
> > that Von Greim should have abandoned his mission at Rechlin when the
> > helo wasn't available?
>
> � � Yes, he should have. The assets lost would have been better used in
> an albeit futile defense of the Reich. His job at that point in the war
> was to save the lives of as many of his men as he could. He knew the war
> was lost.
Most Germans knew the war was lost on June 22, 1941 when Hitler
invaded Russia. Should they have just disobeyed orders from that point
on? BTW, what unreality do you live in? Had Von Greim refused to carry
out his orders, the SS would soon have shown up to dispose of him.
>
>
>
> > As someone who has served his country as you so boldly proclaim, do
> > you honestly believe that Von Greim should have disobeyed orders? Even
> > a General has to obey the Commander-in-Chief.
>
> � � Yes, he should have disobeyed. He should have tried to save Germany
> from the Nazi die hards who only wanted to cover their own worthless asses.
No, his duty was to Hitler to whom he sweared loyalty to. He was to
assume command of the Luftwaffe and also notify Doenitz of Hitler's
wishes. He fulfilled both even though his order to the Luftwaffe to
gather a/c to fight over Berlin amounted to nothing. It was a futile
order, but he carried it out anyway as duty requires.
>
> � �I'm sorry my military service bothers you so much. I am not
> responsible for your inferiority complex, however.
Please Dan, I am of German blood. I have no inferiority complex with
you. I just pointed out that since you are a serviceman that obeying
orders (right or wrong for country or dictator) is your duty. A
serviceman has no right to question orders unless they are immoral
orders. Summoning Von Greim to Berlin and dispatching him to Doenitz
were not immoral orders in any way.
>
> So much more for the
>
> > Fuhrer who was the greatest dictator on earth thus far...
>
> � �Stalin and Genghis Kahn might disagree. Your pagan idolatry of Hitler
> is duly noted.
No pagan idolotry, just acknowledgement that Hitler will be forever
remembered as the world's greatest dictator... at least until the
European Antichrist arrives to fulfill Revelation. Mention Genghis
Khan and Stalin in public and only the Turks and former Soviets will
notice. Mentioning Hitler anywhere on earth is instantly noticed and
the power of the Hakenkreuz symbol has not diminished at all. The
sickle & hammer and red cresent are nothing compared to it.
>
>
>
> > Rob
>
> > p.s. BTW, he did carry out subsequent orders from Hitler to Doenitz
> > before killing himself with cyanide on May 24th IIRC.
>
> � �Yes, he suicided rather than be a man and help rebuild the nation
> after the war. Then again, that's typical of the Nazi untermenschen.
No Dan, he came to despise what Hitler had done to Germany and did not
want to live in that ruination of the Germany he loved. In May 1945 it
was still Gotterdammerung and rebuilding was not foreseen. I do not
blame him for taking cyanide.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
Rob
Keith Willshaw
On Apr 20, 2:25?pm, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Dan" <B2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> The mission also was not pointless. Hitler had wanted to replace
> Goering with Von Greim for a long time, but Goering had been Hitler's
> friend until his betrayal. It then became imperative that Von greim
> contact Doenitz concerning second Fuhrer status and relieve Goering of
> command of what was left of the Luftwaffe.
All of that could have been done by radio, wasting lives was stupid
and unnecessary.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
On Apr 20, 3:46?pm, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> According to the book "Flying for the Fatherland" by Judy Lomax, Brown
> made those statements in reports during the war as he could not
> seriously believe she was used in development of such incredible a/c
> on purpose. Perhaps b/c he did know her back before the war caused him
> to err in judgement during the war when those reports of her came to
> him frequently. She was involved with the Me-262, Me-163, Me-328, and
> Reichenburg a/c.
I rather doubt MI6 was reporting Reitsch's doings to him regularly
or that Lomax was receiving briefings from Brown.
> BTW, before Brown flew the Me-163 postwar, he asked permission of the
> Americans to interrogate Hanna over the technical details of the
> Me-163
I already said that - you really arent reading my posts are you ?
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
news:MPG.227579868...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> @f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, teut...@aol.com says...
>>
>> > ? ?Forget rational debate, Gordon, aren't is in love.
>> >
>> > ? ?I think a comparison of Nazi aircraft they BOTH flew and how many of
>> > those each crashed would be a fair indication of capability in those
>> > types.
>> >
>> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> No fair Dan- she could fly rotorcraft and piloted missiles. Brown
>> couldn't ;)
>
>
> No proof he couldn't.
> Just that he didn't.
>
Actually he did fly rotorcraft. He was the first British pilot
to fly a helicopter. As for high speed jets he was also the
first to land and takeoff from a carrier in a jet propelled
aircraft.
Keith
Dan
>>> Mindboggling, even for you Dan. Orders are orders. Are you suggesting
>>> that Von Greim should have abandoned his mission at Rechlin when the
>>> helo wasn't available?
>> � � Yes, he should have. The assets lost would have been better used in
>> an albeit futile defense of the Reich. His job at that point in the war
>> was to save the lives of as many of his men as he could. He knew the war
>> was lost.
>
> Most Germans knew the war was lost on June 22, 1941 when Hitler
> invaded Russia. Should they have just disobeyed orders from that point
> on? BTW, what unreality do you live in? Had Von Greim refused to carry
> out his orders, the SS would soon have shown up to dispose of him.
>>
>>
>>> As someone who has served his country as you so boldly proclaim, do
>>> you honestly believe that Von Greim should have disobeyed orders? Even
>>> a General has to obey the Commander-in-Chief.
>> � � Yes, he should have disobeyed. He should have tried to save Germany
>> from the Nazi die hards who only wanted to cover their own worthless asses.
>
> No, his duty was to Hitler to whom he sweared loyalty to.
"Sweared?"
He was to
> assume command of the Luftwaffe and also notify Doenitz of Hitler's
> wishes. He fulfilled both even though his order to the Luftwaffe to
> gather a/c to fight over Berlin amounted to nothing. It was a futile
> order, but he carried it out anyway as duty requires.
>> � �I'm sorry my military service bothers you so much. I am not
>> responsible for your inferiority complex, however.
>
> Please Dan, I am of German blood.
German blood differs from blood of others how? Your ancestry may have
come from Germany, but where did their ancestors come from? The human
race didn't originate in Germany. You are no more German than I am.
I have no inferiority complex with
> you. I just pointed out that since you are a serviceman that obeying
> orders (right or wrong for country or dictator) is your duty. A
> serviceman has no right to question orders unless they are immoral
> orders.
This is coming from someone who shows no loyalty to the country to
which he claims citizenship.
Summoning Von Greim to Berlin and dispatching him to Doenitz
> were not immoral orders in any way.
Dragging the war out at that point was immoral as was the entire Nazi
government.
>> So much more for the
>>
>>> Fuhrer who was the greatest dictator on earth thus far...
>> � �Stalin and Genghis Kahn might disagree. Your pagan idolatry of Hitler
>> is duly noted.
>
> No pagan idolotry, just acknowledgement that Hitler will be forever
> remembered as the world's greatest dictator... at least until the
> European Antichrist arrives to fulfill Revelation. Mention Genghis
> Khan and Stalin in public and only the Turks and former Soviets will
> notice. Mentioning Hitler anywhere on earth is instantly noticed and
> the power of the Hakenkreuz symbol has not diminished at all. The
> sickle & hammer and red cresent are nothing compared to it.
The Red Crescent is the Islamic version of the Red Cross.
>>
>>
>>> Rob
>>> p.s. BTW, he did carry out subsequent orders from Hitler to Doenitz
>>> before killing himself with cyanide on May 24th IIRC.
>> � �Yes, he suicided rather than be a man and help rebuild the nation
>> after the war. Then again, that's typical of the Nazi untermenschen.
>
> No Dan, he came to despise what Hitler had done to Germany and did not
> want to live in that ruination of the Germany he loved. In May 1945 it
> was still Gotterdammerung and rebuilding was not foreseen. I do not
> blame him for taking cyanide.
It made a good Nazi out of him. If he had loved Germany as much as
you say he would have spent his last weeks mitigating the suffering.
You say rebuilding wasn't foreseen. Speer claims he and others were
planning on rebuilding after the war. Even in the sheer lunacy of the
Nazi hierarchy there were those who thought they would be part of the
reconstruction.
Tell us again how you don't idolize the Nazi regime. Tell us again
how that war was a good thing.
Dan
Peter Stickney
> In article <149723e1-c706-45f3-902f-96e709544fc4
> @f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, teut...@aol.com says...
>>
>> > ? ?Forget rational debate, Gordon, aren't is in love.
>> >
>> > ? ?I think a comparison of Nazi aircraft they BOTH flew and how many of
>> > those each crashed would be a fair indication of capability in those
>> > types.
>> >
>> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> No fair Dan- she could fly rotorcraft and piloted missiles. Brown
>> couldn't ;)
>
>
> No proof he couldn't.
> Just that he didn't.
Actually, Eric Brown was one of Britain's first helicopter pilots.
In 1944, He and Ken Bristow were given a recently assembled
YR-4B and a tech manual, and they proceeded to teach themselves
to fly it.
Brown went on to perform the flight testing for the first fully
comprehensive studies for airflow visualization through helicopter rotors
in both hovering and forward flight.
(But Rob should be proud - the RAE used a Fi 156 Storch as a chase plane.)
By mid 1945, he'd flown every type of jet in the world.
As for piloted V-1s, the question of "Why bother?" comes up- stupid is as
stupid does, after all.
--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion
Rob Arndt
> tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <149723e1-c706-45f3-902f-96e709544fc4
>
> - Show quoted text -
German jet and rocket a/c that flew during the war and prototypes:
Ar-234 Blitz
Ba-349 Natter
He-162 Volksjaeger
He-176
He-178
He-280
Ho-IX/Go-229
Ju-248
Ju-287
Me-163 Komet
Me-262 Schwalbe
Me-262C HS-1 and 2
Me-328
Reichenburg R.I-IV
WNF-342
When did Brown pilot the Ba-349, He-280 (176 and 178 destroyed), Ho-
IX, Ju-248, Me-262C HS-1 or 2, Me-328, Reichenburg, and WNF-342 jet-
helo?
Of course, these were never finished in time:
DFS-228
DFS-346
Hs-132
Ju EF-127 Wally
Me P.1101
Of course, he never flew the Italian C.C.1/N.2 or Japanese Shusui,
Kikka, and Ohka either.
I would hardly say he flew every jet in the world then.
BTW, how many of the US jets did he fly as there were:
Bell XP-59
Bell XP-83
Lockheed XP-80
McDonnell XFD-1
Ryan FR-1 Fireball hybrid
* Northrop XP-79B crashed
Just curious as to the accuracy of Peter's statement...
Rob
none
>> Please Dan, I am of German blood.
>
> German blood differs from blood of others how? Your ancestry may have
> come from Germany, but where did their ancestors come from? The human
> race didn't originate in Germany. You are no more German than I am.
>
The Germans came from Asia - and before that, presumably, Africa.
>
> Summoning Von Greim to Berlin and dispatching him to Doenitz
>> were not immoral orders in any way.
>
Let's just accept that using radio was technology a step too far for
Hitler.
>>
>> No pagan idolotry, just acknowledgement that Hitler will be forever
>> remembered as the world's greatest dictator... at least until the
>> European Antichrist arrives to fulfill Revelation. Mention Genghis Khan
>> and Stalin in public and only the Turks and former Soviets will notice.
>> Mentioning Hitler anywhere on earth is instantly noticed and the power
>> of the Hakenkreuz symbol has not diminished at all. The sickle & hammer
>> and red cresent are nothing compared to it.
>
> The Red Crescent is the Islamic version of the Red Cross.
>
and people from Asia & Africa - so, the majority of the world.
none
> But I beg to differ. it is little-
> known that Hanna had previously conducted aerial surveys of Berlins
> air corridors, landmarks, and memorized all compass bearings to
> perform that feat. No male pilot had done that in preparation. You
> will notice that the male Fw-190 pilot that got Von Greim and Hanna to
> the Storch had memorized all Soviet fire batteries along the route he
> took and evaded all of them.
So it was the *male* FW 190 pilot that memorised the route nee3ded to get
them in safely ...
>>
>> > He also never was a little
>> > girl compared to male test pilots and yet she piloted the Me-321
>> > which usually took TWO strong male pilots to T/O and control- by
>> > HERSELF.
>>
>> So I guess it didn't take two strong male pilots, did it?
>
> No, you got it all wrong again. She flew the initial single seater
> glider version and helped pioneer the Troika-Schlepp. It was due to HER
> assessment of the Me-321 that the subsequent Me-323 had TWO pilots
> handling the controls! I would say that was a valuable contribution as
> well as her helping to plan the glider assault on Eben Emael in Belgium
> in 1940 (oh... you forgot that fact?).
So when you aid she flew it single-handed, when it needed two stroong men
to fly it, you now say that you were wrong & were comparing the
requirements of two different aircraft? And when it is pointed out that
what you have written is in error you ignore the comment, & state that the
questioner is wrong? When you are so blind to your mistakes it is any
wonder that your views are regarded as erroneous?
Rob Arndt
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:01:05 -0700, Rob Arndt wrote:
> > But I beg to differ. it is little-
> > known that Hanna had previously conducted aerial surveys of Berlins
> > air corridors, landmarks, and memorized all compass bearings to
> > perform that feat. No male pilot had done that in preparation. You
> > will notice that the male Fw-190 pilot that got Von Greim and Hanna to
> > the Storch had memorized all Soviet fire batteries along the route he
> > took and evaded all of them.
>
> So it was the *male* FW 190 pilot that memorised the route nee3ded to get
> them in safely ...
No, he only got them as far as Gatow from Rechlin... then fled... he
didn't memorize the intended route, he memorized the Soviet flak
positions from recent flights under fire and adjusted his flight to
avoid them.
Hanna had performed many aerial surveys of Berlin and knew all the
landmarks and bearings by heart. This aided the Storch's success
greatly after Von Greim was hit.
>
>
>
> >> > He also never was a little
> >> > girl compared to male test pilots and yet she piloted the Me-321
> >> > which usually took TWO strong male pilots to T/O and control- by
> >> > HERSELF.
>
> >> So I guess it didn't take two strong male pilots, did it?
>
> > No, you got it all wrong again. She flew the initial single seater
> > glider version and helped pioneer the Troika-Schlepp. It was due to HER
> > assessment of the Me-321 that the subsequent Me-323 had TWO pilots
> > handling the controls! I would say that was a valuable contribution as
> > well as her helping to plan the glider assault on Eben Emael in Belgium
> > in 1940 (oh... you forgot that fact?).
>
> So when you aid she flew it single-handed, when it needed two stroong men
> to fly it, you now say that you were wrong & were comparing the
> requirements of two different aircraft? And when it is pointed out that
> what you have written is in error you ignore the comment, & state that the
> questioner is wrong? When you are so blind to your mistakes it is any
> wonder that your views are regarded as erroneous?
The glider Me-321 Gigant BECAME the powered Me-323 Gigant and the
controls were just as hard in the Me-321. Hanna struggled hard with
the controls. It was from Hanna's review of the a/c that the 323 had
two seats and two strong male pilots to control the machine
EFFECTIVELY. I may have worded that wrong initially and this has also
caused confusion b/c I added the Eben Emael info to it. They are
seperate incidents with gliders. The Me-321 is not connected to the
DFS-230 planning. Sorry for any misinterpretations.
Rob
Dan
> On Apr 21, 2:05�pm, none <n...@none.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:01:05 -0700, Rob Arndt wrote:
>>> But I beg to differ. it is little-
>>> known that Hanna had previously conducted aerial surveys of Berlins
>>> air corridors, landmarks, and memorized all compass bearings to
>>> perform that feat. No male pilot had done that in preparation. You
>>> will notice that the male Fw-190 pilot that got Von Greim and Hanna to
>>> the Storch had memorized all Soviet fire batteries along the route he
>>> took and evaded all of them.
>> So it was the *male* FW 190 pilot that memorised the route nee3ded to get
>> them in safely ...
>
> No, he only got them as far as Gatow from Rechlin... then fled... he
> didn't memorize the intended route, he memorized the Soviet flak
> positions from recent flights under fire and adjusted his flight to
> avoid them.
Sounds like an intelligent move. Knowing where the threats are is a
very important part of the mission. As for him fleeing did you expect
him to land the Fw190 with the Storch? His mission was escort, once
Hannah got within the perimeter his mission was over.
tankfixer
keith...@demon.co.uk says...
Thanks for the correction, I saw that after I posted .
I'm not really sure what the benifit of putting a pilot in a missle
was...
Did any other country waste trained pilots this way ?
Besides Japan that is.
tankfixer
> tankfixer wrote:
>
> > In article <149723e1-c706-45f3-902f-96e709544fc4
> > @f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, teut...@aol.com says...
> >>
> >> > ? ?Forget rational debate, Gordon, aren't is in love.
> >> >
> >> > ? ?I think a comparison of Nazi aircraft they BOTH flew and how many of
> >> > those each crashed would be a fair indication of capability in those
> >> > types.
> >> >
> >> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >>
> >> No fair Dan- she could fly rotorcraft and piloted missiles. Brown
> >> couldn't ;)
> >
> >
> > No proof he couldn't.
> > Just that he didn't.
>
> Actually, Eric Brown was one of Britain's first helicopter pilots.
Thanks, as Keith and others have pointing out I was mistaken on that
one.
> In 1944, He and Ken Bristow were given a recently assembled
> YR-4B and a tech manual, and they proceeded to teach themselves
> to fly it.
> Brown went on to perform the flight testing for the first fully
> comprehensive studies for airflow visualization through helicopter rotors
> in both hovering and forward flight.
> (But Rob should be proud - the RAE used a Fi 156 Storch as a chase plane.)
> By mid 1945, he'd flown every type of jet in the world.
>
> As for piloted V-1s, the question of "Why bother?" comes up- stupid is as
> stupid does, after all.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
tankfixer
@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, teut...@aol.com says...
> On Apr 21, 4:49?am, Peter Stickney <p-stick...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > tankfixer wrote:
> > > In article <149723e1-c706-45f3-902f-96e709544fc4
> > > @f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, teuton...@aol.com says...
> >
> > >> > ? ?Forget rational debate, Gordon, aren't is in love.
> >
> > >> > ? ?I think a comparison of Nazi aircraft they BOTH flew and how many of
> > >> > those each crashed would be a fair indication of capability in those
> > >> > types.
> >
> > >> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> > >> No fair Dan- she could fly rotorcraft and piloted missiles. Brown
> > >> couldn't ;)
> >
> > > No proof he couldn't.
> > > Just that he didn't.
> >
> > Actually, Eric Brown was one of Britain's first helicopter pilots.
> > In 1944, He and Ken Bristow were given a recently assembled
> > YR-4B and a tech manual, and they proceeded to teach themselves
> > to fly it.
> > Brown went on to perform the flight testing for the first fully
> > comprehensive studies for airflow visualization through helicopter rotors
> > in both hovering and forward flight.
> > (But Rob should be proud - the RAE used a Fi 156 Storch as a chase plane.)
> > By mid 1945, he'd flown every type of jet in the world.
> >
> > As for piloted V-1s, the question of "Why bother?" comes up- stupid is as
> > stupid does, after all.
>
> German jet and rocket a/c that flew during the war and prototypes:
Inflating th elist with rocket powered aircraft is a bit dishonest when
Pete said jet powered...isn't it ?
>
> Ar-234 Blitz
> Ba-349 Natter
> He-162 Volksjaeger
> He-176
> He-178
> He-280
> Ho-IX/Go-229
> Ju-248
> Ju-287
> Me-163 Komet
> Me-262 Schwalbe
> Me-262C HS-1 and 2
> Me-328
> Reichenburg R.I-IV
> WNF-342
Looks like a collasal waste of resources for a country that couldn't
even keep provide enough tanks to fully equip her armies.
> When did Brown pilot the Ba-349, He-280 (176 and 178 destroyed), Ho-
> IX, Ju-248, Me-262C HS-1 or 2, Me-328, Reichenburg, and WNF-342 jet-
> helo?
>
> Of course, these were never finished in time:
>
> DFS-228
> DFS-346
> Hs-132
> Ju EF-127 Wally
> Me P.1101
>
> Of course, he never flew the Italian C.C.1/N.2 or Japanese Shusui,
> Kikka, and Ohka either.
>
> I would hardly say he flew every jet in the world then.
>
> BTW, how many of the US jets did he fly as there were:
>
> Bell XP-59
> Bell XP-83
> Lockheed XP-80
> McDonnell XFD-1
> Ryan FR-1 Fireball hybrid
>
> * Northrop XP-79B crashed
>
> Just curious as to the accuracy of Peter's statement...
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
They are not related. A Ju-188 got Hanna and Von Greim to Rechlin. The
Fw-190 pilot got them to Gatow. The Fw-190 pilot dumped Hanna and Von
Greim off at Gatow and immediately took off. Unlike Hanna who had
nerves like steel, the Fw-190 pilot panicked under fire to the
airfield. Von Greim was en route to the bunker when he and the Storch
were hit by Soviet AA fire.Hanna took over and completed the journey,
safely landing next to the Brandenburg Gate. She was under total fire
the entire time with Von Greim in pain and fuel tanks leaking amid the
smoky haze covering the city. She remained calm and set the Storch
down with precision although rubble and potholes were everywhere.She
got out and signaled for the first German lorry in sight and got Von
Greim to the bunker.
Although she described that incedent as her "descent into hell", it
had no real effect on her as she was elated to see the Fuhrer and
spend time in the bunker. Had Hitler allowed it she would have stayed
in the bunker with him and died there.
But orders were orders and she obeyed and accomplished her mission-
flying Von Greim out to meet Doenitz. Hanna would later fly Von Greim
to see Kesselring in Graz in a Bu-131 trainer! Having left for Zell Am
See, Hanna flew another Fi-Storch to reach him. She also flew a Do-217
before the war ended.
Rob
Keith Willshaw
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <e45be3b0-b112-4c0c-b39c-feb9223e40f3
> @w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, teut...@aol.com says...
>
>>
>> Ar-234 Blitz
>> Ba-349 Natter
>> He-162 Volksjaeger
>> He-176
>> He-178
>> He-280
>> Ho-IX/Go-229
>> Ju-248
>> Ju-287
>> Me-163 Komet
>> Me-262 Schwalbe
>> Me-262C HS-1 and 2
>> Me-328
>> Reichenburg R.I-IV
>> WNF-342
>
> Looks like a collasal waste of resources for a country that couldn't
> even keep provide enough tanks to fully equip her armies.
>
It is typical of the disjointed fragmentary nature of Nazi war production.
The whole ethos of the system was to pit opposing interest groups
against each other in pseudo Darwinian struggle for the 'survival of
the fittest'. The result was half a dozen unfinished projects instead
of 1 or 2 actual aircraft.
The same pattern was seen in the German atomic program. While
Britain and the US combined their national programs Germany
had at least 3 competing groups ensuring that none of them
would have any chance of success.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
On Apr 21, 6:30 pm, Dan <B2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
> They are not related. A Ju-188 got Hanna and Von Greim to Rechlin. The
> Fw-190 pilot got them to Gatow. The Fw-190 pilot dumped Hanna and Von
> Greim off at Gatow and immediately took off. Unlike Hanna who had
> nerves like steel, the Fw-190 pilot panicked under fire to the
> airfield.
Cite please.
In the version Hanna Reitsch told Eric Brown she related how the
sergeant pilot got them to Gatow using his knowledge of the area.
She also mentioned the courage of the escorting fighters.
For someone who claims to admire Germans you are awfully
quick to condemn men who showed more courage and
ability than you or I will ever have demanded of us.
Keith
Dan
<snip> The Fw-190 pilot dumped Hanna and Von
> Greim off at Gatow and immediately took off. Unlike Hanna who had
> nerves like steel, the Fw-190 pilot panicked under fire to the
> airfield.
Other than your obvious bias towards Hannah to do have a source
saying the man panicked? If I had the job of dropping someone off in a
hot LZ I sure wouldn't stick around after doing so. Unlike you, I have
been under fire and I have never seen a fully serviceman panic.
Rob Arndt
"Flying for the Fatherland: the Century's Greatest Pilot" by Judy
Lomax pg 121
The Fw-190 pilot was in such a hurry to flee that he left Hanna and
Von Greim running to seek shelter.
Remember that Hanna was stuck in the rear fuselage and Von Greim had
to pull her out.
AFAIK, the pilot offered no assistance whatsoever and waited to gun
the engine for t/o.
Rob
Gordon
> They are not related. A Ju-188 got Hanna and Von Greim to Rechlin. The
> Fw-190 pilot got them to Gatow.
Those were his orders and Gatow was the closest airfield still in
operation, if I am not mistaken. The FW 190 was NOT a STOL liaison
aircraft and with all the smoke and debris you continually mention,
there is absolutely no possible way he could have landed on a Berlin
street with two passengers, one of them ENORMOUS, in an FW 190 under
direct fire. Impossible. But keeping acting like he was a coward,
_based on nothing_.
> The Fw-190 pilot dumped Hanna and Von
> Greim off at Gatow and immediately took off.
Was he under orders to wait at Gatow? If so, please show us a copy of
those orders. Otherwise, he was probably doing exactly what he was
told, like a typical German airman; like von Griem - following
orders. Or do you have some reason to believe that all German fighter
pilots were cowards?
You seem to take every single word of Hanna's AUTOBIOGRAPHY as pure
truth - and assign every negative trait you can to this unknown German
fighter pilot who no doubt was picked because he was the best
candidate available. You slander and ridicule a man that you know
nothing about, beyond the words of a woman blinded by her puppy-dog
love for one of the worst mass-murderers in human history.
> Unlike Hanna who had
> nerves like steel, the Fw-190 pilot panicked under fire to the
> airfield.
Who reported she had "nerves of steel", other than her, in her book?
This man was a "fighter pilot", not a Storch pilot and his orders did
not include the suicidal attempt at landing his overloaded FW 190 amid
the debris strewn road, which without a doubt would have killed all
three of them. How would your beloved Hanna look after a similar crash
to Macky Steinhof's?Could that male pilot have squeezed into the
Storch with Dicke Griem and Hanna? Were THOSE his orders? (Love to
see a copy of them!) The man in question did not flee (you can't
provide any cite that says he fled and you don't capitalize the "V" in
"von") and I have no doubts he was one of the airmen that died during
that wasted, useless escort flight.
As for Griem being shot if he disobeyed - Georing wasn't shot, was he?
- even after he attempted to directly usurp Hitler's role. At that
point in the war, there were so many conflicting orders and it was
apparent that his country was dying - Griem should have done something
to alleviate his nation's suffering, not cast about looking for a way
to prolong the war under the banner of "just following orders". As
for cowards who panicked - Griem commited suicide, as did Hitler,
Goebbels, Goering et al, so who were the cowards and who were the
soldiers doing their duty? At least the FW 190 pilot did his JOB, and
died doing it.
> Von Greim was en route to the bunker when he and the Storch
> were hit by Soviet AA fire.Hanna took over and completed the journey,
> safely landing next to the Brandenburg Gate. She was under total fire
> the entire time with Von Greim in pain and fuel tanks leaking amid the
> smoky haze covering the city. She remained calm --
how do you know that? Was there an observer who reported, "She
remained calm"?
> and set the Storch
> down with precision although rubble and potholes were everywhere.
how do you know that? What there an observer who reported, "She set
it down with precision"?
> She got out and signaled for the first German lorry in sight and got Von
> Greim to the bunker.
Again, this is all what she wrote in her book, not what anyone else
has ever said. Is it truth, or the rose-tinted memories of a
Hitlerite, recalling how she rushed back to Berlin to bask in his
radiance? HOW DO YOU TELL?
Rob, there are plenty of books from Germans in the immediate postwar
period that purport to tell the true story of their wartime
experiences, such as "Battle Under the Stars", and "Heaven Next Stop"
and you know what they all have in common?
Errors. Stretches of fact.
Somehow, only your beloved Nazi Hanna tells 100% truth about actions
no one else witnesses and reports. Hmmm. Interesting, that.
> Although she described that incedent as her "descent into hell", it
> had no real effect on her
Now that is interesting, as I believe descending into hell might
actually have an effect on a person experiencing it.
> as she was elated to see the Fuhrer and
> spend time in the bunker. Had Hitler allowed it she would have stayed
> in the bunker with him and died there.
Doing her duty and her job, or taking the cowards' way out and killing
herself with the malevolent demon whose boots she lived to lick?
> But orders were orders and she obeyed and accomplished her mission-
> flying Von Greim out to meet Doenitz. Hanna would later fly Von Greim
> to see Kesselring in Graz in a Bu-131 trainer! Having left for Zell Am
> See, Hanna flew another Fi-Storch to reach him. She also flew a Do-217
> before the war ended.
That sounds like an awful lot of military aircraft, considering you
keep on about how she was a civilian and had no access to them.
Gordon
Gordon
> On Apr 22, 12:24�am, Dan <B2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Rob Arndt wrote:
>
> > <snip> The Fw-190 pilot dumped Hanna and Von
>
> > > Greim off at Gatow and immediately took off. Unlike Hanna who had
> > > nerves like steel, the Fw-190 pilot panicked under fire to the
> > > airfield.
>
> > � �Other than your obvious bias towards Hannah to do have a source
> > saying the man panicked? If I had the job of dropping someone off in a
> > hot LZ I sure wouldn't stick around after doing so. Unlike you, I have
> > been under fire and I have never seen a fully serviceman panic.
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> "Flying for the Fatherland: the Century's Greatest Pilot" by Judy
> Lomax pg 121
Perfect. For a reference, you pick an unbiased and perfectly
accurate book, that cites, primarily, Hanna and her autobiography.
> The Fw-190 pilot was in such a hurry to flee that he left Hanna and
> Von Greim running to seek shelter.
Because the base was under fire! His tasking was to deliver the pax,
not babysit them.
> Remember that Hanna was stuck in the rear fuselage and Von Greim had
> to pull her out.
Ok - why was that the pilot's duty?
> AFAIK, the pilot offered no assistance whatsoever and waited to gun
> the engine for t/o.
His tasking was to get them to Gatow, which he did. Other than
Hanna's statements and Lomax's interpretations of those statements,
there is no evidence whatever that he "fled", "refused to offer help",
or anything else negative, AFTER COMPLETING HIS ASSIGNED TASK IN THE
FACE OF ENEMY FIRE, in an overloaded fighter impressed into transport
duty. Just how freakin' easy do you think that was?
Geez, Rob - are you so in love with her that you have to cling to your
need to diminish this German pilot, about which you know absolutely
NOTHING?
Rob Arndt
I'll make just two short statements to your allegations of my bias and
everyone's conspiracy to report what Hanna accomplished:
1) You say the Fw-190 could not have landed in Berlin, that Gatow was
as close as he could get and that his plane was not a S/TOL. OK... now
the facts. How do you think the Ar-96 got to the Brandenburg Gate for
the return trip? A Luftwaffe pilot flew it in on 4/27/45 to the center
of Berlin and it was brought to the Gate. Days earlier a Ju-52 managed
to amke it to Berlin as well but Von Greim and Hanna would not leave.
So actually, YES, the Fw-190 pilot could have theoretically made it to
at least Berlin's center (especially if a Ju-52 could).
* I capitalize Von in absence of Greim's first name. Nothing out of
the ordinary as many do it with Von Braun...
2) Regarding military a/c. Since the first post I have stated she was
LIMITED to only THIRD REICH military a/c. Postwar- nothing. Brown
holds ever advantage there, otherwise, God knows how many a/c she
could have set records in around the world and especially the US which
WANTED her both for the USAF and Space Program (she would have flown
the rocket planes up to the X-15). She refused but consulted President
John F. Kennedy about spaceflight and rocket a/c experience. She could
have been on Von Braun's team and theoretically could have even become
first US female astronaut.
Enough said...
Rob
p.s. I'm again ashamed of you Gordon as you obviously hate Hanna as
much as Dan based on her Nazi ideology which has really nothing to do
with her piloting skills. Determination, courage, recovery... YES...
but not her skill. And when did Hanna Reitsch ever deliberately LIE
about anything concerning her flying experiences? What proof do you
have? Cite please. She was listed by the US Intel Agencies as an
aircraft expert just as she had been in Germany. She commanded so much
respect that it reached up to world leaders. Brown was just a military
test pilot and all the German a/c he tested were secondhand. He flew
more of them than Hanna b/c Hanna could not possibly fly all of those
types during the war. He could as they were stren about Germany and
captured. She was pioneering helicopter flight, jet flight, and rocket
flight (which postwar led to spaceflight). He pioneered nothing. there
is nothing he did which I believe Hanna could not do, but there are
plenty of things she could do that he either wouldn't (signs of
cowardice as far as a test pilot is concerned) or couldn't. Could he
land a Spitfire near the Brandenburg Gate? No? Was he skilled enough
as a helo pilot to do shows inside a stadium in front of 40,000 people
w/o error? I think not. Would he climb into and pilot a missile? No,
as it shows postwar. He never tried the Reichenburgs even though there
were plenty of them to go around. He passed. And he was no where near
Hanna on glider experience (she was a world champion). He also
probably would not have had the balls to attempt a glider flight
across the Alps either. So he landed on a carrier 2,400+ times and
flew 487 a/c? Who gives a fuck? Eric Brown is good for conversation
around in military circles, Hanna around the globe.
Dan
<snip>
>
> p.s. I'm again ashamed of you Gordon as you obviously hate Hanna as
> much as Dan based on her Nazi ideology which has really nothing to do
> with her piloting skills.
I don't hate Hannah or anyone else. You on the other hand refuse to
admit anyone could be as good as or better than her. The fact remains if
she had been a U.S. citizen you'd be pointing out all her flaws. Telling
us she could have become the first U.S. female astronaut shows how
little you know of the U.S. space program.
Rob Arndt
No, it shows how little you know of the US official policy towards
Hanna. She was ASKED by the US GOVERMENT and MILITARY from 1945-46 to
join both test pilot and initial US space program research by joining
Von Braun and his team. She refused as patriot to the Fatherland and
faced the CIC instead as German prisoner. Many attempts were made
under several US agencies to get Hanna to America, but she refused all
of them even after being united with Von Braun and Dornberger, briefly
in Sept 45 to lure her into accepting at least one of the US offers
made to her. When she was released from prison in July 1946, she was
offered first-rate living accommodation with US military officers, but
again refused out of loyalty to the Fatherland. Subsequent offers from
USFET to Hanna were rejected as well. The US tried to get Hanna
involved in military and space programs from 1945 to the early 1960s.
She, however, wasn't a sell-out and stood up to interrogation and
postwar persecution in Germany and Austria. However, she had a long
list of admirers and soon recovered, becoming even more popular around
the world through her resumed flying.
Rob
p.s. Have I ever pointed out any flaws with the US female test pilots
and flyers? No. Or any other female test pilots from other nations or
even the VVS pilots? No, actually I praised Lilya Litvak. As usual,
Dan, you try to take my words out of context, twist them, or blatantly
lie about me. So I like Hanna Reitsch, support her and respect her-
what is that to you?
Dan
<snip>
>
> and flyers? No. Or any other female test pilots from other nations or
> even the VVS pilots? No, actually I praised Lilya Litvak. As usual,
> Dan, you try to take my words out of context, twist them, or blatantly
> lie about me. So I like Hanna Reitsch, support her and respect her-
> what is that to you?
I never said you pointed out "flaws" in female test pilots in other
countries. That would be hard to do since most countries didn't have
female test pilots. You do, however, make absolute claims about Hannah
being the best there ever was and slam any Allied pilot who was as good
or as better than her. Remember when you told us no one else could have
landed in Berlin on that silly mission? That and many other absolute
statements you make about her while slamming others is more of an
obsession and falls in with your "Germans are better than anyone else"
and purity of blood manure you are constantly spew. Adolf "I have
tertiary syphilis" Hitler would have been proud of you.
What's it to me? Not much, I don't expect any better from a Nazi.
Your kind just can't admit your own flaws.
Andrew....@yahoo.com
> 1) Prior to Hanna's demonstrations of the Fw-61 (world's first
> practical helicopter) in Berlin in front of 40,000 people, helicopter
> development was not taken seriously in aviation circles and not
> considered as a potential military weapon.
The Deutschlandhalle demonstration was a propaganda stunt, pure and
simple. Reitsch was involved more as a curiosity than due to her
flying skills.
> 2) Hanna didn't just "ride" in a missile, she corrected technical
> problems with the V-1 through her evaluations which led to it being
> used during the war.
This doesn't appear to be consistent with her own autobiographical
claims.
> 3) She may have tried to rescue Hitler but if you have read her book
> as well as the many biographies, you would know Hitler rejected that
> and Hanna then wanted to DIE in the bunker with Hitler. He refused.
> Her achievement in that incident is the incredible feat of landing the
> Storch under intense fire with wounded Von Greim and gas leaks right
> near the Brandenburg Gate. It has been argued that any competent male
> could have done the same thing.
This indicates that Reitsch was either foolish and/or suicidal rather
than someone to be admired. There was no point to that flight; it
accomplished nothing that could not have been done by other means with
less sacrifice of life.
As for the actual landing, it doesn't appear to be anything other than
reasonable competence and luck in not attracting Soviet light AAA at
the wrong moment.
> Hanna was forbidden to fly for 7 years after the war ended
Due solely to poor personal choices. If flying was what she cared
about, she could have gone elsewhere and done it rather than joining
the NSDAP. Apparently that was more important than flying to her.
> You don't get it, do you? She was a female civilian pilot and had no
> access to military a/c.
She just used her party connections and favoritism instead.
Drew
Andrew....@yahoo.com
> p.s. I'm again ashamed of you Gordon as you obviously hate Hanna as
> much as Dan based on her Nazi ideology which has really nothing to do
> with her piloting skills.
Oh but it did. She was perfectly willing to embrace a criminal regime
to further her personal ambitions. That says a lot about her.
Drew
none
> Gordon,
>
> I'll make just two short statements to your allegations of my bias and
> everyone's conspiracy to report what Hanna accomplished:
>
> 1) You say the Fw-190 could not have landed in Berlin, that Gatow was
> as close as he could get and that his plane was not a S/TOL. OK... now
> the facts. How do you think the Ar-96 got to the Brandenburg Gate for
> the return trip? A Luftwaffe pilot flew it in on 4/27/45 to the center
> of Berlin and it was brought to the Gate. Days earlier a Ju-52 managed
> to amke it to Berlin as well but Von Greim and Hanna would not leave.
> So actually, YES, the Fw-190 pilot could have theoretically made it to
> at least Berlin's center (especially if a Ju-52 could).
>
While the Ju 52 is larger than a FW 190, does it have a longer landing
run? Since they flew into, and out of, unprepared short airstrips at
Stalingrad I suspect (I don't have the numbers) that the Ju 52 is not a
good aircraft against which to make your point. The Ar 196 was designed
for slow flying as an observation aircraft, so again not a good choice.
>
> 2) Regarding military a/c. Since the first post I have stated she was
> LIMITED to only THIRD REICH military a/c. Postwar- nothing. Brown holds
> ever advantage there, otherwise, God knows how many a/c she could have
> set records in around the world and especially the US which WANTED her
> both for the USAF and Space Program (she would have flown the rocket
> planes up to the X-15). She refused but consulted President John F.
> Kennedy about spaceflight and rocket a/c experience. She could have been
> on Von Braun's team and theoretically could have even become first US
> female astronaut.
>
So, given the CHANCE she bottled it? You are now offering PROOF that she
had the opportuniy but refused to make use of it; so Brown does not hold
the advantage, other than that he took the opportunities that came his way.
> Enough said...
>
OK.
>
> Brown was just a military test pilot and
> all the German a/c he tested were secondhand. He flew more of them than
> Hanna b/c Hanna could not possibly fly all of those types during the
> war. He could as they were stren about Germany and captured. She was
> pioneering helicopter flight, jet flight, and rocket flight (which
> postwar led to spaceflight). He pioneered nothing.
Unless you consider that as a primarily NAVAL test pilot he pioneered
aspects of naval flight - jet landings, jet takeoffs, the (dead end) of
the 'rubber deck', flying aircraft with no documentation in the face of
possible sabotage ...
> there is nothing he
> did which I believe Hanna could not do, but there are plenty of things
> she could do that he either wouldn't (signs of cowardice as far as a
> test pilot is concerned) or couldn't.
What evidence is there of this?
> Could he land a Spitfire near the
> Brandenburg Gate? No?
We will never know. Of ocurse, we also know that Hanna could not, either.
She did manage to land a Storch, but a Storch is a little different to
a Spitfire. COuld he have landed a Storch? I think YES. We know he landed
JETS in places where people thought that they could be landed.
> Was he skilled enough as a helo pilot to do shows
> inside a stadium in front of 40,000 people w/o error? I think not.
Since he took a helicopter, taught himself to fly it, and did so
succesfully without crashing it, I think YES.
And Hanna wasn't, either - I don't think it was her who is credited as
realising that the stadium roof had to be opened up to allow cooler air to
be used. Or do you regard being unable to take off in a helicopter as not
being an error?
> Would
> he climb into and pilot a missile? No, as it shows postwar. He never
> tried the Reichenburgs even though there were plenty of them to go
> around. He passed.
Or he was sane ...
> And he was no where near Hanna on glider experience
> (she was a world champion).
I looked up her bio on-line. They quote her a FEMALE world champion, not
an absolute world champion. You've already won acceptance that she was
better female pilot than Brown, and a better German/Nazi pilot than
Brown. If the on-line bios are right I wonder why you create the
confusion between world-record holding (indicating all-comers) and world
women record. Brown did not show any interest in gliding; it is a big step
to assume that this meant he would not be any good at it.
> He also probably would not have had the
> balls to attempt a glider flight across the Alps either. So he landed on
> a carrier 2,400+ times and flew 487 a/c? Who gives a fuck? Eric Brown is
> good for conversation around in military circles, Hanna around the globe.
Outside the military aviation circle neither are known. In the UK Eric
Brown has a higher profile, having been a more prolific writer.
tankfixer
keith...@demon.co.uk says...
Very true.
The same disorganization and competition was seen in vehicle
development.
>
> The same pattern was seen in the German atomic program. While
> Britain and the US combined their national programs Germany
> had at least 3 competing groups ensuring that none of them
> would have any chance of success.
I've not looked at submarine development much but could this be the same
reason some promising technology wasn't ready for sea by wars end ?
tankfixer
@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, teut...@aol.com says...
> On Apr 22, 12:39?pm, Dan <B2...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Rob Arndt wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> > > p.s. I'm again ashamed of you Gordon as you obviously hate Hanna as
> > > much as Dan based on her Nazi ideology which has really nothing to do
> > > with her piloting skills.
> >
> > admit anyone could be as good as or better than her. The fact remains if
> > she had been a U.S. citizen you'd be pointing out all her flaws. Telling
> > us she could have become the first U.S. female astronaut shows how
> > little you know of the U.S. space program.
>
> No, it shows how little you know of the US official policy towards
> Hanna. She was ASKED by the US GOVERMENT and MILITARY from 1945-46 to
> join both test pilot and initial US space program research by joining
> Von Braun and his team. She refused as patriot to the Fatherland and
> faced the CIC instead as German prisoner. Many attempts were made
> under several US agencies to get Hanna to America, but she refused all
> of them even after being united with Von Braun and Dornberger, briefly
> in Sept 45 to lure her into accepting at least one of the US offers
> made to her. When she was released from prison in July 1946, she was
> offered first-rate living accommodation with US military officers, but
> again refused out of loyalty to the Fatherland. Subsequent offers from
> USFET to Hanna were rejected as well. The US tried to get Hanna
> involved in military and space programs from 1945 to the early 1960s.
> She, however, wasn't a sell-out and stood up to interrogation and
> postwar persecution in Germany and Austria. However, she had a long
> list of admirers and soon recovered, becoming even more popular around
> the world through her resumed flying.
>
Maybe we should have offered her to the Soviets...
ske...@tritel.net
So far after 59 plus responses to this subject
"Watson's Whizzers" there hasn't been anything about
them or their Me 262s. Just arguments about who flew
the most aircraft. Argument for the sake of argument.
If you want to argue start a new headed, appropiately
titled, and have at it.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:52:37 -0700 (PDT), Rob Arndt
<teut...@aol.com> wrote:
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Jeff Dougherty
>
> I've not looked at submarine development much but could this be the same
> reason some promising technology wasn't ready for sea by wars end ?
To a degree, yes- the U-boat arm couldn't make up its mind whether to
concentrate on advanced diesel-electric boats with streamlining and
snorkels or on the Walther engine, so they did both. Ended the war
with prototype boats for both designs and a few Type XXIs that were
entirely too late to do anything. Of course, there were a huge number
of other problems, so I'm not sure that the divided effort was really
decisive there.
Can't have helped, though.
-JTD
Dan
> So far after 59 plus responses to this subject
> "Watson's Whizzers" there hasn't been anything about
> them or their Me 262s. Just arguments about who flew
> the most aircraft. Argument for the sake of argument.
> If you want to argue start a new headed, appropiately
> titled, and have at it.
>
>
I'm not arguing.
Yes, you are.
No, I am not.
Are too.
Are not.
Are too times 100.
Are not times infinity.
Are too, you stuppie num-num head.
I'm rubber, you're glue, every thing you say bounces off me and sticks
to you.
Oh yeah?
Yeah!
Sez you.
Gentlemen, there will be no fighting here, this is the war room.
Mein fuhrer, I can valk!!
Roll credits - We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when...
Ain't schizophrenia grand?
Rob Arndt
> So far after 59 plus responses to this subject
> "Watson's Whizzers" there hasn't been anything about
> them or their Me 262s. Just arguments about who flew
> the most aircraft. Argument for the sake of argument.
> If you want to argue start a new headed, appropiately
> titled, and have at it.
A man walks into an office.
Man: Good morning, I'd like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: Certainly, sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see, well we'll see who's free at the moment.
Mr. Bakely's free, but he's a little bit concilliatory.
No.
Try Mr. Barnhart, room 12.
Man: Thank you.
He enters room 12.
Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...
Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED EVIL PAN OF
DROPPINGS!
Man: What?
A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU
VACUOUS
STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!
M: Oh! Oh I see!
A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.
M: Oh...Sorry...
A: Not at all!
A: (under his breath) stupid git.
The man goes into room 12A. Another man is sitting behind a desk.
Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Other Man:(pause) I've told you once.
Man: No you haven't!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No you didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I'm telling you, I did!
M: You didn't!
O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half
hour?
M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.
O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.
O: Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let's get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told
you!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!
(pause)
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
(pause)
M: It's just contradiction!
O: No it isn't!
M: It IS!
O: It is NOT!
M: You just contradicted me!
O: No I didn't!
M: You DID!
O: No no no!
M: You did just then!
O: Nonsense!
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!
(pause)
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is!
(pause)
M: I came here for a good argument!
O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
M: An argument is a connected series of statement intended to
establish a
proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying "no it isn't".
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction
is just
the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!
The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.
O: Thank you, that's it.
M: (stunned) What?
O: That's it. Good morning.
M: But I was just getting interested!
O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!!
O: I'm afraid it was.
M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....
O: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
M: WHAT??
O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another
five
minutes.
M: But that was never five minutes just now!
Oh Come on!
Oh this is...
This is ridiculous!
O: I told you...
I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!
M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.) There you
are.
O: Thank you.
M: (clears throat) Well...
O: Well WHAT?
M: That was never five minutes just now.
O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Well I just paid!
O: No you didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I-dbct-fd-tq! I don't want to argue about it!
O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!
M: Ah hah! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? Ah
HAAAAAAHHH!
Gotcha!
O: No you haven't!
M: Yes I have!
If you're arguing, I must have paid.
O: Not necessarily.
I *could* be arguing in my spare time.
M: I've had enough of this!
O: No you haven't.
(door slam)
Rob, Room 12
Keith Willshaw
<ske...@tritel.net> wrote in message
news:qtvr045cbo5c4550h...@4ax.com...
>
> So far after 59 plus responses to this subject
> "Watson's Whizzers" there hasn't been anything about
> them or their Me 262s. Just arguments about who flew
> the most aircraft. Argument for the sake of argument.
> If you want to argue start a new headed, appropiately
> titled, and have at it.
>
Who died and made you moderator ?
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>
> I've not looked at submarine development much but could this be the same
> reason some promising technology wasn't ready for sea by wars end ?
>
Not in that case. I think the German submarine designers were just
a little too radical. Not only did they introduce completely new
designs but they also introduced new production techniques
with hull sections being manufactured in factories and assembled at the
yard. The quality control problems and extended training required
for these boats were what delayed the program
Of course the allied bombing campaign was one of the major
drivers behind the requirement to disperse pproduction.
Keith
Rob Arndt
> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.227826c7...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>
> > In article <fuk29n$dn6$1$8300d...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > keithnos...@demon.co.uk says...
>
> > I've not looked at submarine development much but could this be the same
> > reason some promising technology wasn't ready for sea by wars end ?
>
> Not in that case. I think the German submarine designers were just
> a little too radical. Not only did they introduce completely new
> designs but they also introduced new production techniques
> with hull sections being manufactured in factories and assembled at the
> yard. The quality control problems and extended training required
> for these boats were what delayed the program
>
> Of course the allied bombing campaign was one of the major
> drivers behind the requirement to disperse pproduction.
>
> Keith
Gee, it's so hard to spell the word prefabrication, isn't it?
Also, the Germans had the Types XXI and XXIII in production by wars
end with four Type XXVIs laid down. New torpedos too- both wire-guided
and hydrogen peroxide types plus the Prufstand XII towed V-2
containers were almost completed (out of 3 at Stettin, 1 was completed
with the other two 65% complete).
Attacks were planned on the US eastern seaboard with the rockets.
Although bombing led to prefabrication, the early models of the Type
XXIs had many bugs due to the assembly work being rushed. Even so,
several of the electroboats could have taken out RN ships and made
mock attacks undetected before surrendering- they were ordered not to
engage during trials.Postwar, the Allies all grabbed as many
salvagable Type XXIs as possible and were used in testing for the US,
British, French, and Soviet navies. They found the German
technological innovations fascinating and as soon as W. Germany was
allowed a navy again, a Type XXI was used for training - the U-Wilhelm
Bauer.
I strongly reccommend the book, 'Anatomy of the Ship, The Type XXI U-
boat" by Fritz Koehl and Eberhard Roessler, Naval Institute Press.
Rob
p.s. Although the USAAF and RAF hit the U-boat yards hard, they were
still intact at the end of the war with hundreds of U-boats under
construction. The sub pens largely untouched.
ske...@tritel.net
Nobody. Are you the monitor? If so you're failing in
your job. Still haven't seen anything about "Watson
Whizzers" though.
Dan
<snip>
>
> p.s. Although the USAAF and RAF hit the U-boat yards hard, they were
> still intact at the end of the war with hundreds of U-boats under
> construction. The sub pens largely untouched.
What a waste of steel. Assuming you are correct for a change about the
quantity of hulls under construction there simply wasn't the fuel to
employ them had they been finished.
Gordon
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:52:24 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ><skee...@tritel.net> wrote in message
> >news:qtvr045cbo5c4550h...@4ax.com...
>
> >> So far after 59 plus responses to this subject
> >> "Watson's Whizzers" there hasn't been anything about
> >> them or their Me 262s. Just arguments about who flew
> >> the most aircraft. Argument for the sake of argument.
> >> If you want to argue start a new headed, appropiately
> >> titled, and have at it.
>
> >Who died and made you moderator ?
>
> >Keith
>
> Nobody. Are you the monitor? If so you're failing in
> your job. Still haven't seen anything about "Watson
> Whizzers" though.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's called thread drift and I am reasonably certain its happened
before, without causing too much calamity.
Rob Arndt
> On Apr 23, 10:33�am, skee...@tritel.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:52:24 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>
> > <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > ><skee...@tritel.net> wrote in message
> > >news:qtvr045cbo5c4550h...@4ax.com...
>
> > >> So far after 59 plus responses to this subject
> > >> "Watson's Whizzers" there hasn't been anything about
> > >> them or their Me 262s. Just arguments about who flew
> > >> the most aircraft. Argument for the sake of argument.
> > >> If you want to argue start a new headed, appropiately
> > >> titled, and have at it.
>
> > >Who died and made you moderator ?
>
> > >Keith
>
> > Nobody. Are you the monitor? If so you're failing in
> > your job. Still haven't seen anything about "Watson
> > Whizzers" though.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It's called thread drift and I am reasonably certain its happened
>
> - Show quoted text -
In fact, it happens more often than not at RAM ;)
Rob
eyeball
> Whizzers" though.
yet?
http://www.stormbirds.com/squadron/index.htm
Keith Willshaw
"Rob Arndt" <teut...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b12e74a5-fb7d-4930...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 22, 11:58?pm, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.227826c7...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>
> > In article <fuk29n$dn6$1$8300d...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > keithnos...@demon.co.uk says...
>
> > I've not looked at submarine development much but could this be the same
> > reason some promising technology wasn't ready for sea by wars end ?
>
>> Not in that case. I think the German submarine designers were just
>> a little too radical. Not only did they introduce completely new
>> designs but they also introduced new production techniques
>> with hull sections being manufactured in factories and assembled at the
>> yard. The quality control problems and extended training required
>> for these boats were what delayed the program
>>
>> Of course the allied bombing campaign was one of the major
>> drivers behind the requirement to disperse pproduction.
>>
>> Keith
> Gee, it's so hard to spell the word prefabrication, isn't it?
No but its hard to do right as the Kriegsmarine found
to its cost. Of course using slave labour doesnt help.
> Also, the Germans had the Types XXI and XXIII in production by wars
> end with four Type XXVIs laid down. New torpedos too- both wire-guided
> and hydrogen peroxide types
Indeed but the record of the program was abysmal
Type XXI Type XXIII
Planned for delivery by 1/05/45 381 95
Not produced because of the internal organization defects 202 13
Not produced because of Allied bombing on shipyards 60 19
Commissioned 119 61
Destroyed after commission
(trials, training, transit) 20 2
Training, fitting-out or on trials 86 38
Almost ready for combat 12 15
Fully ready for combat 1 6
>plus the Prufstand XII towed V-2
> containers were almost completed (out of 3 at Stettin, 1 was completed
> with the other two 65% complete).
Just in time to be captured by the Red Army on the 26 April 1945
> Attacks were planned on the US eastern seaboard with the rockets.
Lots of luck trying to launch rockets at the US eastern seaboard in 1945
I doubt any U-boat that tried would have survived
> Although bombing led to prefabrication, the early models of the Type
> XXIs had many bugs due to the assembly work being rushed. Even so,
> several of the electroboats could have taken out RN ships and made
> mock attacks undetected before surrendering- they were ordered not to
> engage during trials.
So several means one does it. The simple reality is that the first type XX1
patrol started on the 28th April 1945 when the Red Army had already
surrounded Berlin and Hamburg was under siege by the British, it surrendered
the next day
On the other hand the allies sank no less than 20 type XXI's while
still on trials in the Baltic !
> p.s. Although the USAAF and RAF hit the U-boat yards hard, they were
> still intact at the end of the war with hundreds of U-boats under
> construction. The sub pens largely untouched.
Hardly intact old boy, the Deutsche Werke yard in Kiel was very heavily
damaged.
The U-boat pens were mostly in Allied hands - though 617 squadron poked
holes
in the roof of some of them. The reality is however that the allied bombing
campaign
against the German transport infrastructure effectively prevented the
shipping
of components and reduced U-Boat production to a trickle.
List of U-boat pens seriously damaged in 1944/5
Brest - August 1944
Bergen - Jan 1945
Ijmuiden - Feb 1945
Bremen - March 1945
Keith
Keith Willshaw
<ske...@tritel.net> wrote in message
news:cjlu04t63g2ldr940...@4ax.com...
Then post something or can it
Keith
Gordon
Nice to see that our website is still used as a reference!
v/r Gordon
Stormbirds.com/common/cadre.htm
Eunometic
> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>
>
> > In article <e45be3b0-b112-4c0c-b39c-feb9223e40f3
>
> >> Ar-234 Blitz
> >> Ba-349 Natter
> >> He-162 Volksjaeger
> >> He-178*
> >> He-280
> >> Ho-IX/Go-229
> >> Ju-248
> >> Ju-287*
> >> Me-163 Komet
> >> Me-262 Schwalbe
> >> Me-262C HS-1 and 2*
> >> Me-328
> >> Reichenburg R.I-IV
> >> WNF-342*
>
> > Looks like a collasal waste of resources for a country that couldn't
> > even keep provide enough tanks to fully equip her armies.
>
> It is typical of the disjointed fragmentary nature of Nazi war production.
More than half of those aircraft were testbeds or research aircraft
built to gather data, several of the others are derivatives of
production types that could be considered either development aircraft
for advancing that type or as pure testbeds. One can hardly use a
forward swept test bed (Ju 287) made out of the parts bin of scrapped
and crashed german and allied bombers an example of disjoint
production. Likewise with the tip jet helicopter test bed the WNF
346. Even the Ju 248/Me 263 was simply a stretched and modified Me
163.
They were not intended for production.
The allies had the luxury, perhaps it could be argued the neccesity,
of duplicated multiple types. This provided a safety backup in case
of technical failures or delays. Britan produced no less than 3
different 4 engined bombers and had an additional 2 flying prototypes
that never made it to production. There were pointless odd balls such
as the Warick. The unitied states had its failures such as the
XP-54, XP-55. XP56 and their 'hyper' engines.
The German researchers were trying to take advantage of the new jet
engines and the unique swept wing technology they were developing.
The problems they had related to barely sufficient thrust of the jet
engines to exploit the new know how and concerns over intake length or
intake losses. It was considered neccessary to minimise intake duct
lenghts, this tended to emphasise short flying wing or pod and boom
aircraft. They needed to keep wetted area low which also emphaised
those structures.
Most of the paper designs are eitherdesigne studies 'thought
experiments to understand how an optimal design might be achieved and
that evolved in several stages; thus each attempt might yield 5-7
paper designs of which two or three got to the wind tunnel model
stage. Likewise for proposals for a specification in which each
company might examing two or three possibilities. Since the allies
lacked any significant knowledge of swept wings (Robert Jones work of
1945 isn't really significant or deep enough for exploitation) or the
developing area rule they didn't have similar temptations. Indeed
several aircraft studies changed when the area rule was discovered.
http://www.luft46.com/fw/fw1000a.html (necking down of fueselage to
conform to an area rule)
http://www.luft46.com/heinkel/he1073ii.html (staggering of engines to
conform to area rule)
http://www.luft46.com/mess/mep1112.html (boundary layer suction using
a 200hp compressor instead of boundary layer splitters to maintain
area rule by reducing intakes)
Not heeding these concerns lead to pointlessly pedestrian aircraft
like the XP-59 Airocomet.
> The whole ethos of the system was to pit opposing interest groups
> against each other in pseudo Darwinian struggle for the 'survival of
> the fittest'. The result was half a dozen unfinished projects instead
> of 1 or 2 actual aircraft.
I won't comment on the Darwining interests groups statement etc but I
can't see the multiple types.
There were two day fighters, the Me 109 and the Fw 190, the latter
might have benefited from earlier priority in liquid cooled engines.
It might have been wiser to also allow the He 112 series to develop;
it seemed to match the Hurricane in speed on only a 700hp Jumo 210
engine and was more manouverable than the 109.
There was only one 4 engined bomber: the He 177 and it would have been
a far better aircraft if the relatively mild modification of
distributing the 4 DB 605 engines evenly over the fueselage was made
yet that was resisted. When upgraded with the larger DB603 engines
and with incorporation of pressurised fueselages already tested on the
earlier He 177 prototypes a bomber with the range, speed and ceiling
characteristics of the B-29 emerged.
The He 111 production was reduced, the Ju 88 and its variants had to
carry most of the bomb load while the Do 217 was produced in small
numbers.
Overall I see the allies producing 3-5 of every type with several
prototypes from competing firms that never achieved production"
Eg
B25, B26
B24, B17
B-29 superfortress, B-32 dominator
Lancaster, Halifax, Sterling later Shakelton
Warwick, Wellington
P-47, P-51, P-40,
Mosquito, Beaufighter and P-38
Spitfire, Hurricane, MB5 series,
>
> The same pattern was seen in the German atomic program. While
> Britain and the US combined their national programs Germany
> had at least 3 competing groups ensuring that none of them
> would have any chance of success.
There was however a cooperation between the groups; a centralised
program, run by a General Groves equivalent, dedicated to building a
bomb as fast as possible was never assembled and it remained a
research programm.
-
Dan
<snip>
>
> Overall I see the allies producing 3-5 of every type with several
> prototypes from competing firms that never achieved production"
> Eg
> B25, B26
> B24, B17
> B-29 superfortress, B-32 dominator
> Lancaster, Halifax, Sterling later Shakelton
> Warwick, Wellington
> P-47, P-51, P-40,
> Mosquito, Beaufighter and P-38
> Spitfire, Hurricane, MB5 series,
>
>
the continuation of offensive weaponry. The Nazis never had the economy
to develop parallel systems. The Nazis also spent much of the war, 1942
- 1945, on the defensive which meant they had to change design criteria.
The most significant difference was the U.S. had not been touched
directly by the Nazis and didn't have to keep rebuilding factories. Once
the Soviets set up their factories beyond the reach of the Nazis they
could mass produce.
The Nazis would have been better off building and improving on a few
proven designs as opposed to going off on tangents. Once they decided to
build underground facilities they could produce all they wanted which
brings us to training the operators.
One of the Nazi's greatest strategic blunders was to not rotate front
line fighter pilots into instructor slots to train new pilots with the
latest tactics. The net result was sending marginally trained pilots to
their deaths with no gain.
Of course they couldn't have won the war anyway. Once the war was
fought on and over their own territory all they could do was take
losses. In the end they had large numbers of aircraft in underground
facilities, but no fuel and no qualified pilots.
Keith Willshaw
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:9156f87b-a1a3-4c13...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Far less than half, the HE-176 and He-178 certainly fall into that category
and were low cost projects early in the war, the WNF-342 was also
basically a research project. The rest were intended for production as
service aircraft
> several of the others are derivatives of
> production types that could be considered either development aircraft
> for advancing that type or as pure testbeds. One can hardly use a
> forward swept test bed (Ju 287) made out of the parts bin of scrapped
> and crashed german and allied bombers an example of disjoint
> production. Likewise with the tip jet helicopter test bed the WNF
> 346. Even the Ju 248/Me 263 was simply a stretched and modified Me
>163.
> The allies had the luxury, perhaps it could be argued the neccesity,
> of duplicated multiple types. This provided a safety backup in case
> of technical failures or delays. Britan produced no less than 3
> different 4 engined bombers and had an additional 2 flying prototypes
> that never made it to production.
The British heavies were designed to Air Ministry Specification P.13/36
issued in 1936 - long before the war started
> There were pointless odd balls such
> as the Warick. The unitied states had its failures such as the
> XP-54, XP-55. XP56 and their 'hyper' engines.
The Warwick was designed as a twin to meet specification
B.l/35 issued in mid-1935
> The German researchers were trying to take advantage of the new jet
> engines and the unique swept wing technology they were developing.
Indeed but they seem to have split scarce resources in doing so
> The problems they had related to barely sufficient thrust of the jet
> engines to exploit the new know how and concerns over intake length or
> intake losses. It was considered neccessary to minimise intake duct
> lenghts, this tended to emphasise short flying wing or pod and boom
> aircraft. They needed to keep wetted area low which also emphaised
> those structures.
True but irrelevant
> Most of the paper designs are eitherdesigne studies
We arent discussing paper studies
<snip>
> I won't comment on the Darwining interests groups statement etc but I
> can't see the multiple types.
> There were two day fighters, the Me 109 and the Fw 190,
Well no, apart from the Me-110 there was the Heinkel 100 , allowed
to get into pre-production before cancellation, the He-112 of
which 100 or so were produced, the me-210 and Me-410
The FW-187 also got to pre-production status and the we have
the Dornier 335.
> the latter
> might have benefited from earlier priority in liquid cooled engines.
Well hardly given that the earliest examples used radial air cooled
engines
> It might have been wiser to also allow the He 112 series to develop;
> it seemed to match the Hurricane in speed on only a 700hp Jumo 210
> engine and was more manouverable than the 109.
> There was only one 4 engined bomber: the He 177
Apart from the Ju-290, 390 and Ju-488 you mean
> and it would have been
> a far better aircraft if the relatively mild modification of
> distributing the 4 DB 605 engines evenly over the fueselage was made
> yet that was resisted. When upgraded with the larger DB603 engines
> and with incorporation of pressurised fueselages already tested on the
> earlier He 177 prototypes a bomber with the range, speed and ceiling
> characteristics of the B-29 emerged.
We've been through this before. The He-177 had nothing like the
range or bomb cpacity of the B-29 and the changes you advocate
are not minor.
Keith
The He 111 production was reduced, the Ju 88 and its variants had to
carry most of the bomb load while the Do 217 was produced in small
numbers.
> Overall I see the allies producing 3-5 of every type with several
> prototypes from competing firms that never achieved production"
The allies werent being squeezed between the Red Army and
Western Allies at the time.
>
>> The same pattern was seen in the German atomic program. While
>> Britain and the US combined their national programs Germany
>> had at least 3 competing groups ensuring that none of them
>> would have any chance of success.
> There was however a cooperation between the groups
More like a rivalry, the first time they freely exchanged information
was in British captivity at Farm Hall
Keith
Gordon
> Eunometic wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Overall I see the allies producing 3-5 of every type with several
> > prototypes from competing firms that never achieved production"
> > Eg
> > B25, B26
> > B24, B17
> > B-29 superfortress, B-32 dominator
> > Lancaster, Halifax, Sterling later Shakelton
> > Warwick, Wellington
> > P-47, P-51, P-40,
> > Mosquito, Beaufighter and P-38
> > Spitfire, Hurricane, MB5 series,
>
> To be fair the western allies had the advantages of economics and
> the continuation of offensive weaponry. The Nazis never had the economy
> to develop parallel systems. The Nazis also spent much of the war, 1942
> - 1945, on the defensive which meant they had to change design criteria.
> The most significant difference was the U.S. had not been touched
> directly by the Nazis and didn't have to keep rebuilding factories. Once
> the Soviets set up their factories beyond the reach of the Nazis they
> could mass produce.
Somewhere, and I am fairly certain quite hot, Curtis LeMay is
smiling. If you can call that a smile. Always looked like a fist
with eyes to me.
Actually, I disagree with your point, Dan. The largest issue was not
war production - it was energy production. We strangled the Nazi war
machine far beyond the direct pounding we laid upon it. Goering stood
at the side of an enormous crater from an Allied raid and said with a
sigh, "This war is the enternal struggle of shovel against bomb."
We'd blow it up, they rebuild it. War production continued to rise
right into 1945 but the new aircraft, ships, submarines, and every
other type of transport sat idle in the end with empty tanks. That
was the key strategy at work - let'm waste their effort gathering raw
materials, refining, milling, and assembling vast numbers of tanks and
aircraft at a cost of millions of Marks and man-hours, all the while
starving the beast with concentrated attacks on every cracking plant,
refinery, pipeline, and pumping station. In the end, it obviously
worked.
We've just hit $4.19 for 87 octane with no end in sight. I feel a bit
like we are getting strangled, albeit in a much smaller scale.
> The Nazis would have been better off building and improving on a few
> proven designs as opposed to going off on tangents. Once they decided to
> build underground facilities they could produce all they wanted which
> brings us to training the operators.
In the end, they did. Strange that it was not until Allied soldiers
were nearly on German soil that their leadership assembled the
Jagerstab, a combination staff of military officers and weapons
manufacturers that consolidated war production and objectively culled
old designs and limited production orders to a very few types. As the
end ground closer, it was slashed further, and all the propeller types
were cut - even the Bf 109K-4 and Do 334s were cut, replaced by
futuristic and ultimately unbuilt warplanes. The final construction
orders show only one prop aircraft, the Ju 388 in several variants.
Messerschmitt had all of his orders cut in March 1945, and basically
ignored the fact he was not going to get paid to continue development
of the 262, or anything else. The April 1945 Jagerstab production
list doesn't even have the Me 262 B-2a or HG III authorized. Still,
Willi didn't know what else to do but continue to crank out fodder for
our overwhelming mass of fighters. Another example of sucking up
resources and manpower that could otherwise combat our ground
forces.
> One of the Nazi's greatest strategic blunders was to not rotate front
> line fighter pilots into instructor slots to train new pilots with the
> latest tactics. The net result was sending marginally trained pilots to
> their deaths with no gain.
They did try it, somewhat. It wasn't nearly as concentrated an effort
as ours, but they did it. "Needs of the war" meant that rotation out
of combat would not be permanent and it was common for airmen to serve
in front line service over and over during the war years, until killed
or so viciously wounded as to make themselves incapable of recovering
their flight status - otherwise, it was a long day with a pike in yer
hand, waiting for the grinder or the chop. Also, front line squadrons
were all part of the training pipeline, with flight leaders under
orders to train their Nuchwachs in preparation for combat. Obviously,
that completely broke down in the late part of 1944 when the fighter
force's combat leaders were all but wiped out, but advanced schools,
staffed with expert pilots, actively trained thousands of front line
airmen while often being impressed into combat roles themselves, right
to the last month. Heinz Bar is perhaps the most famous of the
Experts that came off combat duty at the top of his game and finished
the war in the multiple roles of school master, test pilot, and
interceptor pilot in pitched air battles where he was out-numbered by
up to a thousand to one. Horst Petzschler, the famous Sergeant ace,
was also pulled off the front lines to pass along the secrets of his
successes - there are of course lots of other examples but they
certainly made a lot less use of this experience transfer than we
did.
> Of course they couldn't have won the war anyway.
That is the ultimate truth, given the size of their country and
available resources. They cut their own throats trying to sustain a
war effort on so many fronts. Thank God.
> Once the war was
> fought on and over their own territory all they could do was take
> losses. In the end they had large numbers of aircraft in underground
> facilities, but no fuel and no qualified pilots.
Aah. I see you caught it.
<kicks dirt, walks away
v/r
Gordon
Eunometic
> Eunometic wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Overall I see the allies producing 3-5 of every type with several
> > prototypes from competing firms that never achieved production"
> > Eg
> > B25, B26
> > B24, B17
> > B-29 superfortress, B-32 dominator
> > Lancaster, Halifax, Sterling later Shakelton
> > Warwick, Wellington
> > P-47, P-51, P-40,
> > Mosquito, Beaufighter and P-38
> > Spitfire, Hurricane, MB5 series,
>
> To be fair the western allies had the advantages of economics and
> the continuation of offensive weaponry. The Nazis never had the economy
> to develop parallel systems. The Nazis also spent much of the war, 1942
> - 1945, on the defensive which meant they had to change design criteria.
> The most significant difference was the U.S. had not been touched
> directly by the Nazis and didn't have to keep rebuilding factories. Once
> the Soviets set up their factories beyond the reach of the Nazis they
> could mass produce.
Here we have the lack of a sufficient long range bomber force able to
penetrate beyond the Urals and attack the factories there; the lack
of resources put into developing a 4 engined or long range bomber
force and the system tolerating the He 177 program to perform so
poorly, engine reliability wise, it could be regarded as a failure.
This is part doctrinal (the Luftwaffe was tactivcal in its outlook),
part lack of resources put into funding the sizable force and
substantially mismanagement as even if there were insufficient
resources to grow the long range bomber force it could have been made
larger and more effective by simply distributing the 4 DB605 engines
of the He 177 evenly just as the British had so obviously done with
the Manchester to Lancaster.
Personal fiefdoms exist everywhere however they were drivers in the
Nazi economy and sometimes drove bad decisions. Walter Wever, the
proponent of strategic bombing was one of the few senior officers that
read Mein Kampf. Hence he actually perceived the needs for a long
range bomber to attack the Soviet Union beyond the Urals. He died in
a plane accident and with it the support became too weak). As a
result of the lack of proponents the affable WW1 pilot Ernst Udet
wouldn't sign of on the He 177 unless it was a dive bomber. The
requirements for torsional rigidity drove the coupled wing arrangement
and although the dive bombing requirement was dropped the legacy of
problems it left was left in place.
Goering was generally disliked because of his tendency to recriminate
someone for every problem. He was regarded as incompetent because of
his failure to understand how technology works; hence there is a lot
of chopping and changing, the expectation that technology can be
pulled out of a hat by the German experts. For instance when the
effect of tinfoil strips on radar was independently discovered in
Germany Goering put so much secrecy on it that no one developed
countermeasures. The Wurzlaus pulse Doppler system came out of
attempts at detecting low flying aircraft and weather radar research
and when it was finally implemented (only 1 month after th first use
of window) it wasn't well integrated with frequency changing methods.
This seems to have come out of the belief that wars would be short
affairs based upon military actions fought by soldiers with air
support. There were obviously those that disagreed with this but
they were not influential enough. Longer wars were not sustainable
for Germany and probably politically inconceivable so they weren't
prepared for.
>
> The Nazis would have been better off building and improving on a few
> proven designs as opposed to going off on tangents.
Here I have a problem: they did that to a fault with the Me 109
series. When the new engines came along in early 1944 this fighter
became superior in some areas but still barely competitive. The Me
309 was abandoned because it was no better just more fancy, it
probably could have been retrieved, but the resources went to existing
types.
The designers of the Ju 288 and its engine the Jumo 222 actually
thought that it would decide the war.
Post war the attitude of many German engineers and scientists is that
we were defeated but not technically, blaming nazi mismanagement and
personal fiefdoms. Stalin used to insult them (simply to flame them
into stronger efforts)
> Once they decided to
> build underground facilities they could produce all they wanted which
> brings us to training the operators.
>
> One of the Nazi's greatest strategic blunders was to not rotate front
> line fighter pilots into instructor slots to train new pilots with the
> latest tactics. The net result was sending marginally trained pilots to
> their deaths with no gain.
Part of the problem was the loss of a large numbers of their flight
instructors who had been used to fly vulnerable transports such as the
Ju 52. The plane was slow and easy to intercept and of course they
were used in airborne assault or emergency resupplies and many were
destroyed on the ground an in drops.
The first big losses came with the successful but costly and unpopular
(in Germany) invasion of Holland. The success of Dutch FLAK may just
have decided the B o B as many pilots died during the aerial assualt
on Holland.
The second set of losses came with the succesfull Demyansk resupply
opperation which cost 260 Ju 52's plus countless other transports.
The third set came with the failed stalingrad airlift:
http://users.pandora.be/stalingrad/germanpart/airliftdec.html
http://users.pandora.be/stalingrad/germanpart/airstat.html
The fourth with Tunisia
Probably thousands of pilots were killed or injured, many of them
instructors.
The other problem is this; can the Luftwaffe afford to pull its
pilots into instructional squadrons?
>
> Of course they couldn't have won the war anyway. Once the war was
> fought on and over their own territory all they could do was take
> losses.
Indeed: 80% of bombs droped on Germany came after Jan 1944, 66%
after July 1944. It's only then, after the Normandy landings that
bombardment starts effecting production seriously. The loss of
French steal mines in Sept 1944 was probably just as devastating.
> In the end they had large numbers of aircraft in underground
> facilities, but no fuel and no qualified pilots.
With a little luck, better management they could have called it a draw
I suspect; there is no hope of ever invading the US but consider this:
1 The enigma code system remains secure by the simple procedure of
sending out a complete set of new rotors every 6-12 months and
withdrawing old ones instead of issuing one at a time and leaving old
(compromised ones) in place. Recreating one rotor at a time, when the
others were known, was achievable within a few days by the code making
machinery of the day.
(this is considered a big 2 year advantage in shortening the war by
the allies)
Amalgamation of the own code breaking efforts of the German navy, air
force, army etc which were segregated (for historical reasons they had
to be due to the treaty of Versailles making German code breaking
illegal) would have promoted more secure codes.
2 Drop tanks are available for the Me 109E-4 at the beginning of the
BoB instead of at the end with the Me 109E-7.
3 Don't invade Holland, it'll either stay neutral or even help the
German effort if the British become heavy handed with Dutch sea
commerce. Those British concentration camps in Sth Africa produced
images of typhus ravaged victims reminiscent of Bergen-Belsen. Not as
big a scale and without the pointless violence but 30,000 victims is
enough for many Dutch to be distrusting of the British and pro German.
4 A more consistent policy of R+D technical development in the radar
field. Disbanding the microwave effort, and then rejecting an attempt
to reopen it only a month before the H2S Magnetron was discovered cost
the German aid defenses and submarine force dearly.
There were plenty of those promoting microwave research including
General Marteni and professor Essau.
I general during major offenses 'fuhrer befehle' around the invasion
of France and Operation Barbarossa suspended or canceled too much long
term research. This completely disrupted development.
Of course once the allied bomb is available the Nazi's loose again.
Having said that all of the above easily prolong the war 2-3 years and
liberate enough resources that a German bomb might be funded and
therefor ready in time to neutralize allied threats to use it.
The allies to relied on luck at times: wasn't the P-51 luck with its
British specification, laminar flow wings and Merlin engine. The
USAAF generals were too welded to thinking that the bomber would
always get through to have prepared full range escorts. Extended
range P-47N wet wings could do the job of the P-51 but only after
major changes.
Eunometic
> "Eunometic" <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
The Ju 287 was a test bed. Admittedly serious design work did come
out of this. It utilized a He 177 fuselage and B-24 undercarriage.
Its purpose was to explore the aeroeleastic properties of the swept
forward wing and to avoid premature tip stall caused by spanwise flow
in backward swept wings. To ensure stiffness the wing was an
unpenetrated wing box (no engine or undercarriage penetrations).
While the swept forward wing was not influential one item of
technology that did come out of this aircraft was the suspended poded
engines. Apart from removing the need to bury the engines or disrupt
the skin structure the pods served as pendulous counterweights to
reduced the resonant frequency of the wing to below that which might
be excited by aerodyanmic forces. To this end the design was
influential in that the idea seems to have been taken up by Boeing for
the B-47. (George Schairer, chief designer at Boeing was enthusiastic
about absorbing the experimental know how of the German researchers)
The Me 328 maned pulse jet or single use fighter bombers was
abandoned.
The Reichenburg R.I-IV was a Fi 103 with a cockpit. A modified Me
328 was an alternative to this semi-suicide machine.
The Me 163 was canceled but a relatively minor modification known as
the Ju 248 or Me 263 was almost completed to overcome the
range difficulties and lack of pressurization. This series of rocket
aircraft is to overcome a serious problem: intercepting photo recons
and
penetrating the escorting fighter screen of Bombers.
The Ba 246 was a solution to a problem of vertical takeoff and landing
(since airfields were vulnerable) and, penetrating the escorting
fighter screen. So long as it worked reliably it just might have been
effective and been the answer to a desperate problem.
The Ar 234 was simply a good and valuable aircraft.
The Me 262 was also a valuable aircraft had the potential to be a
versatile recon, fighter and night fighter. Since its Mach limit was
about M0.84 which is about 570mph (something it reached in tests with
the new more powerful Jumo 004D replacing the usual Jumo 004B). It
clearly needed more aerodynamic refinements.
The He 280 was not proceeded with, so here we have a case of the
Germans not splitting resources.
The Ho 229 was of course preceded with; though its hard to imagine
that the Horton brothers and their wooden prototypes wasted resources
or design effort and that an old wooden aircraft was pretty sensible
considering Germanies reource problems.
That leaves the He 162 'peoples fighter'. A last ditch effort to
mass produce 4000 aircraft a month of an aircraft that a teenager
could fly fast enough to be safe from allied escorts. It almost
worked though it was too late and the handling was not much good.
Producing more Me 109K, Fw 190A or piston types is not going to change
anything. What was needed was masses of superior weapons hence the
struggle to find them.
>
> > several of the others are derivatives of
> > production types that could be considered either development aircraft
> > for advancing that type or as pure testbeds. One can hardly use a
> > forward swept test bed (Ju 287) made out of the parts bin of scrapped
> > and crashed german and allied bombers an example of disjoint
> > production. Likewise with the tip jet helicopter test bed the WNF
> > 346. Even the Ju 248/Me 263 was simply a stretched and modified Me
> >163.
> > The allies had the luxury, perhaps it could be argued the neccesity,
> > of duplicated multiple types. This provided a safety backup in case
> > of technical failures or delays. Britan produced no less than 3
> > different 4 engined bombers and had an additional 2 flying prototypes
> > that never made it to production.
>
> The British heavies were designed to Air Ministry Specification P.13/36
> issued in 1936 - long before the war started
This covers the Sterling or the perhaps Halifax, Warwick and
Manchester ALL of which were originally two engined designs.
Although only the Warwick stayed so. All of these led to prototypes
and mass production,
At the time the Luftwaffe was mucking around with the Dornier Do 19
and junker Ju 89 4 engine bomber. Both were abandoned.
However the Ju 89 bomber evolved into the Ju 90 airliner/transport
which became the Ju 290A1 transport which evolved to the Ju 290A7
maritime reconnaissance aircraft and was to become the Ju 290B 4
engined bomber. Production run of the entire Ju 290A series was
perhaps 60 aircraft.
It's fairly obvious that the Ju 89/Ju 90/ju 290 series could have
evolved to an effective 4 engine bomber, yet resources were scare and
a strategic bombing doctrine didn't exist in the otherwise doctrinally
sophisticated Luftwaffe.
The reason seems to be a lack of design and development resources.
So whereas the RAF ends up with 4 heavy bombers (including the
Warwick) the Luftwaffe ends up only with the He 177. The Ju 290 was
simply a transport.
>
> > There were pointless odd balls such
> > as the Warick. The unitied states had its failures such as the
> > XP-54, XP-55. XP56 and their 'hyper' engines.
>
> The Warwick was designed as a twin to meet specification
> B.l/35 issued in mid-1935
The same as the Manchester?
>
> > The German researchers were trying to take advantage of the new jet
> > engines and the unique swept wing technology they were developing.
>
> Indeed but they seem to have split scarce resources in doing so
Perhaps but in most cases they wasted little manpower except that of
the design department of the various aero companies. Even then there
are cases of design work being transfered.
The question is could the Nazi regime have turned this research effort
into qualitatively better mass produced piston engined fighters?
All of the major companies had formidable design capabilities though
most of them were building other companies aircraft.
So possibly a super fighter, better than both the Fw 190 and Me 109
could have been made if the research institutions had of ignored their
swept wing research and focused on perhaps some of the the handling
issues of the Me 109 (roll rate) could have been resolved or the fw
190 (sudden stall) but would that have interfered with production?
>
> > The problems they had related to barely sufficient thrust of the jet
> > engines to exploit the new know how and concerns over intake length or
> > intake losses. It was considered necessary to minimize intake duct
> > lengths, this tended to emphasise short flying wing or pod and boom
> > aircraft. They needed to keep wetted area low which also emphaised
> > those structures.
>
> True but irrelevant
Why? Jets looked like they were either essential or the only hope.
Making them work was very necessary.
>
> > Most of the paper designs are either designe studies
>
> We arent discussing paper studies
In terms of actual types produced I can't see that the Luftwaffe was
any worse than any other air force. In fact they seemed to
rationalize types tom much.
In terms of prototypes, I rather suspect that if we tally the German
prototypes with the allied ones that they allies would have more.
They just weren't as spectacular. The entire Martin Baker effort MB1-
MB5 produced nothing accept a fine handling aircraft to late to see
the war.
>
> <snip>
>
> > I won't comment on the Darwining interests groups statement etc but I
> > can't see the multiple types.
> > There were two day fighters, the Me 109 and the Fw 190,
>
> Well no, apart from the Me-110 there was the Heinkel 100 , allowed
> to get into pre-production before cancellation, the He-112 of
> which 100 or so were produced, the me-210 and Me-410
> The FW-187 also got to pre-production status and the we have
> the Dornier 335.
The He 100 was a private venture, the He 112 was a fly of against the
Me 109 and produced in very small numbers as an insurgence against Me
109 failure. Some rate it much higher than the Me 109.
Again the RAF entered the war with two/three single engined types: the
Hurrican and Spitfire as well as the Defiant. the Luftwaffe had only
the Me 109 and I suppose you could count the Me 110.
What I think we have is the huge publicity of the German jets, test
beds and research projects grabbing the attention away from a large
number of allied odditities.
>
> > the latter
> > might have benefited from earlier priority in liquid cooled engines.
>
> Well hardly given that the earliest examples used radial air cooled
> engines
There was always an intention to produce a liquid cooled Fw 190.
>
> > It might have been wiser to also allow the He 112 series to develop;
> > it seemed to match the Hurricane in speed on only a 700hp Jumo 210
> > engine and was more maneuverable than the 109.
> > There was only one 4 engined bomber: the He 177
>
> Apart from the Ju-290, 390 and Ju-488 you mean
I've explained the Ju 89, ju 90, ju 290 development from common roots,
the Ju 390 just added inward wing plugs.
The Ju 488 was made out of Ju 388 parts (cockpit, outer wings) and Ju
288 parts (tail) and a crash program to produce a survivable piston
engined aircraft when the Jumo 222 started looking like its problems
were being solved.
>
> > and it would have been
> > a far better aircraft if the relatively mild modification of
> > distributing the 4 DB 605 engines evenly over the fueselage was made
> > yet that was resisted. When upgraded with the larger DB603 engines
> > and with incorporation of pressurised fueselages already tested on the
> > earlier He 177 prototypes a bomber with the range, speed and ceiling
> > characteristics of the B-29 emerged.
>
> We've been through this before. The He-177 had nothing like the
> range or bomb capacity of the B-29 and the changes you advocate
> are not minor.
The He 277 however did. The He 277 was based around the He 177
(several of the He 177 prototypes were used as test beds for
pressurization) had a much longer wing span and more fuel capacity
and incorporated 4 x DB603 (or Jumo 213) engines that were 44 litre
displacement much larger and more powerful than the 4 x DB605 34L
engines of the He 177. Just as the Ju 88A4 went from being a 295mph
aircraft to a 388mph with a switch from Jumo 211 to jumo 213 aircraft
so the He 277 became a 358mph aircraft with a proportionately similar
power boost.
The Max takeoff weight of : 44,500 kg (98,105 lb) is just about bang
on average between that of a B-29 and a B-17.
The He 177 already used two remote controlled guns (dorsal and forward
ventral) and the He 277 just went all out for 8 since it was
pressurized.
If anything its bomb bay didn't increase in size as it was still based
around the He 177, however when working at maxim range the aircraft
clearly wasn't going to need a big bomb bay.
>
> Keith
> The He 111 production was reduced, the Ju 88 and its variants had to
> carry most of the bomb load while the Do 217 was produced in small
> numbers.
>
> > Overall I see the allies producing 3-5 of every type with several
> > prototypes from competing firms that never achieved production"
>
> The allies werent being squeezed between the Red Army and
> Western Allies at the time.
Indeed, but I fail to see the diversity of types that supposedly
sapped German production.
I see two failed bomber programs (He 177 and Ju 288), one of which
could easily have been saved and a failure to keep up with engine
developments between 1943 and 1944.
Keith Willshaw
> On Apr 25, 4:25 pm, Dan <B2...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Eunometic wrote:
>
> Here we have the lack of a sufficient long range bomber force able to
> penetrate beyond the Urals and attack the factories there; the lack
> of resources put into developing a 4 engined or long range bomber
> force and the system tolerating the He 177 program to perform so
> poorly, engine reliability wise, it could be regarded as a failure.
Germany simply lacked the necessary resources to build and
operate a large strategic bomber force.
They were overstretched on the manpower front anyway and
could never have matched the manpower commitment required
of the RAF and USAAF. A single squadron of heavy bombers
can involve the employment of 600-1000 people when you
include the maintenance and support personnel
They had no hope in hell of having enough fuel to support
an extended bombing campaign on the scale needed.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
An interesting priority for a nation being invaded
>
> The Me 328 maned pulse jet or single use fighter bombers was
> abandoned.
>
Yep after consuming scarce resources
> The Reichenburg R.I-IV was a Fi 103 with a cockpit. A modified Me
> 328 was an alternative to this semi-suicide machine.
>
> The Me 163 was canceled
A few weeks before the end of the war
> but a relatively minor modification known as
> the Ju 248 or Me 263 was almost completed to overcome the
> range difficulties and lack of pressurization.
Wrong, the changes werent minor and the delays involved in getting the
thing into production meant that it wasnt ready by the time the red army
overran the factory even though the prototype flew in August 1944
> This series of rocket
> aircraft is to overcome a serious problem: intercepting photo recons
> and
> penetrating the escorting fighter screen of Bombers.
>
And failed miserably
> The Ba 246 was a solution to a problem of vertical takeoff and landing
> (since airfields were vulnerable) and, penetrating the escorting
> fighter screen. So long as it worked reliably it just might have been
> effective and been the answer to a desperate problem.
>
The Ba-349 Natter t was a manned missile, the vertical 'landing' consisted
of the pilot bailing out , in practise it usually ended up as a hole in the
ground
> The Ar 234 was simply a good and valuable aircraft.
>
> The Me 262 was also a valuable aircraft had the potential to be a
> versatile recon, fighter and night fighter. Since its Mach limit was
> about M0.84 which is about 570mph (something it reached in tests with
> the new more powerful Jumo 004D replacing the usual Jumo 004B). It
> clearly needed more aerodynamic refinements.
>
These were indeed worthwhile projects
> The He 280 was not proceeded with, so here we have a case of the
> Germans not splitting resources.
>
Quite considerable resources were expended getting the design
into pre-production status
> The Ho 229 was of course preceded with; though its hard to imagine
> that the Horton brothers and their wooden prototypes wasted resources
> or design effort and that an old wooden aircraft was pretty sensible
> considering Germanies reource problems.
>
Except for the people, engines and fuel consumed
> That leaves the He 162 'peoples fighter'. A last ditch effort to
> mass produce 4000 aircraft a month of an aircraft that a teenager
> could fly fast enough to be safe from allied escorts. It almost
> worked though it was too late and the handling was not much good.
>
It was an aircraft nowhere near the quality needed that was a challenge
to experienced pilots. On one of its first demonstration flights the
aircraft started to disintegrate in mid air. It would have been far
better to concentrate on the Me-262
> Producing more Me 109K, Fw 190A or piston types is not going to change
> anything. What was needed was masses of superior weapons hence the
> struggle to find them.
>
And yet producing large numbers of piston types worked well
for the RAF, USAAF and Soviet Air Force. Ironically The German
emphasis on wunderwaffen put them at a serious disadvantage
when faced with more pragmatic enemies who deliberately
concentrated on producing more conventional types.
<rest of diatribe snipped - life is too short>
Keith
Dan
I'm sneaky that way :)
Eunometic
> On Apr 25, 1:25 am, Dan <B2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Eunometic wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> We'd blow it up, they rebuild it. War production continued to rise
> right into 1945 but the new aircraft, ships, submarines, and every
> other type of transport sat idle in the end with empty tanks. That
> was the key strategy at work - let'm waste their effort gathering raw
> materials, refining, milling, and assembling vast numbers of tanks and
> aircraft at a cost of millions of Marks and man-hours, all the while
> starving the beast with concentrated attacks on every cracking plant,
> refinery, pipeline, and pumping station. In the end, it obviously
> worked.
Speer didn't harden or go underground with the coal to oil facilities
on the premise that the war would be short.
I don't know if that were viable to shift that much underground but
they obviously didn't and they allies exploited it.
>
> We've just hit $4.19 for 87 octane with no end in sight. I feel a bit
> like we are getting strangled, albeit in a much smaller scale.
I wouldn't worry about that too much though don't expect the US to
remain quite such a superpower. Here are the current prices Europeans
are paying for gasoline. While a US motorist is paying US$4.19/US
gallon which is $1.10 Litre or Euro 0.70/Litre
http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/eupetrolprices/
Basically Europeans are paying twice as much for fuel as people in the
USA: about Euro 1.40Litre or US$8.05/US gallon.
(Excluding diesel)
So its survivable and people will pay.
As the US uses up its own final supplies of fuel, surely they will be
almost completely gone in the next 10 years, given the decline in
self sufficiency has been over 10% per decade over the last two
decades, and as Chinese demand ramps up people in the USA can expect
the same prices. Indeed, here in Australia we've been warned to
expect AUD$3.00/Litre should the price of a barrel of oil go up to
$100 barrel while our currency declines for some reason. In the USA
that would mean US$11.00/gallon.
Effectively prices will never go over that level: you can literally
synthesis gasoline out of air and water and electrical wind or solar
power for that price.
To a good extent its the fault of the US Government and US people to
have let their fuel consumption grow without some more significant
action to harbor and extend their domestic supplies.
It's not surprise that there are people in the USAF trying to build a
synthetic fuel (fischer-tropsch coal to oil) plant. Any serious
conflict would see the US run out of energy.
Austria Euro - - 1.169 1.143
Belgium Euro - - 1.440 1.151
Finland Euro - - 1.406 1.202
Germany Euro - - 1.368 1.257
Greece Euro - - 1.077 1.089
Netherlands Euro - - 1.535 1.223
Italy Euro - - 1.370 1.344
Luxembourg Euro - - 1.154 1.016
Spain Euro - - 1.083 1.039
France Euro - - 1.323 1.176
Ireland Euro - - 1.169 1.175
Portugal Euro - - 1.369 1.174
Slovenia Euro - - 1.022 1.030
Sweden Swedish Krona 12.49 12.64 1.345 1.361
Estonia Kroons 15.20 16.60 0.971 1.061
Latvia Lats 0.687 0.704 0.979 1.004
Lithuania Litas 3.53 3.60 1.022 1.043
Slovakia Koroan 38.94 40.85 1.183 1.241
Switzerland Swiss Franc 1.74 1.89 1.084 1.178
GB Sterling 1.039 1.091 1.388 1.457
USA US Dollars 0.7921 0.87 0.538 0.591
>
> > The Nazis would have been better off building and improving on a few
> > proven designs as opposed to going off on tangents. Once they decided to
> > build underground facilities they could produce all they wanted which
> > brings us to training the operators.
>
> Messerschmitt had all of his orders cut in March 1945, and basically
> ignored the fact he was not going to get paid to continue development
> of the 262, or anything else.
Well there might be a misunderstanding here.
http://www.cdvandt.org/ktb-chef-tlr.htm
http://www.cdvandt.org/ktb-tlr_part_8.htm
Suggests that Me 262 production is still be pushed in early April.
> The April 1945 Jagerstab production
> list doesn't even have the Me 262 B-2a or HG III authorized. Still,
> Willi didn't know what else to do but continue to crank out fodder for
> our overwhelming mass of fighters. Another example of sucking up
> resources and manpower that could otherwise combat our ground
> forces.
Quite possibly because Me 262 production is being shifted to SS
control not Jagerstab. Germany by this time was split in two and
Messerschmitts facilities were in the other half.
Gordon
> On Apr 25, 5:58 pm, Gordon <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote:> On Apr 25, 1:25 am, Dan <B2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Eunometic wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> "This war is the enternal struggle of shovel against bomb."
>
> > We'd blow it up, they rebuild it. War production continued to rise
> > right into 1945 but the new aircraft, ships, submarines, and every
> > other type of transport sat idle in the end with empty tanks. That
> > was the key strategy at work - let'm waste their effort gathering raw
> > materials, refining, milling, and assembling vast numbers of tanks and
> > aircraft at a cost of millions of Marks and man-hours, all the while
> > starving the beast with concentrated attacks on every cracking plant,
> > refinery, pipeline, and pumping station. In the end, it obviously
> > worked.
>
> Speer didn't harden or go underground with the coal to oil facilities
> on the premise that the war would be short.
>
> I don't know if that were viable to shift that much underground but
> they obviously didn't and they allies exploited it.
>
>
>
> > We've just hit $4.19 for 87 octane with no end in sight. I feel a bit
> > like we are getting strangled, albeit in a much smaller scale.
>
> I wouldn't worry about that too much though don't expect the US to
> remain quite such a superpower. Here are the current prices Europeans
> are paying for gasoline. While a US motorist is paying US$4.19/US
>
> Suggests that Me 262 production is still be pushed in early April.
A German researcher sent me a copy of the document that canceled the
standard 109 and 262 fighters as it was expected that the factories
would shortly be overrun in addition to not being able to transport
raw materials to the site. Kahla was a giant money pit and would have
been the biggest target in the diminutive Reich; other factories were
becoming untenable. The list of aircraft that remained on the "Build
List" was quite short.
These documents also discuss the 8-262 "Schlechtwetterjaeger", the
single-seat all-weather fighter, the first of its type in the world.
> > The April 1945 Jagerstab production
> > list doesn't even have the Me 262 B-2a or HG III authorized. Still,
> > Willi didn't know what else to do but continue to crank out fodder for
> > our overwhelming mass of fighters. Another example of sucking up
> > resources and manpower that could otherwise combat our ground
> > forces.
>
> Quite possibly because Me 262 production is being shifted to SS
> control not Jagerstab. Germany by this time was split in two and
> Messerschmitts facilities were in the other half.
That is really odd - the Jagerstab documents include a helpful drawing
of the types that would be concentrated upon and the 262 is not on it
at all, and the document makes it clear that work on all other types
was to be stopped to horde the few remaining resources as possible. I
can't imagine that with the advanced types pictured, including the
183, that the standard day fighter 262 would still continue to draw
off resources.