Secret Nazi substance Lixzyn-Apullen...
Kvargla
I'm doing a small research about Nazi treasure hunt. One of the famous
spots here is small village close to Prague, Czech Republic called
Hradistko. There are two hunters been operated in this area Jozef
Muzik and Helmut Gaensel. Second one mentioned on his site that SS
Pioneering troops used secret substance called Lixzyn-Apullen which
can produce high temperatures and therefore weld natural rocks and
concrete.
This not seems to be possible that way. Concrete been (and is) widely
used in military installations but it starts to decompose in high
temperatures.
My question is if anybody here heard such a term or anybody knows
place on Internet where I can find some information about SS
Pioneering troops and technologies they used. They probably produce
some kind of artificial stones used for masking of installations, but
from my point of view not by heating up concrete together with natural
rocks.
Marian
Lloyd Olson
news:f3c7364d-ab5f-4b50...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> My question is if anybody here heard such a term or anybody knows
> place on Internet where I can find some information about SS
> Pioneering troops and technologies they used. They probably produce
> some kind of artificial stones used for masking of installations, but
> from my point of view not by heating up concrete together with natural
> rocks.
>
> Marian
>
http://www.helmutgaensel.com/lokalita.htm LTG :)
Dr.Colo...@gmail.com
I think this falls into the same category as "Nazi" flying saucers,
Nazi death beams, and for good measure The Ark of the Covenant ;-0.
The German governemnt during the war had some great brainpower going
for them, but not that good, the allies beat them (and not just on
manufacturing muscle either). This really perpetuates the the "Nazi
as Supermen" myth as well. They were no different than the allies in
intellect although thier institutions, governemnt and infrastructure
in general produced a different cultural approach to various
technoligies they all had the same gray matter. A comparison might be
made between the US and (the then) Soviet Union in the early days of
the Space Race. Relying on heavier booster throw weight (much of it
initially derived from German research) their space vehicles varied in
design functional applications etc., yet did the same job, got humans
in space. They could afford heavier spacecraft than the US reliance
on less booster capacity and putting more "oomph" in a smaller
package. This produced not ony strikingly different designs but a
different cultural outlook on practical application of these
differences. I see the results of this as not fundamentally
different as to why people cling to the idea of a "Nazii
Supertechnogy" as opposed to just seeing as a different apporach to a
similar problem The Nazi's were not supermen, their technology
though different didn't "fly saucers" around ours and they put thier
liederhausen on one leg at a time also.........Doc
Tron
> Pioneering troops used secret substance called Lixzyn-Apullen which
> can produce high temperatures and therefore weld natural rocks and
> concrete.
I don't know the first thing about the chemistry of this, but ...
1) ... I believe that the second word could be "Ampullen",
a small (usually glass) container. The word is in plural,
the singular, IIRC, is "Ampulle", from latin "ampulla", "small glass
bottle".
(And I wouldn't be surprised if there are alternate spellings of "Lixzyn",
either.)
2) ... the guys in the sci.chem newsgroup might.
And if you get the chemistry right, perhaps you can find out more.
HTH,
Tron
Pavel Vozenilek
> I'm doing a small research about Nazi treasure hunt. One of the famous
> spots here is small village close to Prague, Czech Republic called
> Hradistko. There are two hunters been operated in this area Jozef
> Muzik and Helmut Gaensel. Second one mentioned on his site that SS
> Pioneering troops used secret substance called Lixzyn-Apullen which
> can produce high temperatures and therefore weld natural rocks and
> concrete.
>
These two men were, during the 1990s and the 2000s, searching for
an alleged Nazi treasure hidden near the Stechovice dam.
For many years they both regularly announced they are "very very close"
to a substantial discovery.
Both have websites (everything in the Czech language):
* http://www.josefmuzik.cz/
* http://www.helmutgaensel.com/
Claims of "secret substance" are quite likely yet another trick to attract
new sponsors (both are perenially short on money to continue the
exploration).
Nazis stored their archives in Stechovice and these were
secretly carried away in 1945 by the US military. Later the archives were
returned.
Legends about the treasures (including the Tsar's Amber Chamber)
has spread even into Czech popular culture. State institutions
had searched the place for several decades with no avail.
During WW2 Germans set up large number of underground factories,
dumps and shelters in Czech lands. Most of these were abandoned
and forgotten.
Recent Czech book about such objects is:
Ladislav Lahoda, _Tajnosti podzemi_ (Secrets of Underground), 2004.
/Pavel
Kvargla
> The SS is mentioned here, might be a good start for you.http://www.helmutgaensel.com/lokalita.htm LTG :)
That is the place from where I got that term. Helmut Gaensel is one of
the hunters who been on spot several times and declares he knows exact
location. He got also Dutch sponsors for digging. But nothing turned
out, so using this was one of his excuses that SS used substance to
masking hiding places. I don't believe that this is true. I just got
curious about that term and want to know if it was something or if it
is just hoax word produced by him to have good excuse why operation of
excavation is failing.
Kvargla
> 1) ... I believe that the second word could be "Ampullen",
> a small (usually glass) container. The word is in plural,
> the singular, IIRC, is "Ampulle", from latin "ampulla", "small glass
> bottle".
> (And I wouldn't be surprised if there are alternate spellings of "Lixzyn",
> either.)
Yep. It sounds that way. My native language is Slovak and we use same
term "ampula" for what you described. But if you are right here and
word is misspelled then ti will be Lixzyn ampoules? That didn't make
much more sense to the term. As I wrote in previous reply I suspect it
is just hoax word produced by Mr. Gaensel to have excuse.
> 2) ... the guys in the sci.chem newsgroup might.
> And if you get the chemistry right, perhaps you can find out more.
I will investigate more on this if it is chemically possible, but I
don't think so. According to my knowledge Portlan Cement which main
component of concrete is produced by heating mixture mainly containing
limestone breaking out water so adding water will reconstitute it to
"stone like" form. If you heat it up again to high temperature it will
likely crack and turn back into powder or small pieces.
Kvargla
<Dr.Colon.Osc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this falls into the same category as "Nazi" flying saucers,
> Nazi death beams, and for good measure The Ark of the Covenant ;-0.
> The German governemnt during the war had some great brainpower going
> for them, but not that good, the allies beat them (and not just on
> manufacturing muscle either). This really perpetuates the the "Nazi
> as Supermen" myth as well. They were no different than the allies in
> intellect although thier institutions, governemnt and infrastructure
> in general produced a different cultural approach to various
> technoligies they all had the same gray matter. A comparison might be
> made between the US and (the then) Soviet Union in the early days of
> the Space Race. Relying on heavier booster throw weight (much of it
> initially derived from German research) their space vehicles varied in
> design functional applications etc., yet did the same job, got humans
> in space. They could afford heavier spacecraft than the US reliance
> on less booster capacity and putting more "oomph" in a smaller
> package. This produced not ony strikingly different designs but a
> different cultural outlook on practical application of these
> differences. I see the results of this as not fundamentally
> different as to why people cling to the idea of a "Nazii
> Supertechnogy" as opposed to just seeing as a different apporach to a
> similar problem The Nazi's were not supermen, their technology
> though different didn't "fly saucers" around ours and they put thier
> liederhausen on one leg at a time also.........Doc
I agree with you. I try to stand out of "Mulder effect". I just wanted
to know if that term belong to something or if it is just another myth
builded on purpose. I don't believe that something like that ever
existed.
Kvargla
wrote:
> Both have websites (everything in the Czech language):
> *http://www.josefmuzik.cz/
> *http://www.helmutgaensel.com/
I know both sites. There is no activity for a couple of years there.
Those guys sounds like professional adventurers and not sound too
serious to me.
> Recent Czech book about such objects is:
> Ladislav Lahoda, _Tajnosti podzemi_ (Secrets of Underground), 2004.
I will search for the book on the Internet and check out local stores
here if I can find it. If you know about some online store in the
Czech Republic which sale it please let me know. Thanks.
Tron
>
> I will investigate more on this if it is chemically possible, but I
> don't think so. According to my knowledge Portlan Cement which main
> component of concrete is produced by heating mixture mainly containing
> limestone breaking out water so adding water will reconstitute it to
> "stone like" form. If you heat it up again to high temperature it will
> likely crack and turn back into powder or small pieces.
Yes. OTOH, these days one routinely mixes cement with e.g. anti-freeze when
working it in sub-zero tempreratures, and also "cement glue" when you have
to apply it to slick, non-porous surfaces like steel or glass. So few things
would surprise me (since I'm not well versed with chemistry ...), including
some "rock glue". Since minerals melt or at least sinter in high enough
temperatures, it isn't logically excluded (is it ..?) that one might be able
to "weld" (perhaps thin seams of) concrete if the temperature is high enough
T
Pavel Vozenilek
>> Recent Czech book about such objects is:
>> Ladislav Lahoda, _Tajnosti podzemi_ (Secrets of Underground), 2004.
>
> I will search for the book on the Internet and check out local stores
> here if I can find it. If you know about some online store in the
> Czech Republic which sale it please let me know. Thanks.
>
The above mentioned book covers some medieval and WW2
underground structures as well as those built or used during the Soviet
occupation.
Everything online and printed is in Czech language.
The book in one online store:
* http://knihy.abz.cz/prodej/tajnosti-podzemi
(on http://knihy.abz.cz/obchod/podzemni-prostory-cesko
is mentioned another eight-volumes (by region) encyclopedia
about underground structures in the Czech lands).
The book in a Slovak online store:
* http://www.ramzes.sk/product_info.php?products_id=32234
There are several more, if the book is out of print in these
above I can send more links.
The book was printed by a very small publishing house
whose webpage (with contacts) is:
http://www.knihkupectvilk.prodejce.cz/
/Pavel
"nightjar" <cpb@
....
> I will investigate more on this if it is chemically possible, but I
> don't think so. According to my knowledge Portlan Cement which main
> component of concrete is produced by heating mixture mainly containing
> limestone breaking out water so adding water will reconstitute it to
> "stone like" form. If you heat it up again to high temperature it will
> likely crack and turn back into powder or small pieces.
The main problem in fires is that moisture in the cement expands when it
reaches 100C and that can blow pieces of concrete off. Despite this,
concrete is an excellent building material when you want fire resistance. It
will convert back to its original form when strongly heated, but not very
quickly. The rate depends upon the moisture content, density and aggregate -
some absorb heat as they decompose, but 200mm or so of concrete will usually
withstand 1000C for up to four hours. OTOH, I have never heard of it
melting.
I wonder whether the suggested process has, at some time in the past, been
misunderstood or suffered a mistranslation. A mix of concrete and igneous
rocks - i.e rocks that were formed from molten lava - would make more sense.
Colin Bignell
WaltBJ
mixture. Is
it possible that they were using something similar to the liquid
styrene -> solid polystyrene,
which gets quite warm when catalyzed to a solid. I don't recall when
fiberglass was first
used, but styrene could be used to make 'concrete' using any rocky
debris.
Walt BJ
Kvargla
> mixture. Is
> it possible that they were using something similar to the liquid
> styrene -> solid polystyrene,
> which gets quite warm when catalyzed to a solid. I don't recall when
> fiberglass was first
> used, but styrene could be used to make 'concrete' using any rocky
> debris.
> Walt BJ
Yours explanation makes sense to me. I will investigate further this
way and post results here if I will find anything interesting.
teut...@aol.com
>From a historical POV, I would just wait. The German Army N-Material
(modern Greek Fire) that was passed on to the SS and stored at
Falkenhagen took decades to identify as CIF3. It was thought to be
another German "fantasy" weapon... but like so much Reich technology,
was just unknown. Much is still classified as well...
Rob
William Black
news:e37f48a2-8bff-474a...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
It was thought to be
> another German "fantasy" weapon... but like so much Reich technology,
> was just unknown. Much is still classified as well...
>
As far as I'm aware no technology from WWII is still classified, certainly
not in the British archives.
The only WWII files still classified by the UK Public Record Office relate
to personal issues of people still alive.
This sounds like 'German superweapons' conspiracy theory rubbish to me.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
teut...@aol.com
wrote:
> <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e37f48a2-8bff-474a...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> <UTF16-FFFD>It was thought to be
>
> > another German "fantasy" weapon... but like so much Reich technology,
> > was just unknown. Much is still classified as well...
>
> not in the British archives.
>
> The only WWII files still classified by the UK Public Record Office relate
> to personal issues of people still alive.
>
> This sounds like 'German superweapons' conspiracy theory rubbish to me.
>
> --
> William Black
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> Time for tea.
Hmm... already forgot about the British declassified D-IX Wunder-drug
in the early 2000s?
Also, take a look at this document:
http://missilegate.com/rfz/images/048.jpg
Now to section 6:
http://missilegate.com/rfz/images/049.jpg
Start with item #4 ABOVE and work through Nos 5 and 6:
http://missilegate.com/rfz/images/050.jpg
This is just one US document out of thousands on exotic German
technology not to mention the 11,000 tons that the US accumulated on
German weapons and technology overall by early 1946.
It took the USAF until 1995 through FOIA documents obtained by Jim
Wilson of Popular Mechanics magazine just to ADMIT the Germans had
prototype disc a/c during WW2; for 50 years they had blatantly denied
it... and yet with that simple admission came no photos, no
designations, no flight footage, no Intel records with data,
specifics, etc... released at all.
IMHO, I don't believe they will disclose anything more due to the
current connection with SAPs (Special Access Programs- aka, Black
Project ATS a/c).
So, true aviation history remains falsified by the victors of WW2.
This is not conspiracy theory but simple facts. Just try to get
detailed information on any of the 3 items above and see how far you
get with FOIA ;)
Rob
p.s. Don't you find it strange that the "Foo Fighters" were witnessed
by hundreds of US and British aircrews (Kraut Meteors) and even
reported in Allied newspapers as a German weapon that came from the
ground... and yet the USAAF never disclosed what they were, but chose
to hide them under the PHOO BOMB designation instead? And does it
really take a genius to realize that when they stopped appearing over
Germany by April 1945, then mysteriously appeared in the PTO in
Japan's skies in the summer of 1945... that some form of connection
existed between the two Axis nations? Ever heard of a U-boat
technology transfer? Do you consider that a conspiracy as well?
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:00b976f7-7c93-4598...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 31, 11:11am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e37f48a2-8bff-474a...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > another German "fantasy" weapon... but like so much Reich technology,
>> > was just unknown. Much is still classified as well...
>>
>> As far as I'm aware no technology from WWII is still classified,
>> not in the British archives.
>>
>> The only WWII files still classified by the UK Public Record Office
>> relate
>> to personal issues of people still alive.
>>
>> This sounds like 'German superweapons' conspiracy theory rubbish to me.
>
> in the early 2000s?
By the way it is now the late 2000s, so how does someone saying
all the stuff is declassified now be contradicted by a release in the
early 2000s, even assuming the above is correct. Unless of course
the usual claim there must be more, no evidence of course.
I presume you mean the amphetamine/cocaine/oxycodon mixture the
Germans experimented with in WWII. A wonder drug it was not
given the side effects.
> Also, take a look at this document:
> http://missilegate.com/rfz/images/048.jpg
>
> Now to section 6:
> http://missilegate.com/rfz/images/049.jpg
>
> Start with item #4 ABOVE and work through Nos 5 and 6:
> http://missilegate.com/rfz/images/050.jpg
>
> This is just one US document out of thousands on exotic German
> technology not to mention the 11,000 tons that the US accumulated on
> German weapons and technology overall by early 1946.
Put it another way, the report is issued before the war ended and
contains speculation on German weapons.
Note how it says currently firing V2's.
Try again Robert. The idea is to provide actual evidence not
intelligence speculations of the kind that included the Alpine
Redoubt in 1945. This is a US document, not a captured
German one.
> It took the USAF until 1995 through FOIA documents obtained by Jim
> Wilson of Popular Mechanics magazine just to ADMIT the Germans had
> prototype disc a/c during WW2; for 50 years they had blatantly denied
> it... and yet with that simple admission came no photos, no
> designations, no flight footage, no Intel records with data,
> specifics, etc... released at all.
In other words Robert is saying the Germans had something that
there is no evidence to support.
I presume Robert agrees with Wilson the Roswell incident is a
big nothing as well.
> IMHO, I don't believe they will disclose anything more due to the
> current connection with SAPs (Special Access Programs- aka, Black
> Project ATS a/c).
In other words the 1945 technology is supposed to be so good it
cannot be told to the public even now.
> So, true aviation history remains falsified by the victors of WW2.
No what we have is some people causing the modern Germans no
end of trouble by creating mythical German technology.
> This is not conspiracy theory but simple facts. Just try to get
> detailed information on any of the 3 items above and see how far you
> get with FOIA ;)
The clerks have trouble filling the request because they are laughing
too much.
> p.s. Don't you find it strange that the "Foo Fighters" were witnessed
> by hundreds of US and British aircrews (Kraut Meteors) and even
> reported in Allied newspapers as a German weapon that came from the
> ground... and yet the USAAF never disclosed what they were, but chose
> to hide them under the PHOO BOMB designation instead?
What I find strange it those trying to imagine something into existence
and then claiming conspiracies when it stays imaginary.
Also Robert is simply ignoring people under great stress seeing
what they wanted or expected to see. Things like the RAF in
1940 continually reporting the Bf109s flying in vics.
> And does it
> really take a genius to realize that when they stopped appearing over
> Germany by April 1945, then mysteriously appeared in the PTO in
> Japan's skies in the summer of 1945... that some form of connection
> existed between the two Axis nations? Ever heard of a U-boat
> technology transfer? Do you consider that a conspiracy as well?
Yes folks, apparently the Japanese could set up a wonder aircraft
production line is a very short time and then all the German or
Japanese people and documents disappear. Amazing none of the
other technology, like jet engines, made it into service. Amazing
the Japanese were still developing standard aircraft if the wonder
types were in production. And so on.
All the physical stuff is supposed to just vanish.
Then some papers are found by "The Lone Researcher" (trademark),
and of course in the US archives, those wonder people running the
US/world, able to make great conspiracies that remove the evidence
from everywhere else, where they have less control, but manage to
leave the evidence in the US archives, where they have good
control over what is achieved.
By the way, it is known about the US personnel transferred to the
Far East in 1944/45 bringing their stories? See where Paul Tibbetts
started for example. Remarkable how the Foo Fighters arrived
In Japan with the increase in USAAF personnel that had seen
action in Europe.
The best way to describe the phenomena is R V Jones response
to claims the Russians were flying thousands of rocket bombs over
Sweden. (Once the population was alerted to the idea they were
careful to report all occurrences)
Firstly why? Secondly how come none of them crashed? Even a
99% reliable machine should have given plenty of examples.
Finally pieces of the claimed rockets were delivered to Jones,
one lump came bask as 98% unknown element, mainly because
the people failed to test the lump of coke for carbon. Until the
report was corrected senior people were becoming quite excited.
In the heat of all this MacArthur's HQ in Japan asked for details
of the Soviet rocket they heard had just crashed in England.
In short tell people what to expect and do not be surprised that
the report what they expected. It is often very important not
to tell agents what you expect, since they will change their
report to fit, you need to have them describe what they see
and hear.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
William Black
news:00b976f7-7c93-4598...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> As far as I'm aware no technology from WWII is still classified,
>> <UTF16-FFFD>certainly
>> not in the British archives.
>>
>> The only WWII files still classified by the UK Public Record Office
>> relate
>> to personal issues of people still alive.
>>
>> This sounds like 'German superweapons' conspiracy theory rubbish to me.
> Hmm... already forgot about the British declassified D-IX Wunder-drug
> in the early 2000s?
>
> Also, take a look at this document:
> http://missilegate.com/rfz/images/048.jpg
>
> Now to section 6:
> http://missilegate.com/rfz/images/049.jpg
>
> Start with item #4 ABOVE and work through Nos 5 and 6:
> http://missilegate.com/rfz/images/050.jpg
>
> This is just one US document out of thousands on exotic German
> technology not to mention the 11,000 tons that the US accumulated on
> German weapons and technology overall by early 1946.
It's a wartime evaluation written while the shooting was still going on.
It's a guess.
It was obviously wrong.
> So, true aviation history remains falsified by the victors of WW2.
> This is not conspiracy theory but simple facts. Just try to get
> detailed information on any of the 3 items above and see how far you
> get with FOIA ;)
So, if the Germans were so advanced, how did we win?
> p.s. Don't you find it strange that the "Foo Fighters" were witnessed
> by hundreds of US and British aircrews (Kraut Meteors) and even
> reported in Allied newspapers as a German weapon that came from the
> ground... and yet the USAAF never disclosed what they were, but chose
> to hide them under the PHOO BOMB designation instead? And does it
> really take a genius to realize that when they stopped appearing over
> Germany by April 1945, then mysteriously appeared in the PTO in
> Japan's skies in the summer of 1945... that some form of connection
> existed between the two Axis nations? Ever heard of a U-boat
> technology transfer? Do you consider that a conspiracy as well?
>
I'm more inclined to think that some aircrews were transferred.
People under extreme stress do rather tend to imagine things.
Being in an aircraft that is liable to be shot at does tend to put people
under extreme stress.
It was all over 50 years ago.
The technology should be almost 'kitchen sink' level by now.
There's just no point in keeping anything but the deeply embarrassing
personal stuff a secret.
There's only one file still closed that I want to read.
The file on the Duke of Winsor's links with the Nazis, a file that was
almost certainly composed by the Communist traitor Anthony Blunt when he was
working for MI-5, and the contents of which probably kept him out of jail
and in post as 'keeper of the queen's pictures'.
But I doubt we'll see that until after the death of the current queen.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
teut...@aol.com
hand accounts of the "Foo Fighter" phenomenon in both the ETO and PTO.
Here are just some of the USAAF official claims in non-chronological
order:
- 11/23/44, Bristol Beaufighter, 415th NFS, Lt. Ed Schluter- 10
spheres, radar stopped working
- 11/27/44, Bristol Beaufighter, 415th NFS, Lt. Henry Giblin- 1
sphere, 500 mph, grounds could not locate it
- 12/22/44, Bristol Beaufighter, 415th NFS, Lt. David McFalls- 2
spheres, chased aircraft for two minutes
- 12/24/44, Bristol Beaufighter, 415th NFS, Lt. David McFalls- 1
sphere, disappeared
- May 1945, P-61, 415th NFS, crew unidentified- 5 spheres
- Not Disclosed, Boeing B-17, USAAF 8th AF, crew unidentified- 15
spheres
- Not Disclosed, Boeing B-29, USAAF 21st BC Saipan, crew
unidentified- 1 shere
- Not Disclosed, Consolidated B-24, USAAF 7th AF, crew
unidentified- 2 spheres, followed aircraft for 75 minutes
- 8/28/45, Unidentified US transport, Unit unidentified, crew
unidentified- 1 sphere
- April 1945, Eight Grumman F6F naval fighters, carrier crew US
Navy, Commander Dawson- None seen by fighter squadron, but carrier
radar detected 200
objects flying above them
- 8/10/44, Boeing B-29, USAAF 20th BC Sri Lanka, Capt. A.M. Reida-
disc shaped machine trailing smoke (Intelligence report claims
Funryu-2 missile)
Public Documentation: News Reports:
A) South Wales Argus December 13, 1944
B) New York Herald Tribune (AP) January 2, 1945
Military Documentation: Material
(US designation as PHOO BOMB)
Photos Exist: Yes
Rob
William Black
news:c3faa51c-d1fa-4100...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> The 415th NFS and 20th & 21st BGs are all documented as having first-
> hand accounts of the "Foo Fighter" phenomenon in both the ETO and PTO.
So what?
Stress is a funny thing.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:c3faa51c-d1fa-4100...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> The 415th NFS and 20th & 21st BGs are all documented as having first-
> hand accounts of the "Foo Fighter" phenomenon in both the ETO and PTO.
I gather the idea here is to keep presenting US reports of claimed
odd occurrences and use that as evidence of something. Not for
example of misjudging lights, or the instances where units opened
fire on Venus or other objects in the sky rather than take the chance
that bright object was not an aircraft. (Venus was reported to be
undamaged in case anyone is worried).
All those whales that were depth charged and so on.
The idea is not to present the designers, the builders, the maintainers,
the pilots etc. Then comes the physical stuff, the production line
the airfields, the spare parts, again no evidence provided.
Rather drag out the allied sighting reports to tell us how many German
tanks were Tigers and how many German guns were 88mm. Stay
well away from German documents.
>From an weather point of view WWII aviation was a great boost,
as no one had ever tried to fly that many aircraft over those sorts
of distances at those sorts of height in those sorts of weather. Lots
of new weather phenomena were logged. Lots of strange sights
were seen.
Also the 20th USAAF group was a fighter one serving in Europe.
> Here are just some of the USAAF official claims in non-chronological
> order:
>
> - 11/23/44, Bristol Beaufighter, 415th NFS, Lt. Ed Schluter- 10
> spheres, radar stopped working
> - 11/27/44, Bristol Beaufighter, 415th NFS, Lt. Henry Giblin- 1
> sphere, 500 mph, grounds could not locate it
> - 12/22/44, Bristol Beaufighter, 415th NFS, Lt. David McFalls- 2
> spheres, chased aircraft for two minutes
> - 12/24/44, Bristol Beaufighter, 415th NFS, Lt. David McFalls- 1
> sphere, disappeared
> - May 1945, P-61, 415th NFS, crew unidentified- 5 spheres
So the 415th told itself to look out for things and managed to do so.
Furthermore the wonder weapon is being used in southern France
and at night.
And in a regular occurrence in these sightings only the aircraft or the
ground control claimed a sighting, not both at the same time.
> - Not Disclosed, Boeing B-17, USAAF 8th AF, crew unidentified- 15
> spheres
But none attacked, and it seems none ever attacked.
> - Not Disclosed, Boeing B-29, USAAF 21st BC Saipan, crew
> unidentified- 1 shere
> - Not Disclosed, Consolidated B-24, USAAF 7th AF, crew
> unidentified- 2 spheres, followed aircraft for 75 minutes
Saint Elmo's fire comes to mind here.
> - 8/28/45, Unidentified US transport, Unit unidentified, crew
> unidentified- 1 sphere
So the idea is the strange wonders were still flying about after
Germany was occupied and Japan had agreed to an armistice
and was grounding its aircraft.
> - April 1945, Eight Grumman F6F naval fighters, carrier crew US
> Navy, Commander Dawson- None seen by fighter squadron, but carrier
> radar detected 200 objects flying above them
You see here the idea is to decide the radar is perfect, it could not
possibly be giving a false reading. The eyes of the fighter pilots
all have to be defective or the wonder weapon invisible.
And it seems none of those 200 objects actually flew to defend
Japan or anything like that, you know say against the B-29
strikes from May 1945 onwards, or even the USN strikes.
> - 8/10/44, Boeing B-29, USAAF 20th BC Sri Lanka, Capt. A.M. Reida-
> disc shaped machine trailing smoke (Intelligence report claims
> Funryu-2 missile)
20th BC is 20th Bomber Command, the bunch who were trying
to bomb Japan from India/China.
Now note the encounter is supposed to have taken place in
Sri Lanka, or Ceylon as it was called then, and in October
1944 no less.
So the Japanese version of the thing is around in mid 1944,
so it can be sent to Burma (real priority area for Japanese
air defence), and is supposed to be flown something over
1,200 miles from Burma to Sri Lanka to be sighted by a
B-29. Thus crediting with a range of around 3,000 miles
and crediting the person ordering the operation with an
IQ of zero.
Real smart use of super secret technology.
> Public Documentation: News Reports:
>
> A) South Wales Argus December 13, 1944
> B) New York Herald Tribune (AP) January 2, 1945
Of course the weapon is so wonder the allied allow their newspapers
to openly report it.
> Military Documentation: Material
> (US designation as PHOO BOMB)
>
> Photos Exist: Yes
See for example most family's happy snaps of their last time
away together, or most phones these days. Photos of axis
wonder weapons seem lacking though.
Robert we know you are having a tough time in your favourite news
group, rec.aviation.military, but the junk claims you make are just as
bad in this news group as any other.
By the way check out the photographs of the Vought V-153, the
Zimmer Skimmer. Given the agreeable performance of the V-153
I agree with Angelucci it is a shame the full size XF5U-1 never flew
but you can see the influence in the F7U.
teut...@aol.com
VOUGHT-ZIMMERMAN V-173
(1939-1943)
Known as the Zimmerman "Flying Flapjack" or "Flying Pancake" the
Vought-Zimmerman V-173 was the most unusual aircraft ever designed for
the USN in the 1940s.
This strange "proof of concept" prototype aircraft lacked proper wings
and instead opted for a flat circular body to provide the lifting
surface. This was based on Charles Zimmerman's wing patent US #
2,108,093 of 1932 and was researched by NACA in technical report NACA
431.
The V-173 blueprints were shown to the US Navy in 1939 while full
scale wind tunnel models were tested in 1940-41, making this a multi-
million dollar project that stood a good chance of becoming the
world's first V/STOL (Vertical/Short Take Off and Landing) fighter
plane.
By 1942 requests were made for two prototypes of the V-173 for
experimentation, designated VS-315. This version would have more
powerful engines and given a naval military designation- XF5U-1.
The V-173, however, first flew on November 23, 1942. Soon after
takeoff, Boone T. Guyton, Vought's chief test pilot, found the
controls sluggish, and had to struggle to make a wide turn back to
base. It continued flight testing in 1942-43, sometimes resulting in
panicked civilians that reported sighting strange flying machines over
Connecticut skies.
Although proving stall-proof, the V-173 overall performance revealed
the instability and low maneuverability of the plane; thus, the
engineers had to install large unconventional empennages, spoiling the
very concept of the circular wing.
The V-173 also demonstrated poor low speed performance compared to
other fighters of the time. Due to this, the role of the aircraft
became a proposed VTO (Vertical Take Off) recon machine with the
blades replaced by tilting rotors.
VOUGHT XF5U-1 Skimmer
(1943-1947)
In the summer of 1943, mock-ups of the improved XF5U-1 were made, but
due to Vought's obligations with both the Corsair and Kingfisher, the
XF5U-1 program proceeded slowly during the war.
The arrival of the jet age during World War II saw the cancellation of
the XF5U-1 contract by the US Navy by March 1947, despite the fact
that the aircraft was shipped to Muroc, California and was due to take
its first test flight later that year.
The XF5U-1 prototype was scrapped, though the V-173 prototype was
saved and was given to the Smithsonian.
Rob Arndt, IFO Picture Library
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<47a5e709$0$5597$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
gsinc...@froggy.com.au (Geoffrey Sinclair) wrote:
> Rather drag out the allied sighting reports to tell us how many German
> tanks were Tigers
That one is more understandable. A Mk IV with Schurzen bore a close
visual resemblance to a Tiger I.
Ken Young
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:0c077d31-5579-4fab...@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> The Flying Pancake
>
> VOUGHT-ZIMMERMAN V-173
> (1939-1943)
>
> Known as the Zimmerman "Flying Flapjack" or "Flying Pancake" the
> Vought-Zimmerman V-173 was the most unusual aircraft ever designed for
> the USN in the 1940s.
(snip of details)
Robert, thanks for the reply on the V-173 and F5U, basic data
that is available in aviation books and web sites.
I take it from the deletion of all my text and anything to do with
axis wonder weapons that there is no evidence for the wonder
weapons existing.
Thanks for clearing that one up.
teut...@aol.com
> I take it from the deletion of all my text and anything to do with
> axis wonder weapons that there is no evidence for the wonder
> weapons existing.
>
> Thanks for clearing that one up.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
I posted on the V-173 and XF5U-1 to directly contradict your claim
that the V-173 had an "agreeable performance"- it certainly did not
and the more complicated XF5U-1 was IMHO just an expensive waste.
Look what Arthur Sack did with virtually nothing but a/c scraps and
alone:
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/ARTHUR%20SACK%20A.htm
All that circular a/c needed to fly was a better engine and
repositioned landing gear. To develop it into a fighter required
little more than the latest Me Bf 109 components and armament as
recommendedby the test pilot and Me-163 pilot. Messerschmitt and
Lippisch had gone over the circular wing profile J1253 at AVA
Gottingen in the early 1940s and the AS-7 could have been a successful
500 mph fighter had Udet got Sack proper funding and a group of
engineers from Messerschmitt instead of him being allowed to develop
his flying models into a manned a/c IMHO.
What excuse, therefore, does Vought have for the failures of the V-173
and XF5U-1when pitted against a farmer who built aviation flying
models?
Seriously...
Rob
bbro...@uiuc.edu
There are so many things wrong with that article on Arthur Sack, that
I don't even know where to begin. I think the most obvious problem is
that the author has no actual background on aerodynamics or
aeronautical engineering, which shows quite clearly in the latter
parts of the article.
Let's start with the whole concept: There is no inherent advantage to
a circular wing, except possibly the compact packaging it allows and,
like any low aspect ratio wing, it has a large root chord which also
means the thickness of the root makes the structural design problem
quite simple and efficient. That is more or less where the advantages
end and therefore why you don't see any modern jets flying around with
circular wing planforms.
By the way, before we go on - Robert talks about "circular profile",
when what he means is "circular planform". The word "profile" usually
refers to the aerofoil shape, while wing "planform" means exactly what
the word implies. But I digress - you can open any aero textbook for
further reading.
To get back to the circular wing planform, it is basically just an
elliptical planform with an aspect ratio of 1. As with any very low
aspect ratio wing, you get extremely high drag at any significant
angle of attack, regardless of the fact that you have a sort-of
elliptical lift distribution. This means that, if you make the
wingloading high enough, (by using a very small wing, not by making
the aircraft heavy), you can get a high top speed that you will loose
in an instant whenever you try to maneuver. It would have been
absolutely terrible as a fighter. The other option is to keep the
induced drag low by going for a very low wingloading, which would
result in an aircraft with some marginal turn performance but that
would have a very low top speed due to all the unnecessary wing area.
Here is an interesting comment from the article, of which the author
probably didn't understand the significance: "It was soon discovered
that the control surfaces failed to function properly because they
were positioned in the vacuum area produced by the circular wing while
taxiing."
This is a major problem that was inherent to Sack's design and that
would probably never have been fixed in a practical manner for the
full angle of attack envelope. First, the phrase "vacuum area" was
written by a non-technical person once again - what was probably meant
was "in an area of separated flow". At any significant angle of
attack, not only the ailerons on that wing would sit in separated flow
and therefore be useless, but the entire horizontal tail and most of
the vertical tail would also sit in separated flow, making the
aircraft uncontrollable. One of the advantages of low aspect ratio
wings is that you can attain very high angles of attack before
stalling, sometimes also getting a bit of extra lift from the vortices
produced by wings with highly swept leading edges such as deltas for
example. Both these advantages are lost with this particular circular
wing concept: First, you can never fly at a high angle of attack
because you will blank your elevator and loose control authority, and
secondly the leading edge at the root has no sweep at all, so you will
only end up with a weak vortex that would, if anything, just cause
massive separation on the rear of the fuselage.
Here is another quote: "The third test flight was performed over the
700 meter strip at Brandis on April 16, 1944. There was no wind and
the plane rolled 500 meters without lifting its tail. No aerodynamic
control of the empennages was achieved. The plane made a brief hop but
could not get into the air." and "During the fourth flight test the
jump was a bit longer; however, the plane banked to the left because
of torsion generated by the propeller, this being very difficult to
balance in a small wingspan aircraft."
As expected, the airplane couldn't lift its tail because the empennage
was still stuck in that massively separated air (did I mention the
drag would also be horrendous, which doesn't make it surprising that
they were looking for more power). On the fourth flight (I love that
these are actually referred to as "flights"), they got a bit more
speed so despite the crappy separated air over the empennage,
something started to happen, but with that tiny vertical tail still
sitting in this separated air they didn't have nearly enough
directional control. I am also a bit uncertain what the phrase "The
plane made a brief hop but could not get into the air" means - if it
hopped, it was in the air, but again I digress...
At least Vought were able to address some of these issues by going
outboard with the horizontal stabilizers, but as they discovered, it
was still far from a truly practical configuration. The annular
planforms (a few examples are shown on the same page as the Sack
article) are a little better in this respect, but they typically would
have a dead-band area at low angle of attack. For a little private
microlight this would probably not even be noticed, but in a fighter
where you would want to aim guns, it would make things downright
annoying and probably impossible to aim accurately. The important
lesson here is that the fact that you can make something fly does not
automatically mean it would be effective or even useful. In the case
of circular wing planforms, you will almost always find there is a
more effective way to solve the problem. In half a lifetime as an
aeronautical engineer I am yet to encounter a situation where a
circular planform would be the ideal solution.
The Sack article also contains this gem of a sentence: "With wind
tunnel data corrections and Messerschmitt construction the projected
Me-600 would have been a formidable 500 mph fighter." I doubt the
author knows what the phrase "wind tunnel data corrections" mean. It
refers to the process where you correct the raw measured data for
issues such as support system tares, tunnel blockage, tunnel boundary
interference, flow angularity, balance calibrations, etc, to end up
with data that is representative of what the aerodynamic coefficients
of the model would have been in free air. The phrase makes no sense in
the context above. Most likely what was meant was: "based on a
completely new design, following the poor results you would obtain if
testing this model in the wind tunnel, a completely different aircraft
could be designed that might attain 500 mph"
Once again, as Sack discovered, just because you can make a model of a
witch on a broomstick fly (see: http://home.versatel.nl/jan.hermkens/index_bestanden/image2208.jpg
), doesn't mean this configuration would automatically translate into
a decent fighter.
There are some applications where circular planforms may be a possible
solution, but a conventional fighter in the class of something like a
Bf-109 is not it. It was a novelty that was pursued in an era when
many details about aerodynamics were not very well understood yet. You
may see them pop up from time to time on very special applications,
such as small UAVs where you start running into a trade-off between
aspect ratio and the low Reynolds numbers that go along with small
chords, but in manned aircraft it is quite difficult to see an
application where this planform would be superior. In fact, even in
the small UAV area a conventional tapered planform, but with a lowish
aspect ratio, usually still works the best.
What I love about the Luft '46 people is that they can take a project
that culminated in a "hop", that was based on a limited understanding
of the aeronautical sciences, that was never even properly tested in a
wind tunnel, never actually flew in the true sense of the word - but
they can extrapolate it all the way to actually suggest what the top
speed of a production version would have been (and the number chosen
is naturally a little faster than other contemporary aircraft of that
class). At least they are imaginative, it is just a pity that
imagination cannot be put to better use.
teut...@aol.com
> witch on a broomstick fly (see:http://home.versatel.nl/jan.hermkens/index_bestanden/image2208.jpg
> ), doesn't mean this configuration would automatically translate into
> a decent fighter.
> What I love about the Luft '46 people is that they can take a project
> that culminated in a "hop", that was based on a limited understanding
> of the aeronautical sciences, that was never even properly tested in a
> wind tunnel, never actually flew in the true sense of the word - but
> they can extrapolate it all the way to actually suggest what the top
> speed of a production version would have been (and the number chosen
> is naturally a little faster than other contemporary aircraft of that
> class). At least they are imaginative, it is just a pity that
> imagination cannot be put to better use.
Your critcism of Sack actually proved my point as Arthur Sack was just
a simple farmer who
experimented with aeromodels and got permission from Udet and some
meager technical help to assemble a manned version of the AS-5 in a
garage, then shipped off to Brandis.
Vought was an aviation company with professional designers and
engineers. There are no real comparisons between the two a/c which
happens all the time, historically.
But I would like to know what happens when you pit the V-173 against
Heinrich Focke's 1939 Schnellflugzeug Rochen patent (aka Fw-VTOL):
http://greyfalcon.us/restored/Focke%20Wulf%20Schnellflugzeug.htm
Although Focke pioneered many successful a/c and rotorcraft, Focke-
Wulf
concentrated on 20,000 Fw-190 fighters during WW2 and the turboshaft
Rochen fighter never
was built as a direct consequence. This was another German circular a/
c and VTOL... as well as having a crude afterburner system for added
thrust, long before that was envisioned for the last Jumo 004 model of
May 1945.
Are you going to tell me Focke-Wulf could not have built this machine?
Consider the postwar Bremen validation and 1957 re-patent.
Rob
bbro...@uiuc.edu
> Your critcism of Sack actually proved my point as Arthur Sack was just
> a simple farmer who
> experimented with aeromodels and got permission from Udet and some
> meager technical help to assemble a manned version of the AS-5 in a
> garage, then shipped off to Brandis.
My criticism is not of Sack, which I thought was made very clear in my
response. My criticism was of the entire concept that a circular
planform wing could make a good fighter in the class of something like
a Bf-109. My criticism was also of the entire article which is based
on a misconception that this configuration is somehow a good idea, and
that with "just a little more help from Messerschmitt" could have
developed into a 500mph fighter. The wrong use of certain terminology
also didn't help the article.
> Vought was an aviation company with professional designers and
> engineers. There are no real comparisons between the two a/c which
> happens all the time, historically.
I didn't compare the aircraft or the teams, I pointed out how the more
professional Vought team approached certain problems and despite them
being able to partially alleviate those problems, it still didn't turn
this into concept superior to more conventional configurations.
> But I would like to know what happens when you pit the V-173 against
> Heinrich Focke's 1939 Schnellflugzeug Rochen patent (aka Fw-VTOL):http://greyfalcon.us/restored/Focke%20Wulf%20Schnellflugzeug.htm
>
> Although Focke pioneered many successful a/c and rotorcraft, Focke-
> Wulf
> concentrated on 20,000 Fw-190 fighters during WW2 and the turboshaft
> Rochen fighter never
> was built as a direct consequence. This was another German circular a/
> c and VTOL... as well as having a crude afterburner system for added
> thrust, long before that was envisioned for the last Jumo 004 model of
> May 1945.
I think of that the same way as I think of any other circular aircraft
and the same way that most aerodynamicists today will see circular
aircraft: That there are much more efficient planforms out there. I
didn't even get into the high-speed issues. When you start entering
the transonic and supersonic regimes, the last thing you want is a
leading edge that meets the fuselage at a right angle.
> Are you going to tell me Focke-Wulf could not have built this machine?
> Consider the postwar Bremen validation and 1957 re-patent.
I am sure they could have built it. Heck, I bet they could even make
it fly. I just hope they didn't want it to go fast or be efficient in
any aerodynamic sense. I think you missed many of the points in my
previous post. I cannot teach you all the little details of
aerodynamics or aircraft design in a mere newsgroup post. So instead
of focusing on the reasons of why this configuration is such a bad
idea, I can only urge you to have a look at all the front-line high-
performance fighters of today and take note of the fact that there are
no circular wing planform aircraft among them. It is possible that all
the aerodynamicists from across the world all have the physics
completely wrong, but I think it is rather unlikely.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:5be2f00f-1490-43cf...@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
>> I take it from the deletion of all my text and anything to do with
>> axis wonder weapons that there is no evidence for the wonder
>> weapons existing.
>>
>> Thanks for clearing that one up.
>>
> that the V-173 had an "agreeable performance"- it certainly did not
> and the more complicated XF5U-1 was IMHO just an expensive waste.
I like the idea of an airframe being impossible to stall and
go into a spin as disagreeable performance. Perfect it was
not, the sad thing is how close they were to the full size
item.
I take it from the continued evasion of supplying any evidence
to do with axis wonder weapons that there is no evidence
for the wonder weapons existing.
Thanks for clearing that one up.
Indeed the problems on the real designs that tried the idea help
show the wonder weapons as fiction.
> Look what Arthur Sack did with virtually nothing but a/c scraps and
> alone:
> http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/ARTHUR%20SACK%20A.htm
>
> All that circular a/c needed to fly was a better engine and
> repositioned landing gear.
Ah yes, once again, something that never flew is being used,
it could not fly as built but hey, just add water and watch.
> To develop it into a fighter required
> little more than the latest Me Bf 109 components and armament as
> recommendedby the test pilot and Me-163 pilot.
Of course it required much more than that as has been pointed
out.
> Messerschmitt and
> Lippisch had gone over the circular wing profile J1253 at AVA
> Gottingen in the early 1940s and the AS-7 could have been a successful
> 500 mph fighter had Udet got Sack proper funding and a group of
> engineers from Messerschmitt instead of him being allowed to develop
> his flying models into a manned a/c IMHO.
As has been pointed out, if the planform was so wonderful
then that would be the shape of modern fighters.
> What excuse, therefore, does Vought have for the failures of the V-173
> and XF5U-1when pitted against a farmer who built aviation flying
> models?
The excuse seems to be the article on the farmer was written by
someone wanting to believe instead of looking at the facts.
> Seriously...
The Farmer's aircraft did not fly, the Vought thing did so and exhibited
enough performance to justify going to a full development.
The Farmer's hopper did not fly.
Seriously.