The BA349 Nutter
Daryl Hunt
or a P-47 or not even a Gnat. That kill was it's pilot on the
maiden flight.
Yes, the Nutter was some great Fighter. Guaranteed to get a kill
on every flight.
Let's here if for the Nutter that almost flew.
The BA stands for Bullshit Artist.
Rob Arndt
Daryl,
YOU are a nutter. BA stands for Bachem and Natter means "Viper" in
German. It WAS in low productiom- over 36 produced and 10 ready for
operation in Stuutgart when overrrun by US Army forces in tanks.
One a/c and pilot were lost in testing when the canopy came off in
flight and Lothar Siebert was knocked unconscious and killed when the
a/c crashed. By comparison, the XP, YP, and P-80As killed 6 pilots
including America's top ace Richard Bong and almost killed 2 other
pilots due to mechanical failure. It too saw no combat and killed more
pilots than the Ba-349 Natter!!!
The German records for the next five intended flights are missing
(courtesy of the SS) but 7 automated launches were made with the
BA-349 and test dummies- all succeeded 100% with launch, flight, and
recovery.
Daryl, stick to US failed programs. YOU are a nutter!!!
Rob
Eunometic
> The Nutter was only flown once. It does have a kill. Not a P-51
> or a P-47 or not even a Gnat. That kill was it's pilot on the
> maiden flight.
>
> Yes, the Nutter was some great Fighter. Guaranteed to get a kill
> on every flight.
Er no, test flying is dangerous. Do you think Eddie Allen and crews
death proved the B-29 crap?
>
> Let's here if for the Nutter that almost flew.
>
> The BA stands for Bullshit Artist.
This is 'recreation aviation military' it is not a place for you to
carry out your petty vendettas.
The Natter actually had a number of succesfull piloted flights and
landings as a towed release glider with a improvised landing gear
though it was more like a controlled crash landing. Handling was
good.
The Natter had a number of succesfull unmaned launches: it used a
similar high bandwidth gyroscopic auto-pilot as the V2 did. This was
supposed to take care of the intitial launch follwed by radio directed
intercept to a suitable attack position.
The mystery of the Ba 349 is solved. One of its 4 RATO strap on
boosters 'fizzled' and due to its extended burn did not detach. Its
pilot Lothar Sieber had elected not to use the auto-pilot. Due to the
detachment and difficulty of control he became disoriented in low
cloud base and crashed. The decision to launch manually may have been
fatal as automatic launch would likely have taken him to a safe
altitude. His bodily remains and parts of the wreckage and the single
booster have been recovered.
It waxed a few less people than the Space Shuttle and its conceptually
flawed re-entry concepts and boosters.
Dean
Some of these discussions would be quite interesting technically if
you guys would lay off the pissing contests. You shouldn't accuse
Daryl of having petty vendettas and then issue that last statement
regarding the Space Shuttle. Do you see my point?
Dean
Dan
But P-80 went into production and saw combat in Korea. Natter had a
100% fatality rate, P-80 didn't.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Ken S. Tucker
Daryl, the Nader could have turned out many 'aces' for allies,
with nazi's tangled in B-17 props, of course it wouldn't be fun
to be under a Nader that hits the ground.
Ken
Dan
> On Mar 3, 7:41 pm, Daryl Hunt<dh...@nspami70west.com> wrote:
>> The Nutter was only flown once. It does have a kill. Not a P-51
>> or a P-47 or not even a Gnat. That kill was it's pilot on the
>> maiden flight.
>>
>> Yes, the Nutter was some great Fighter. Guaranteed to get a kill
>> on every flight.
>
> Er no, test flying is dangerous. Do you think Eddie Allen and crews
> death proved the B-29 crap?
>
>>
>> Let's here if for the Nutter that almost flew.
>>
>> The BA stands for Bullshit Artist.
>
>
> This is 'recreation aviation military' it is not a place for you to
> carry out your petty vendettas.
Remember that next time you spew your racist filth.
>
> The Natter actually had a number of succesfull piloted flights and
> landings as a towed release glider with a improvised landing gear
> though it was more like a controlled crash landing. Handling was
> good.
Name one manned flight other than the one that wasted Sieber.
>
> The Natter had a number of succesfull unmaned launches: it used a
> similar high bandwidth gyroscopic auto-pilot as the V2 did. This was
> supposed to take care of the intitial launch follwed by radio directed
> intercept to a suitable attack position.
So?
>
> The mystery of the Ba 349 is solved. One of its 4 RATO strap on
> boosters 'fizzled' and due to its extended burn did not detach. Its
> pilot Lothar Sieber had elected not to use the auto-pilot. Due to the
> detachment and difficulty of control he became disoriented in low
> cloud base and crashed. The decision to launch manually may have been
> fatal as automatic launch would likely have taken him to a safe
> altitude. His bodily remains and parts of the wreckage and the single
> booster have been recovered.
He still got greased.
>
> It waxed a few less people than the Space Shuttle and its conceptually
> flawed re-entry concepts and boosters.
Not a good comparison, space shuttle had a larger crew and made 130
successful flights and 2 that failed.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
You make fun of German paper projects and yet that is exactly like the
space shuttle concept. With the Fi-166 project (Bachem worked for
Fieseler prior to the Ba-349 Natter), an interceptor was placed atop a
rocket (Peenemunde A5) for interception. Space shuttle is essentially
the same concept but with bigger external tank and two solid boosters
(think Peenemunder A-9 and EMW A-9). Also, after mission it glides
back to earth to land (Me-163 on skid or 263 with main gear).
These concepts were prevelent under the Nazi regime and von Braun
helped them along. But Bachem's work on the Fi-166 and Ba-349 Natter
seem forgotten.
Rob
Dan
Do you not really comprehend the difference between paper projects and
successful projects or do you just pretend to be that dense?
Rob Arndt
Are you that dense to deny the German contributions to aviation from
1900-1945, and especially in regard to the United States the captured
German aviation hardware, aviation weapons, and extensive wind tunnel
data... not to mention all the rocket pioneers and the German efforts
in the US and USSR towards the development of interceptor missiles,
ICBMs, and spacecraft, space suits, and space rockets to get a dog,
man, woman, and various capsules into space and finally a manon the
moon by 1969???
If you are that dumb NOT to acknowledge the German contribution to
military and civil aviation as well as to the space programs... the
YOU, Sir, are a complete idiot.
You will find in any complete history of aviation and space flight the
Germans and their lead and guide in those areas which led to postwar
achievements claimed by the US and USSR. BTW, go to any major
bookstore or online and you will find German Secret Weapons books
still extremely popular while the combined total of all Allied Secret
Weaposn books amounts to nothing practically. The Germans have volumes
of Third Reich technology in all areas while the US tells the same
recycled story of the A-bomb and war in the Pacific. Boring...
Now run along and get out your outdated US coffee tanle books that
proclaim that the US invented everything and that the entire world had
a hard time getting along for thousands of years until the US came
along.
Germany was united in the 19th century amd look at the impact of it
against the rest of world history for a mere 75 years (1870-1945).
Germany invented far more than any other nation and also fought two
world wars that devastated Europe, killed the most people, destroyed
the old colonial overlords of the West, cost Britain its superpower
status while making two new superpowers of the US and USSR, and also
started the Cold War, AND led to development of ICBMs that can destroy
the entire world as well as the space rockets for the peaceful
conquest of space!!!
Rob
Rob
Dan
> Are you that dense to deny the German contributions to aviation from
> 1900-1945,
I never have. On the other hand you tend to deny contributions by non
Germans and over inflate German contributions. The paper projects you
presented in this list never would have worked with the technology at
hand even if the Nazis had the economy, time and materials to proceed.
You try to put them on par with the space shuttle which has successfully
flown 130 missions. Your flag waving blinds you to reality. If you were
German I could understand, but you aren't so your blasted pagan idolatry
of a Germany which never existed as you believe defies logic.
Schiffner
doesn't change a thing...utter failure and the ONLY test pilot DIED
the first time they launched him to his death. What part of "BIG
STINKING PILE OF SHIT" don't you understand? hmmm?somethings look
good, but they are not and you obviously are not qualified to tell the
difference between good aircraft and shit aircraft.
Schiffner
Towed glider doesn't mean a thing...that just means that without
thrust it flies semi-acceptablly. I've seen more than a few of those,
glides real pretty power off. Power on? Uncontrolable pile of shit.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Schiffner, do you ever explore the facts and/or contribute anything
here that even resembles aviation topics?
1) The Ba-349 had one documented test flight with a pilot that ended
in disaster. However, the next five slated manned tests for airframes
ready are missing from the history according to the authorities that
have that documentation in Germany. The SS ran that program so it is
conceivable that other manned tests were performed elsewhere;
regardless, those airframes are accounted for in sequential production
but missing in documentation. Other tests with airframes beyong those
five are unmanned successes at 100% and you fail to acknowledge that
the Ba-349 was OPERATIONAL when the US Army forces invaded the area.
TEN were on their launchers ready to go as point defense interceptors.
Other aorframes besides teh 36 officla production total were found
nearby, hidden or abandoned by the SS and there is photographic prood
for such. So the history is incomplete at best.
2) The Fi-166 interceptor program preceeded this and was an aircraft
launched via A-5 missile. Fact. Although not more than a paper design
the concept was not lost on postwar US space developments no more than
the Peeenemunde A-9 and EMW spacecraft were. The Russians captured the
Draeger space suit and Peenemunde cluster rocket models (or one of the
92 ft demonstrator rockets) as well as developments on Misdroy like
the Henschel V-4 weapon and at Lofer, Austria all work on the Sanger
Antipodal bomber spacecraft. All of these things were taken seriously
and the USSR and US sorted out what was immediately possible and what
was too far ahead like rotating space stations and death rays from
space.
So instead of just making hostile statements w/o anything to back them
up, try common sense and try reading about those programs first. The
US and USSR learned a lot from the Third Reich and applied what they
could as fast as they could. It was the Cold War arms and space races.
Rob
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bachem BP 20 Analog:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0a67GongyHY/TA76Ds6BUOI/AAAAAAAABFQ/eKryRsWp24U/s1600/BACHEM+BP-20+ANALOG.jpg
Rob
Eunometic
> On 3/3/2011 5:41 AM, Eunometic wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 7:41 pm, Daryl Hunt<dh...@nspami70west.com> wrote:
> >> The Nutter was only flown once. It does have a kill. Not a P-51
> >> or a P-47 or not even a Gnat. That kill was it's pilot on the
> >> maiden flight.
>
> >> Yes, the Nutter was some great Fighter. Guaranteed to get a kill
> >> on every flight.
>
> > Er no, test flying is dangerous. Do you think Eddie Allen and crews
> > death proved the B-29 crap?
>
> >> Let's here if for the Nutter that almost flew.
>
> >> The BA stands for Bullshit Artist.
>
> > This is 'recreation aviation military' it is not a place for you to
> > carry out your petty vendettas.
>
> Remember that next time you spew your racist filth.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Just race realist not filth. It's you who are the real racist.
>
>
>
> > The Natter actually had a number of succesfull piloted flights and
> > landings as a towed release glider with a improvised landing gear
> > though it was more like a controlled crash landing. Handling was
> > good.
>
> Name one manned flight other than the one that wasted Sieber.
Several well documented towed release, manned launches
.
Supposedly the program continued, under a new bosses.
>
> > The Natter had a number of succesfull unmaned launches: it used a
> > similar high bandwidth gyroscopic auto-pilot as the V2 did. This was
> > supposed to take care of the intitial launch follwed by radio directed
> > intercept to a suitable attack position.
>
> So?
So?
>
>
>
> > The mystery of the Ba 349 is solved. One of its 4 RATO strap on
> > boosters 'fizzled' and due to its extended burn did not detach. Its
> > pilot Lothar Sieber had elected not to use the auto-pilot. Due to the
> > detachment and difficulty of control he became disoriented in low
> > cloud base and crashed. The decision to launch manually may have been
> > fatal as automatic launch would likely have taken him to a safe
> > altitude. His bodily remains and parts of the wreckage and the single
> > booster have been recovered.
>
> He still got greased.
I noticed you introduced the term "waxed" and "greased" to test pilots
who lost their lives into this news group some time back.
Because of that I occaisionally use it now, the same way you do, to
incite but mainly as rhetorical device to highlight hypocrissy, though
in my case there is no underlying racial hatred.
>
>
>
> > It waxed a few less people than the Space Shuttle and its conceptually
> > flawed re-entry concepts and boosters.
>
> Not a good comparison, space shuttle had a larger crew and made 130
> successful flights and 2 that failed.
Of course it's not a valid statistical comparison.
But to say that a concept is flawed because one flight, the first
manned test flight failed, is even more completely puerile.
Many aircraft injur or hurt their test pilots on the maiden flight.
In the case of the Ba 349 Natter there were several
sucessfull unmanned launches.
Every Natter launch would have been risky due to the complexity but it
was likely to be less risky than opperating a conventional bomber
intercept mission.
Eunometic
I defininetly see your point. I used these terms as an emotionally
provocative rhetorical device to highlight hypocrissy. I say so
without feeling disrespect for the crews. The original poster was,
afterall, being mischeivious without even adding information to the NG.
Eunometic
So no Research and Development, at the birth of the jet ageand
rocketry, has any validity unless it fired of in a manned flight and
then mass produced.
That's a rather rediculous 'standard'.
Many, if not most of these projects got to the wind tunnel stage and
also underwent extensive aerodyanamic analysis. Some reached mockup
stage.
Dan
You really do like being shot down, don't you? Remember when you
were pretending to be a female named Xenia and both you and I contacted
Deutches Museum? They said there were no known manned flights of any
kind other than the one that wasted the pilot. It is only your forlorn
wishes that more manned flights occurred. You say such flights are
"conceivable" but provide absolutely no proof. It is more conceivable no
further flights occurred since there are no reliable witness statements.
Keep your Nazi dreams going and you don't have to deal with the real
world, right?
>
> 2) The Fi-166 interceptor program preceeded this and was an aircraft
> launched via A-5 missile. Fact. Although not more than a paper design
> the concept was not lost on postwar US space developments no more than
> the Peeenemunde A-9 and EMW spacecraft were. The Russians captured the
> Draeger space suit and Peenemunde cluster rocket models (or one of the
> 92 ft demonstrator rockets) as well as developments on Misdroy like
> the Henschel V-4 weapon and at Lofer, Austria all work on the Sanger
> Antipodal bomber spacecraft. All of these things were taken seriously
> and the USSR and US sorted out what was immediately possible and what
> was too far ahead like rotating space stations and death rays from
> space.
>
Rotating space stations and death rays can be traced to Jules Verne,
among others. Keep your Nazi dreams going and you don't have to deal
with the real world, right?
> So instead of just making hostile statements w/o anything to back them
> up, try common sense and try reading about those programs first. The
> US and USSR learned a lot from the Third Reich and applied what they
> could as fast as they could. It was the Cold War arms and space races.
>
> Rob
So, when will you admit the third wreck learned from others? You
still refuse to admit who invented the aileron and stepped float.
Daryl Hunt
> On Mar 4, 3:49 am, Dan<B24...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> On 3/3/2011 5:41 AM, Eunometic wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 3, 7:41 pm, Daryl Hunt<dh...@nspami70west.com> wrote:
>>>> The Nutter was only flown once. It does have a kill. Not a P-51
>>>> or a P-47 or not even a Gnat. That kill was it's pilot on the
>>>> maiden flight.
>>
>>>> Yes, the Nutter was some great Fighter. Guaranteed to get a kill
>>>> on every flight.
>>
>>> Er no, test flying is dangerous. Do you think Eddie Allen and crews
>>> death proved the B-29 crap?
>>
>>>> Let's here if for the Nutter that almost flew.
>>
>>>> The BA stands for Bullshit Artist.
>>
>>> This is 'recreation aviation military' it is not a place for you to
>>> carry out your petty vendettas.
>>
>> Remember that next time you spew your racist filth.
>
> Honi soit qui mal y pense
>
> Just race realist not filth. It's you who are the real racist.
You can trust me on this, I take many of your comments not a
racist filth but Religious persecution filth.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The Natter actually had a number of succesfull piloted flights and
>>> landings as a towed release glider with a improvised landing gear
>>> though it was more like a controlled crash landing. Handling was
>>> good.
>>
>> Name one manned flight other than the one that wasted Sieber.
>
> Several well documented towed release, manned launches
> .
> Supposedly the program continued, under a new bosses.
One flight, one crash, one dead pilot. It was a very stupid idea.
We used to have an NCO from Missiles in our Aircraft Unit. We
kidded him about his missiles. When he retired, the Operations
Officers issued him a missiles pilots license, good for one
flight. The Nutter isn't any different. It should have never
been attempted to be manned. The Nazis, at the time, did not
have the technology to accomplish this unless they got real lucky
on every flight. But since the Nutter crashed and burned, there
just wasn't that much luck available for this stupid thing.
>
>>
>>> The Natter had a number of succesfull unmaned launches: it used a
>>> similar high bandwidth gyroscopic auto-pilot as the V2 did. This was
>>> supposed to take care of the intitial launch follwed by radio directed
>>> intercept to a suitable attack position.
>>
>> So?
>
> So?
Nutter?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The mystery of the Ba 349 is solved. One of its 4 RATO strap on
>>> boosters 'fizzled' and due to its extended burn did not detach. Its
>>> pilot Lothar Sieber had elected not to use the auto-pilot. Due to the
>>> detachment and difficulty of control he became disoriented in low
>>> cloud base and crashed. The decision to launch manually may have been
>>> fatal as automatic launch would likely have taken him to a safe
>>> altitude. His bodily remains and parts of the wreckage and the single
>>> booster have been recovered.
>>
>> He still got greased.
>
> I noticed you introduced the term "waxed" and "greased" to test pilots
> who lost their lives into this news group some time back.
Those terms are used for all fighter pilots that do something
stupid or are enemy combatants when they corkscrew in. Dont'
over load your Nutter butt.
>
> Because of that I occaisionally use it now, the same way you do, to
> incite but mainly as rhetorical device to highlight hypocrissy, though
> in my case there is no underlying racial hatred.
No, just Religious hatred. Religious hatred has gotten the
world into more trouble than racial hatred.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> It waxed a few less people than the Space Shuttle and its conceptually
>>> flawed re-entry concepts and boosters.
>>
>> Not a good comparison, space shuttle had a larger crew and made 130
>> successful flights and 2 that failed.
>
>
> Of course it's not a valid statistical comparison.
Nope, it's the Nutter.
>
> But to say that a concept is flawed because one flight, the first
> manned test flight failed, is even more completely puerile.
No one in their right mind would saddle up that thing. Success
is when you get unlucky once inawhile. Failure is when you get
unlucky more than the system is worth. With the Nutter, utter
failure is when it's so insane on sane Test Pilot (Test pilots do
border on the sanity department) won't fly it. It was a failure
then and it would still be a monumental failure if tried today.
But today, we wouldn't put a pilot in it so that insanity just
might be tried. Well, it's insanity and has nor worth outside of
a funeral parlor.
>
> Many aircraft injur or hurt their test pilots on the maiden flight.
> In the case of the Ba 349 Natter there were several
> sucessfull unmanned launches.
Success in a piloted vehicle is when it goes up with a live pilot
and lands with a live pilot. Any failure in the sequence of
things that this is not accomplished is a failure. The Nutter
failed.
>
> Every Natter launch would have been risky due to the complexity but it
> was likely to be less risky than opperating a conventional bomber
> intercept mission.
Every nutter launch would be suidical. It was a stupid idea.
Yet you two Nazis put down one AC that tried to use the Nose
Rockets and failed with it but went on to be a valuable
contributor to many years of military fighter service.
Dan
> On Mar 4, 3:49 am, Dan<B24...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> On 3/3/2011 5:41 AM, Eunometic wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 3, 7:41 pm, Daryl Hunt<dh...@nspami70west.com> wrote:
>>>> The Nutter was only flown once. It does have a kill. Not a P-51
>>>> or a P-47 or not even a Gnat. That kill was it's pilot on the
>>>> maiden flight.
>>
>>>> Yes, the Nutter was some great Fighter. Guaranteed to get a kill
>>>> on every flight.
>>
>>> Er no, test flying is dangerous. Do you think Eddie Allen and crews
>>> death proved the B-29 crap?
>>
>>>> Let's here if for the Nutter that almost flew.
>>
>>>> The BA stands for Bullshit Artist.
>>
>>> This is 'recreation aviation military' it is not a place for you to
>>> carry out your petty vendettas.
>>
>> Remember that next time you spew your racist filth.
>
> Honi soit qui mal y pense
>
> Just race realist not filth. It's you who are the real racist.
Really? Show me anything racist I have ever said.
>>
>>
>>> The Natter actually had a number of succesfull piloted flights and
>>> landings as a towed release glider with a improvised landing gear
>>> though it was more like a controlled crash landing. Handling was
>>> good.
>>
>> Name one manned flight other than the one that wasted Sieber.
>
> Several well documented towed release, manned launches.
Prove it.
> .
> Supposedly the program continued, under a new bosses.
"Supposedly" is proof of nothing. Supposedly English is your primary
language, evidence suggests it might not be.
>
>>
>>> The Natter had a number of succesfull unmaned launches: it used a
>>> similar high bandwidth gyroscopic auto-pilot as the V2 did. This was
>>> supposed to take care of the intitial launch follwed by radio directed
>>> intercept to a suitable attack position.
>>
>> So?
>
> So?
So, it was a complete flop with a 100% aircrew fatality rate.
>>
>>
>>> The mystery of the Ba 349 is solved. One of its 4 RATO strap on
>>> boosters 'fizzled' and due to its extended burn did not detach. Its
>>> pilot Lothar Sieber had elected not to use the auto-pilot. Due to the
>>> detachment and difficulty of control he became disoriented in low
>>> cloud base and crashed. The decision to launch manually may have been
>>> fatal as automatic launch would likely have taken him to a safe
>>> altitude. His bodily remains and parts of the wreckage and the single
>>> booster have been recovered.
>>
>> He still got greased.
>
> I noticed you introduced the term "waxed" and "greased" to test pilots
> who lost their lives into this news group some time back.
>
> Because of that I occaisionally use it now, the same way you do, to
> incite but mainly as rhetorical device to highlight hypocrissy, though
> in my case there is no underlying racial hatred.
I use terms like that for more than test pilots. If you had ever
served in law enforcement, EMT or the military you'd use equivalent
terms. If you are suggesting I am being racist in doing so I would be
delighted to see you make a cogent argument proving so.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It waxed a few less people than the Space Shuttle and its conceptually
>>> flawed re-entry concepts and boosters.
>>
>> Not a good comparison, space shuttle had a larger crew and made 130
>> successful flights and 2 that failed.
>
>
> Of course it's not a valid statistical comparison.
Then why did you trot it out?
>
> But to say that a concept is flawed because one flight, the first
> manned test flight failed, is even more completely puerile.
The concept of implementation was flawed, not the concept of flight.
>
> Many aircraft injur or hurt their test pilots on the maiden flight.
> In the case of the Ba 349 Natter there were several
> sucessfull unmanned launches.
OK, let's try again, all of the unmanned tests were before the
single, fatal manned flight. Space shuttle had many successful flights
before its first fatal one.
>
> Every Natter launch would have been risky due to the complexity but it
> was likely to be less risky than opperating a conventional bomber
> intercept mission.
Right, keep your Nazi dreams going and you don't have to deal with
the real world, right?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here goes the Dan spin again.
If you remember, I contacted the Deutsches Museum and they could NOT
account for the five missing airframe histories- all other production
a/c were accounted for. Those 5 were all slated for manned flight
testing right after Lothar Siebert. Those records were in the hands of
the SS and remain MISSING.
Do you want me to repost the facts on the airframes by sequence? Or
the Deutsches Museum reply which you LIED about claiming that all the
history was known. Not so as those 5 airframes are missing all
documentation and remain so. I talked to the Museum historian myself.
Rob
Dan
A few did, but what aren't posted here was a list that never got of
paper. Sketches and preliminary performance wishes are just that. Maybe
they suggest something to others, maybe they don't. To suggest no one
else could have invented something because they didn't have grounding in
German work is blindly stupid.
Daryl Hunt
I pointed out the one powered piloted flight it had. You and
your buddy kept bringing it up over and over. And slighting the
one AC that had nose firing capability that wasn't used in combat
for obvious reasons.
So you keep trying to cover for Nutter Butter. He needs all the
help he can get.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re-post from 2007:
This topic is truly ridiculous. If any of you bothered to research
the
history of the Ba-349/BP-20 then you would KNOW that ALL airframes
are
accounted for except FIVE.
This means that claims of 7-10 manned flights are absolutely false
while more modern claims of 3-5 are completely within that range.
The airframes unaccounted for or listed as "unknown disposition" are
M26-M30. The dates of these machines fall DIRECTLY after Siebert's
death and were ALL scheduled for manned flights.
M31-M33 resumed unmanned gantry length flight testing.
I trust the German Museum too, but if they lack the information of
those 5 BP-20s, then they are not qualified to say that they were not
manned, since they do not know.
Since the entire program was run by the SS on order of Heinrich
Himmler, any successful manned flight data would have been ordered
destroyed. The SS also made sure to attempt dispersal of the BP-20s
as
US troops advanced into their operating areas- which caused initial
confusion as to how many of these aircraft were manufactured.
Contact the German Museum on the M26-M30 BP-20s for authentication.
That is my suggestion.
Daryl Hunt
Missing as in , doesn't exist. If they remain missing how are
you aware of them. Do you have a crystal ball that works better
than my History does? You should contact the State Department.
They definately could use your help.
>
> Do you want me to repost the facts on the airframes by sequence? Or
> the Deutsches Museum reply which you LIED about claiming that all the
> history was known. Not so as those 5 airframes are missing all
> documentation and remain so. I talked to the Museum historian myself.
If the records are missing then you can't post them period. You
can only post personal opinions. And your Nutter Butter opinion
is questionable.
Dan
Um, go back and look at what I said, missy. No proof of flights isn't
proof that they may have occurred. You have yet to prove the SS ever got
any Natters let alone that they ever flew. Deutches Museum has no such
records and a much better research staff than you. I trust them and have
absolutely no reason to believe anything you have ever said. Your track
record is that bad.
LIBERATOR
> The Nutter was only flown once. It does have a kill. Not a P-51
> or a P-47 or not even a Gnat. That kill was it's pilot on the
> maiden flight.
>
> Yes, the Nutter was some great Fighter. Guaranteed to get a kill
> on every flight.
>
> Let's here if for the Nutter that almost flew.
>
> The BA stands for Bullshit Artist.
No video?
Daryl Hunt
One documented. Just one with a dead pilot to go with it. That
is all that is documented.
>
> The airframes unaccounted for or listed as "unknown disposition" are
> M26-M30. The dates of these machines fall DIRECTLY after Siebert's
> death and were ALL scheduled for manned flights.
>
> M31-M33 resumed unmanned gantry length flight testing.
>
> I trust the German Museum too, but if they lack the information of
> those 5 BP-20s, then they are not qualified to say that they were not
> manned, since they do not know.
Anymore than you are to say the were manned. Actually, the
German Museum is much more qualified than you are.
>
> Since the entire program was run by the SS on order of Heinrich
> Himmler, any successful manned flight data would have been ordered
> destroyed. The SS also made sure to attempt dispersal of the BP-20s
> as
> US troops advanced into their operating areas- which caused initial
> confusion as to how many of these aircraft were manufactured.
Yah, and they secreted away the documents to prove what you are
saying. When all else fails, just claim it classified and press
on with the nutter butter rant.
>
> Contact the German Museum on the M26-M30 BP-20s for authentication.
They will verify that there was only one unsuccessful fatal flight.
Daryl Hunt
I could create one, I suppose but then in a few years, Nutter
Butter would claim it was original and claim he found it in some
kind of archives.
Eunometic
Err no,
You started this new thread and posted BS in it. I don't know what
was going on in the other thread.
Daryl Hunt
You do have a short memory. This is just an extension off your
buddies hijacking the other two that others had started about
things like the F-84. In his wonderful manner, he just kept
getting extremely nasty in the process. Then you jump in to his
rescue. There is no rescue on this one. It's lesson time.
Just to show you, let's see what a BA349 nutter looks like
http://i70west.com/lucy/nutter.jpg
This way, it can litter the countryside and have a container to
pick up what's left of it.
Daryl Hunt
Peter Stickney
There were some manned glide tests of unpowered Natter airframes.
These proved that a simple glider could glide inefficiently.
There was no powered flight testing other than Sieber's flight.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system
Dan
I have found no references to manned glide flights, just unmanned.
Daryl Hunt
That should read, no successful manned flights since the one that
they put a pilot in resulted in total loss of Aircraft and Pilot.
Alan Dicey
Flight testing under air-tow began in December '44 behind an He111
operated by the DFS. As far as I can tell these tests were unmanned and
the 111 landed with the Natter still in tow. At least one test of the
Natter's recovery system was undertaken with a simulated pilot (for
weight), the tow being released and the parachutes deployed. One
unmanned launch took place in February '45.
The only manned VTO flight was undertaken by Lothar Sieber, who was
already under a death sentence after an incident involving an SS General
on the Eastern Front. He was not a qualified test pilot in any way, and
not even a volunteer, but under duress. It should not be surprising
that he lost control and crashed.
Summarised from "Jet Planes of the Third Reich, The Secret Projects.
Volume One": Manfred Griehl, Monogram Aviation Publications, 1988
Eunometic
wrote:
>
Try a Google translate of the German Wikipedia (wikipedia.de)
It says Lothar Sieber
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothar_Sieber
He began his training on 17 January 1940 at the flying school a good
field and Schippenbeil . In January 1941 he was "excellent" was
awarded. Sieber was extremely talented and came on the battlefield
easily cope with different types of aircraft. He flew including an
Italian truck and captured Russian and American bombers, such as the
Tupolev TB-3 or the Boeing B-17 . Sieber was for his services to the
lieutenant and was promoted from 24 April 1942 held his first command.
On 11 February 1943 he was a field court in Minsk because of a
security offense for simple flyer degraded by alcohol. He received
after intervention by Hermann Goering six weeks intensified arrest .
In August 1944, when freed Sieber KG 200 in Ukraine, with a battle
zone transport Arado Ar 232 during a life-threatening low altitude
operation behind enemy lines under fire 23 trapped comrades. For this
he received a letter of recognition by the then leader of the KG 200,
Major Werner Baumbach , who was a very successful fighter pilot
himself, and the Iron Cross I. Class. After another successful hit him
flying Otto Skorzeny , head of the SS-hunting organizations, the
German Cross in Gold before. Lothar Sieber was an pilots Arado Ar 232,
until in December 1944 a test pilot at the company Bachem ( Bachem
GmbH ) in Bad Waldsee was.
The 22-year-old led on 1 March 1945 the first manned rocket plane
flight is one of the story. It was agreed that the degradation of the
test flight canceled after he and the lieutenant should be promoted.
This rank he was then also posthumously awarded. Just before the start
Sieber became engaged with the Air Force assistant Gertrud naudit.
David E. Powell
remembered as space pioneers as they were the first to attempt to ride
or pilot a craft launching straight up.
The Natter was extremely representative of the late war German
aviation concepts. Super ahead of their time in theory and layout but
the production and design flaws were horrendous. Genius of design
trapped in an insane system under unimaginable human circumstances.
I wonder how other nations would have done under similar circumstances
but am glad we didnt' find out.
Rob Arndt
The Natter was a manned missile and a crude one at that. I sometimes
wonder at 36,000 fpm climb if the craft could hold together and even
so the firing of a salvo of Fohn or R4M missiles at an enemy a/c would
be tricky at best and then the real shocker with the escape system
where the pilot had to eject the nose cone, release his harnass, and
then pull back a stick to release the parachute for the airframe while
being pushed forward to open his own chute!!!
The entire procedure was crazy.
However, that didn't prevent 10 of the craft from being ready for
operational launch when US Army tanks rolled into the area. The SS was
busy with dispersal so possibly there were no volunteer pilots to fly
them or the SS could not force anyone to fly them.
The SS for all of its brutality and schemes tended to pass on the
Reichenberg and other suicide weapons.
Rob
Dan
> However, that didn't prevent 10 of the craft from being ready for
> operational launch when US Army tanks rolled into the area.
Ten, huh? Prove it. Do you include the one on tricycle landing gear?
Eunometic
> On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > The earliest pilots who attempted vertical launch must also be
> > remembered as space pioneers as they were the first to attempt to ride
> > or pilot a craft launching straight up.
>
> > The Natter was extremely representative of the late war German
> > aviation concepts. Super ahead of their time in theory and layout but
> > the production and design flaws were horrendous. Genius of design
> > trapped in an insane system under unimaginable human circumstances.
>
> > I wonder how other nations would have done under similar circumstances
> > but am glad we didnt' find out.
>
> The Natter was a manned missile and a crude one at that.
It was actually very sophisticated: hypergolic liquid propellant
rocket motor, strap on boosters, three dimensional auto-pilot and
radio control to intercept point.
> I sometimes
> wonder at 36,000 fpm climb if the craft could hold together
It was designed by experienced aeronatuical engineers.
> and even
> so the firing of a salvo of Fohn or R4M missiles at an enemy a/c would
> be tricky at best
The aiming and firing constititutes the only part in which there was a
human element that required good skill.
> and then the real shocker with the escape system
> where the pilot had to eject the nose cone, release his harnass, and
> then pull back a stick to release the parachute for the airframe while
> being pushed forward to open his own chute!!!
Wrong order I think
deploy Natter drogue, detach nose (using deceleration), then release
oneself from harness and parachute (or sky dive) away.
I would think it safer than trying to land at an airfield patrolled by
allied straffers.
>
> The entire procedure was crazy.
Not as crazy as taking of on a bomb pitted airfield, fighting your way
through hordes of allied fighters and then getting shot and bombed on
your landing approach.
Rob Arndt
No b/c that is a BP-20 Analog :)
Rob
Dan
> Not as crazy as taking of on a bomb pitted airfield, fighting your way
> through hordes of allied fighters and then getting shot and bombed on
> your landing approach.
Nowhere near as stupid as starting a war the Nazis had no hope of
winning in the first place.
Alan Dicey
> On Mar 6, 4:55 am, Alan Dicey<a...@diceyhome.free-online.co.uk>
>> The only manned VTO flight was undertaken by Lothar Sieber, who was
>> already under a death sentence after an incident involving an SS General
>> on the Eastern Front. He was not a qualified test pilot in any way, and
>> not even a volunteer, but under duress. It should not be surprising
>> that he lost control and crashed.
>>
>> Summarised from "Jet Planes of the Third Reich, The Secret Projects.
>> Volume One": Manfred Griehl, Monogram Aviation Publications, 1988
>>
>
> Try a Google translate of the German Wikipedia (wikipedia.de)
>
> It says Lothar Sieber
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothar_Sieber
I'll take Manfred Griehl over Wikipedia.
tomcervo
wrote:
Another monument to the unrestrained competition among bureaucracies
that Hitler encouraged, possibly to prevent anyone subverting his
authority. All this Luft '46 nonsense would not have had a tenth of
the effect of a rational direction to the German aircraft industry
that the only single-seater in production after 1942 would be the
FW-190.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > The earliest pilots who attempted vertical launch must also be
> > remembered as space pioneers as they were the first to attempt to ride
> > or pilot a craft launching straight up.
>
> > The Natter was extremely representative of the late war German
> > aviation concepts. Super ahead of their time in theory and layout but
> > the production and design flaws were horrendous. Genius of design
> > trapped in an insane system under unimaginable human circumstances.
>
> > I wonder how other nations would have done under similar circumstances
> > but am glad we didnt' find out.
>
> The Natter was a manned missile and a crude one at that. I sometimes
> wonder at 36,000 fpm climb if the craft could hold together and even
> so the firing of a salvo of Fohn or R4M missiles at an enemy a/c would
> be tricky at best and then the real shocker with the escape system
> where the pilot had to eject the nose cone, release his harnass, and
> then pull back a stick to release the parachute for the airframe while
> being pushed forward to open his own chute!!!
>
> The entire procedure was crazy.
I've worked with a lot of electronic companies including Seimens
and Telefunken (Ken put the Fun in teleFunKen), and the're as
good as the best.
It would have been a lot cheaper to replace the pilot with a vaccum
tube guidance system. The Natter pilot was 'practically' a kamikaze,
humans are very expensive.
The V2 guidance system is evidence of the German ability at that
time.
Ken
...
David E. Powell
True, in that regard the Natter was a forerunner of modern SAMs where
the cone of shrapnel spreads out like a shotgun blast.
The Germans had good stuff but they weren't quite there yet for total
radar homing that worked. Wasserfall was another idea to shoot a big
missile. Remember it took a very long time after the war for the US,
UK and USSR to perfect radar guided SAMs capable of hitting a WW2-era
bomber. (I recall surplus B-17s being used as test targets, vaguely.)
The Natter's idea was to have a person for terminal guidance and for
firing of the rockets (as opposed, of course, to the later SAMs'
warheads.)
Ken S. Tucker
I was seriously impressed by the development of proximity AA shells,
based on mini vac-tubes. That was an RCA job (IIRC), wow.
I think the nazi's were playing with a few cards short of a deck, to
misunderstand the use of electronics in modern warfare.
If nazi's had ordered something like a NIKE they would have got one.
Ken
Eunometic
Some of the Wassefalls guidence already existed of the shelf. There
being two types: beam riding and command.
The Kehl/Strassbourg system used to guide the Fritz-X and Hs 293 was
adapted to test the Wassefall. There were jam resistant replacements
for this based in directional beams, FM etc but it would do.
The transponders existed in the form of IFF or secondary radar.
The Germans were already using a track lock radar called "Manheim" in
small numbers, one could be used to track the target and another
adjusted to track the transponder in the missile. The Manheim was a
FLAK radar and could transfer its data to a FLAK predictor. A
parrallex converted would need to be developed to converge the missile
and targets path.
So a system could be 'improvised' from of the shelf components,
Getting it ready for service is another matter.
>
> The Natter's idea was to have a person for terminal guidance and for
> firing of the rockets (as opposed, of course, to the later SAMs'
> warheads.)- Hide quoted text -
David E. Powell
Agreed. The ideas were there, and a lot of the stuff could be
foreseen, but making it work at the time, with the time needed to
integrate and develop the technology, was tough to see.
The Natter is remarkably similar in that way to the Japanese Okha
missile, or the Kamikaze planes. These were analogs of the Anti-Ship
missle of today, much as the Natter was to the Surface-To-Air missile.
In both cases the terminal guidance system was made a human being, to
make up for not everything being there yet to do it with computers or
automated guidance systems.
The Germans, at least, had a concept for the pilot to escape, though
in practical terms the number of things a pilot would have to do right
to survive were very demanding and dangerous. Consider all the pilot
was meant to do after ejecting the forward part of the missile,
exposing themselves to a wind of many hundreds of miles per hour head
on, not to mention possible debris.
There was also the Land-Attack Air Launched Cruise Missile, at least
in concept, in the piloted missile concepts from late in the war that
thankfully were not pursued.
And I thought B.F. Skinner was mean for trying it with pigeons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon
One interesting note is that this idea persisted until 1953, when it
was proven that electronic systems were up to replacing biological
ones, at least in terms of pigeons.
Eunometic
wrote:
There has been recent research in Germany, such as uncovering of the
crash site and some of Lothar Sieber's reamains not available when
Griehl did his work. The Wikipedia.de article is in part based on a
TV programm.