Discussion:
Bell XF-109
(too old to reply)
Rob Arndt
2007-06-18 00:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Loading Image...

What an original idea... wonder where they got it from:
http://www.afwing.com/intro/birdy/23.htm

Gee, there's a lot of German VTOL craft there and one that actually
flew.

Rob
Scott Lowther
2007-06-18 01:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Arndt
http://jpcolliat.free.fr/f109/images/bell_d_188_03.jpg
What an original idea... wonder where they got it from...
From the mind of Bell aircraft designer Robert J Woods. The Bell D-109
VTOL fighter, from which the D-188 was derived, was designed in 1951 for
the US Navy... competed against the Lockheed and Convair tailsitters.

The D-109 patent:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=H-lxAAAAEBAJ&dq=d170393
Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.afwing.com/intro/birdy/23.htm
Gee, there's a lot of German VTOL craft there and one that actually
flew.
Yes, copied from US design concepts.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Rob Arndt
2007-06-18 01:45:46 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 17, 6:29?pm, Scott Lowther
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
http://jpcolliat.free.fr/f109/images/bell_d_188_03.jpg
What an original idea... wonder where they got it from...
From the mind of Bell aircraft designer Robert J Woods. The Bell D-109
VTOL fighter, from which the D-188 was derived, was designed in 1951 for
the US Navy... competed against the Lockheed and Convair tailsitters.
The D-109 patent:http://www.google.com/patents?id=H-lxAAAAEBAJ&dq=d170393
Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.afwing.com/intro/birdy/23.htm
Gee, there's a lot of German VTOL craft there and one that actually
flew.
Yes, copied from US design concepts.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Both in WW2 and postwar Germany/W Germany had more VTOL designs that
actually flew. BTW, the He-231 original tailsitter was from WW2 and
was redesigned postwar. FYI.

Rob
Rob Arndt
2007-06-18 01:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Arndt
On Jun 17, 6:29?pm, Scott Lowther
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
http://jpcolliat.free.fr/f109/images/bell_d_188_03.jpg
What an original idea... wonder where they got it from...
From the mind of Bell aircraft designer Robert J Woods. The Bell D-109
VTOL fighter, from which the D-188 was derived, was designed in 1951 for
the US Navy... competed against the Lockheed and Convair tailsitters.
The D-109 patent:http://www.google.com/patents?id=H-lxAAAAEBAJ&dq=d170393
Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.afwing.com/intro/birdy/23.htm
Gee, there's a lot of German VTOL craft there and one that actually
flew.
Yes, copied from US design concepts.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Both in WW2 and postwar Germany/W Germany had more VTOL designs that
actually flew. BTW, the He-231 original tailsitter was from WW2 and
was redesigned postwar. FYI.
Rob- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
BTW, Bell stole the entire rocketbelt idea from the captured German
Schmidt Himmelsturmer (Sky Stormer) engineers flight pack and
developed the variable-geometry winged X-5 from the captured Me P.
1101.

Rob
Scott Lowther
2007-06-18 02:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Arndt
Post by Rob Arndt
On Jun 17, 6:29?pm, Scott Lowther
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
http://jpcolliat.free.fr/f109/images/bell_d_188_03.jpg
What an original idea... wonder where they got it from...
From the mind of Bell aircraft designer Robert J Woods. The Bell D-109
VTOL fighter, from which the D-188 was derived, was designed in 1951 for
the US Navy... competed against the Lockheed and Convair tailsitters.
The D-109 patent:http://www.google.com/patents?id=H-lxAAAAEBAJ&dq=d170393
Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.afwing.com/intro/birdy/23.htm
Gee, there's a lot of German VTOL craft there and one that actually
flew.
Yes, copied from US design concepts.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Both in WW2 and postwar Germany/W Germany had more VTOL designs that
actually flew. BTW, the He-231 original tailsitter was from WW2 and
was redesigned postwar. FYI.
Rob- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
BTW, Bell stole the entire rocketbelt idea from the captured German
Schmidt Himmelsturmer (Sky Stormer) engineers flight pack
Documentation that this was actually built, please.
Post by Rob Arndt
and
developed the variable-geometry winged X-5 from the captured Me P.
1101.
Well known. So?
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
RapidRonnie
2007-06-18 04:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
Post by Rob Arndt
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.afwing.com/intro/birdy/23.htm
Gee, there's a lot of German VTOL craft there and one that actually
flew.
Yes, copied from US design concepts.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Both in WW2 and postwar Germany/W Germany had more VTOL designs that
actually flew. BTW, the He-231 original tailsitter was from WW2 and
was redesigned postwar. FYI.
Rob- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
BTW, Bell stole the entire rocketbelt idea from the captured German
Schmidt Himmelsturmer (Sky Stormer) engineers flight pack
Documentation that this was actually built, please.
Post by Rob Arndt
and
developed the variable-geometry winged X-5 from the captured Me P.
1101.
Well known. So?
Both were simply demonstration aircraft and the German one did not
fly.

Yes, the Germans had a lot of good ideas. But the Germans are not as
good as the Americans at making things producible and maintainable.

When we were a manufacturing nation we were unbeatable in the US. We
had the best of British, German, and other European thinking and could
translate it into actual hardware better than anyone. Remember, after
the Anglo-Saxon Brits who colonized the upper east coast and the
Celtic indentures to the South, there were more immigrants from the
Teutonosphere to the US than anywhere else.

VTOL fixed wing aviation is actually a dead end except for very
specialized missions. ESTOL-Extreme STOL, categorized by sophisticated
high lift devices-is a far more useful and underutilized regime the
military has avoided precisely because it's inexpensive and simple.
And ZELL would be a lot more practical as a launch method with
aircraft that, unlike the Century Series, have better than 1:1 thrust/
weight ratios. A stripped down F-15 with composites replacing heavy
metal structure and much lighter avionics and the later dash number
engines could probably do some pretty astonishing mission profiles.

I had a college materials science prof who demonstrated Cat IIIC-zero
zero- approaches with a modified Cessna Skylane called a Wren. He did
it with a high ranking FAA man in the right seat, a former astronaut
turned sadly incompetent airline executive, and a couple of military
test pilots. The company wanted only Cat II approval and never got it.
He also demonstrated coming to a complete stop five feet off the
runway into a less than 30 knot wind and two ground handlers running
out grabbing the main gear, and "walking" him down. You couldn't do
that with a Harrier: they'd be barbecued.
Pat Flannery
2007-06-18 09:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by RapidRonnie
Yes, the Germans had a lot of good ideas. But the Germans are not as
good as the Americans at making things producible and maintainable.
Especially tanks.
We put our automobile industry to work producing tanks, and even though
the Sherman wasn't the world's best tank by a long shot, it was reliable
and could be turned out in vast numbers.
The Germans put their heavy machinery industry to work making tanks, and
although they were formidable and very advanced mechanically, they
couldn't make them in large numbers, and their complexity led to breakdowns.
The numbers say it all:
Panzer IIIs: 16,311 total.
Panzer IV's: 13,311
Panzer V (Panther): 6,557
Panzer VI (Tiger I): 1,350
Panzer VI B (Tiger II): 490
That includes all versions of the tanks (SP guns, antitank, etc) on the
chassis.
Grand total, 38,019 medium and heavy tanks.
Without even counting the self-propelled guns and antitank versions, we
made 48,966 M-4 Shermans.
To that you can add 5,258 M-3 Lees, 13,546 SP guns and antitank vehicles
based on the M-3/M-4 chassis, and 2,202 M26 Pershing heavy tanks.
Grand total: 69,972 tanks.
Post by RapidRonnie
And ZELL would be a lot more practical as a launch method with
aircraft that, unlike the Century Series, have better than 1:1 thrust/
weight ratios. A stripped down F-15 with composites replacing heavy
metal structure and much lighter avionics and the later dash number
engines could probably do some pretty astonishing mission profiles.
Do you mean using RATO off of a ramp, or launching it vertically like a
rocketship using just its jet thrust?
If you do the latter, you are going to need some way to stabilize it
during the initial ascent, as it's going to be going too slow for the
control surfaces to be of any use.
Post by RapidRonnie
I had a college materials science prof who demonstrated Cat IIIC-zero
zero- approaches with a modified Cessna Skylane called a Wren. He did
it with a high ranking FAA man in the right seat, a former astronaut
turned sadly incompetent airline executive, and a couple of military
test pilots. The company wanted only Cat II approval and never got it.
He also demonstrated coming to a complete stop five feet off the
runway into a less than 30 knot wind and two ground handlers running
out grabbing the main gear, and "walking" him down. You couldn't do
that with a Harrier: they'd be barbecued.
I'd like to see someone try a vertical landing in a F-15...you'd need
around a 140 knot headwind. :-)

Pat
RapidRonnie
2007-06-18 19:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by RapidRonnie
Yes, the Germans had a lot of good ideas. But the Germans are not as
good as the Americans at making things producible and maintainable.
Especially tanks.
We put our automobile industry to work producing tanks, and even though
the Sherman wasn't the world's best tank by a long shot, it was reliable
and could be turned out in vast numbers.
The Germans put their heavy machinery industry to work making tanks, and
although they were formidable and very advanced mechanically, they
couldn't make them in large numbers, and their complexity led to breakdowns.
Panzer IIIs: 16,311 total.
Panzer IV's: 13,311
Panzer V (Panther): 6,557
Panzer VI (Tiger I): 1,350
Panzer VI B (Tiger II): 490
That includes all versions of the tanks (SP guns, antitank, etc) on the
chassis.
Grand total, 38,019 medium and heavy tanks.
Without even counting the self-propelled guns and antitank versions, we
made 48,966 M-4 Shermans.
To that you can add 5,258 M-3 Lees, 13,546 SP guns and antitank vehicles
based on the M-3/M-4 chassis, and 2,202 M26 Pershing heavy tanks.
Grand total: 69,972 tanks.
Post by RapidRonnie
And ZELL would be a lot more practical as a launch method with
aircraft that, unlike the Century Series, have better than 1:1 thrust/
weight ratios. A stripped down F-15 with composites replacing heavy
metal structure and much lighter avionics and the later dash number
engines could probably do some pretty astonishing mission profiles.
Do you mean using RATO off of a ramp, or launching it vertically like a
rocketship using just its jet thrust?
If you do the latter, you are going to need some way to stabilize it
during the initial ascent, as it's going to be going too slow for the
control surfaces to be of any use.
RATO off a ramp or a vertical launch with a couple of solid boosters
would be the best bets.
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by RapidRonnie
I had a college materials science prof who demonstrated Cat IIIC-zero
zero- approaches with a modified Cessna Skylane called a Wren. He did
it with a high ranking FAA man in the right seat, a former astronaut
turned sadly incompetent airline executive, and a couple of military
test pilots. The company wanted only Cat II approval and never got it.
He also demonstrated coming to a complete stop five feet off the
runway into a less than 30 knot wind and two ground handlers running
out grabbing the main gear, and "walking" him down. You couldn't do
that with a Harrier: they'd be barbecued.
I'd like to see someone try a vertical landing in a F-15...you'd need
around a 140 knot headwind. :-)
A modern fighter could be built that could land at 60 knots, giving
it a thousand foot roll or so. In most countries with a highway
infrastructure that's commonly available somewhere around the city.
Pat Flannery
2007-06-19 11:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by RapidRonnie
Post by Pat Flannery
Do you mean using RATO off of a ramp, or launching it vertically like a
rocketship using just its jet thrust?
If you do the latter, you are going to need some way to stabilize it
during the initial ascent, as it's going to be going too slow for the
control surfaces to be of any use.
RATO off a ramp or a vertical launch with a couple of solid boosters
would be the best bets.
It's certainly possible to do; We did it with both F-100's and F-104's,
and the Russians with MiG-19s.
But no one put it into service; the launch tended to damage the ZELL,
and occasionally (rarely) the big booster would blow
up, or fail to detach. The Russians went into rocket assisted runway
take-off for their fighters big time, and several types of fighters and
attack planes used it operationally on a regular basis, the Su-7 in
particular.
Trying to shoot the thing straight up like a rocket is going to be
tricky though, as you've got to brace the aircraft to rest on it's tail
or elevate it up to a vertical position in some sort of launch assembly,
leaving the problem of how to get the pilot onboard.
Does he get into it and then it elevates, or does he go up a ladder or
elevator? In either case, quick reaction is tough to do.
This also goes for the ZELL launcher.
At least with the Super Sabres and Starfighters the launch test photos
reveal what the concept was going to be used for:
http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/x_planes/zel04.html
That thing hanging under the port wing is a inert Mk.7 nuclear bomb.
Here, a F-104 is carrying a inert Mk. 28 thermonuclear weapon on the
centerline:
Loading Image...
So you can see the concept; if the balloon goes up and the airfields are
about to be melted, then these things will come flying out of hidden
locations and strike at the enemy in missions that probably end in the
pilot's ejection.
What the Russians were up to is still a bit cryptic; it might have been
the same strike mission, or as a means of dispersing interceptor
fighters to areas where airfields were few and far between to increase
the overall fighter coverage of the USSR, by aircraft of limited range
(that's what they claim).
Post by RapidRonnie
Post by Pat Flannery
I'd like to see someone try a vertical landing in a F-15...you'd need
around a 140 knot headwind. :-)
A modern fighter could be built that could land at 60 knots, giving
it a thousand foot roll or so. In most countries with a highway
infrastructure that's commonly available somewhere around the city.
The Swedes already do this; operating some of their fighters from hidden
forest locations next to highways that are sealed off to serve as
runways in time of emergency: Loading Image...
The ones who really had the slick set-up were the Swiss; they had some
of their RATO-equipped Mirages flying out of tunnels in mountainsides.
Instead of building a fighter with very low landing speed it might be
easier to give it the ability to make arrested landings via the use of
portable arrestor gear, a lot of our Air Force aircraft (F-15, F-16,
F117) already have that ability and carry arrestor hooks.
I'm don't think the A-10 does, but it can land just about anywhere
anyway: Loading Image...
You want to see something get airborne in a hurry, stick RATO on that. :-)

Pat
Pat Flannery
2007-06-18 08:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
BTW, Bell stole the entire rocketbelt idea from the captured German
Schmidt Himmelsturmer (Sky Stormer) engineers flight pack
Documentation that this was actually built, please.
It's supposed to be a set of pulsejets strapped one to the front and one
to the back of a trooper.
Since the acoustic and vibration effects of strapping a pulsejet to
yourself would turn your innards to jelly while shattering your eardrums
at the same time, this is B.S.
Here's the "documentation" on it:
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/HIMMELSTURMER.htm
Now if we can just track down which comic book that the illustration is
from... :-)

Pat
Rob Arndt
2007-06-18 13:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
BTW, Bell stole the entire rocketbelt idea from the captured German
Schmidt Himmelsturmer (Sky Stormer) engineers flight pack
Documentation that this was actually built, please.
It's supposed to be a set of pulsejets strapped one to the front and one
to the back of a trooper.
Since the acoustic and vibration effects of strapping a pulsejet to
yourself would turn your innards to jelly while shattering your eardrums
at the same time, this is B.S.
Here's the "documentation" on it:http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/HIMMELSTURMER.htm
Now if we can just track down which comic book that the illustration is
from... :-)
Pat
The illustration is from the book, "German Secret Weapons of the
Second World War" by Christof Friedrich. pg 20. It can also be found
online at various sites other than mine.

Rob
Scott Lowther
2007-06-18 15:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Arndt
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
BTW, Bell stole the entire rocketbelt idea from the captured German
Schmidt Himmelsturmer (Sky Stormer) engineers flight pack
Documentation that this was actually built, please.
It's supposed to be a set of pulsejets strapped one to the front and one
to the back of a trooper.
Since the acoustic and vibration effects of strapping a pulsejet to
yourself would turn your innards to jelly while shattering your eardrums
at the same time, this is B.S.
Here's the "documentation" on it:http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/HIMMELSTURMER.htm
Now if we can just track down which comic book that the illustration is
from... :-)
Pat
The illustration is from the book, "German Secret Weapons of the
Second World War" by Christof Friedrich.
Ah. Christof Freidrich, AKA Ernst Zundel.

"I realised I had discovered a potent publicity tool with this topic -
which
would get me lots of free time on radio and TV shows, to expose other, more
'politically incorrect' topics to vast audiences... I slipped in lots
and lots
of 'Revisions of History'... I talked about the disinfecting procedures to
protect the valuable worker inmates in the Dora-Mittelwerke rocket
underground
assembly factories... I mentioned the medical facilities in the camps, the
calorie count of the meals served, etc... The UFO books themselves also
had very
important politically otherwise impossible-to-tell messages embedded within
them, such as the National-Socialist Party program and Hitler's analysis
of the
Jewish question...

All that - and I made a fine bundle of money! The money I made from the UFO
books I invested in publishing the booklets Die Auschwitz-Lüge - a
translation
of The Auschwitz Lie, Dr Austin App's booklet The Six Million Swindle and A
Straight Look at the Third Reich; and, of course, later, 'Did Six
Million Really
Die?' by Richard Harwood."

So, you chose an acknowledfged Nazi sympathizer's sci-fi book as a basis?

Yikes.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Rob Arndt
2007-06-18 15:59:50 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 18, 8:24?am, Scott Lowther
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
BTW, Bell stole the entire rocketbelt idea from the captured German
Schmidt Himmelsturmer (Sky Stormer) engineers flight pack
Documentation that this was actually built, please.
It's supposed to be a set of pulsejets strapped one to the front and one
to the back of a trooper.
Since the acoustic and vibration effects of strapping a pulsejet to
yourself would turn your innards to jelly while shattering your eardrums
at the same time, this is B.S.
Here's the "documentation" on it:http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/HIMMELSTURMER.htm
Now if we can just track down which comic book that the illustration is
from... :-)
Pat
The illustration is from the book, "German Secret Weapons of the
Second World War" by Christof Friedrich.
Ah. Christof Freidrich, AKA Ernst Zundel.
"I realised I had discovered a potent publicity tool with this topic -
which
would get me lots of free time on radio and TV shows, to expose other, more
'politically incorrect' topics to vast audiences... I slipped in lots
and lots
of 'Revisions of History'... I talked about the disinfecting procedures to
protect the valuable worker inmates in the Dora-Mittelwerke rocket
underground
assembly factories... I mentioned the medical facilities in the camps, the
calorie count of the meals served, etc... The UFO books themselves also
had very
important politically otherwise impossible-to-tell messages embedded within
them, such as the National-Socialist Party program and Hitler's analysis
of the
Jewish question...
All that - and I made a fine bundle of money! The money I made from the UFO
books I invested in publishing the booklets Die Auschwitz-L ge - a
translation
of The Auschwitz Lie, Dr Austin App's booklet The Six Million Swindle and A
Straight Look at the Third Reich; and, of course, later, 'Did Six
Million Really
Die?' by Richard Harwood."
So, you chose an acknowledfged Nazi sympathizer's sci-fi book as a basis?
Yikes.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
All of the entries in the book are German WW2 secret weapons that are
relatively known. The only 2 controversies out of the 50 entries are
the flightpack and disc a/c. All pages are illustrated in the same
way. There is absolutely ZERO anti-Holocaust material in that book.

As for Zundel, he is a morally-bankrupt Holocaust-denier reviled
worldwide. Yet in some of his books dealing with technology, he talks
about a lot of very rare German weapons and projects- most of which
are now known. Back in the 1970s when he wrote on these, however, they
were almost all unknown. So, I value his knowledge on German
technology and even his very thorough material on the German Antarctic
Expedition of 1938/39. He has a lot of photographic material and even
the Third Reich maps from Neu Schwabenland that are hard to find
today- the original ones. That is historical and of value as well,
even if you disagree with his conclusions.

Scientists do this all the time- look at the same evidence and come to
different conclusions. Then the debates continue in various journals
over decades or more, leading to revisions or more properly-
corrections. I just value the technical aspects and the history of Neu
Schwabenland.

I do not support Zundel's beliefs on the Holocaust at all. And some of
his information on the disc projects has been misidentified and mixed-
up with other projects. I do not think that was ever deliberate as in
the 1970s German disc information was little-known with just a few
models- mainly the BMW Flugelrad type and Schauberger's Repulsin
discoid motors. Zundel makes the mistake of misidentifying the
Flugelrad II and III, although his illustrations are correct for other
German discs. We now know his Flugelrad II was actually Habermohl's
design for the Schriever Flugkriesel replacement and that the
Flugelrad III was actually Henri Coanda's lenticular flugscheibe,
tested in a wind tunnel as a model. They are mistakes, that is all...
and common ones from that time period.

I do not have any of Zundel's UFO books nor his Holocaust denial
materials at all. Just one secret weapons book and one Antarctic book.

So keep your sterotypes and labels to yourself.

You might remember that even William Green, Ian Hogg, and Tom Clancy
make technical mistakes in their books (with Clancy I am referring to
his non-fiction military series). Zundel isn't any different and I can
find no errors at all in the secret weapons book which varies little
from any of Ian Hogg's books on the subject.

Rob
Scott Lowther
2007-06-18 17:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Arndt
All of the entries in the book are German WW2 secret weapons that are
relatively known. The only 2 controversies out of the 50 entries are
the flightpack and disc a/c. All pages are illustrated in the same
way. There is absolutely ZERO anti-Holocaust material in that book.
Of course not. However, proceeds from that and Zundels UFO book were
used to funnel Holocaust denail books.
Post by Rob Arndt
As for Zundel, he is a morally-bankrupt Holocaust-denier reviled
worldwide. Yet in some of his books dealing with technology, he talks
about a lot of very rare German weapons and projects- most of which
are now known. Back in the 1970s when he wrote on these, however, they
were almost all unknown.
That's because he *invented* them in the 1970's, and idiots believed
him. His Nazi flying saucer bullshit is the prime example.
Post by Rob Arndt
I do not support Zundel's beliefs on the Holocaust at all. And some of
his information on the disc projects has been misidentified and mixed-
up with other projects. I do not think that was ever deliberate as in
the 1970s German disc information was little-known with just a few
models- mainly the BMW Flugelrad type and Schauberger's Repulsin
discoid motors. Zundel makes the mistake of misidentifying the
Flugelrad II and III, although his illustrations are correct for other
German discs. We now know his Flugelrad II was actually Habermohl's
design for the Schriever Flugkriesel replacement and that the
Flugelrad III was actually Henri Coanda's lenticular flugscheibe,
tested in a wind tunnel as a model.
Uh-huh.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Pat Flannery
2007-06-19 06:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lowther
That's because he *invented* them in the 1970's, and idiots believed
him. His Nazi flying saucer bullshit is the prime example.
You're a model builder, do you think the modified early Panzer IV turret
on the bottom is off the 1/48th scale Bandai kit, or the 1/35th scale
Tamiya one?: Loading Image...
Loading Image...
I think it's the Bandai one.
Those are off this page: http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/HAUNEBU.htm

Pat
Scott Lowther
2007-06-18 21:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Scott Lowther
That's because he *invented* them in the 1970's, and idiots believed
him. His Nazi flying saucer bullshit is the prime example.
You're a model builder, do you think the modified early Panzer IV
turret on the bottom is off the 1/48th scale Bandai kit, or the 1/35th
scale Tamiya one?: http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/picturesb/hb12.jpg
More important questions:
1: How can anyone actually think these obviously faked pictures are "real?"
2: Ahhh... how well does a tank turret work *upside-down*?
3: And if someone had the industrial infrastructure and
centuries-advanced tachnology to build an antigravity flying saucer...
why would they arm it with something off of a conventional *tank?* What,
the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D is packing... Sidewinders, perhaps?
4: With flight speeds listed in the tens of thousands of km/hour... how
well would 1943-era tank armor hold up under the associated aerothermal
load?
5: Why, oh why, are some people so fucking stupid?
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Pat Flannery
2007-06-19 12:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lowther
1: How can anyone actually think these obviously faked pictures are "real?"
2: Ahhh... how well does a tank turret work *upside-down*?
Because the short-barreled 75 mm cannon has been replaced by...this!:
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Donar.html
Just make sure that the commander's hatch is looked before you go
walking around on it in flight.
Post by Scott Lowther
3: And if someone had the industrial infrastructure and
centuries-advanced tachnology to build an antigravity flying saucer...
why would they arm it with something off of a conventional *tank?*
What, the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D is packing... Sidewinders, perhaps?
4: With flight speeds listed in the tens of thousands of km/hour...
how well would 1943-era tank armor hold up under the associated
aerothermal load?
These are questions for the small-minded.
Because it can, that's why.
Besides, there are naked Vril Thrill Girls on board:
Loading Image...
These Vril Vixens are even more lustful than Venusian Firewomen.
Post by Scott Lowther
5: Why, oh why, are some people so fucking stupid?
This ain't stupid, son; this is crazy. We're talking Guth-caliber crazy
here. :-D

Pat
Scott Lowther
2007-06-19 05:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Scott Lowther
1: How can anyone actually think these obviously faked pictures are "real?"
2: Ahhh... how well does a tank turret work *upside-down*?
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Donar.html
O. My. Gods.
Post by Pat Flannery
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Vril3.png
If only. Sign me up, then.
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Scott Lowther
5: Why, oh why, are some people so fucking stupid?
This ain't stupid, son; this is crazy. We're talking Guth-caliber
crazy here. :-D
At some point, crazy crosses into stupid. Claiming that the Nazis had
phasers... that's punched right out of the crazybucket and settled
square in stupid.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Pat Flannery
2007-06-19 19:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Pat Flannery
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Donar.html
O. My. Gods.
Imagine a horrible, insane, and terrible world where Brad Guth could
design a competent website...now sit down and have a stiff
drink...because believe me, you need it right around now.
And here's the rest, which may take a whole bottle or two:
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/index.html
http://www.greyfalcon.us/
Because there really are tiny catfish in the Amazon River that well swim
up your dick and get lodged there with backward-facing spines on their
gills, forcing you to castrate yourself or die...and like them, this
abomination unto creation also really exists. :-)

Pat
Rob Arndt
2007-06-19 17:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Pat Flannery
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Donar.html
O. My. Gods.
Imagine a horrible, insane, and terrible world where Brad Guth could
design a competent website...now sit down and have a stiff
drink...because believe me, you need it right around now.
And here's the rest, which may take a whole bottle or two:http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/index.htmlhttp://www.greyfalcon.us/
Because there really are tiny catfish in the Amazon River that well swim
up your dick and get lodged there with backward-facing spines on their
gills, forcing you to castrate yourself or die...and like them, this
abomination unto creation also really exists. :-)
Pat
Pat must have my site and my disc book bookmarked- he has posted
around 30 URLs from it :)

He is free to do so as we have gotten hundreds of thousands of hits
and I have actually 4 books there (Pat never brings up the other 3).
All are popular and doing well.

My partner and I don't pay a cent for the site and our bandwidth is
unlimited. We get so much positive reaction from the site and my work
that Pat and the few detractors here try to tear down means nothing to
me.

As a result of my work, my e-mail is bursting with requests for
information from around the world. Seems I am a popular guy and am
known all over the net for my German disc aviation knowledge and of
world disc development history in general.

Now, if only Pat would maximize his time and use HIS creativity to
start his own site instead of posting 120,000 posts to over 100 NGs.
You would think with all his "knowledge and wisdom" that he would
devote more time towards that goal than to try and poke fun at someone
else's work which is doing fine.

For those not familiar with my books, the four that are online at
Black Sun are (in order of the Index):

"Star Wars Journal of the Whills, Episode I, Pathway to Light"
"Disc Aircraft of the Third Reich (1922-1945 and Beyond)"
"The Ultimate World War II Rare Aircraft Scrapbook"
"Strange Vehicles of Pre-War Germany & the Third Reich (1928-1945)"

The disc and strange vehicles books are completed and unique in the
world. The books also exist as retained copyrighted hardcopies that
are much different as online versions and heavily expanded with
hundreds of photos, illustrations, artworks, models, and information.

The Rare Aircraft book is just starting and won't be finished until
late summer while the Star Wars novel has 35 chapters posted out of 55
(Greyfalcon is responsible for posting them, and he is back-logged
with projects right now). But the novel is already completed since
2006. "Episode II, Darkest Fury" will be posted immediately
afterwards- a teaser poster is up on it now.

I also have two other books finished, but only one of them can go up
at Black Sun as the other one is a personal sale type concerning
different material not aligned with Black Sun's topic index.

Book 7 is in development right now and will deal with all Kriegsmarine
secret weapons sometime later this fall.

So, Pat can rave on about my books. No one cares at the site, nor with
the Black Sun visitors, nor the people in the world that love my work.

In short, Pat Flannery is irrelevent and not smart enough to organize
and create his own site or books for comparisons and reviews,
commentary and criticisms.

He IS very good at bullshitting and posting Wiki URLs, plus stale
information on hundreds of a/c I have already posted on in the 9 years
I have been at RAM! The RAM archive is filled with them.

Way to go Pat ;)

Rob

Rob Arndt
2007-06-18 19:31:35 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 18, 10:57 am, Scott Lowther
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
All of the entries in the book are German WW2 secret weapons that are
relatively known. The only 2 controversies out of the 50 entries are
the flightpack and disc a/c. All pages are illustrated in the same
way. There is absolutely ZERO anti-Holocaust material in that book.
Of course not. However, proceeds from that and Zundels UFO book were
used to funnel Holocaust denail books.
Who said I paid for that book or the other one?
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
As for Zundel, he is a morally-bankrupt Holocaust-denier reviled
worldwide. Yet in some of his books dealing with technology, he talks
about a lot of very rare German weapons and projects- most of which
are now known. Back in the 1970s when he wrote on these, however, they
were almost all unknown.
That's because he *invented* them in the 1970's, and idiots believed
him. His Nazi flying saucer bullshit is the prime example.
German discs were reported both during the war and immediately postwar
by Maj Rudolf Lusar and Renato Vesco. Zundel hasn't invented any of
the discs he depicts- just got a few mixed up with others. Why don't
you read the other books before opening your mouth for condemnation?
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
I do not support Zundel's beliefs on the Holocaust at all. And some of
his information on the disc projects has been misidentified and mixed-
up with other projects. I do not think that was ever deliberate as in
the 1970s German disc information was little-known with just a few
models- mainly the BMW Flugelrad type and Schauberger's Repulsin
discoid motors. Zundel makes the mistake of misidentifying the
Flugelrad II and III, although his illustrations are correct for other
German discs. We now know his Flugelrad II was actually Habermohl's
design for the Schriever Flugkriesel replacement and that the
Flugelrad III was actually Henri Coanda's lenticular flugscheibe,
tested in a wind tunnel as a model.
Uh-huh.
Not my problem that you are ignorant of German disc development and
perhaps even ALL of the terrestrial disc programs that were started
even before the war, plus US circular craft during the war and all
postwar disc aircraft:

August Klein Rinwing Circular 1910
McCormick-Romme Umbrellaplane Circular 1911 (aka Vought Umbrella
Plane)
Lee Richards Annular Monoplane and Biplanes Annular 1911-14
Guido Tallei Diri-Disk Hybrid Circular blimp/aircraft 1932
Antes Annular Monoplane Annular Project 1932
Arup S-1 thru S-4 Circular 1932-1935
Nemeth Roundwing Disc Bi-plane 1934
Vought-Zimmermann V-173 Flying Flapjack Circular 1942
Vought XF5U-1 Skimmer Circular 1943 *never flew
Boeing B-390 Project Circular 1943
Discopter 1943

Postwar discs (in no particular order or all-inclusive):

Epp Pirna disc
Rene Couzinet disc
Suchanov Discoplans 1-3
Unknown Monino Disc (Possibly German, Soviet, or joint)
MiG disc project
Avro Canada Spade
Avro Canada Ladybug
Avro Canada Project Y
Avro Canada WS-601
Avro Canada Avrocar (GETOL)
Republic Aviation Disc patent
Lockheed LRV
Northrop NS-97
Tier II Darkstar UAV
Cypher UAV
EKIP
NASA disc lifing bodies
Geo-Bat
Kehl Ringwing

These were all off the top of my head as I am at the library (check
the IP).

Don't you feel like an ass? Another fucking Pat Flannery...

Rob
Post by Scott Lowther
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Scott Lowther
2007-06-18 21:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Arndt
On Jun 18, 10:57 am, Scott Lowther
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
All of the entries in the book are German WW2 secret weapons that are
relatively known. The only 2 controversies out of the 50 entries are
the flightpack and disc a/c. All pages are illustrated in the same
way. There is absolutely ZERO anti-Holocaust material in that book.
Of course not. However, proceeds from that and Zundels UFO book were
used to funnel Holocaust denail books.
Who said I paid for that book or the other one?
Non sequitur.
Post by Rob Arndt
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
As for Zundel, he is a morally-bankrupt Holocaust-denier reviled
worldwide. Yet in some of his books dealing with technology, he talks
about a lot of very rare German weapons and projects- most of which
are now known. Back in the 1970s when he wrote on these, however, they
were almost all unknown.
That's because he *invented* them in the 1970's, and idiots believed
him. His Nazi flying saucer bullshit is the prime example.
German discs were reported both during the war and immediately postwar
by Maj Rudolf Lusar and Renato Vesco.
Neither of whom are well respected. Lusar, for example, made up the
conveniently-named "Project Saucer" out of whole cloth. Zundel expanded
the myth.
Post by Rob Arndt
Not my problem that you are ignorant of German disc development...
Then feel free to post references to original source documentation. Not
decades-later inventions or vague unverifiable handwavings.
Post by Rob Arndt
Don't you feel like an ass?
No. I have no reason to apart from the fact that I'm wasting my time
trying to debate someoen who has clearly bought into bunk.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Rob Arndt
2007-06-19 01:22:21 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 18, 2:05?pm, Scott Lowther
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
On Jun 18, 10:57 am, Scott Lowther
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
All of the entries in the book are German WW2 secret weapons that are
relatively known. The only 2 controversies out of the 50 entries are
the flightpack and disc a/c. All pages are illustrated in the same
way. There is absolutely ZERO anti-Holocaust material in that book.
Of course not. However, proceeds from that and Zundels UFO book were
used to funnel Holocaust denail books.
Who said I paid for that book or the other one?
Non sequitur.
Post by Rob Arndt
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
As for Zundel, he is a morally-bankrupt Holocaust-denier reviled
worldwide. Yet in some of his books dealing with technology, he talks
about a lot of very rare German weapons and projects- most of which
are now known. Back in the 1970s when he wrote on these, however, they
were almost all unknown.
That's because he *invented* them in the 1970's, and idiots believed
him. His Nazi flying saucer bullshit is the prime example.
German discs were reported both during the war and immediately postwar
by Maj Rudolf Lusar and Renato Vesco.
Neither of whom are well respected. Lusar, for example, made up the
conveniently-named "Project Saucer" out of whole cloth. Zundel expanded
the myth.
Major Lusar wrote his book in the 1950s and the English language
version contains that time period's terminology. Lusar should have
stated Projekt Flugkreisel (Flight Gyro) instead of "Saucer". Despite
using American terminology, Speer wrote his own book, "Infiltration"
which details his attempt to get into the SS wartime technology but
was denied access. The "Flying Tops" are mentioned there. US
newspapers including the NY Times reported in Jan 1945 that the Foo
Fighters were German weapons. Vesco detailed the Italian efforts at
Riva del Garda aeronatical establishment and has quite a knowledge of
a number of disc programs despite his personal credentials being
questioned.
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
Not my problem that you are ignorant of German disc development...
Then feel free to post references to original source documentation. Not
decades-later inventions or vague unverifiable handwavings.
I just gave you 37 examples from 1910- modern day that are largely non-
German and do not include any Third Reich material at all. If you add
the German component, then you will have over 100 aircraft from 1910-
modern day. There was never a gap in all that time. The nations
involved are Germany, US, UK, Italy, Russia, and Canada primarily.

Feel free to respond to the 37 examples I gave you already that are
historically proven and give the specific reasons for the postwar US
and Canadian projects which involved military disc designs- which were
NEVER a military specification postwar at a time when the Cold War was
getting hot. Explain also the postwar German patents by diversified
people such as Henri Coanda, Heinrich Focke, Heinrich Fleissner, Bruno
Schwenteit (for Miethe and Schriever), Hermann Klaas, Viktor
Schauberger, Dr. Alexander Lippisch, and Josef Andreas Epp. They all
worked on different programs during the war and different locations.
They could not patent between 1945-55 and immediate thereafter applied
for US patents with some delayed up to 5 years for approval- WHY, if
there were no on-going military disc projects of the time and it is
all non-sense?
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
Don't you feel like an ass?
No. I have no reason to apart from the fact that I'm wasting my time
trying to debate someoen who has clearly bought into bunk.
Patents pre- and postwar are not bunk. Neither is photographic
evidence, newspaper reports, declassified documents that verify
various disc projects, their components, and the Phoo Bombs through
BIOS/CIOS/FIAT and FOIA... just to name a few.

Rob :)
Post by Scott Lowther
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Rob Arndt
2007-06-19 02:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Some other non-German disc projects I forgot are the T.Thompson Brown
experiments, US Project Silverbug, and the 1970s British Rail Saucer.
I have an article on that at Black Sun but can just post that
individual part here w/o the entire page- which is Greyfalcon's work:

British Rail Saucer:
Loading Image...

The bizarre British Rail flying saucer was designed by a British
engineer named Charles Osmond Frederick who worked at the British
Railway Technical Center, Derby. His primary work at the research
center concerned the interaction of train rails and wheels. However,
Frederick started working on feasibility studies directed towards a
British Rail lifting platform that through numerous revisions
ultimately led to an unorthodox passenger craft that operated through
the use of nuclear fusion!

This might seem radical to some, but Frederick had previously
investigated stress phenomena in nuclear fuel elements for the UK
Energy Authority back in the 1960s. He became fascinated with
interplanetary space travel and, combined with his British Rail
expertise, gave birth to his concept of laser-pulsed nuclear fusion
for a disc-shaped space transport.

The fusion generator for this craft would be located at its center and
pulsed at 1,000 Hz to prevent resonance that could potentially damage
the disc. The laser pulses of energy would then have been transferred
from a nozzle into a series of radial electrodes running along the
underside of the craft, which would have converted the energy into
electricity that would then pass into a ring of powerful
electromagnets. These magnets would supposedly accelerate subatomic
particles emitted by the fusion reaction, providing both lift and
thrust. Frederick had alternately proposed the use of futuristic
superconductors as well for this purpose instead of the
electromagnets.

A protective layer of graphite running above the fusion reactor would
have acted as a thick shield against radiation emanating from the
reactor core located below the passengers sitting above it.

Theoretically, the disc would be piloted in such a way that the rapid
acceleration and deceleration of the craft would have simulated
gravity in zero gravity conditions.

This forgotten patent came to the attention of the media when it was
featured in The Daily Telegraph newspaper, dated July 11, 1982.
However, when the patent was rediscovered in 2006, a group of
scientists examined the design and declared the Rail flying saucer to
be unworkable, expensive, and very inefficient. Michel van Baal of
the ESA (European Space Agency) claimed "I have had a look at the
plans, and they don't look very serious to me at all", adding that
many of the technologies proposed for the craft, such as nuclear
fusion and high-temperature superconductors, had not yet been
discovered."

In 1996, when The Railway Magazine obtained the patent for their May
1996 issue and featured a short section on it, the outcome was the
same. The magazine stated that the passengers would have been fried
anyway!

Regardless of the criticisms, Frederick's patent lapsed in 1976 due to
non-payment of renewal fees.

Only the future development of emerging nuclear fusion and
superconductor technologies will decide the practicality of the
British Rail flying saucer. Perhaps someday Charles Osmond Frederick
will be vindicated.

Rob

p.s. That makes 40 non-Third Reich historical entries. Still waiting
for a reply...
Scott Lowther
2007-06-19 05:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Arndt
Major Lusar wrote his book in the 1950s and the English language
version contains that time period's terminology.
As does the German.
Post by Rob Arndt
Lusar should have
stated Projekt Flugkreisel (Flight Gyro) instead of "Saucer". Despite
using American terminology, Speer wrote his own book, "Infiltration"
which details his attempt to get into the SS wartime technology but
was denied access. The "Flying Tops" are mentioned there. US
newspapers including the NY Times reported in Jan 1945 that the Foo
Fighters were German weapons. Vesco detailed the Italian efforts at
Riva del Garda aeronatical establishment and has quite a knowledge of
a number of disc programs despite his personal credentials being
questioned.
None of which comes close to being even decent evidence of these German
flying saucers, much less proof.
Post by Rob Arndt
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
Not my problem that you are ignorant of German disc development...
Then feel free to post references to original source documentation. Not
decades-later inventions or vague unverifiable handwavings.
I just gave you 37 examples from 1910- modern day...
All irrelevant to the discussion.
Post by Rob Arndt
that are largely non-
German and do not include any Third Reich material at all. If you add
the German component, then you will have over 100 aircraft from 1910-
modern day. There was never a gap in all that time. The nations
involved are Germany, US, UK, Italy, Russia, and Canada primarily.
Feel free to respond to the 37 examples I gave you already that are
historically proven and give the specific reasons for the postwar US
and Canadian projects which involved military disc designs- which were
NEVER a military specification postwar at a time when the Cold War was
getting hot. Explain also the postwar German patents by diversified
people such as Henri Coanda, Heinrich Focke, Heinrich Fleissner, Bruno
Schwenteit (for Miethe and Schriever), Hermann Klaas, Viktor
Schauberger, Dr. Alexander Lippisch, and Josef Andreas Epp. They all
worked on different programs during the war and different locations.
They could not patent between 1945-55 and immediate thereafter applied
for US patents with some delayed up to 5 years for approval- WHY, if
there were no on-going military disc projects of the time and it is
all non-sense?
You're making no sense.
Post by Rob Arndt
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
Don't you feel like an ass?
No. I have no reason to apart from the fact that I'm wasting my time
trying to debate someoen who has clearly bought into bunk.
Patents pre- and postwar are not bunk. Neither is photographic
evidence...
Of which there really is none.
Post by Rob Arndt
, newspaper reports...
What, of Bigfoot?
Post by Rob Arndt
, declassified documents that verify
various disc projects....
Ah. Now *that's* what we're after. Where are these declassified reports
that detail (not vague speculation, but *detail*) the really spiffy
wartime German flying saucer projects that use sci-fi technology? I'll
wait while you post references.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
RapidRonnie
2007-06-18 20:08:42 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 18, 12:57 pm, Scott Lowther
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
All of the entries in the book are German WW2 secret weapons that are
relatively known. The only 2 controversies out of the 50 entries are
the flightpack and disc a/c. All pages are illustrated in the same
way. There is absolutely ZERO anti-Holocaust material in that book.
Of course not. However, proceeds from that and Zundels UFO book were
used to funnel Holocaust denail books.
Post by Rob Arndt
As for Zundel, he is a morally-bankrupt Holocaust-denier reviled
worldwide. Yet in some of his books dealing with technology, he talks
about a lot of very rare German weapons and projects- most of which
are now known. Back in the 1970s when he wrote on these, however, they
were almost all unknown.
That's because he *invented* them in the 1970's, and idiots believed
him. His Nazi flying saucer bullshit is the prime example.
Having Zundel for a "Holocaust Denier" is a grave embarrassment to
anyone with a legitimate difference of factual belief from what is
supported by the Holocaust Canon. I know several White Nationalists
and they all hold Ernst in supreme contempt and suspect he's a plant.
He probably is not, he's just a nut.

White Nationalists are generally not too disappointed to think that
six million Jews really were killed by the Germans: however, few of
the more rational ones do. Simply put, the evidence points to a much
smaller number, and to most having died of disease, with some executed-
almost invariably by shooting.

Zyklon B likely never killed anyone except by accident. It isn't
suited for use as a mass killing agent.

Zundel didn't invent the stories of WWII flying saucers: that was
common during the war. He put some legitimate information together
with some speculative stories and science fiction and put it in some
books of no scholarship.

No different than Zundel are the people who claim the American Apollo
moon landings were fraudulent. But they don't get put in jail.
RapidRonnie
2007-06-18 19:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Arndt
I do not support Zundel's beliefs on the Holocaust at all. And some of
his information on the disc projects has been misidentified and mixed-
up with other projects. I do not think that was ever deliberate as in
the 1970s German disc information was little-known with just a few
models- mainly the BMW Flugelrad type and Schauberger's Repulsin
discoid motors. Zundel makes the mistake of misidentifying the
Flugelrad II and III, although his illustrations are correct for other
German discs. We now know his Flugelrad II was actually Habermohl's
design for the Schriever Flugkriesel replacement and that the
Flugelrad III was actually Henri Coanda's lenticular flugscheibe,
tested in a wind tunnel as a model. They are mistakes, that is all...
and common ones from that time period.
I do not have any of Zundel's UFO books nor his Holocaust denial
materials at all. Just one secret weapons book and one Antarctic book.
Zundel is, quite simply, a nut.

But he is a nut in jail right now for the "crime" of writing nutty
books. By that standard we would have to jail every UFO, occult, and
paranormal book author.

There is no doubt the Germans were pretty tough on those Jews who did
not leave Germany, as the Nazi goverment intended, before hostilities
during WWII. Many Jews died in the camps and many non-Jews as well.
And the conditions in the camps were indeed what we'd call an atrocity
by war's end. That said, many of the official Holocaust stories are
almost certainly pure horseshit, just as others which were part of the
Holocaust Canon even fifteen years ago are now conceded bogus by the
official Keepers of the Canon.

Saying anything against The Holocaust is the modern version of
Blasphemy, and the United States, with its courts not yet confident
enough to ignore its Constitution quite so blatantly, is the only
Western nation in which a native-born citizen can confidently get
away with saying anything different. Should he do so, it might not be
a good idea for him to travel to Europe.

I have no dog in the fight over The Holocaust. Throughout history,
most Western nations have jailed or killed those who persisted in
Blasphemy. It's a consequence of a flaw in the Western-call it
European, White, Aryan, what you will-personality. The United States
for a part of its history was an exception, and what we see now is
regression to the mean.

If Mormons were as prevalent in the media, the colleges, the bowels
of the legal system, and finance as Jews, denying the appearance of
the Angel Moroni to Joseph Smith and the colossal apocalyptic battle
at Hill Cumorah in New York would eventually get you put in jail and
even shot or tortured too. Blasphemy is Blasphemy, and the facts by
definition don't matter.
RapidRonnie
2007-06-18 19:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Arndt
I do not support Zundel's beliefs on the Holocaust at all. And some of
his information on the disc projects has been misidentified and mixed-
up with other projects. I do not think that was ever deliberate as in
the 1970s German disc information was little-known with just a few
models- mainly the BMW Flugelrad type and Schauberger's Repulsin
discoid motors. Zundel makes the mistake of misidentifying the
Flugelrad II and III, although his illustrations are correct for other
German discs. We now know his Flugelrad II was actually Habermohl's
design for the Schriever Flugkriesel replacement and that the
Flugelrad III was actually Henri Coanda's lenticular flugscheibe,
tested in a wind tunnel as a model. They are mistakes, that is all...
and common ones from that time period.
I do not have any of Zundel's UFO books nor his Holocaust denial
materials at all. Just one secret weapons book and one Antarctic book.
Zundel is, quite simply, a nut.

But he is a nut in jail right now for the "crime" of writing nutty
books. By that standard we would have to jail every UFO, occult, and
paranormal book author.

There is no doubt the Germans were pretty tough on those Jews who did
not leave Germany, as the Nazi goverment intended, before hostilities
during WWII. Many Jews died in the camps and many non-Jews as well.
And the conditions in the camps were indeed what we'd call an atrocity
by war's end. That said, many of the official Holocaust stories are
almost certainly pure horseshit, just as others which were part of the
Holocaust Canon even fifteen years ago are now conceded bogus by the
official Keepers of the Canon.

Saying anything against The Holocaust is the modern version of
Blasphemy, and the United States, with its courts not yet confident
enough to ignore its Constitution quite so blatantly, is the only
Western nation in which a native-born citizen can confidently get
away with saying anything different. Should he do so, it might not be
a good idea for him to travel to Europe.

I have no dog in the fight over The Holocaust. Throughout history,
most Western nations have jailed or killed those who persisted in
Blasphemy. It's a consequence of a flaw in the Western-call it
European, White, Aryan, what you will-personality. The United States
for a part of its history was an exception, and what we see now is
regression to the mean.

If Mormons were as prevalent in the media, the colleges, the bowels
of the legal system, and finance as Jews, denying the appearance of
the Angel Moroni to Joseph Smith and the colossal apocalyptic battle
at Hill Cumorah in New York would eventually get you put in jail and
even shot or tortured too. Blasphemy is Blasphemy, and the facts by
definition don't matter.
Pat Flannery
2007-06-19 05:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lowther
So, you chose an acknowledfged Nazi sympathizer's sci-fi book as a basis?
Yikes.
Here's some numbers: http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/argusv1.shtml
Argus pulse jet for Fi-103 (V-1)
Length: 12 feet
Weight: 344 pounds
Thrust: 800 lbs
Fuel consumption: 3.4 lbs fuel per pound thrust per hour
To get our flying stormtrooper airborne given his weight, his combat
gear and clothing weight, the weight of the engine (or front and back
engines, but that's just going to make it worse as far as weight goes),
and fuel for the engine, you are going to need around 400+ pounds of
thrust easy. So let's have everything, even though that's not how thrust
scaling works, and the actual number would be closer to 2/3rds the V-1
motor total.
So here stands the Stormtrooper, with his 6 foot long, 172 pound
pulsejet strapped to him.
Now, I can see two real obvious problems with this thing other than the
sound and vibration killing the soldier.
1.) How exactly do you get these things to where they are needed? They
are too heavy for the troops to carry with them, so either you take them
up by vehicle, or airdrop them where they are needed.
If you've got a vehicle, you can drive around the minefield or go to
some point where the river can be forded.
Sending the troops across via jet belts leaves them on the far side of
the obstacle with no way to resupply them once whatever ammo they can
carry runs out. If you can airdrop the pulsejet belts to the troops
near the obstacle, you can airdrop the troops themselves on the far
side of it with a lot more equipment, and avoid the use of the belts
entirely.
2.) Once the jet belts fire up, everyone inside of a mile is going to
know that the troops are going to be airborne momentarily, and are going
to shoot them out of the sky as they rise up - and they can't even shoot
back because they have to steer the jet belt.


Pat
Rob Arndt
2007-06-18 19:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lowther
So, you chose an acknowledfged Nazi sympathizer's sci-fi book as a basis?
Yikes.
Here's some numbers:http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/argusv1.shtml
Argus pulse jet for Fi-103 (V-1)
Length: 12 feet
Weight: 344 pounds
Thrust: 800 lbs
Fuel consumption: 3.4 lbs fuel per pound thrust per hour
To get our flying stormtrooper airborne given his weight, his combat
gear and clothing weight, the weight of the engine (or front and back
engines, but that's just going to make it worse as far as weight goes),
and fuel for the engine, you are going to need around 400+ pounds of
thrust easy. So let's have everything, even though that's not how thrust
scaling works, and the actual number would be closer to 2/3rds the V-1
motor total.
So here stands the Stormtrooper, with his 6 foot long, 172 pound
pulsejet strapped to him.
Now, I can see two real obvious problems with this thing other than the
sound and vibration killing the soldier.
1.) How exactly do you get these things to where they are needed? They
are too heavy for the troops to carry with them, so either you take them
up by vehicle, or airdrop them where they are needed.
If you've got a vehicle, you can drive around the minefield or go to
some point where the river can be forded.
Sending the troops across via jet belts leaves them on the far side of
the obstacle with no way to resupply them once whatever ammo they can
carry runs out. If you can airdrop the pulsejet belts to the troops
near the obstacle, you can airdrop the troops themselves on the far
side of it with a lot more equipment, and avoid the use of the belts
entirely.
2.) Once the jet belts fire up, everyone inside of a mile is going to
know that the troops are going to be airborne momentarily, and are going
to shoot them out of the sky as they rise up - and they can't even shoot
back because they have to steer the jet belt.
Pat
Pat,

You are an idiot once again. The V-1 Argus pulsejetdesigned by Schmidt
is NOT the same as the two pulse TUBES that the Himmelsturmer operated
with. You can see that in the illustration. The model on my page is
what "someone" else believes it looked liked and is there for
comparison only along with the Sharkit "Rocketeer" types. Neither look
like the lightweight pulse tubes.

Don't bother posting my material if you fucking can't bother to read
it or the other online sites with this material.

Rob
Scott Lowther
2007-06-18 02:06:26 UTC
Permalink
BTW, the He-231 original tailsitter was from WW2...
Documentation, please.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Pat Flannery
2007-06-18 08:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lowther
BTW, the He-231 original tailsitter was from WW2...
Documentation, please.
It's from 1957: http://www.aiaa.org/tc/vstol/unbuilt/he/index.html
Neat webpage: http://www.aiaa.org/tc/vstol/
The folder indexing system is dorky, but good info in it.
Bf-108 Taifun with a added RB-108 lift engine?
Huh?

Pat
Rob Arndt
2007-06-18 14:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lowther
BTW, the He-231 original tailsitter was from WW2...
Documentation, please.
It's from 1957:http://www.aiaa.org/tc/vstol/unbuilt/he/index.html
Neat webpage:http://www.aiaa.org/tc/vstol/
The folder indexing system is dorky, but good info in it.
Bf-108 Taifun with a added RB-108 lift engine?
Huh?
Pat
Actually Pat,

Thanks for that link, now click the total number of VTO/VTOL/VSTOL
aircraft from Germany off the list on the unbuilt link:
http://www.aiaa.org/tc/vstol/unbuilt/index.htm
and 3 from the built link: http://www.aiaa.org/tc/vstol/future.html
(they left out the Do-29 V/STOL). From these you can clearly see
Germany's postwar aviation designs are largely almost all VTOL a/c-
experience from WW2 bombing. Germany's actual other a/c designs like
the MBB Lampyridae, demonstrators like the joint Rockwell/MBB X-31,
and joint a/c built like the Dornier Alphajet, Panavia Tornado, and
Eurofighter 2000 Typhoon are all in the minority.

During WW2 (discounting the discs for a moment), Germany had these:

Ba-349 Natter VTO
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/German%20Suicidal%20Aircraft.htm
Fa-269 Convertiplane
Fw Triebflugel
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/FOCKE1.htm
He Wespe & Lerche I,II,III*
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/HEINKEL%20WESPE.htm
He-231 original concept which was a He Projekt Number
Himmelsturmer
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/HIMMELSTURMER.htm
Muck Coleopter (patent) which led to Fw Triebflugel
(see Fw Triebflugel)
Weserflug We P.1003 Tilt-rotor

*Bolkow Bo P.110, Fw-860, He-231 (postwar design), and Me P.X-1 are on
the He Wespe & Lerche II page

Rob
Pat Flannery
2007-06-18 07:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lowther
Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.afwing.com/intro/birdy/23.htm
Gee, there's a lot of German VTOL craft there and one that actually
flew.
Yes, copied from US design concepts.
He forgot the VAK.191
I actually talked to a pilot that flew one of those with the Tripartite
Evaluation Squadron; he said it wasn't that bad of an aircraft, but if
the main engine quit in flight it was going to have the glide angle of a
rock.

Pat
Loading...