Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
even with just the auxiliary chamber alone running at 660lb thrust that is around 655lbs of fuel per minute. IF these numbers are correct the auxiliary chamber alone used fuel at a faster rate than a B-29 climbing out with a heavy load.
he other 3700 lbs is fuel and oxidizer all of which it expends on one climb.
I just gave a very rough estimate. So actually over 4400 lbs. of fuel and oxidizer expended on one takeoff and climb to operational altitude.
If the V2 really need 30 tons of potatoes (?) to produce the alcohol element of it's fuel I think dumping that project would have been essential!With those borders their production would collapse due to lack of resources and food shortages causing famine.
If the V2 really need 30 tons of potatoes (?) to produce the alcohol element of it's fuel I think dumping that project would have been essential!
That consumption seems impossibly high if you apply that to the 3,800 lbf thrust and 7.5 minute full throttle endurance of the Me 163. That would be 3775 lbs (1714 kg) of combined fuel+oxidizer consumed per minute and 28310 lbs (12853 kg) of total fuel/oxidizer. Your figures seem to be off by a factor of nearly 3:1. Wiki lists the combined fuel/oxidizer consumption at full throttle to be 20 lb/lbf/hr (combined fuel+oxidizer) which complies with the 7.5 minute figure and approximate 4 tonnes of fuel+oxidizer onboard.The trouble with rockets is that they carried their own oxygen instead of using air. The engine it self was light (very attractive) but the fuel was heavy. The two chamber rocket for the Me 163C weighed 365lbs, a single chamber rocket was lighter.
Unfortunately it consumed fuel at the rate of 19.5lbs of C stoff per lb of thrust per hour and an traditional 40.1 lbs of oxidiser (t-stoff) per lb of thrust per hour, this compares to a Jumo 004 consuming 1.4lbs of fuel per lb of thrust per hour.
Fermentation of ethanol really isn't all that efficient, if they'd really wanted to mass produce alcohol fuels efficiently, synthetic fuel plants would be the ideal option. Be it methanol, ethanol or other alcohols (methanol is the simplest/cheapest by far but has a lower energy density -at least part of the Me 163's high fuel consumption rate was due to the use of methanol and large portions of water in the fuel and oxidizer, the hydrazine isn't that efficient of a fuel either, and ethanol isn't THAT much better than methanol -plus methanol was seriously considered for use in the V2 and vaporizes more easily).If the V2 really need 30 tons of potatoes (?) to produce the alcohol element of it's fuel I think dumping that project would have been essential!
If the V2 really need 30 tons of potatoes (?) to produce the alcohol element of it's fuel I think dumping that project would have been essential!
Considering when the decision was made Hitler could care less who starved, he even ordered the German people die with him:
Nero Decree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hence why I was suggesting that route primarily for a methanol fueled V2. Von Braun had seriously considered Methanol as the primary fuel, and it has some positive trade-offs with ethanol along with the negative. Production aside, methanol's lower energy density is the main drawback. It's somewhat easier to render anhydrous (free from water) than ethanol due to its inability to form an azeotrope with water, so either distillation or 'salting out' (using salt or concentrated brine solutions to extract the water) are both practical where Ethanol will be stuck at 94/95% in those methods. Methanol's lower boiling point reduces distillation energy costs and the better vaporization properties may have eased its use as a fuel in general.Synthesis by fischer-tropsch is apparently possible either via expensive Rutheniam catalysts or modified methanol catalysts, however this also produces large amounts of other of the higher alcohols that may or may not be of use. It seems unattractive.
I can't believe a man as intelligent as Von Braun would have ever associated with Nazis at all
He certainly had no problem looking the other way to ignore the thousands of forced workers murdered while producing his rockets.
I can't believe a man as intelligent as Von Braun would have ever associated with Nazis at all, but we might be generous and say he was so blinded by his ambition to advance his rocketry theories he didn't care what devil he had to hitch himself to.
He certainly had no problem looking the other way to ignore the thousands of forced workers murdered while producing his rockets.
He no doubt would have "overlooked" a few million starving Germans just as easily.
I couldn't agree more, many of the 'Paperclip' scientists and technicians were tainted goods. However we should remember that the allies were prepared to overlook his, and others, close association with the Nazi regime when their own national interest was at stake. Nobody comes out of this smelling of roses, but the Americans did get to the moon first.
'Needs must when the devil drives'
Cheers
Steve
While Hitler was writing Mein Kampf, he was venting his hatred of Der Juden...then as the Nazis came to power, the Jews became their focus point - Kyrstall Nacht would be a prime example of this anti-Semitic movement.Patrick Buchanon goes so far as to argue, plausibly and eloquently in my view, that had the US not entered the war the holocaust wouldn't have happened. His over riding concern always being to prevent the US from getting embroiled in wars for moral reasons that end up making things worse. Things don't look so good in Iraq at the moment despite operation enduring freedom.
Actually, I'd think that's more often the point: intentional slander for revenge/retribution (petty or otherwise). Using such false threats for blackmail is hardly unheard of either. Nasty, evil people will do all sorts of underhanded things to anyone if it serves them ... or just out of spite. Same thing goes for abusing (relatively) innocent, yet unfortunate situations, technically breaking the law as grounds for blackmail and manipulation or revenge/attack/etc. Or political mudslinging. (factual or otherwise, twisting context of events -or not providing context- is a huge matter as well -people have a nasty habit of making assumptions and not questioning those conclusions ... all too relevant in history discussions too)Why do they do it? I don't know, perhaps being a victim is therapeutic rationalisation of ones problems, a explanation for having consensual but drunken sex etc. (my knowledge of this came out of the UVA/Fraternity rape hoax. The thing to remember is that young men's lives often get ruined by these sorts of things and it could be your son or brother.
The escalation to total war with few (if any) ethical limits (let alone moral ones) may have been mostly escalated between the Germans and British during the European War, but wouldn't some examples have come even sooner if looking specifically at Soviet and (especially) Japanese conflict involvement prior to Bomber Command's unrestricted strategy being executed?Ethical restraints which had been imposed at the start of the war became slowly eroded as a result of Britain's decision to initiate 'unrestricted' bombing of targets located in Germany's urban areas[/I]"
If you know the spectator you know its not exactly left wing peacenik or Nazi, I believe the owners are in fact Jewish. As far as Overy goes he is a long time military Historian who has written many books and appeared on the History Channel.
Patrick Buchanon goes so far as to argue, plausibly and eloquently in my view, that had the US not entered the war the holocaust wouldn't have happened. His over riding concern always being to prevent the US from getting embroiled in wars for moral reasons that end up making things worse. Things don't look so good in Iraq at the moment despite operation enduring freedom.
I think the point was more the escalation to total war in general, and the British Unrestricted Bombing campaign being one of the more decisive examples.Its more than a little bit rich to start pointing an accusing finger at Churchill, when the Germans have a track record like that. Its just that the british took it to the next level. Being good at killing civilians does not make you more morally bankrupt. It just makes you a more efficient killing machine.
Patrick Buchanon goes so far as to argue, plausibly and eloquently in my view, that had the US not entered the war the holocaust wouldn't have happened. His over riding concern always being to prevent the US from getting embroiled in wars for moral reasons that end up making things worse. Things don't look so good in Iraq at the moment despite operation enduring freedom.
I have trouble with this:
While Hitler was writing Mein Kampf, he was venting his hatred of Der Juden...then as the Nazis came to power, the Jews became their focus point - Kyrstall Nacht would be a prime example of this anti-Semitic movement.
The Nuremberg laws of 1935 target Jews specifically, as did the revised Gun laws of the same time period. The concentration camps started popping up from 1933 onward, of course the first victims were the mentally infirm, homosexuals, Gypsies and political prisoners. Once Poland fell to Germany in 1939 and the Reich started it's territorial expansion, the Jews came to be a broader target and those that weren't crammed into Ghettos found their way to a concentration camp.
All before 8 December, 1941.