Which WWIIcountry is in the frontier of the aerospace?

Glider · May 2, 2005

Sorry Lanc but I am going to side with RG on the value of the Marshall Plan. Don't forget that the Americans paid a lot of money so that european companies could build european designs for european airforces. Yes there was an element of not wanting us to fall to the russians, but I have never heard of anyone complaining about it this side of the pond. Americans are not stupid and must have known that they were building business competition for the future as the UK and Germany alone were close to par on research and technical ability.
It would have been cheaper for the USA to churn out more aircraft and give them to our airforces and I doubt that we would have said no.

As for the Wall Street crash, the USA was a massive economy and no doubt made mistakes. However they learnt and dug themselves out of the hole faster than most other nations, including ours.

I am very proud of the UK and what we have achieved with few resources but its churlish and foolish not to recognise what others have achieved or done

the lancaster kicks ass · May 2, 2005

yes america came out of the walls street crash better than most, that's not the point, the crash made the situation worse in germany, a chance which hitlet seized......

plan_D · May 2, 2005

It was the tank that beat Germany in World War 2, not the US. The Allies out-numbered the German forces with armour and the Germans had no way of stopping tanks in World War 1. The US didn't bail the Allies out at all.

You can shut up about the Airbus anyway, since recently there has been accusations being thrown around the WTO about the US funding of Boeing. You just don't like to admit, your country does the exact same thing.

the lancaster kicks ass · May 2, 2005

so you're with me than Pd??

plan_D · May 2, 2005

I'm grateful of the US for the Marshal Plan but that doesn't mean I'm going to start bowing down and saying it's the most generous thing ever, no! It was to cover the US own back more than anything.

the lancaster kicks ass · May 2, 2005

exactly!!

Glider · May 2, 2005

Well PD and Lanc we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Damn, I wish I had found this site some months ago

the lancaster kicks ass · May 2, 2005

or would could just persuade you that you're wrong, which you are.........

Anonymous · May 2, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
hey now wait a minute there RG........

firstly the Marshall plan wasn't simply you warm, kind hearted americans trying to help their fellow man, it was just as much to stop us falling to communism, it is not the single most generous act ever at all, more an attempt to keep some airbases in Europe open to you...........

Not hardly. The Marshall plan was under construction well before the end of the war, and before the "threat of communism" was signifcantly appreciated. If all the USA had wanted were air and naval bases in Europe, we could simply have insisted on them as part of the peace - who was going to say "no"? Certainly not Britain, who was more afraid of the "commies" than the USA at that time.

the lancaster kicks ass said:
and what do you mean you "bailed us out" in WWI?? your joining of the war made little impact to be honest, far less than you are implying,

Then why in Spring 1918 did the British and French plea to the USA to enter the war and state that this was necessary to "bring the war to a successful conclusion"?

May-June, 1918
The Allies Appeal for American Assistance
Final Report of General John J. Pershing, US War Department, September 1, 1919.
General John J. Pershing opposed the French and British efforts to incorporate US into existing Allied Armies, noting that 'nothing in the situation justified the relinquishment of our firm purpose to form our own Army under our own flag.' In Document I below, the Supreme War Council agreed that there would be a fully US military contingent. Document II contains the manpower estimates prepared by the Ministers of Great Britain, France and Italy and confirmed by the Allied commander, General Ferdinand Foch.
--------------------------------------------
I
Agreement Reached at Abbeville, May 2, 1918

It is the opinion of the Supreme War Council that, in order to carry the war to a successful conclusion, an American Army should be formed as early as possible under its own commander and under its own flag. In order to meet the present emergency it is agreed that American troops should be brought to France as rapidly as Allied transportation facilities will permit, and that, as far as consistent with the necessity of building up an American Army, preference will be given to infantry and machinegun units for training and service with French and British Armies; with the understanding that such infantry and machine-gun units are to be withdrawn and united with its own artillery and auxiliary troops into divisions and corps at the direction of the American Commander in Chief after consultation with the Commander in Chief of the Allied Armies in France

Subparagraph A. It is also agreed that during the month of May preference should be given to the transportation of infantry and machine-gun units of six divisions, and that any excess tonnage shall be devoted to bring over such other troops as may be determined by the American Commander in Chief.

Subparagraph B. It is further agreed that this program shall be continued during the month of June upon condition that the British Government shall furnish transportation for a minimum of 130,000 men in May and 150, 000 men in June, with the understanding that the first six divisions of infantry shall go to the British for training and service, and that troops sent over in June shall be allocated for training and service as the American Commander in Chief may determine.

Subparagraph C. It is also further agreed that if the British Government shall transport an excess of 150,000 men in June that such excess shall be infantry and machine-gun units, and that early in June there shall be a new review of the situation to determine further action.
------------------------------
II
Message Prepared by the Prime Ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, Versailles, June 2, 1918

"We desire to express our warmest thanks to President Wilson for the remarkable promptness with which American aid, in excess of what at one time seemed practicable, has been rendered to the Allies during the past month to meet a great emergency. The crisis, however, still continues. General Foch has presented to us a statement of the utmost gravity, which points out that the numerical superiority of the enemy in France, where 162 Allied divisions now oppose 200 German divisions, is very heavy, and that, as there is no possibility of the British and French increasing the number of their divisions (on the contrary, they are put to extreme straits to keep them up) here is a great danger of the war being lost unless the numerical inferiority of the Allies can be remedied as rapidly as possible by the advent of American troops. He, therefore, urges with the utmost insistence that the maximum possible number of infantry and machine gunners, in which respect the shortage of men on the side of the Alliess most marked, should continue to be shipped from America in the months of June and July to avert the immediate danger of an Allied defeat in the present campaign wing to the Allied reserves being exhausted before those of the enemy. In addition to this, and looking to the future, he represents that it is impossible to foresee ultimate victory in the war unless America is able to provide such an army as will enable the Allies ultimately to establish numerical superiority. He places the total American force required for this at no less than 100 divisions, and urges the continuous raising of fresh American levies, which, in his opinion, should not be less than 300,000 a month, with a view to establishing a total American force of 100 divisions at as early a date as this can possibly be done. "We are satisfied that General Foch, who is conducting the present campaign with consummate ability, and on whose military judgment we continue to place the most absolute reliance, is not overestimating the needs of the case, and we feel confident that the Government of the United States will do everything that can be done, both to meet the needs of the immediate situation and to proceed with the continuous raising of fresh levies, calculated to provide, as soon as possible, the numerical superiority which the Commander in Chief of the Allied Armies regards as essential to ultimate victory." A separate telegram contains the arrangements which General Foch, General Pershing, and Lord Milner have agreed to recommend to the United States Government with regard to the dispatch of American troops for the months of June and July.

Signed
CLEMENCEAU
D. LLOYD GEORGE
ORLANDO
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/amicome.html

As for not having had an impact....

THE CONTEXT

In face of the urgency created by the German offensive on the 21st. March 1918, General Pershing placed all his forces then available in Europe at the disposition of General Foch. Amongst these units, the 1st. U.S. Division which, on the 5th. April had been positioned in the region North of Paris, received on the 27th. April, the responsability for a sector to the West of Montdidier, in the 6th. Corps of the French 1st. Army. This was the first time, on an active battle front, that an American Division took up position.
1ST. US DIVISION

At that time the Germans were halfway through their series of big offensives, and their future attack could include the sector of the 1st. Division. The activity and firing on this front were so great that it was difficult to prepare a defensive position.

The ground in front of the American sector was the hill on which the village of Cantigny is built. This not only gave an excellent view for the Germans to observe the American sector, but also masked from the Americans the offensive movements and activity in the German rear.

At the beginning of May, the command of the division was transfered to the French 10th. Army Corps and in the middle of May it was decided to dislodge the Germans from their position in Cantigny, in order to reduce the difficulties in holding this part of the front.

The 28th. Infantry Regiment of the 1st. Division was chosen to conduct the attack and during several days rehearsed it's plans on similar ground at the rear. During the attack the regiment received the support of the American and French artillery, of machine gun fire, mortars, 37 mm. guns, tanks, flame-throwers, Engineers and two companies of the 18th. Infantry Regiment.

The assault was launched at 6.45 am the 28th May and despite a lively main resistance from behind the village as well as artillery and machine gun fire on the left flank, all the objectves were rapidly achieved. The construction of trenches, laying of barbed wire and the preparation of strong points on the recently gained ground, was undertaken immediately.

The German reaction was immediate and particularly violent, showing the German will to break the moral of the Americans. Counter-attack after counter-attack was launched against the captured position during the following two days. As from midday on the 28th. May, during 72 hours, the American lines around Cantigny were the subject of intense shelling by all calibres of the enemy Artillery. At the end of this bombardement, the Americans still held all their positions. The Germans had to resign themselves to their failure.

During the defense against the German counter-attacks, the two companies of the 18th. Infantry in reserve and one company of the 26th. were brought up to the front.

The capture of Cantigny was the first big attack carried out by an American division. It is considered to be a great exploit and of particular value to the Allies as an illustration of the aptitude for combat of the American troops, who were beginning to arrive in France. This engagement took place the day after the German offensive of 27th. May against the Chemin des Dames, it was perceived by the Allies, as a ray of sun in a particularly menacing sky.

The 2nd. of June, the 1st. Division took over responsability for a slightly wider part of the front., in order to free French troops to be useful elsewhere. The 3rd., to the north of Cantigny, the front line was moved slightly foreward to improve it's position. During the day of the 9th. June, the division was severely shelled for the Germans began their major offensive between Montdidier and Noyon, to the east of the sector occupied.

The 1st. Division remained in the lines, in all, for 73 days with losses mounting to 5200 killed, wounded and missing. It was relieved on the 8th. July and was to play, ten days later, a very important part in the battle south of Soissons, in the scope of the 10th. French Army (Général Mangin).
http://batmarn2.club.fr/1dvcneng.htm

LE POINT DE VUE DU GENERAL LUNDENDORFF SUR LES TROUPES AMERICAINES

From the section by Ludendorff contained in THE TWO BATTLES OF THE MARNE: THE STORIES OF MARSHAL JOFFRE, GENERAL VON LUDENDORFF, MARSHAL FOCH, CHROWN PRINCE WILHELM (NY: Cosmopolitan Book Corporation, 1927).

"I did not delude myself at this time (July 1918) as to the imminence or the strength of the American forces then coming into action.

The French troops in many sectors of the front were being replaced by Americans, and the quality of the new forces was already manifest to me.

The German general staff estimated for me that on July 1, 1918, there were a round million American troops on French soil, of which 600,000 were already fighting. Their divisions, which we estimated to number twenty-two, were twice as strong as our own in actual number of infantry. America was evidently throwing all of her almost inexhaustible resources into the great battle.

Wherever the American soldier had made his appearance on the front, he had proved himself not very well trained, but extremely eager and even too rash, with apparently inexhaustible nervous energy. It still remained to be seen, however, whether the new divisions which had not yet been in action would be equal to the regulars (2nd 3rd Div) that turned the tide at Chateau-Thierry. It also remained to be seen whether American leadership, lacking tactical and technical experience in handling even single divisions, could handle great armies, especially in mobile warfare." (pp 218-9)

"The tremendous superabundance of pent-up, untapped nervous energy which America's troops brought into the fray more than balanced the weakness of their allies, who were utterly exhausted.

It was assuredly the Americans who bore the heaviest brunt of the fighting in the last few months of the war. The German field army found them much more aggressive in attack than either the English or the French.

For instance, in the simultaneous attack launched at the end of September--six weeks before the war ended--by the French in Champagne and the Americans between the Argonne and the Meuse, General von Einem's Third German Army facing the French had no difficulty in holding firm the line against their frontal attacks for fully two weeks, while General von Gallwitz's Fifth German Army facing the Americans in the Argonne could not withstand the incessant force of intrepidity of the American attack.

In the October battles for the possession of the Meuse line, which we had held for four years and heavily fortified, the Americans must be credited with decisive victory. By frontal pressure against the troops opposing them, they forced us to abandon the Aisne position and retreat behind the Meuse. The French on numerous previous occasions had attacked us there in great force, suffered terrible loss themselves and gained no advantage.

Regarding the actual fighting of the Americans, their attacks were undoubtedly brave and often reckless. They lacked sufficient desterity or experience in availing athemselves of topographical cover or protection. They came right on in open field and attacked in units much too closely formed. Their lack of actual field experience accounts for some extraordinary heavy losses." (pp 228-9).
http://batmarn2.club.fr/apprecus.htm

I suggest you study the impact of the US forces in 1918 before making such comments. It was unquestionably the US entry into the war that broke the back of Germany and resulted in an "Allied" victory. US forces came into the war and won victories where the British/French units would have lost or at best achieved stalemates!

the lancaster kicks ass said:
and as for you "feeling ignored" in the peace disscussions after WWI and that leading to WWII, well that's really pissed me off!! Wilson was there at the peace talks, he was one of the big three, how exactly are you feeling left out??

Wilson's 14 points were a large part of the basis for German surrender. From the diary of Col. Von Thaer:

...
Therefore, the Supreme Army Command demanded of His Majesty the Kaiser and of the Chancellor that a proposal for the bringing about of peace be made to President Wilson of America without delay, for bringing about an armistice on the basis of his 14 Points.
...
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/thaereng.html

I suggest you look over the Treaty of Versailles, particulary sections 8-10, which are in direct conflict with President Wilson's 14 points. You should read the 14 points, and especially the paragraphs following the points themselves which make it clear that Germany was not to be crippled by reperations, and point V as it regaurds colonial possessions and the rights of their populations.

the lancaster kicks ass said:
YOU WERE THERE!! then you decide to set up the league of nations, then it wasn't approved in america, it was the american people's fault that you didn't join!! then you have the absolute nerve to claim that if you were at the peace talks, which you were, you and you alone could have prevented WWII, that's complete s**t and you know it...............

Oh, the USA was there. However it was virtually ignored. The British and French insisted on their pound of flesh after the German's had capitulated under the misbelief that the terms offered by Wilson would be honored. Both Britain and France wanted to continue to expand their colonial empires and basically go back to "business as usual". Once the war was won, the American position was of no interest or consequence to the British and French (or the Italian's for that matter).

And I do not claim that the USA alone could have prevented WWII, in fact quite the contrary. What it required was a unified act of enlightened self-interest - something the British and French agreed to in order to bring the USA into WWI. But once the USA was no longer "needed" neither the British nor the French were willing to honor their word.

the lancaster kicks ass said:
and the walls street crash, the fault of you americans might i point out RG, was just as much a cause of WWII than anything else...........

Geeze Lanc - are you that desperate that you need to try to throw rocks even though you live in a glass house?

Sure the Great Depression was a big contributing factor to WWII, but the USA was not to blame. What you do not seem to know is that the only thing holding up the European economy in the 20's was US investment and US purchases of European goods. Great Britian was doing very poorly through this peroid because of its general loss of overseas markets and her refusal to devalue the pound, and was really in a depression well before the stock market crash. Germany was suffering from massive inflation which peaked in 1923 because of the war reparations Britain and more significantly France saddled it with after WWI. What prosperity there was in europe relied on American loans and American markets.

You are blaming the USA for having cut off loans and reducing its purchasing of European goods? Well, these things were only possible because of the extravagences of the 20's which in turn lead to the stock market crash in the first place. Had Europe, primarily the British and the French, run their economies in a responsible manner and not forced Germany into a severe depression in the 20's most likely the US stock market crash would have been a national problem of much smaller magnitude. A huge part of the US depression was the fact that the loans made to European nations turned out to be bad!

You seem to think the USA had some responsibility to prop up the British and French economies in the between wars years. And that's ludicrous!

=S=

Lunatic

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 2, 2005

Well as for the US entering in WW1 I will agree that it had some impact. The US provided fresh troops which the French and the British did not have. On the other hand though you have to remember that at the same time the German army's moral was at an all time low also. There were even Navy mutinies going. (These however were just before the end of the war anyhow).

I am not trying to take away the US effort especially that of the 1st Infantry Division (Hell Yeah thats the division that I fly for!) but I would not say that the US bailed France and England out. Greatly influenced the outcome of the war yes, but single handendly won the war for the allies absoulutely not.

As for the whole Airbus thing, yeap this ones for you RG_Lunatic!

GO AIRBUS!!!!!

Anonymous · May 2, 2005

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Well as for the US entering in WW1 I will agree that it had some impact. The US provided fresh troops which the French and the British did not have. On the other hand though you have to remember that at the same time the German army's moral was at an all time low also. There were even Navy mutinies going. (These however were just before the end of the war anyhow).

I am not trying to take away the US effort especially that of the 1st Infantry Division (Hell Yeah thats the division that I fly for!) but I would not say that the US bailed France and England out. Greatly influenced the outcome of the war yes, but single handendly won the war for the allies absoulutely not.

I never said "single handedly", simply that it was the addition of the US hand that pushed the German's over the edge.

And it was not just that US troops were fresh, it was also the US Army method of warfare. The USA had a different understanding of what war was about because of the Civil War. The idea that troops would be lost was accepted and the goal was to make those losses bear results, not to avoid them which of course does not work anyway (as the British and French losses can attest).

==================

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
As for the whole Airbus thing, yeap this ones for you RG_Lunatic!

GO AIRBUS!!!!!

I'd be all for the Airbus if it weren't so heavily subsidized. Hell, they are giving them away for free just to employ Europeans and drive American aircraft workers into the unemployment lines.

It will be funny to see how the Europeans react when the USA decideds to subsidize Boeing!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 2, 2005

RG_Lunatic said:
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Well as for the US entering in WW1 I will agree that it had some impact. The US provided fresh troops which the French and the British did not have. On the other hand though you have to remember that at the same time the German army's moral was at an all time low also. There were even Navy mutinies going. (These however were just before the end of the war anyhow).

I am not trying to take away the US effort especially that of the 1st Infantry Division (Hell Yeah thats the division that I fly for!) but I would not say that the US bailed France and England out. Greatly influenced the outcome of the war yes, but single handendly won the war for the allies absoulutely not.

Click to expand...

I never said "single handedly", simply that it was the addition of the US hand that pushed the German's over the edge.

And it was not just that US troops were fresh, it was also the US Army method of warfare. The USA had a different understanding of what war was about because of the Civil War. The idea that troops would be lost was accepted and the goal was to make those losses bear results, not to avoid them which of course does not work anyway (as the British and French losses can attest).

I never said that you said the US single handedly won the war. Did I post this after one of your posts with a quote around it? No I did not there. There you go assuming the world is out to get you again. But if you wish to go there technically you did. But again I was not accusing you, go ahead and think I was if you wish. Again as stated in other posts I dont give a damn!

You said:

The way the USA felt was that after bailing the Allied powers out of WWI

==================

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
As for the whole Airbus thing, yeap this ones for you RG_Lunatic!

GO AIRBUS!!!!!

I'd be all for the Airbus if it weren't so heavily subsidized. Hell, they are giving them away for free just to employ Europeans and drive American aircraft workers into the unemployment lines.

It will be funny to see how the Europeans react when the USA decideds to subsidize Boeing! [/quote]

You got it RG, that is the plan of the whole of Europe to drive all of the US into unemployment. It is the whole reason that Airbus exists! The world is out to get the US and especially you RG!

Decides to subsidize Boeing? I am pretty sure they already are. Bush runs one of the most corrupt governments the modern world has ever seen. Oh well the WTO will decide.

plan_D · May 2, 2005

The WTO will decide as the accusation has already been made about the Bush administrations subsidies to US companies.

The US did not tip the balance of World War 1. It ended it quicker. The Germans did not have a chance to bring that war to a successful conclusion without any kind of armoured force, or anti-tank defence.
German armour numbers never even reached triple figures, the Allies were in the thousands.

America was a poor military force tactically! The troops still walked like the Allies did in 1914-15. Do you honestly believe that from 3 years of war the Allies hadn't learnt anything? The American Civil War was a bit over-shadowed in technology by the Great War, in fact it was a completely different kind of war.
The Allies were willing to take losses, it had been for the past 3 years for god sake. The only thing that the US did was give fresh faces, it performed just as the Allies did in 1914-15 but now the enemy was already battered, bruised and broken from 3 years of war when America wasn't.

Britain and France did constantly request America to join the war. Of course they would. They would be stupid not to. Why not try and provoke a potential ally to join the fight on your side!?!

And I'm okay with you defending the fact that America solely didn't start World War 2 but nor did France or Britain. It was the actions of the entire world that brought around World War 2. It's much more complicated than economic and land arguments.
It's people like you, RG, that caused the tensions between Britain and America in World War 2. Those people that always believe, and probably still do, that all Britain is out for is to expand her empire and belittle America. Get over it, we had the biggest empire in history...not you. We like that fact, we weren't in World War 1 nor 2 trying to achieve anything other than our own survival

And also, Britain saw the Communist threat long before naive America. Then who was more paranoid about Communists? I think you'll find America was much more frightened than Britain. Britain was reasonably fearful, it was prepared for a fight when it came...it knew what it had to do, it was the frontline along with W. Germany. America was executing people that might Communists. Red Fear!

delcyros · May 2, 2005

8)
There is no doubt that wing airflow design of NACA profiles influenced german design on a big scale. Just note the innumerous laminar flow copies.
RG, are you sure that "...no other nation was willing to pay expensive bills for a comparable windtunnel..."???
I recommend to double check your argument, since you ignore the german wind tunells, which have been much superior in terms of air flow, pressure and speed to the US one.
The 1939 wind tunnel of Adlershof made 2.000 kVA and allowed a max simulating speed of Mach 550 mp/h. In terms of size and performance it is only slightly less powerful than the US one. However, the basic technology was behind the US in my minds, since they used no computerization for the pressurepoints.
Complete new vakuum technology windtunnel have been made in Peenemünde. There a 8000 kVA windtunnel was made between 1940 and 1942 for Mach 3-4, allowing a max airflow speed of 1000 meters/second (2236 mp/h) at a channel of 30*40 cm. This resulted in the first supersonic windtunnel results. It proved to be vital for supersonic flow research (esspecially v. Brauns A-projects and supersonic missiles + planes)
Dr. Wegner even worked on a Mach-10 windtunnel for verification of Dr. Sängers ideas. He later became a key US aerodynamic for hypersonic airflow and their wind tunnels.
The most powerful european windtunnel was build 1940-1945 (not finished at all) in Ötztal/Tirol by Dr. Peters late in ww2. Driven by marine turbines it developed 110.000 hp (75.000 kVA!) and allowed an airflow of 15.000 cbm per second at an airchannel of 8 m diameter and 14 m length with effective 670 mp/h airspeed.There are SEVERAL SUPERSONIC airflow tests recorded by these tunnel for Lippish, Messerschmidt and (mostly) DFS.
After end of ww2, the french decided to take down the Ötztal windtunnel and rebuild this object in France. Renamed TLT it is still the most powerful windtunnel of europe. It proved to be vital for all Airbus projects. Till today.
Check out his book, RG:W.P. Wegener, The Peenemunde wind tunnels, (1998), passim.

delcyros · May 2, 2005

Dear Plan_D,
I do see your argument of the F-9. But I am not convinced that this should count to ww2 technology in anyway but the preliminary studies made with the Metrolpolitan-Vickers F-2/-1 (and more reasonable the F-2/-4).
As for the Deltawing, it´s obviously false. Just look at Dr. Lippischs progress at DFS (DFS 39, DFS 40, Delta-I-Delta-IV), he made Deltawing based designs even prior to the outbreak of ww2. Not to speak of his DM-1 and supersonic projects (which never came to prototype stage). Not only this, he also paved the way for mathematical solutions of supersonic deltawings in 1943. There are several wind tunnel tests of his deltwing models up to Mach 4.4. His theoritical work also included biconvexal wing profiles.

plan_D · May 2, 2005

My point with the F.9 is merely that it evolved from the F.2 which was an axial-flow engine, that was British. This is pointing out that the British had the axial-flow engine idea just as the Germans did. The British developed the most widely used engine, the F.9, in the 50s from their own F.2 not a German engine. That's my point.

I never said that Germany did not have the idea behind the delta-wing in their grasp. They never made one fly though, did they?

delcyros · May 2, 2005

Lets come to an overall agreed solution, Plan_D:
I agree that the british have been ahead in centrifugal flow engines
as the germans have been in axial flow designs.
OK?
Lippisch made flying Deltawing designs Delta I-Delta-IV (..and Delta-V a flying wing design in 1940) 1936-1939.

Anonymous · May 2, 2005

Plan_D,

Your understanding of this period is so astondingly bad it's just not worth trying to correct all your false beliefs.

And just who got executed because we "thought" they were communists?

Anonymous · May 2, 2005

delcyros said:
8)
There is no doubt that wing airflow design of NACA profiles influenced german design on a big scale. Just note the innumerous laminar flow copies.
RG, are you sure that "...no other nation was willing to pay expensive bills for a comparable windtunnel..."???
I recommend to double check your argument, since you ignore the german wind tunells, which have been much superior in terms of air flow, pressure and speed to the US one.
The 1939 wind tunnel of Adlershof made 2.000 kVA and allowed a max simulating speed of Mach 550 mp/h. In terms of size and performance it is only slightly less powerful than the US one. However, the basic technology was behind the US in my minds, since they used no computerization for the pressurepoints.
Complete new vakuum technology windtunnel have been made in Peenemünde. There a 8000 kVA windtunnel was made between 1940 and 1942 for Mach 3-4, allowing a max airflow speed of 1000 meters/second (2236 mp/h) at a channel of 30*40 cm. This resulted in the first supersonic windtunnel results. It proved to be vital for supersonic flow research (esspecially v. Brauns A-projects and supersonic missiles + planes)
Dr. Wegner even worked on a Mach-10 windtunnel for verification of Dr. Sängers ideas. He later became a key US aerodynamic for hypersonic airflow and their wind tunnels.
The most powerful european windtunnel was build 1940-1945 (not finished at all) in Ötztal/Tirol by Dr. Peters late in ww2. Driven by marine turbines it developed 110.000 hp (75.000 kVA!) and allowed an airflow of 15.000 cbm per second at an airchannel of 8 m diameter and 14 m length with effective 670 mp/h airspeed.There are SEVERAL SUPERSONIC airflow tests recorded by these tunnel for Lippish, Messerschmidt and (mostly) DFS.
After end of ww2, the french decided to take down the Ötztal windtunnel and rebuild this object in France. Renamed TLT it is still the most powerful windtunnel of europe. It proved to be vital for all Airbus projects. Till today.
Check out his book, RG:W.P. Wegener, The Peenemunde wind tunnels, (1998), passim.

The Germans never had a high pressure wind tunnel, either 20 atmospheres or 2.5 atmospheres. The German "high-speed" wind tunnles were of what diameter?

What makes you think there was no "computerization" (i.e. automatic regulation) of the pressure points of the NACA wind-tunnels? The fact is the closed-loop design of the NACA tunnels required less regulation, but there was automated regulation where it was needed.

And I didn't even mention any US wind tunnels that became operational after the start of the war.

=S=

Lunatic

plan_D · May 2, 2005

I'm glad you're not going to try and get involved (for once), RG. You astound me how amazing you think you are and how easily you manage to irritate people. It's quite a talent you have, well done.

delcyros, I'll go with that. It wasn't soon after though that Britain became the world leader in axial-flow engines as well as centrifugal. The two major powers, USA and Soviet Union, both flew with direct British engines or copies of for a long-long time.

Which WWIIcountry is in the frontier of the aerospace?

Captain

Major General

Lieutenant Colonel

Major General

Lieutenant Colonel

Major General

Captain

Major General

Anonymous

Guest

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Attachments

Anonymous

Guest

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Lieutenant Colonel

Tech Sergeant

Attachments

Tech Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Tech Sergeant

Attachments

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Lieutenant Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads