No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
paulrward
Member
Posts: 644
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by paulrward » 27 Oct 2022 01:47

Sorry, Double Post.
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3135
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by T. A. Gardner » 27 Oct 2022 05:43

paulrward wrote:
27 Oct 2022 01:46
Hello All ;

Mr. Gardner stated :
That Von Braun and the paperclip scientists / engineers played a significant
role in the US civil space program in no way--ZERO--indicates that the US couldn't
have managed these programs without them.
In 1945, there were three great leaders in Rocket Technology: von Braun, Goddard, and Korolyev.

Goddard died. But, the United States ' Paperclipped ' von Braun. As a result, the U.S. got the
Redstone, Jupiter, Jupiter C, Juno , Saturn 1 and 1B and Saturn V.
This is wrong. Goddard died of tuberculosis in August 1945. The US rocketry program was far more varied than you make it out to be. Von Karman at GALCIT was running that program and there were a number of luminaries under him. Jack Parsons was the go-to guy for solid fuels and a major factor in establishing Aerojets. The USN was relying on people like Tuve at Johns Hopkins.
What you had were a wide variety of individuals across industry that contributed significantly to the US program that had three separate and distinct tracks: USN, US Army, USAF.
The US Army program, on the whole was diminishing in significance as time progressed. The USAF and USN programs became the significant ones in missile development.
V. Braun and his paperclip scientists and engineers were primarily confined to US Army programs at Redstone arsenal then to NASA civilian programs. That's a tiny fraction of the whole US postwar rocketry and missile programs.
As for the statement:
The Saturn V was largely built using non-German engineered technology designed
and manufactured by US companies from US engineering.
According to NASA,

Accordingly, von Braun became director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and the chief architect
of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that would propel Americans to the Moon.
What I stated was accurate. The Saturn V was not primarily designed by Redstone in detail but rather assembled from extant technology from other US missile programs outside the purview of paperclip scientists and V. Braun.
Atlas and Thor had protracted developments, with failure after failure. On the other hand, Redstone
was a success from the first launch, and the decision to order both missiles was done simply to avoid
layoffs at a major contractor. Thor continued to have issues throughout it's service life, and was largely
based in foreign countries, like Britain and Turkey. This was so the pad explosions wouldn't endanger
Americans......
That's because, as I have previously noted, the Germans were reluctant to push the envelope while US engineers did regularly. That the Saturn V didn't use integral tanks that had become a staple at Convair with their original design by Charlie Bossart, is an example of this. The design used was very conservative, but added weight and was very inefficient from an engineering viewpoint.
Compare the long litany of pad explosions of Thor, Atlas, and Titan with the service tests and career of
the Redstones and Saturns. The Redstone went smoothly into service, and was reliable enough that NASA,
unwilling to risk an Astronaut's life on the early Atlas rocket, sent the first two Americans into space on
Redstones.

The Saturn 1 had TEN successful launches with ZERO failures, the Saturn !B had NINE successful
launches with ZERO failures, and the Saturn V had THIRTEEN successful launches with ONE failure of the
second stage.

Thats ONE failure in THIRTY TWO LAUNCHES ! Compare that with the endless footage of Atlases , Titans,
and Thors blowing up on the pad or right after liftoff! In fact, SIX out of the first TEN Thor launches blew up !

Remember, the United States couldn't even launch it's first satellite until, after several public failures, in
desperation, they called in von Braun and his team, and they successfully launched Explorer 1. As one
person put it, " If at first you don't succeed, CALL IN THE GERMANS ! "


Now, were the Germans irreplaceable ? Let's look at the Soviet program. The Soviets used
their German Rocket Scientists to help them develop the R-7 rocket, and then sent them home. The R-7
IS THE ONLY ROCKET THE SOVIETS HAVE EVER MAN RATED ! That's right, all of their home brewed rockets
have such a high failure rate than they have NEVER entrusted a live crew to them - only satellites and
animals !

The Proton rocket had a long, dismal record of failures. In fact, it was a last minute failure of a Proton
Rocket that prevented the Soviets from launching a manned Zond Spacecraft in a Lunar Orbital Mission
in December, 1968. Apollo 8 was put together at the last minute in a desperate attempt to keep up. When
the Proton failed, the United States became the first nation on Earth to send humans to another world.

The next Soviet Rocket was the N-1, or Lenin, which was launched Four times in 1969-1972, and the results
were two craters at the launch pads and two down range debris fields. It was the pad explosion of an
N-1 in July, 1969, that caused the failure of the second attempt to launch a manned Zond to the Moon,
and carry out a faked moon landing to beat the United States by a few days.

But, because both the Proton and the N-1 had flawed engineering, the entire Soviet Space Program went
off the rails.

" The Eagle has Landed ! "


And that's what the Germans gave the United States. Success. Fast developments cycles. And the
accomplishment of what many thought was an impossible dream in less than ten years.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
The German conservatism worked for the civilian program. It failed entirely for the military programs. The USAF after Atlas and Titan went to solid fuel ICBMs (Minuteman) as did the USN with Polaris. These solid fuels were something the German engineers and scientists were way behind the curve on.

paulrward
Member
Posts: 644
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by paulrward » 27 Oct 2022 20:26

Hello All ;

Mr. Gardner seems to be trying to strain at gnats while swallowing herds of camels...

I stated:
In 1945, there were three great leaders in Rocket Technology: von Braun,
Goddard, and Korolyev.

Goddard died.
Mr. Gardner then retorts:
This is wrong. Goddard died of tuberculosis in August 1945
Mr. Gardner, Goddard was alive in 1945. He died in 1945. So, in 1945, there were three great leaders
in Rocket Technology: von Braun, Goddard, and Korolyev

And then Goddard died.


As for the list of U.S. Rocket Luminaries: von Karman, from Hungary, was part of that long list of
scientists who fled Europe in the 1930s, including Albert Einstein, Hans Bethe, John von Neumann,
Leo Szilard, James Franck, Edward Teller, Rudolf Peierls, Klaus Fuchs, Enrico Fermi, Joseph Rotblat
and Stanislaw Ulam .

Mr. Gardner, are you going to tell this Forum that, in your opinion, the United States Nuclear program
during WW2 was NOT dependent on these people I have listed above ?


Jack Parsons was into Witchcraft and kinky sex-satanic rituals. Not my choice as a go-to guy to do
Rocket Research.....

Did Tuve do actual rocket work at John Hopkins? I know he was involved in high altitude physics, and was
involved in the Proximity Fuse work, but have not been able to find anything on his rocket research.
Oh, yeah..... He proved the existence of the Neutron.

What you had were a wide variety of individuals across industry that
contributed significantly to the US program that had three separate and distinct
tracks: USN, US Army, USAF.
The US Army program, on the whole was diminishing in significance as time
progressed. The USAF and USN programs became the significant ones in missile
development.
V. Braun and his paperclip scientists and engineers were primarily confined to
US Army programs at Redstone arsenal then to NASA civilian programs. That's a
tiny fraction of the whole US postwar rocketry and missile programs.

Yes, there were three separate tracks. The USAF wanted to develop ICBMs to wipe out the Human Race
and destroy the World. The USN wanted to develop SLBMs to wipe out the Human Race and destroy the
World. The Army wanted to develop SRBMs to wipe out Armies and destroy the World.

Then, the Army program got rolled into NASA. NASA wanted to develop Space Rockets that put men into
orbit, and then sent them to the Moon.


Mr. Gardner, which of these three tracks do you feel will have the longest term benefits to the Human
Race? Rockets that could wipe us out, or Rockets that could springboard us into space, to explore and
colonize other worlds ? Think carefully about your answer, Mr. Gardner, it will make up 90 % of your
final score in determining if you are a Human Being......

V. Braun and his paperclip scientists and engineers were primarily
confined ......... to NASA civilian programs. That's a tiny fraction of the
whole US postwar rocketry and missile programs.

Yeah. During the 1950s and 1960s, a sizable amount of the U.S. GNP was devoted to trying to develop
a set of weapons to make our planet radioactively sterile and permanently uninhabitable. And
Mr. Gardner thinks that was a good thing.....

Saturn V was not primarily designed by Redstone in detail but rather
assembled from extant technology from other US missile programs outside the
purview of paperclip scientists and V. Braun.
Absolutely WRONG ! The Saturn V main engines were the F-1. Which was developed by Rocketdyne
AFTER the Air Force had cancelled it, because von Braun recognized that a cluster of these engines
could take the Saturn V rocket into the Moon Launcher category. And, it must be noted, the scale
up calculations that allowed the creation of the F-1 engine in the first place were performed by
von Brauns team in the early 1950s when they developed the Redstone. The Soviets lagged behind
in this research, which crippled their space program when they tried to go beyond the R-7 Rocket,
which was, essentially, 20 V-2 combustion chambers ganged together.

That's because, as I have previously noted, the Germans were reluctant to push
the envelope while US engineers did regularly. That the Saturn V didn't use integral tanks
that had become a staple at Convair with their original design by Charlie Bossart

And the ' Balloon Tank ' concept of the Atlas was and is a dead end. It had numerous failures at Max Q,
and is not considered to be a successful design. In fact, the current generation of Falcon 9 and Falcon
Heavy rockets do NOT use Balloon Tanks, but rather the tanks are thick walled composite tanks that
make up the structure of the rocket, and do not require pressurization to remain erect.

Remember, Mr. Gardner: LOTS of launch failures with the Atlas Rocket, ZERO launch failures with the
Saturn V.

and was very inefficient from an engineering viewpoint.

Name ONE other rocket that successfully took men to the moon. Mr. Gardner, a rocket that
blows up, like the Atlases and Titans tended to do, is NOT an efficient rocket !

The Saturn V performed it's task, and unlike the Space Shuttle, never killed anyone. That makes it damned
efficient in my engineering experience.

The German conservatism worked for the civilian program. It failed entirely
for the military programs. The USAF after Atlas and Titan went to solid fuel ICBMs
(Minuteman) as did the USN with Polaris. These solid fuels were something the
German engineers and scientists were way behind the curve on.

Perhaps the Germans, after experiencing the horrors of a World War which killed many of their friends
and family members, were not interested in developing a whole new generation of weapons simply to
exterminate humanity.

Until the day he died, Werner von Braun had to endure the jibes about, " Aiming for the Stars, and
hitting London...." Is it possible he didn't want to be remembered just as a scientist who invented the
tools to allow madmen to slaughter children ?


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

User avatar
At ease
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 14 Dec 2015 12:09
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by At ease » 03 Nov 2022 10:07

T. A. Gardner wrote:
19 Sep 2022 05:51
paulrward wrote:
19 Sep 2022 03:41
No one here has made the claim that no other nation could have duplicated the German developments-
but some of us are intellectually honest enough to concede that, in some areas, like Jet Engines, Rocket
Engines, Diesel Engines, and Hydrogen Peroxide Engines, that the Germans had gotten a few years lead
on us. We could have duplicated them. Just like the Soviets duplicated the United States development
of the B-29 bomber and the Plutonium Atomic Bomb. Of course, the Soviets were a few years behind
the U.S., but, well, that isn't important. Unless you are fighting a ..... War......
Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
The Germans definitely were not ahead in jet engine technology when they surrendered. Both Britain and the US were on par, or ahead, of them in that field.
Somebody please tell me the aircraft of which nation were routinely capable of speeds in the region of 550 mph in level flight by war's end?

Without "busting a gut" i.e by using extremely high boost/rpm or exotic additives.

(I have just purchased:

"The Secret Horsepower Race"
by Calum Douglas

https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/produ ... 1911658504
which explains the strenuous efforts needed to produce high horsepower combat aircraft piston engines.)

Was it aircraft made in the UK?

No?

Was it aircraft made in the US?

No?

Was it Germany?

YES.

The Me262.

I wonder which AHF member has that aircraft as their Avatar?

The US got closest to the Me262 in terms of level speed with the Lockheed P80, with the UK being a bit behind that with the Meteor.

From the following video entitled:

"World War Two JET POWER"

one of a VERY extensive series in Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles where he is speaking mainly about the Jumo 004 and BMW 003 jet engines.

Greg has a rather enthusiastic following amongst aviation enthusiasts(link to his site at the end).

@23:30
There is no question that these 2 German jet engines were far ahead of their time and paved the way for what was to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N5lNOYlOb8

@20:25 in the video, he refers to the engine life of the General Electric J47 turbojet as used in the P/F86 Sabre.

By 1947, Greg says the engine life of the J47 was:
15 hours
That was no longer than the Jumo 004 in 1945.

By 1947, I do not believe that the USA was suffering from a shortage of strategic high temperature resistant metals.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Sure, later the J47 went on to have a TBO in the hundreds of hours(possibly thousands - I would need to check to verify accurately - no time ATM).

In future, TAG might like to stop disparaging the Jumo 004 based on "short engine life", or words to that effect.

The first video I linked to above makes reference to the fact that the Me262 achieved a kill ration of 5:1. over Allied aircraft @21:20.

This is examined and documented at length in:

Me262 Combat Diary
by Foreman & Harvey.

https://www.amazon.com/Me-262-Combat-Di ... 1871187087

Once again, British subjects pointing out the superiority of German aircraft.

Another Cornflakes choking episode for Michael Kenny & others. :lol:

Link to Greg's youtube site:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrI ... gHJAIp9oSg

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3775
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by Takao » 03 Nov 2022 14:14

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
Somebody please tell me the aircraft of which nation were routinely capable of speeds in the region of 550 mph in level flight by war's end?
P-80A-5(USA) and the Gloster Meteor F.4(UK)

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
Was it aircraft made in the UK?

No?
Actually, that would be yes.
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
Was it aircraft made in the US?

No?
Actually, that would be yes.
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
Was it Germany?

YES.
Actually, that would be NO.
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
The Me262.
When WW2 ended, the 262 was neither being produced by Germany nor flown by Germany. A handful were being flown by the US, UK, and USSR though.
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
I wonder which AHF member has that aircraft as their Avatar?
One of the dimmer bulbs in the bunch...
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
The US got closest to the Me262 in terms of level speed with the Lockheed P80, with the UK being a bit behind that with the Meteor.
Ummm...When the war ended, the UK had equaled the 262 with the Meteor F.3, and surpassed it with the Meteor F.4.



At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
@20:25 in the video, he refers to the engine life of the General Electric J47 turbojet as used in the P/F86 Sabre.

By 1947, Greg says the engine life of the J47 was:
15 hours
That was no longer than the Jumo 004 in 1945.
It was about 50% longer...15 hours for the J47 and 10 hours for the Jumo 004.

Note that these engine lives are in practice, not manufacture's expected lifetimes. Pilots routinely abuse the engines(piston or jet) resulting in significantly shorter engine life than expected.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
By 1947, I do not believe that the USA was suffering from a shortage of strategic high temperature resistant metals.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
And you would be wrong.

It is not about the strategic reserves of these metals, but the metallurgical composition to get the best performance. Just look at all the metallurgical research pertaining to jet engines being done in the mid-40s to mid-50s.

The metallurgical knowledge simply was not there in the 40s.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
In future, TAG might like to stop disparaging the Jumo 004 based on "short engine life", or words to that effect.
Unfortunately, short engine life is an issue when engines are in short supply. If 400-500 Me-262s are grounded because they lack engines, they are not much good as "wonder weapons."
Innovative, yes. Technologically advanced, yes. Good for combat, nope.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
The first video I linked to above makes reference to the fact that the Me262 achieved a kill ration of 5:1. over Allied aircraft @21:20.
Yes, against Allied bombers.

Against Allied fighters...They sucked.
Shot down by USAAF Mustang 92.5
Shot down by USAAF Thunderbolt 18.83
Shot down by USAAF Lightning 3
Shot down by RAF Spitfire 9.83
Shot down by RAF Tempest 5
Shot down by RAF Typhoon 2
Shot down by RAF Mustang 1.83
Shot down by unknown Mustang 1
Shot down by Russian aircraft 3
Shot down by unknown aircraft 21
---
Unsubstantiated USAAF claims 46
Unsubstantiated RAF claims 10
---
Rammed unknown Spitfire 1
Rammed bomber 3
Shot down by bomber (?) 2
Shot down by enemy flak 10
Shot down by own flak 2
Strafed when landing 1
Destroyed on the ground 34
Mechanical failure/pilot error 146
Other cause/unknown 13

Total losses 370
Some 150 262s confirmed killed in air-to-air combat.

And you consider the 262 to be the "superior" fighter?


At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
This is examined and documented at length in:

Me262 Combat Diary
by Foreman & Harvey.

https://www.amazon.com/Me-262-Combat-Di ... 1871187087

Once again, British subjects pointing out the superiority of German aircraft.
Might want to go back and re-read it...Where do you think I compiled the above list from.

Looks to me, that the Me-262 was inferior against Allied fighters...Particularly, the Mustang.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
Another Cornflakes choking episode for Michael Kenny & others. :lol:

Link to Greg's youtube site:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrI ... gHJAIp9oSg
Quick, somebody give "at ease" the Heimlic, he's choking on his own cornflakes again.

Or don't.

User avatar
At ease
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 14 Dec 2015 12:09
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by At ease » 03 Nov 2022 16:22

Takao wrote:
03 Nov 2022 14:14
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
Somebody please tell me the aircraft of which nation were routinely capable of speeds in the region of 550 mph in level flight by war's end?
P-80A-5(USA) and the Gloster Meteor F.4(UK)

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
Was it aircraft made in the UK?

No?
Actually, that would be yes.
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
Was it aircraft made in the US?

No?
Actually, that would be yes.
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
Was it Germany?

YES.
Actually, that would be NO.
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
The Me262.
When WW2 ended, the 262 was neither being produced by Germany nor flown by Germany. A handful were being flown by the US, UK, and USSR though.
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
I wonder which AHF member has that aircraft as their Avatar?
One of the dimmer bulbs in the bunch...
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
The US got closest to the Me262 in terms of level speed with the Lockheed P80, with the UK being a bit behind that with the Meteor.
Ummm...When the war ended, the UK had equaled the 262 with the Meteor F.3, and surpassed it with the Meteor F.4.



At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
@20:25 in the video, he refers to the engine life of the General Electric J47 turbojet as used in the P/F86 Sabre.

By 1947, Greg says the engine life of the J47 was:
15 hours
That was no longer than the Jumo 004 in 1945.
It was about 50% longer...15 hours for the J47 and 10 hours for the Jumo 004.

Note that these engine lives are in practice, not manufacture's expected lifetimes. Pilots routinely abuse the engines(piston or jet) resulting in significantly shorter engine life than expected.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
By 1947, I do not believe that the USA was suffering from a shortage of strategic high temperature resistant metals.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
And you would be wrong.

It is not about the strategic reserves of these metals, but the metallurgical composition to get the best performance. Just look at all the metallurgical research pertaining to jet engines being done in the mid-40s to mid-50s.

The metallurgical knowledge simply was not there in the 40s.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
In future, TAG might like to stop disparaging the Jumo 004 based on "short engine life", or words to that effect.
Unfortunately, short engine life is an issue when engines are in short supply. If 400-500 Me-262s are grounded because they lack engines, they are not much good as "wonder weapons."
Innovative, yes. Technologically advanced, yes. Good for combat, nope.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
The first video I linked to above makes reference to the fact that the Me262 achieved a kill ration of 5:1. over Allied aircraft @21:20.
Yes, against Allied bombers.

Against Allied fighters...They sucked.
Shot down by USAAF Mustang 92.5
Shot down by USAAF Thunderbolt 18.83
Shot down by USAAF Lightning 3
Shot down by RAF Spitfire 9.83
Shot down by RAF Tempest 5
Shot down by RAF Typhoon 2
Shot down by RAF Mustang 1.83
Shot down by unknown Mustang 1
Shot down by Russian aircraft 3
Shot down by unknown aircraft 21
---
Unsubstantiated USAAF claims 46
Unsubstantiated RAF claims 10
---
Rammed unknown Spitfire 1
Rammed bomber 3
Shot down by bomber (?) 2
Shot down by enemy flak 10
Shot down by own flak 2
Strafed when landing 1
Destroyed on the ground 34
Mechanical failure/pilot error 146
Other cause/unknown 13

Total losses 370
Some 150 262s confirmed killed in air-to-air combat.

And you consider the 262 to be the "superior" fighter?


At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
This is examined and documented at length in:

Me262 Combat Diary
by Foreman & Harvey.

https://www.amazon.com/Me-262-Combat-Di ... 1871187087

Once again, British subjects pointing out the superiority of German aircraft.
Might want to go back and re-read it...Where do you think I compiled the above list from.

Looks to me, that the Me-262 was inferior against Allied fighters...Particularly, the Mustang.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
Another Cornflakes choking episode for Michael Kenny & others. :lol:

Link to Greg's youtube site:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrI ... gHJAIp9oSg
Quick, somebody give "at ease" the Heimlic, he's choking on his own cornflakes again.

Or don't.
I'm being generous by referring to the Lockheed P80 as a late war competitor to the Me262, as there were only 2(initially 3) in Europe at VE Day.

They were recon versions operating out of Italy, not actually fighters.

From Lockheed Martin's own website about the P80:
Although the P-80 did not see action in World War II, the timely delivery of the Shooting Star by Lockheed set the stage for the Shooting Star’s early dominance during the Korean War as America’s front-line fighter.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ne ... y/p80.html

The Gloster Meteor F.IV was not in service as of VE Day:
The next-generation Meteor F.4 prototype first flew on 17 May 1945, and went into production in 1946 when 16 RAF squadrons were already operating Meteors.[112] Equipped with Rolls-Royce Derwent 5 engines, the smaller version of the Nene, the F.4 was 170 mph (270 km/h) faster than the F.1 at sea level (585 against 415), but the reduced wings impaired its rate of climb.[113][Note 12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_M ... al_service

Accordingly, you "misspoke(nothing unusual coming from you)" when attempting to compare the F.IV with the Me262 as of VE Day.

You need to compare the Meteor F.III, which was WAY slower, as I had correctly pointed out.

The worlds most experienced test pilot, Captain Eric 'Winkle" Brown makes some pertinent comments in the following video from 3:40 onwards:

"Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown discusses Luftwaffe Aircraft"
The one which staggered us frankly with it's quantum jump in performance was the twin jet me262.
When I tested it here at Farnborough it was 125 mph faster than any allied fighter.
Now this puts it a league by its own.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhVp0dvwr68

The Me262 was designed as a bomber interceptor, without an emphasis on fighter v fighter combat.

It still achieved a kill ratio of 5:1, no matter how you try to "spin" it.

And the engine life figures for the Jumo 004 receive excellent treatment by Greg.

His series of videos have an extremely positive following amongst aviation enthusiasts.

@ Takao have you produced any videos or published any books about the subjects in question?

No?

Thought not.

Neither have I, but I rely on the credible sources produced/published by those who appear to be well received by aviation enthusiasts.

You are being overly critical of my source references without being able to counter with credible alternative sources that you have researched.
Last edited by At ease on 03 Nov 2022 17:10, edited 10 times in total.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3775
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by Takao » 03 Nov 2022 16:33

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22

I'm being generous by referring to the Lockheed P80 as a late war competitor to the Me262, as there were only 2(initially 3) in Europe at VE Day.

They were recon versions operating out of Italy, not actually fighters.

From Lockheed Martins own website about the P80:
Although the P-80 did not see action in World War II, the timely delivery of the Shooting Star by Lockheed set the stage for the Shooting Star’s early dominance during the Korean War as America’s front-line fighter.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ne ... y/p80.html


Captain Eric 'Winkle" Brown


From 3:40 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhVp0dvwr68
That's OK.

With Mustangs swatting down 92 Me-262s, the P-80 wasn't necessary.

User avatar
At ease
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 14 Dec 2015 12:09
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by At ease » 03 Nov 2022 16:39

Takao wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:33
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22

I'm being generous by referring to the Lockheed P80 as a late war competitor to the Me262, as there were only 2(initially 3) in Europe at VE Day.

They were recon versions operating out of Italy, not actually fighters.

From Lockheed Martins own website about the P80:
Although the P-80 did not see action in World War II, the timely delivery of the Shooting Star by Lockheed set the stage for the Shooting Star’s early dominance during the Korean War as America’s front-line fighter.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ne ... y/p80.html


Captain Eric 'Winkle" Brown


From 3:40 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhVp0dvwr68
That's OK.

With Mustangs swatting down 92 Me-262s, the P-80 wasn't necessary.
You seem to like changing horses in mid stream.

It won't help you, as you have just been "shot down".

P.S. I haven't finished demolishing your earlier post yet.

There is now plenty more in the above post #111 for you to choke on.

You are even more inept at posting about aircraft than you are at posting about rockets.

To be frank, your posts are woeful and wildly inaccurate, and most importantly lack source verification/research.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3135
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by T. A. Gardner » 03 Nov 2022 17:12

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
This is the claim I made
The Germans definitely were not ahead in jet engine technology when they surrendered. Both Britain and the US were on par, or ahead, of them in that field.
Somebody please tell me the aircraft of which nation were routinely capable of speeds in the region of 550 mph in level flight by war's end?
Routinely? Nobody's. Jets represent a tiny fraction of the aircraft flying in 1945. Aside from that, what does this have to do with the state of jet engine technology in 1945?

On the subject of jet engine technology that I brought up, the Germans had no advantage. When they surrendered they were operating the BMW 003, Jumo 004, and had several engines in development most notably the Henkel 011.
The US and Britain both had in service engines comparable in performance to the 003 and 004 like the Whittle series, DeHaviland's Ghost and Goblin engines, Westinghouse's J34 and in development that was at least as advanced as the 011--but better designs--engines like GE's J35, Vickers F1 Freda, and F2 Beryl. Even Lockheed's J37 was really better than the compound compressor 011.

So, my claim stands. The Germans had no advantage in jet engine technology.
Without "busting a gut" i.e by using extremely high boost/rpm or exotic additives.

(I have just purchased:

"The Secret Horsepower Race"
by Calum Douglas

https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/produ ... 1911658504
which explains the strenuous efforts needed to produce high horsepower combat aircraft piston engines.)
Good for you, I'm sure Mr. Douglas appreciates your purchase.

Everybody was looking at building more powerful piston engines in the mid 1940's, so?
Was it aircraft made in the UK?

No?

Was it aircraft made in the US?

No?

Was it Germany?

YES.

The Me262.
The US had the P-80, FH Phantom flying that are analogous to the Me 262. Britain's later variants of the Meteor along with the DeHaviland Vampire are also analogous.
The US got closest to the Me262 in terms of level speed with the Lockheed P80, with the UK being a bit behind that with the Meteor.
You forgot the Vampire and FH Phantom. The P-59, while slower, gave the US something the Germans lacked. Early training of ground and maintenance crews, along with pilots, on the differences in operating jet aircraft. That helped immensely when these aircraft started to be used operationally.
From the following video entitled:

"World War Two JET POWER"

one of a VERY extensive series in Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles where he is speaking mainly about the Jumo 004 and BMW 003 jet engines.

Greg has a rather enthusiastic following amongst aviation enthusiasts(link to his site at the end).

@23:30
There is no question that these 2 German jet engines were far ahead of their time and paved the way for what was to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N5lNOYlOb8

@20:25 in the video, he refers to the engine life of the General Electric J47 turbojet as used in the P/F86 Sabre.

By 1947, Greg says the engine life of the J47 was:
15 hours
That was no longer than the Jumo 004 in 1945.
So? All that, and as I pointed out--AGAIN--puts the US and Britain on par, or even ahead of, the Germans on jet engines in 1945.

By 1947, I do not believe that the USA was suffering from a shortage of strategic high temperature resistant metals.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Sure, later the J47 went on to have a TBO in the hundreds of hours(possibly thousands - I would need to check to verify accurately - no time ATM).

In future, TAG might like to stop disparaging the Jumo 004 based on "short engine life", or words to that effect.

The first video I linked to above makes reference to the fact that the Me262 achieved a kill ration of 5:1. over Allied aircraft @21:20.

This is examined and documented at length in:

Me262 Combat Diary
by Foreman & Harvey.

https://www.amazon.com/Me-262-Combat-Di ... 1871187087

Once again, British subjects pointing out the superiority of German aircraft.

Another Cornflakes choking episode for Michael Kenny & others. :lol:

Link to Greg's youtube site:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrI ... gHJAIp9oSg
The problem wasn't so simple as just metallurgy. There were issues with uneven heating, lubricants, and a plethora of other issues that had to be worked out. Superior metallurgy helped, but it wasn't the be-all, end-all of the issue.
For example, Vickers on their F2 Freda (later variants were named Beryl) engine (roughly analogous to an improved Jumo 004) first flew in June 1943 on a Avro Lancaster as a test bed. This same engine was fitted to a Meteor and flown in November 1943. The Freda produced about 2,000 lbs thrust versus 1,600 for the Whittle engine.
The reason it wasn't early adopted was the engine was considered unreliable and Vickers continued to work to improve that. But the point stands. The British had jet engine technology equal to or superior to that of Germany, just as the US did in 1945.

User avatar
At ease
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 14 Dec 2015 12:09
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by At ease » 03 Nov 2022 17:20

T. A. Gardner wrote:
03 Nov 2022 17:12
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 10:07
This is the claim I made
The Germans definitely were not ahead in jet engine technology when they surrendered. Both Britain and the US were on par, or ahead, of them in that field.
Somebody please tell me the aircraft of which nation were routinely capable of speeds in the region of 550 mph in level flight by war's end?
Routinely? Nobody's. Jets represent a tiny fraction of the aircraft flying in 1945. Aside from that, what does this have to do with the state of jet engine technology in 1945?

On the subject of jet engine technology that I brought up, the Germans had no advantage. When they surrendered they were operating the BMW 003, Jumo 004, and had several engines in development most notably the Henkel 011.
The US and Britain both had in service engines comparable in performance to the 003 and 004 like the Whittle series, DeHaviland's Ghost and Goblin engines, Westinghouse's J34 and in development that was at least as advanced as the 011--but better designs--engines like GE's J35, Vickers F1 Freda, and F2 Beryl. Even Lockheed's J37 was really better than the compound compressor 011.

So, my claim stands. The Germans had no advantage in jet engine technology.
Without "busting a gut" i.e by using extremely high boost/rpm or exotic additives.

(I have just purchased:

"The Secret Horsepower Race"
by Calum Douglas

https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/produ ... 1911658504
which explains the strenuous efforts needed to produce high horsepower combat aircraft piston engines.)
Good for you, I'm sure Mr. Douglas appreciates your purchase.

Everybody was looking at building more powerful piston engines in the mid 1940's, so?
Was it aircraft made in the UK?

No?

Was it aircraft made in the US?

No?

Was it Germany?

YES.

The Me262.
The US had the P-80, FH Phantom flying that are analogous to the Me 262. Britain's later variants of the Meteor along with the DeHaviland Vampire are also analogous.
The US got closest to the Me262 in terms of level speed with the Lockheed P80, with the UK being a bit behind that with the Meteor.
You forgot the Vampire and FH Phantom. The P-59, while slower, gave the US something the Germans lacked. Early training of ground and maintenance crews, along with pilots, on the differences in operating jet aircraft. That helped immensely when these aircraft started to be used operationally.
From the following video entitled:

"World War Two JET POWER"

one of a VERY extensive series in Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles where he is speaking mainly about the Jumo 004 and BMW 003 jet engines.

Greg has a rather enthusiastic following amongst aviation enthusiasts(link to his site at the end).

@23:30
There is no question that these 2 German jet engines were far ahead of their time and paved the way for what was to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N5lNOYlOb8

@20:25 in the video, he refers to the engine life of the General Electric J47 turbojet as used in the P/F86 Sabre.

By 1947, Greg says the engine life of the J47 was:
15 hours
That was no longer than the Jumo 004 in 1945.
So? All that, and as I pointed out--AGAIN--puts the US and Britain on par, or even ahead of, the Germans on jet engines in 1945.

By 1947, I do not believe that the USA was suffering from a shortage of strategic high temperature resistant metals.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Sure, later the J47 went on to have a TBO in the hundreds of hours(possibly thousands - I would need to check to verify accurately - no time ATM).

In future, TAG might like to stop disparaging the Jumo 004 based on "short engine life", or words to that effect.

The first video I linked to above makes reference to the fact that the Me262 achieved a kill ration of 5:1. over Allied aircraft @21:20.

This is examined and documented at length in:

Me262 Combat Diary
by Foreman & Harvey.

https://www.amazon.com/Me-262-Combat-Di ... 1871187087

Once again, British subjects pointing out the superiority of German aircraft.

Another Cornflakes choking episode for Michael Kenny & others. :lol:

Link to Greg's youtube site:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrI ... gHJAIp9oSg
The problem wasn't so simple as just metallurgy. There were issues with uneven heating, lubricants, and a plethora of other issues that had to be worked out. Superior metallurgy helped, but it wasn't the be-all, end-all of the issue.
For example, Vickers on their F2 Freda (later variants were named Beryl) engine (roughly analogous to an improved Jumo 004) first flew in June 1943 on a Avro Lancaster as a test bed. This same engine was fitted to a Meteor and flown in November 1943. The Freda produced about 2,000 lbs thrust versus 1,600 for the Whittle engine.
The reason it wasn't early adopted was the engine was considered unreliable and Vickers continued to work to improve that. But the point stands. The British had jet engine technology equal to or superior to that of Germany, just as the US did in 1945.
All you counter with is "so what", "irrelevant" etc.

No sources to counter the ones that I refer to.

Your posts have the value equivalent to a six year old throwing a tantrum.

They are not worthy of my time and effort conducting pertinent research.

But, once again, I will ask what Allied aircraft had equivalent performance to the Me262 as of VE Day?

We both know the answer to that.

NOTHING.

P.S. Were there any Metropolitan Vickers turbojet engines in production as of VE Day?

No?

Thought not.
Last edited by At ease on 03 Nov 2022 17:52, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3775
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by Takao » 03 Nov 2022 17:26

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22
The Gloster Meteor F.IV was not in service as of VE Day:
In service was not your original specification...End of the war was.
The war ended on VJ Day, not VE Day.

Move the goal posts much?
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22
The next-generation Meteor F.4 prototype first flew on 17 May 1945, and went into production in 1946 when 16 RAF squadrons were already operating Meteors.[112] Equipped with Rolls-Royce Derwent 5 engines, the smaller version of the Nene, the F.4 was 170 mph (270 km/h) faster than the F.1 at sea level (585 against 415), but the reduced wings impaired its rate of climb.[113][Note 12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_M ... al_service
May 17, 1945, is before VJ Day is it not?

The F.4 routinely flew faster than 550mph did it not?

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22
The worlds most experienced test pilot, Captain Eric 'Winkle" Brown makes some pertinent comments in the following video from 3:40 onwards:

"Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown discusses Luftwaffe Aircraft"
The one which staggered us frankly with it's quantum jump in performance was the twin jet me262.
When I tested it here at Farnborough it was 125 mph faster than any allied fighter.
Now this puts it a league by its own.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhVp0dvwr68
Yet, they were shot down in droves by inferior piston engined Allied fighters.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22
The Me262 was designed as a bomber interceptor, without an emphasis on fighter v fighter combat.

It still achieved a kill ratio of 5:1, no matter how you try to "spin" it.
It still sucks...
The inferior F6F Hellcat had a 19:1 kill ratio.
The inferior F4U Corsair had a 12:1 kill ratio.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22
And the engine life figures for the Jumo 004 receive excellent treatment by Greg.

His series of videos have an extremely positive following amongst aviation enthusiasts.
Wonderful...You do know it is immaterial. Right?
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22
@ Takao have you produced any videos or published any books about the subjects in question?

No?

Thought not.
Me-262 Combat Diary. It's all you need.

The Me-262 was a "wonder weapon"...Until it encountered Allied fighters...Then it wasn't so "wonderful."

User avatar
At ease
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 14 Dec 2015 12:09
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by At ease » 03 Nov 2022 17:29

Takao wrote:
03 Nov 2022 17:26
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22
The Gloster Meteor F.IV was not in service as of VE Day:
In service was not your original specification...End of the war was.
The war ended on VJ Day, not VE Day.

Move the goal posts much?
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22
The next-generation Meteor F.4 prototype first flew on 17 May 1945, and went into production in 1946 when 16 RAF squadrons were already operating Meteors.[112] Equipped with Rolls-Royce Derwent 5 engines, the smaller version of the Nene, the F.4 was 170 mph (270 km/h) faster than the F.1 at sea level (585 against 415), but the reduced wings impaired its rate of climb.[113][Note 12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_M ... al_service
May 17, 1945, is before VJ Day is it not?

The F.4 routinely flew faster than 550mph did it not?

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22
The worlds most experienced test pilot, Captain Eric 'Winkle" Brown makes some pertinent comments in the following video from 3:40 onwards:

"Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown discusses Luftwaffe Aircraft"
The one which staggered us frankly with it's quantum jump in performance was the twin jet me262.
When I tested it here at Farnborough it was 125 mph faster than any allied fighter.
Now this puts it a league by its own.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhVp0dvwr68
Yet, they were shot down in droves by inferior piston engined Allied fighters.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22
The Me262 was designed as a bomber interceptor, without an emphasis on fighter v fighter combat.

It still achieved a kill ratio of 5:1, no matter how you try to "spin" it.
It still sucks...
The inferior F6F Hellcat had a 19:1 kill ratio.
The inferior F4U Corsair had a 12:1 kill ratio.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22
And the engine life figures for the Jumo 004 receive excellent treatment by Greg.

His series of videos have an extremely positive following amongst aviation enthusiasts.
Wonderful...You do know it is immaterial. Right?
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:22
@ Takao have you produced any videos or published any books about the subjects in question?

No?

Thought not.
Me-262 Combat Diary. It's all you need.

The Me-262 was a "wonder weapon"...Until it encountered Allied fighters...Then it wasn't so "wonderful."
Were there any jets, German or Allied, in the Pacific as of VJ Day?

No?

Go away.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3775
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by Takao » 03 Nov 2022 17:40

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:39
You seem to like changing horses in mid stream.
How so? By proving the Me-262 sucked against Allied fighters.

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:39
It won't help you, as you have just been "shot down".
You missed by a mile...
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:39
P.S. I haven't finished demolishing your earlier post yet.
You started already?

And haven't even scratched the paint yet. Let alone "demolish."

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:39
There is now plenty more in the above post #111 for you to choke on.
Plenty more? You are aware that restating your argument is nothing more to add...Right?

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:39
You are even more inept at posting about aircraft than you are at posting about rockets.

To be frank, your posts are woeful and wildly inaccurate, and most importantly lack source verification/research.
Yes, yes your posts are...inept & wildly inaccurate.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3775
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by Takao » 03 Nov 2022 17:52

At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 17:29
Were there any jets, German or Allied, in the Pacific as of VJ Day?

No?
Yes, the P-80 was flying out of Moffett Field, California.
It's only a couple of miles from the Pacific.
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:39
Go away.
You first.

User avatar
At ease
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 14 Dec 2015 12:09
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

Post by At ease » 03 Nov 2022 17:57

Takao wrote:
03 Nov 2022 17:52
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 17:29
Were there any jets, German or Allied, in the Pacific as of VJ Day?

No?
Yes, the P-80 was flying out of Moffett Field, California.
It's only a couple of miles from the Pacific.
At ease wrote:
03 Nov 2022 16:39
Go away.
You first.
The Lockheed Martin website that I linked to in post # 111 said, and I repeat for the obtuse, slow learners:
I'm being generous by referring to the Lockheed P80 as a late war competitor to the Me262, as there were only 2(initially 3) in Europe at VE Day.

They were recon versions operating out of Italy, not actually fighters.

From Lockheed Martin's own website about the P80:
Although the P-80 did not see action in World War II, the timely delivery of the Shooting Star by Lockheed set the stage for the Shooting Star’s early dominance during the Korean War as America’s front-line fighter.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ne ... y/p80.html
Just out of interest, what size drop tanks would the P80 need to fly a combat mission from California to the Home Islands and return without flaming out from fuel starvation?

They would have to be quite large I believe.

I am unaware of any such sized drop tanks being available.

Are you aware of any that were available?
Last edited by At ease on 03 Nov 2022 18:31, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “What if”