Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "Found And Explained"
channel.
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AileDiablo
"At the time radar just came out. There is no way a 1945 radar can see it"
No, no, no. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Sorry but this is reverse-engineered nonsense, made up by Reimar Horten to big note himself. Not even his brother Walter made any claim that their design was stealthy. I don't know where you got it from but it's wrong, Take it back and ask for a refund. Stealth is a modern concept that was unknown in WWII. There were only two ways to avoid radar in WWII: terrain masking - i.e.: low flying - or a British invention called window which was a primitive version of chaff.
Just being made of wood is no guarantee of anything. Even if it had been made out of non-strategic materials, there was still a lot of metal in the Go-229A, including but not limited to the two jet engines, the internal bracing, the primary centre section, the landing gear and the cockpit. There was no provision for an internal bomb bay.
The other thing is that stealth is designed to defeat modern X-band fighter radars in the 8-11GHz band. WWII radar was almost entirely in the 50-500 MHz range - mostly just VHF. It saw things completely differently.
That history Channel documentary has a lot to answer for. Thanks to them, there is now and entire generation of people who thing the Germans developed stealth in WWII. There are even people who think the de Havilland Mosquito was stealthy.
"If some each makes 4+ attacks a day against the Soviet or UK or North Africa they would definitely win or at least drives the war to talks."
History shows that there is no such thing as a war-winning weapon. Even the atomic bomb was only the final nail in the coffin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dukecraig2402
"He took pictures, he doesn't have a degree in aeronautical engineering, he's no more credible at it than anyone else. "
Um... pardon me but you don't need a degree in aeronautical engineering to understand stealth. What you need is an understanding of Rayleigh scattering. As one who has been a photojournalist, a writer and producer and one who has had links with aeronautical engineering through both flying and a university-level research project I initiated into the stability of F1 cars, I have a very good layman level of understanding of it. Add to that, I have a lot of experience using microwave links, especially the current generation ones.
"Do some actual research into the Horten flying wing that's been gone over by aeronautical engineers and scientists that've actually analyzed the thing, all the myths about it go up in a puff of smoke."
Exactly. William Green's book "Warplanes of the Third Reich" describes the development and testing of the Horten brothers' flying wings and there was nothing remarkable about them except that they handled very well. The Flight test of the first Go-229A went very well, the handling said to have "exceeded the most sanguine expectations". The aircraft was lost and the pilot, Lt Ziller killed when an engine flamed out and Ziller put it into a number of manoeuvres at low altitude in an attempt to relight it, which resulted in the crash. Low and slow in a jet has always been a no-no. All the claims were retrospective ones from Reimar Horten in the last years of his life. He suddenly "remembered" all sorts of things he didn't tell anyone when he was interrogated. Like stealth, which had by then become the great buzzword of aviation. He even remembered the carbon content of the glue that was used to be a way of reducing radar signature. The fact was the quality of glue in Germany at the time was very poor and that was all they could get.
It's perfectly safe to say that no one in the aviation industry took him seriously.
Virtually everything he said was constructed to fit a new narrative. the fact was there were no stealth aircraft in WWII. Furthermore, stealth is designed to defeat modern X-band radar in the 8-11 gHz range. Most WWII radar was in the VHF range so the behaviour is quite different.
The Hysterical Channel pseudo documentary was a slap up joke fest, designed to "prove" a load of conjecture. The model they made to test didn't have anything like the amount of metal in it that the original aircraft had, including but not limited to the undercarriage, the upper and lower centre section skins, the weapons, the cockpit and of course, the two Jumo 004 turbojets. The result of this classic piece of self-interested disinformation is a public that now thinks there were stealth aircraft in WWII.
"For a plane that never flew, wasn't even close to flying, wasn't stealthy, or anywhere near being stealthy, people all the way from the Furher down to you believe all the bullshit about it, and that's all it is, bullshit."
Totally. Furthermore, the jet engines of the time had a durability measured in a few hours, a time that would certainly have been exceeded by a trans Atlantic flight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Joesolo13 As good as the German scientists were, Germany was severely lacking in a number of areas. While there were no Aliied equivalent of the infamous "Big Cats" or the V weapons, they missed out in an umber of other areas.
1) The Germans had no landing craft, other than those cobbled up for the abortive Operation Sealion, which never happened.
2) Germany had no aircraft carriers.
3) Germany had no sonar.
4) Germany had no equivalent to the De Havilland Mosquito or the North American P-51 Mustang;
5) Germany had no heavy bombers worth having. The He-177 was a disaster.
6) Germany had no equivalent to the atomic bomb.
That's the technical stuff. Now for the strategic:
1) Germany was on a "short war Strategy", just as she was in the First World War.
2) Despite the re-armament of the 1930s, German industry was not adequately prepared for anything like a long war.
3) Germany failed to achieve victory over the Red Army before the end of 1941, committing her to a drawn out war she could not afford.
4) Germany was short of resources and for every one she captured, she ended up losing one.
5) German wartime production frequently took place under conditions of allied air attack.
6) Germany's wartime plans were frequently lacking in clear goals and measurable objectives. Her motivations were largely influenced by the Nazis, whose racial policies clouded her assessments of her foes and her willingness to blame her "weaker allies".
In short, all these fancy weapons had no chance of changing anything. They were either too few in number or, as in this case, did not exist. This is simply the Luftwaffe equivalent of the Ratte.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scootergeorge9576 Okay, here's the deal. Aeronautical engineers use scale models in wind tunnels to simulate airflow for the full size jobs. There are set formulae for the relationship of the airspeed to the model size to make it work but I can't remember what it is. The thing that seems to throw most people here is pitch stability. That is, fore and aft stability. Intuitively, that's not unreasonable. It's either a tendency to climb and stall repeatedly (positive stability) or dive straight into the ground (negative, obviously). In an aircraft which is neutrally stable, the aircraft will simply glide stably until it runs out of altitude.
I'm not an aeronautical engineer but I'm a former pilot and I have wind tunnel time. This was because of an idea I had which ended up being a research project for a bunch of third year aeronautical engineering students. It was an investigation into the pitch stability of racing cars and I was invited to head up the project.
A positively stable aircraft has the centre of mass well ahead of the centre of lift. A negatively stable aircraft has the centre of mass well behind the centre of lift. If you have ever made balsa gliders, you'll know that you can trim the aircraft to fly well by adding or removing weight - usually plasticine - from the nose.
Flying wings have long spans and short fuselages (if they have a fuselage at all). If the aircraft is just a straight wing, then the aircraft will pitch about the aerofoil's pitching moment. To counter this, flying wings have a certain amount of sweep built in to make the wing less prone to pitch. But the short fuselage suggests a high level of pitch sensitivity, even though that may not necessarily be the case. It might require messing with the sizes of the control surfaces but the aircraft should still fly well, provided the centre of mass and centre of lift are in the optimum places.
The notion that a flying wing can't fly without computers is an internet thing. I suspect it's just one of those ideas that grew arms and legs and now it's gospel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1