Man i hate how everybody hates the nazis and say they were bad people they weren't bad people Hitler was a bad person and so were the SS and that's it
@imtheduke it is not counter argument nor argument. Israel love to hate and spy evrything and everyone. Nataniahu is recognized pubilcly by Obama and Sarcosy as a lier. Was he offeded? Jews suffered much more from the Holly Inquisition but are they offeded by cross?? Are they clever? In afct 12,000 influential Jews voted for Hitler, it is historical fact. Who should be offended? Swastika did not made holocoust. Gun does not kill.
20 years ahead is a bit of an exaggeration... Maybe a year or two. Other nations including Britain had already been testing their own versions of the jet engine. German technology was advanced for the time, but it was by no means THAT advanced; their jet engines were horribly unreliable and underpowered.
They favored superweapons over mass-production which was their ultimate downfall.
@SaucyJake Then why is it we still use the German type engine today? Americas jet engine program was based entirely on borrowed technology from the brits.. now completely obsolete. The Germans still managed build as many planes during the war as the start. Their guided missle programs were way ahead... the allies had nothing comparable. The early Whittle engines were not much more reliable during the war either and that was without the shortage of nickel that the Germans had to deal with.
@doktorbimmer are you joking? Axial flow turbines had been in use well before the Germans implemented them in aircraft. The allies did have a rough counterpart to the Henschel, the radar guided Bat glide-bomb! Could hit a target 30+km away! :D
Of course other nations borrow and lend technology. That's how innovation works. I could just as well say you Brits borrowed our mercury-arc valves for making your high voltage transmission lines.
@SaucyJake No, no joke at all. Gas turbines and turbojets are not exactly the same thing back then, early gas turbines weighed as much as 100 tons.. no hope of powering an aircraft. Of coarse nowadays gas turbines are often built using the same parts as an aircraft turbojet. Its been over 50 years since anyone built a jet using a Whittle engine, look up to sky today and you will only see the decendants of the first jet engine, the German axial type turbojet.
@doktorbimmer Actually it was a Brit who suggested the idea of an axial flow. A.A. Griffiths who published "Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design" in 1926. Whittle's engine actually had many advantages over the Jumo engine. It was simpler, easier to produce, more fuel efficient, and had a longer life. The centrifugal design is [currently] a very effective design for smaller jets, turboprops and helicopters.
But you are right as far as large and transonic aircraft are concerned.
@SaucyJake Wrong, Maxime Guillaume was the first on record to suggest the use of the axial compressor for jets.
Whittles engine was simpler to develope but production was slower, fuel use about the same. The original Jumo prototype used similar nickel alloy had the same engine life 100-200 hrs.
There are no modern jets currently using the Whittle type, turboprops and helicopters use "gas turbines not turbojets, the gas turbine having been around well before Whittles work
@doktorbimmer Eh? Whittle engines got into production in shorter time than the Jumos. They werent as prone to surging. If you throttled back and forth too much in a me262, you could start the engines on fire very easily.
I'm confused. The whittle engine is simply a centrifugal compressor and a turbine(varying in stages). It requires fewer stages than an axial to achieve same pressure, more efficient for its size. Take an aeronautical mechanics course if you dont believe me.
@SaucyJake Yes my friend, you are confused.. very. perhaps you should study up a bit on the differences.
First, don't confuse fuel control with compressor surge. Compressor surge or stall is a very complex subject indeed.
The Whittle is not as efficient for its size and weight compared to axial (apart from the fact it also has a larger frontal area whitch is bad for aerodynamics) and this is why it is no longer used. Turbojets require greater volumetric effeciency than gas turbines
@doktorbimmer I am confused about where you are getting your facts. Take a course in aeronautical engineering. Compressor surge is affected by fuel control, sudden accelerations in the early axial flows would put more fuel into the combustion stage than the compressors would have time to compensate.
In very large sizes, the whittle engine is useless. But it is far more effective than the axial in smaller sizes (i.e, >4,000lbf). Ever try to make a 9lb axial engine? :p
@doktorbimmer I'm yet again confused as to why you ignore reality. O.o I've never even seen an axial compressor in an RC engine!! That wouldnt even be feasible, you can't make compressor blades that small...
As the jumo design is not in use, I can't imagine whitte's exact design being used either. It's the principle of the design that I'm arguing. Elements of whittle's design are common in turboshaft, prop, or microjet designs. I dream of someday owning a BD-5 jet replica...
@SaucyJake Dude seriously, you don't know the difference between centrifugal and axial compressor engine?
You've never seen an axial RC jet engine??? Youtube this... 5 Stage Axial-Flow Micro Turbine - The Worlds Most Advanced Micro.
The Jumo design not in use???
Elements of a Whittle engine do not constitute a Whittle engine any more than elements of a flush toilet constitutes a carburetor. a turboshaft is not a turbojet.. although sometimes some parts interchange between them.
@doktorbimmer Are you a troll? Or are you just British?
No, the jumo design is most certainly not in use, it was a pioneer in avionics but it was not a very good engine. But the principle of the axial flow compressor is.
Therefore your argument is just as invalid as mine. The solar T62 engine has seen uses in helicopters and jets, just to name one. Turbojets, turboshafts, turboanythings are just types of gas turbines.
@SaucyJake Hahaha, I've been called a few things but never british... no need to start slinging insults hahaha.
The Jumo 004 continued on as the Tumansky RD-10, Avia M-04, Prika RT-901 and some Chinese name I can't spell, the 11 stage compressor version called the Jumo 012 led to several other engines that served the eastern block even later.
T62 is the APU thats converted to power the BD-5 I'm assuming, very cool little plane.
@doktorbimmer Insulting you is the last thing I wanted to do :p A joke in poor taste, perhaps.
I understand your enthusiasm with German WW2 technology, I too once went through that phase. I now I ended up in a German class preparing to study engineering for a year in Munich... xD
Later on, I realized the merits of the American and British innovators as well, but I still want to study in germany....
@bongosrest Having lived in former british colonies I know the history.
That excuse never works.. just cuz the other kids were doin it doesn't makes it OK???
Oh! I see now! The brits rape, murder and pilage the globe in exchange for a common currency and decent morals??? thats the most sick and twisted thing I've ever heard!
@doktorbimmer good job you have lived in a british colony again i ask you to show me were the brits raped murdered and pillaged the world , much of the empire was never fought over with the original peoples, they were offered protection against the other empire seeking nations, hitler was envious of the british empire and what it stood for modelling his 1000 year rule on it only it and others stood in his way and you now live in a world modelled on it giving you the freedom of speech etc
Maybe even possibly maybe but highly unlikely even leave woman freind wife person to sleep and not too much sex exhaustion one sleep per week . she can tolerate my odors( I am good smelling animal attract love). I will continue to write this foolish mann love talk intermittantly until you arrive. Must I send smoke signals and eat peyote and trip my ass off to access another possible avenue to reach you where I Have not been shamed?
Holy Shit Gabe! we will need to construct a larger hangar extend zee runway but ziss is vunda bark! I beleive uncle eddie with the butiful deep handsome man welder voice was a SEA BEA.I used to whistle yankee dootle dandy with the Borques parakeets when we'd visit on the holidays. Their place over there in the town of desire and not forgetting and risk of life was such a cute little house really. I would and did risk my life for that hand. I assure you I'm worthy and will be only true to that 1
bombarderoazul dont know what hes talking about yes the war rushed up the tecno race but us brits had plenty up our sleeves and a sea fury shot down a 262 ,the 262 was unreliable and would of only had a small advantage to start off with our own jet was just around the corner
@bongosrest 100 or so Me262s shot down over 500 Allied aircraft including many P-51 Mustangs.. hardly sounds like an unreliable aircraft. The brits jet fighter the Meteor was slower than most propeller aircraft and was known as the 'meatbox' or 'Meteorite' because it often crash into the ground.
@doktorbimmer , facts are facts dude britain led and still does lead the world in jet engine tecno, the 262 kill rate on fighter aircraft was low most of its kills come from shooting down bombers , 262 pilots crashed trying to keep the thing in the air, in dog fights it had poor slow speed performance in the last post i never said that the meteor was better than the 262 , stating that it was round the corner and would not have taking long to make it good,the 262 impact on the war was minimal
@bongosrest Keep dreaming dude, the brits have not led the world in much of anything since queen Victoria. Name a Allied jet fighter with a better combat kill ratio than the 262?? Oh! Thats right! Allied jets shot down ZERO enemy fighters in WW2. The Meteors crash record stands at one of the worst in jet aviation. Since when is slow speed an advantage in combat? At least German jet technology had an impact on the war.. how many German fighters were shot down by british jets.. none
@doktorbimmer i think you are getting into the wrong argument here refer to original quotes and reply's ,14 v1s' downed by the meteor plus airspeed records it goes to show you know nothing about air combat dog fights are not won with the fastest planes often a hindrance, also it goes to show how good our piston engined planes were as we did not need jets (yet) also you have to remember that most of our tecno was from private individuals ideas and money not the might of governments,
@bongosrest Yes, you original comment denying the fact the much of the technology in use today (especially military) comes originally from WW2 Germany. There was an unprecedented surge of innovation and research, huge leaps in jet and rocket engines, ballistic and guided missles, aircraft and tank technology. Shooting down 14 V1s or post war record attempts prove absolutely nothing. brits piston planes just as good? just 100mph slower.. brits didn't need jets??? Then why were they building them?
@doktorbimmer sadly again you did not read to well i never said brit piston planes were as good i stated it showed how good they were , and i hasten to add with smaller engines than german counterparts, the 262 could not win a dog fight against them proper it had to use surprise attacks it was an interceptor ,its pilots were told not to engage in proper dog fights the airframe its self was not good enough it also could not go above certain speeds , 100mph faster means nothing in a dogfight
@bongosrest No, but thats not what you implied. Brit planes were good but they had nothing as advanced as the Me262 during the war.
Only relatively even matched aircraft can dogfight, Me262 could simply intercept and destroy Allied aircraft. You cannot engage an enemy aircraft with such a speed advantage, only to ambush on TO and landings. No, that is wrong, the 262 could turn at very high speed, it was the Meteorite that was limited by its airframe despite its lower speed.
@doktorbimmer so what your saying is nations that go to war must have evenly matched equipment to fight one another or the deals off ,i dont think so as you are well aware you fight with what you have and improve things as you go along and this was my point from the very first post i put out. yes germany had a jet , 9 months later we had a jet the war ended. 9 months after that the meteor was breaking records with no help from the 262 ,
@bongosrest No you silly twit, clearly you lack and understanding that there is a difference in "dogfighting" and air-combat, they are not nessarily the same thing.
What a huge accomplishment! 9 months for post war developement and the Meteorite bests the Me262 by only 40mph!
You forgot to mention that by 1946 all further record attempts were halted due to the Meteorite's structural weakness and wing failure problem.
@doktorbimmer you made a big thing about the 262 being 100 mph faster than the piston brigades ,well our jet was 140mph faster than the piston brigades tecno moves on, f1 drivers rely on 100ths of a second advantage also the 262 and meteor both were not designed to go supersonic no one knew what was going to happen when the barriers are met subsonic was there limits the world is full of if and buts and what ifs. history is now written and cant be changed you should know that
@doktorbimmer no german bomber flew faster than the meteor in 45 thats for sure who said that the meteor was supersonic? and it did fly over 600mph and lived to tell the tale you changed the argument now on the theme of axial jets not once in any posts has the mention of axial engines been made until now remember the oak tree you should change your name to dr who if you think history can be changed who really knows what the truth is, truth is only in the story tellers mind
@bongosrest Was the Mosquito not faster than 416mph???
yes it did, specially fitted non-combat aircraft. 600mph was the the Max speed for any combat Meteorite.
You are the one insisting that the british invented the jet engine, it was the Germans axial engine that was first to enter service.Why is Whittles work even relevant if it did not lead to the jet engine used today.
@doktorbimmer I said no german bomber was faster than a meteor look again, born just at the end of war qualifies me enough, and growing up into the jet age, working in the industry, my mother built spitfires and seafires, planes are in my blood and no bs as you put it needs to pass my fingertips ,learned to fly enough said
@bongosrest I said there were "bombers" that were faster than the meteor, Not just German bombers.. I said qoute "Wrong, there were bombers that were faster than the meteorite in 45 "
@doktorbimmer axial flow engines a couple of names for you A. A. Griffith and Hayne Constant did work and trials on axial flow engines long before Ohain who used their theory's' and methods again i point to the oak tree, as with all inventions somebody comes along and improves it and so the branches get longer and more branches are added no one person or nationality can claim they were the ones who invented the jet engine but with out one or the other we would all be still living in caves
@bongosrest Wrong again, gas turbine had already been in use decades before these two clowns came along and mucked around with it. Much of Whittles unsuccessful 1930 design was copied Griffiths, his work largely based on the turbine of Norwegian Ægidius Elling. The first Axial comp. were made in 1927 at Maschinenfabrik Oerlikon. As Irishman James Burke likes to say "all the bits were already lying around, all it took was the right man to come along and put the bits together" That man was Ohain
@doktorbimmer if you really want to picky the gas turbine goes back centuries even before the ark so to speak , putting all the bits together does not make you an inventor glad now you have admitted that, and at last your starting to read wikipedia instead of inventing your own words, the modern jet engine bare's little resemblance to the engines of ohian , limits of the whittle and ohain engines where soon reached and other methods needed to be invented to improve it this is where britian led
@bongosrest Absolutely untrue, while the concept of the simple turbine had been around for a very long time the "gas turbine" as we know it today was a 20th century idea. Nonsense, like saying that the Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane because they used bits of exsisting technology like the Otto engine or bicycle chain.
Von Ohain experimented with both centrifugal and axial types but realized early on that that it was the centrifugal type (Whittle engine) was a dead end.
@doktorbimmer the wright brothers were the first to fly, they did not invent the airplane we have nature to thank for that, the otto engine came from earlier internal combustion engine types ,he just invented the 4 stroke cycle of operation which on the face of it is inefficient the two stoke engine (invented by a brit) much more efficient improved by east german engineer (ernst degner) and further improved by the japanese further refined by italians and now is coming home for finishing
@bongosrest The Wright brothers invented the airfoil that actually created an upforce and a way to control the aeroplane. Earlier contraptions sometimes lifted for a short hop, but they were uncontrollable and most often had totally flat or excessivly curved wings.
@YDDES The Wrights produced the first aircraft that sustained flight.. and was controlable in all THREE AXIS of flight by producing the first roll or aileron control system. they are also credited with another huge leap in aviation technolgy that made flight possible, the application of the airfoil to the design of the propeller.
@doktorbimmer Dugald Clerk and Joseph Day. you see dude you loose it all the time when your wrong there where several types of 2 stroke motor all rubbish untill the two named above you always want to swear, thats the difference i produce the facts you produce as much hot air as a jumo 25 hour shelf life engine
@bongosrest Maybe your the one that needs to check his facts, Karl Benz built the first 2 stroke and patented it 1879, before Clerk who did not even build an engine for years after his 1881 patent, Day a much later an obscure footnote on subject his claim was actually the work of Fredrick Cock. The TBO of the 004 is often misquoted from tests done by the Americans after the war, the absence of nickel due to war stortages that was part of its original design compromised its servce life.
@bongosrest What if? I told you I just invented a time machine.. it works by placing a PEZ candy across the top of a 9 volt battery, I have it here scribbled out on the back of a napkin. I haven't actually built one yet or know if it works but since I just posted here on Youtube I'm going to take credit for inventing time travel, even if a 100yrs from now some really does build a sucessful time machine I can still take credit for it. Why not? it seems a perfectly acceptable to the british.
@doktorbimmer your too late mate jules verne beat you to it ,many a good idea has been written on the back of a fag packet, and patented without the need to make it, it happened then and happens now and will still happen in the future as you find out when you have built your time machine where ever you stop with it there will be a brit there waiting for you saying i inevented that mate
@bongosrest Why don't you just save yourself all the trouble and insist that from now on everything ever invented in the past or the future was invented by british.
@doktorbimmer brits invented the industrial revolution and generally if you look into the history of anything invented there will be a brit in there somewhere after all it did populate 2/3rds of the earths surface and remember most off our american cousins origins are from the uk , credit where credit is due george washington was a brit so dont be ashamed that there may be some brit blood in you, two nations here that have more in common than you think
@bongosrest Invented the industrial revolution? What next? Are you going to claim that brits invented air and water too? I see you have taken my joking advice and now you are simply claiming that brits invented everything! Well good luck with that, and good luck finding your way back to reality too.. you've obviously gone way off the deep end.
@bongosrest Well, I confess. just as I expected.. I specifically mentioned the invention of the airplane to have a little fun with you.. to see if you would either.. A) claim the british somehow invented it. or B) deny that the Wrights actually invented it. Of coarse you chose 'B' (because how could those rogue American colonist have possible invented something so important as the airplane.) by suggesting that perhaps the airplane could not be invented by mere mortals if not by the brits!!!!
@doktorbimmer how sad you are to want to have a little fun with me,sounds gay where have i mentioned the brtis invented the airplane? the wrights did not invent the airplane they where first to get a decent manned flight model planes where flying long before the wright brothers almost forgot the birds have been showing us how it should be done (ill just check to see if the brits invented the bird) i dont class the americans as rogue colonists, no taxation without representation quite right
@bongosrest oh poor lad, your just angry because you got tricked or just that I you are so predictable. In fact, that you persist that the brits invented everything, the birds invented the airplane or that oak trees had anything to do with jet engines frankly makes you sound a bit loony.
@doktorbimmer ha ha it is you that has been tricked we brits call it reeled in hook line and sinker you took the bait mate and you been caught you contradict every thing anybody says i went of topic just to see your reaction and you took the bait if you like germany and the germans so much then go over there stop bitching after all its a free western world thanks to us brits and the usa lets keep it this way
@bongosrest Nice try, but your full of shite mate. You cant go off topic if you never started off with one.. you've been all over the place from square go.
@bongosrest Shocking! that you would credit the French with inventing time travel! certainly it must of been a brit that somehow thought of it first right eh???
Well, at least no danger that anyone will deny that it was brit that invented a machine that changes history, Bonkers Bongosrest, you have proven your claim to inventing it.
@bongosrest Now it is the obsolete Whittle engine that bares little resemblance to todays modern jet engine, it is a direct decendant of the axail flow turbojets designed and built in Germany during WW2 and things like two stage compressors, variable stators, anular combustors, and air cooled turbine blades were all technology that came out of Germany during the war. It didn't leave brits much to improve on.. just to try and take credit for.
@doktorbimmer all work carried out by the two previous mentioned names ,designing something is not the same as inventing something , the quote "it did not leave brits much to improve upon"" get real the modern jet engine is heaps better than what was around in the 40/50s the apu engine in a modern day jet liner produces more power than them ,and this engine is tiny and is used just for powering the electrics and now the jet engine comes in allsorts of flavours thanks to uk and us input
@bongosrest "designing something is not the same as inventing something" Thats exactly my point, this is why Von Ohain is credited with inventing the the jet engine and not Whittle (except in the UK) Whittle 1930 "design" never produced a sucessful engine so he did not "invent" his engine before Von Ohain. An APU is not a "jet engine" it is a "gas turbine" it seems you still have not grasped the concept of their basic difference.
@bongosrest You just said, qoute; "the apu engine in a modern day jet liner produces more power than them" Really? Airliner APUs produce 2,000lbs of thrust these days???
So far you have failed to impress me with your vast knowledge of jet aviation.
@bongosrest You what still amazes me to no end is how you brits still insist that you invented the jet engine by way of Whittle! The Whittle centifugal type engine was an evolutionary dead-end in jet engine delopement, its now extinct! populating scrap heaps and museum collections. Even Rolls-Royce now builds the German type Axial flow compressor engine, with multi-compressor, multi-stage, ceramic coated anular combustors, air-cooled turbine blades... ALL WW2 GERMAN TECHNOLOGY.
@doktorbimmer The Meteors top speed record is not at all impressive anyway, Me109R held the top speed record of 469mph back in 1939, the Me163 was already at 598mph in 1944! 9 months after the war the best they could do 616mph!
That fact that its airframe, wings, tail, nose and canopy all having had major reinforcements or redesigned on more than once, Meteors engines were limited to 80% or less and orders given not to ever exceed 600mph due to aerodynamic instability & airframe failure
@doktorbimmer looks like your loosing it dude read some more we did invent the jet engine full stop, you can whittle on all you like ,and tell me when have you been in a dog fight or air combat as you call it on your play station id say when you have done over 2000 hours flying like i have come back and talk to me the last 500 hours in stunt and display flying ,
@doktorbimmer oh i wish i was a kid again , why is it you dont read properly go back over the posts i have been in the aircraft industry for over 45 years ,2000 hours of flying on my own funds in the uk takes more than going without a few things in life zero combat time and you have plenty i take it
@bongosrest Why is it you don't write properly? Its hard to read your comments, filled with half baked history and BS.
Just as I though.. Sounds like someone thats just used to getting your way, and as I suspect not qualified to back up many of your more ridiculous statements.
@doktorbimmer its a shame you are so blinkered into believing that all things great where inventions of germans it would be the same if i believed that all things great where invented by brits but look around your house and think about where a product was invented (not made or improved upon but invented ) you would be in for a shock dude
@bongosrest All? I'm certain I said "more" not All. Now you just proved my point that you are the hypocrite now you twist my comment.
Actually most of the things I see around my house were invented right here in USA, but if you look to the road, the sky or a military base you will see many things that originate from Germany.
@doktorbimmer you also fail to mention how many imprisoned jewish and other foreign engineers you had working for you, the meteor went on to be a great aircraft you try to speak of german superiority in technology this simply is not the case i did not write the history books you need to read more, the brits are a nation of inventors the germans a nation of engineers, big difference and lets face it we all now live in a reasonable peace full western world because of ww2 , be greatfull
@bongosrest You sound like a hypocrite, As if the brits never profited or were aided during the war by its millions of historicly conquered subjugated unwilling colonial 'subjects'
The Meteorite went on to be a great aircraft? apparently you don't know much about its history.
The German technology was not superior? Then why the rush to grab as much as possible after war before the Soviets did?
More great inventions came from Germany, the brits well known for taking credit for them.
@doktorbimmer did the germans not try to have its own empire? did it not subjugate its own people and the people of east Africa at least us brits don't deny this ,but you keep claiming germans invented this and that, whittle patented his jet in 1930 the rush to grab comment is a bit lame it was rush of the germans to get to usa/uk before the russians got them there is only one hypocrite here as ,a, you don;t read to well and deny other facts ,
@doktorbimmer there was a lot less trouble around the world when the brits did rule the world dude, name a crime against humanity that the brits did, read more about whittles patent,wrong about von ohain period, never did say that the usa and uk did not use or adapt german tecno the same as germany copied or adapted many brit ideas lets face it without the steam engine none of this would have happened, from an acorn mighty oaks grow , spreading its branches far and wide for all to harvest
slow speed is a high advantage in a dog fight, as is manouverability, and guns, especially if your opponent can do slow speed turns....and high speed burns and you can't then you are toast.
@captainumbnuts3 Your thinking in outdated terms, Not when you opponent has a 100mph speed advantage.. the same tactics do not apply. The Me262 was really the worlds first jet interceptor.. the only thing that was missing was guided air-to-air missles (they were already in the works) and for the allies to catch up.
@iroscoe Touche' my friend, but of coarse you know thats not what I meant. by 1945 the Meteors 417mph top speed was in no danger of breaking any propeller aircraft speed records, there were dozens of prop planes that could best that speed.
@bombarderoazul without nazi germany world will save about 50 millions of peoples lifes and who know where we would be if they will create, invent, build instead of being killied in battlefields and death camps
@bombarderoazul Without the push war provides a lot of technology wouldn't of be developed,but you could argue that when it came to it the Nazi's actually stifled and mismanaged German creativity exiling,persecuting and killing some of their brightest allowing their own and the industrial capacity they captured to underperform until it was far to late . If i was a German the constant crediting of the Nazis with German tech would really piss me of .
@iroscoe Your in danger of sounding a bit like a hypocrite, certainly the Nazi's were not the most caring or nurturing regime, but don't make it sound like the British class system promotes creativity and equallity or that England never captured and subjugated other countries and cultures.
@doktorbimmer I never mentioned British creativity one way or the other,i was merely praising German creativity whilst pointing out the perfidious influence the Nazis had on it if that upsets you then so be it .
@iroscoe Not at all, it just sounded like Germany had somehow cornered the market on technological creativity at the cost of personal human suffering.. perhaps I was mistaken. Have a nice day :)
@captainumbnuts3 Not "Nazi" rocket technology. "German" rocket technology. Or did USA launch the Space Shuttles due to "Republican" rocket technology?
@doktorbimmer I just said that it wasn't the politicians, but the scientists who invented the rockets. So, it was no more "Nazi technology" than it was "Republican technology". That would be like agreeing with the Nazis that there existed "Jewis science" and "Nazi science". Science is science and rocket technology is rocket technology. Regardless of the political systems.
@YDDES Well, still sounded like you were making the inference? certainly a very poor analogy. Although the "Nazis" started out as a political party (liberal unionist) it became infamous as a Fascist regime, In the US the "Republicans" are but on part of a multi-party democratic system. It would then still be correct to say that technology produced during the Nazi regime was "Nazi technology" even though rocket science is not a political system, regardless of ones personal opinion of the Nazis
@doktorbimmer I don't agree with You. There was no "Nazi rocket technology". Then Sputnik was the result of "Communist technology" and Apollo of "Capitalist technology. Are the Indian satellites the result of "Hindu technology" and the Iranian rockets of "Muslim technology"?
Technology is technology, politics is politics and religion is religion.
@YDDES If the Soviet communist were still in power they would certainly disagree with you that Sputnik wasn't "communist technology". As far as your religious arguement its an even worse analogy, say that Jesus came back and told a bunch of devout Christians to build a rocket, who all were organized in a society under a strictly Christian system that rocket would undoubtly be called "Christian technology". You cannot deny the ownership of a groups effort just because you don't like them.
@doktorbimmer OK, If You say there was a "Nazi technology", was there also a "Nazi science" as the Nazis themselves stated? If, in what respect did it differ from ordinary science?
That creates the question: In what respect did the "Nazi rocket technology" differ from other rocket technology?
@YDDES The answer lies within your own question... you want to put a label on something? right? Thats what your really asking.. e.g.; In what respect does Israeli politics differ from ordinary politics? answer; Israeli politics belong to Israeli's.. its a matter of ownership, there are many forms of ownership in this case creative ownership, wheither an individual or a group, ownership is claimed by those who create it, it applies equally to politics, technology or science.
@doktorbimmer I still don't agree. There can't be such things as "Nazi science" or "Jewish science" as the Nazis stated. Science is science. Then there is pseudo science, which is not science but was declared as science by, for exampe the Nazis ("untermenchen") and the Stalin-communists (Lysenkovs "theories"). Rocket science is rocket science, regardless of what kind of politics the engineers working with it prefere.
@YDDES You can't have it both ways, when separate or segregate a person, group or thing you are catagorizing it.. labeling it. Rocket science is science and if you differentiate a group of scientist and those scientists are Nazi's, aiding Nazi's or controlled by Nazi's they are Nazi scientist, the work they produced can therefor be labeled Nazi rocket science.. a catagory of Nazi science.
@doktorbimmer OK, so there actually is "capitalist science", " republican science", "democrate science", "dictatorship science" and "anarchist science"?
What kind of science is then nuclear science, astronomy science and geology science?
@YDDES Do you not understand the meaning of the word "Science"? Now your just being silly and wasting your time.. there are mutiple diffinitions (5) of the word "Science" why don't you look it up?
@doktorbimmer Shortly, "science" is the scientifical way of thinking and acting. Evidence based, contrary to faith based.
But, OK, let's agree that we don't agree. To me, USA didn't develop their rockets with "Nazi rocket science". They used rocket science and some of the engineers came from Germany. A few of them had been members in the NSDAP.
@YDDES "science" is the scientifical way of thinking and acting." AND ITS EFFORTS AND ACHIEVMENTS! As I said before, "you can't have it both ways" If you accept the fact that there are catagories of science, then you cannot deny the fact that a catagory exsists!
YOU CERTAINLY CANNOT DENY THE USA USED "NAZI ROCKET SCIENCE OR TECHNOLOGY
You can say all day long that you don't like the Nazi's but you can't say they didn't exsist or deny what they achieved.
@doktorbimmer No, I don't accept that there are "cathegories of science". Science is science. Pseudo science and quasi science are NOT science. Einsteins relativety theory is not "Jewish science" as the Nazis stated. Is it?
No, I don't like Nazis, but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that I don't cathegorize science.
Were Goddards rocket experiments capitalist, republican or democrat science/technolgy?
@YDDES Doublespeak is disguising the truth. if you chose to deny that some things cannot be catagorized while you yourself at the same time catagorize things that only suit you opinions or theory.
"Jewish Science" or "Nazi Science has multiple meanings without context, It could mean the study of, the work by or the theories of (that group). Nazi or Jewish are groups, Einstein and Gottard are individuals... Apples are not Oranges. Catagorization either includes or excludes. You are in denial
@doktorbimmer von Braun was an individual too. Just like every German (or American, or Soviet) rocket scientist. And, I really doubt that all the German rocket scientists were members of the NSDAP.
@YDDES Yes, von Braun was an individual person, he was German, and he worked in the field of rocket science... but he also a Nazi party member, worked for and aided the Nazi party with his work.. in Nazi Germany (between 1933-1945) when Germany was under Nazi control. He was part of a group of Nazi rocket scientist, his work promoted and advanced the acheivements of Nazi rocket science... a form of Nazi Science. All these statements are factual and true. you cannot deny these facts
@YDDES You cannot fool me with your doublespeak and twisting the meanings of the "words" you chose to use. It baffles me that you are incapable of understanding the concepts, that some words have multiple meanings or that similar things can be catagorized in different ways.. you only seem to be willing or able to accept labels if they suit your own version of the truth, it underlys either a childish immaturity or some mental condition such as Cognitive dissonance
@doktorbimmer For some reason this didn't turn up here. Only in my mail: "Yes, von Braun was an individual person, he was German, and he worked in the field of rocket science... but he also a Nazi party member, worked for and aided the Nazi party with his work.. in Nazi Germany (between 1933-1945) when Germany was under Nazi control. He was part of a group of Nazi rocket scientist, his work promoted and advanced the acheivements of Nazi rocket science... a form of Nazi Science."
@doktorbimmer ...cont: OK, then, since the American rocket scientists were under influence of Capitalism, their rocket science was Capitalistc, and since the Soviet scientists were under the influence of Communism, their rocket science was Communistic. Is the British rocket science then Monarchistic? What is the Swedish rocket science? The Japanese? The Indian?...
@YDDES Enough with the doublespeak please! It now just become a silly game with you.. when you use Capitalistic instead of Capitalist you change its meaning.. Capitalistic implies something different than the context you used in your previous arguement.
@doktorbimmer Well, English is not my native language, so I admit I do some mistakes. And that was a mistake. But, I agree, this has become silly. You can't handle the Nazis different than other political ideologies when discussing this matter.
If you think You can, You'r free to do it. But it's illogical.
@YDDES Well that certainly explains your lack of comprehension of some of the points I made.Thank you for contradicting yourself and proving my arguement.
@YDDES Don't forget your the one that said there is no such thing as Nazi rocket technology! asking the stupid questions, or that you asked captainnumbnuts "Or did USA launch the Space Shuttles due to "Republican" rocket technology?"
@YDDES Categorization is the process in which ideas and objects are recognized, differentiated and understood.[1] Categorization implies that objects are grouped into categories, usually for some specific purpose. Ideally, a category illuminates a relationship between the subjects and objects of knowledge. Categorization is fundamental in language, prediction, inference, decision making and in all kinds of environmental interaction.
@YDDES Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
@YDDES Your arguement is without logic or merit, if you take something and you divide it (say into two parts) and give a name, classification or label to only one half but leave the other half unnamed.. does that unnamed half cease to exsist? you cannot deny its exsistance because you consciously chose not to give it a name.
@YDDES Your arguement is without logic or merit, if you take something and you divide it (say into two parts) and give a name, classification or label to only one half but leave the other half unnamed.. does that unnamed half cease to exsist? you cannot deny its exsistance because you consciously chose not to give it a name.
@YDDES Your arguement is without logic or merit, if you take something and you divide it (say into two parts) and give a name, classification or label to only one half but leave the other half unnamed.. does that unnamed half cease to exsist? you cannot deny its exsistance because you consciously chose not to give it a name.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@bombarderoazul we owe the nazi regime nothing ,technology moves on with or without wars ,inventors of all nationality's are held back because of a lack of funds and most advantages in technology are not an advantage for long, tomorrows in thing is yesterdays junk
What a stupid comment. You owe the nazi scientists and engineers a lot for the developments they created. War accelerates it yes, but what Hitler did was wrong.
@bombarderoazul : German scientists and engineers would likely have developed these weapons even without the Nazis or WWII. Give credit where it is due: it wasn't the politicians, but the scientists and engineers that had talent. Hitler was all for using the 262 as a bomber, not a fighter. To be historically correct, Russians, Brits, Japanese, Germans and Americans all made enormous technological progress during concurrent with the Nazi regime's tenure. Et alors?
@69wabbit Exactly the Nazis hindered rather than helped,they wasted time and resources persecuting some of their compatriots who might otherwise of made valuable contributions to their war effort,even putting aside moral outrage in purely practical terms they were retarded,a German war effort free of their baleful influence might of been much more effective .
@doktorbimmer and you think the usa was not the next target? , had britian fallen, no doubt the usa was next , i dont think the germans would have had such an easy ride if they had invaded the uk there would have been a hell of a lot more resistance movements and activity you can win a war but not a nation , the germans could never have invaded the usa in a conventional manor it would have been done with v1 and v2 and bombers ,now if russia had fallen it may have been a different matter
@bongosrest Fallen? or perhaps surrendered, I believe thats what the royals had in mind... not surprising, the royal family is part German after all. Winston Churchill was the one that got the US in the fight kept britan going, and of coarse he was half American.
American's skill in warfare consisted of blasting away like idiots -and praying their firepower was superior. This actually doesn't work against a Nation that can apply a little thought to the situation EssieP.
Why don't you go and watch "Saving Ryan's Privates" again. That's what the USA is really good at -Gay Porn.
@petecockcroft Maybe you should check your aim... I never said anything glorifying the virtues of Nazism... maybe that some of their planes were better.. your not able to have a discussion about airplanes without slinging expletives?
@petecockcroft As I said I don't have interest in or support Nazi ideology.. just technology. Yes, I agree the Me262 is an amazing aircraft, even more impressive that its engines were redesigned and able to fly without any nickel alloys in its production.
The Mosquito was built in many versions most between 380-415mph with some special Merlin77 recon. models at 437mph, (the P-38 Lighting was 443mph)
Me262 at 560mph would still be 120mph faster than the Mosquito and 140mph than Meteor
awsome jet. stop arguing about history bitches!
animalacker 15 hours ago
Very cool! Nice job, guys.
lucabrasi1337 2 days ago
Interesting Video, but let down by very poor Resolution.
Please upload again, in 480p or above, as such a interesting video deserves good resolution.
TSR1989FF 4 days ago
If the nazis won ww2, they would be on Mars right now and we would be nowhere to be found
leeeel911 4 days ago 4
@leeeel911 by WE you mean WHO???
Beskidekk 2 days ago
@leeeel911 NOPE... i would go to became Horten 229 pilot!
Beskidekk 1 day ago
Man i hate how everybody hates the nazis and say they were bad people they weren't bad people Hitler was a bad person and so were the SS and that's it
thepepperman1357 5 days ago 2
WE STILL SEE THE COMMUNIST HAMMER AND SICKLE EVERYWHERE, SO WHY NOT PUT THE SWASTIKA ON THE DAMN TAIL??!!
SpartanPict 5 days ago
The swastika is an offensive symbol but the 262 was an aircraft of Nazi Germany, dont censor history and put it on the damn tail.
imtheduke 6 days ago 11
@imtheduke In some countries the Swaztika is illegal to show, so don't blame the owners of the aircraft.
YDDES 3 days ago
@imtheduke the swastika is a symbol of eternity, of the sun, and exist thousands of years...offensive? lol.
kr3mn1 2 days ago
@kr3mn1 Yes, sad that the lunatics adopted it. The Finnish airforce used it (blue on white) before the Nazis, but abandonned it after WW2.
YDDES 2 days ago
@imtheduke nazi's didn't invent it
GERMANS DID
Not all germans were nazis.
imaddictedtowow112 2 days ago
@imtheduke NO it is not. It is sign of good fortune and family wellbeing, if cross is not offensive in regards of Holly Inquisition.
Beskidekk 2 days ago 2
@Beskidekk Then go and spread the word of good fortune and family well being with a swastika draped over you in israel then.
imtheduke 2 days ago
@imtheduke it is not counter argument nor argument. Israel love to hate and spy evrything and everyone. Nataniahu is recognized pubilcly by Obama and Sarcosy as a lier. Was he offeded? Jews suffered much more from the Holly Inquisition but are they offeded by cross?? Are they clever? In afct 12,000 influential Jews voted for Hitler, it is historical fact. Who should be offended? Swastika did not made holocoust. Gun does not kill.
Beskidekk 1 day ago 2
20 years ahead is a bit of an exaggeration... Maybe a year or two. Other nations including Britain had already been testing their own versions of the jet engine. German technology was advanced for the time, but it was by no means THAT advanced; their jet engines were horribly unreliable and underpowered.
They favored superweapons over mass-production which was their ultimate downfall.
SaucyJake 1 week ago
@SaucyJake Then why is it we still use the German type engine today? Americas jet engine program was based entirely on borrowed technology from the brits.. now completely obsolete. The Germans still managed build as many planes during the war as the start. Their guided missle programs were way ahead... the allies had nothing comparable. The early Whittle engines were not much more reliable during the war either and that was without the shortage of nickel that the Germans had to deal with.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer are you joking? Axial flow turbines had been in use well before the Germans implemented them in aircraft. The allies did have a rough counterpart to the Henschel, the radar guided Bat glide-bomb! Could hit a target 30+km away! :D
Of course other nations borrow and lend technology. That's how innovation works. I could just as well say you Brits borrowed our mercury-arc valves for making your high voltage transmission lines.
SaucyJake 1 week ago
@SaucyJake No, no joke at all. Gas turbines and turbojets are not exactly the same thing back then, early gas turbines weighed as much as 100 tons.. no hope of powering an aircraft. Of coarse nowadays gas turbines are often built using the same parts as an aircraft turbojet. Its been over 50 years since anyone built a jet using a Whittle engine, look up to sky today and you will only see the decendants of the first jet engine, the German axial type turbojet.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer Actually it was a Brit who suggested the idea of an axial flow. A.A. Griffiths who published "Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design" in 1926. Whittle's engine actually had many advantages over the Jumo engine. It was simpler, easier to produce, more fuel efficient, and had a longer life. The centrifugal design is [currently] a very effective design for smaller jets, turboprops and helicopters.
But you are right as far as large and transonic aircraft are concerned.
SaucyJake 6 days ago
@SaucyJake Wrong, Maxime Guillaume was the first on record to suggest the use of the axial compressor for jets.
Whittles engine was simpler to develope but production was slower, fuel use about the same. The original Jumo prototype used similar nickel alloy had the same engine life 100-200 hrs.
There are no modern jets currently using the Whittle type, turboprops and helicopters use "gas turbines not turbojets, the gas turbine having been around well before Whittles work
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@doktorbimmer Eh? Whittle engines got into production in shorter time than the Jumos. They werent as prone to surging. If you throttled back and forth too much in a me262, you could start the engines on fire very easily.
I'm confused. The whittle engine is simply a centrifugal compressor and a turbine(varying in stages). It requires fewer stages than an axial to achieve same pressure, more efficient for its size. Take an aeronautical mechanics course if you dont believe me.
SaucyJake 6 days ago
@SaucyJake Yes my friend, you are confused.. very. perhaps you should study up a bit on the differences.
First, don't confuse fuel control with compressor surge. Compressor surge or stall is a very complex subject indeed.
The Whittle is not as efficient for its size and weight compared to axial (apart from the fact it also has a larger frontal area whitch is bad for aerodynamics) and this is why it is no longer used. Turbojets require greater volumetric effeciency than gas turbines
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@doktorbimmer I am confused about where you are getting your facts. Take a course in aeronautical engineering. Compressor surge is affected by fuel control, sudden accelerations in the early axial flows would put more fuel into the combustion stage than the compressors would have time to compensate.
In very large sizes, the whittle engine is useless. But it is far more effective than the axial in smaller sizes (i.e, >4,000lbf). Ever try to make a 9lb axial engine? :p
SaucyJake 6 days ago
Comment removed
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@doktorbimmer I'm yet again confused as to why you ignore reality. O.o I've never even seen an axial compressor in an RC engine!! That wouldnt even be feasible, you can't make compressor blades that small...
As the jumo design is not in use, I can't imagine whitte's exact design being used either. It's the principle of the design that I'm arguing. Elements of whittle's design are common in turboshaft, prop, or microjet designs. I dream of someday owning a BD-5 jet replica...
SaucyJake 6 days ago
@SaucyJake Dude seriously, you don't know the difference between centrifugal and axial compressor engine?
You've never seen an axial RC jet engine??? Youtube this... 5 Stage Axial-Flow Micro Turbine - The Worlds Most Advanced Micro.
The Jumo design not in use???
Elements of a Whittle engine do not constitute a Whittle engine any more than elements of a flush toilet constitutes a carburetor. a turboshaft is not a turbojet.. although sometimes some parts interchange between them.
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@doktorbimmer Are you a troll? Or are you just British?
No, the jumo design is most certainly not in use, it was a pioneer in avionics but it was not a very good engine. But the principle of the axial flow compressor is.
Therefore your argument is just as invalid as mine. The solar T62 engine has seen uses in helicopters and jets, just to name one. Turbojets, turboshafts, turboanythings are just types of gas turbines.
I'm tired. Truce :D
SaucyJake 6 days ago
@SaucyJake Hahaha, I've been called a few things but never british... no need to start slinging insults hahaha.
The Jumo 004 continued on as the Tumansky RD-10, Avia M-04, Prika RT-901 and some Chinese name I can't spell, the 11 stage compressor version called the Jumo 012 led to several other engines that served the eastern block even later.
T62 is the APU thats converted to power the BD-5 I'm assuming, very cool little plane.
agreed, nuf said.. cheers
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@doktorbimmer Insulting you is the last thing I wanted to do :p A joke in poor taste, perhaps.
I understand your enthusiasm with German WW2 technology, I too once went through that phase. I now I ended up in a German class preparing to study engineering for a year in Munich... xD
Later on, I realized the merits of the American and British innovators as well, but I still want to study in germany....
SaucyJake 5 days ago
@SaucyJake
yes even Stalin realised the war would be won by brute force and dumped many exotic jet projects in favour of the mass production of prop aircraft.
captainumbnuts3 6 days ago
If the nazis won ww2, they would be on Mars right now
cryteeek 1 week ago 31
@cryteeek Nahh, they would likely have been overthrown before that would happen.
SaucyJake 6 days ago
Looks more like an aircraft to me. Unless the title should be "...flies".
EssieP 1 week ago
Germany without Hitler could have won the war.
usaeagle1776 1 week ago
Comment removed
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@bongosrest Having lived in former british colonies I know the history.
That excuse never works.. just cuz the other kids were doin it doesn't makes it OK???
Oh! I see now! The brits rape, murder and pilage the globe in exchange for a common currency and decent morals??? thats the most sick and twisted thing I've ever heard!
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer good job you have lived in a british colony again i ask you to show me were the brits raped murdered and pillaged the world , much of the empire was never fought over with the original peoples, they were offered protection against the other empire seeking nations, hitler was envious of the british empire and what it stood for modelling his 1000 year rule on it only it and others stood in his way and you now live in a world modelled on it giving you the freedom of speech etc
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest Yes, you have proved my point.. That Hitler and the Nazi's aspired to be like the british really says something.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
Excellent. Now turn them into bombers!
TheCrappyPhilosopher 1 week ago
What's with the music? If it weren't for the jet fighters I would think I was watching a home and garden show.. :P
Immopimmo 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I suggest the Manhattan project trumps the Me262. And no, I'm not American.
69wabbit 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Maybe even possibly maybe but highly unlikely even leave woman freind wife person to sleep and not too much sex exhaustion one sleep per week . she can tolerate my odors( I am good smelling animal attract love). I will continue to write this foolish mann love talk intermittantly until you arrive. Must I send smoke signals and eat peyote and trip my ass off to access another possible avenue to reach you where I Have not been shamed?
symonsolar 2 weeks ago
Holy Shit Gabe! we will need to construct a larger hangar extend zee runway but ziss is vunda bark! I beleive uncle eddie with the butiful deep handsome man welder voice was a SEA BEA.I used to whistle yankee dootle dandy with the Borques parakeets when we'd visit on the holidays. Their place over there in the town of desire and not forgetting and risk of life was such a cute little house really. I would and did risk my life for that hand. I assure you I'm worthy and will be only true to that 1
symonsolar 2 weeks ago
I read a book that says "no one took down Me-262" so this is pretty impressive and unique !!!
Wolfgamer94 2 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
bombarderoazul dont know what hes talking about yes the war rushed up the tecno race but us brits had plenty up our sleeves and a sea fury shot down a 262 ,the 262 was unreliable and would of only had a small advantage to start off with our own jet was just around the corner
bongosrest 2 weeks ago
@bongosrest 100 or so Me262s shot down over 500 Allied aircraft including many P-51 Mustangs.. hardly sounds like an unreliable aircraft. The brits jet fighter the Meteor was slower than most propeller aircraft and was known as the 'meatbox' or 'Meteorite' because it often crash into the ground.
doktorbimmer 2 weeks ago
@doktorbimmer , facts are facts dude britain led and still does lead the world in jet engine tecno, the 262 kill rate on fighter aircraft was low most of its kills come from shooting down bombers , 262 pilots crashed trying to keep the thing in the air, in dog fights it had poor slow speed performance in the last post i never said that the meteor was better than the 262 , stating that it was round the corner and would not have taking long to make it good,the 262 impact on the war was minimal
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest Keep dreaming dude, the brits have not led the world in much of anything since queen Victoria. Name a Allied jet fighter with a better combat kill ratio than the 262?? Oh! Thats right! Allied jets shot down ZERO enemy fighters in WW2. The Meteors crash record stands at one of the worst in jet aviation. Since when is slow speed an advantage in combat? At least German jet technology had an impact on the war.. how many German fighters were shot down by british jets.. none
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer i think you are getting into the wrong argument here refer to original quotes and reply's ,14 v1s' downed by the meteor plus airspeed records it goes to show you know nothing about air combat dog fights are not won with the fastest planes often a hindrance, also it goes to show how good our piston engined planes were as we did not need jets (yet) also you have to remember that most of our tecno was from private individuals ideas and money not the might of governments,
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest Yes, you original comment denying the fact the much of the technology in use today (especially military) comes originally from WW2 Germany. There was an unprecedented surge of innovation and research, huge leaps in jet and rocket engines, ballistic and guided missles, aircraft and tank technology. Shooting down 14 V1s or post war record attempts prove absolutely nothing. brits piston planes just as good? just 100mph slower.. brits didn't need jets??? Then why were they building them?
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer sadly again you did not read to well i never said brit piston planes were as good i stated it showed how good they were , and i hasten to add with smaller engines than german counterparts, the 262 could not win a dog fight against them proper it had to use surprise attacks it was an interceptor ,its pilots were told not to engage in proper dog fights the airframe its self was not good enough it also could not go above certain speeds , 100mph faster means nothing in a dogfight
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest No, but thats not what you implied. Brit planes were good but they had nothing as advanced as the Me262 during the war.
Only relatively even matched aircraft can dogfight, Me262 could simply intercept and destroy Allied aircraft. You cannot engage an enemy aircraft with such a speed advantage, only to ambush on TO and landings. No, that is wrong, the 262 could turn at very high speed, it was the Meteorite that was limited by its airframe despite its lower speed.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer so what your saying is nations that go to war must have evenly matched equipment to fight one another or the deals off ,i dont think so as you are well aware you fight with what you have and improve things as you go along and this was my point from the very first post i put out. yes germany had a jet , 9 months later we had a jet the war ended. 9 months after that the meteor was breaking records with no help from the 262 ,
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest No you silly twit, clearly you lack and understanding that there is a difference in "dogfighting" and air-combat, they are not nessarily the same thing.
What a huge accomplishment! 9 months for post war developement and the Meteorite bests the Me262 by only 40mph!
You forgot to mention that by 1946 all further record attempts were halted due to the Meteorite's structural weakness and wing failure problem.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer you made a big thing about the 262 being 100 mph faster than the piston brigades ,well our jet was 140mph faster than the piston brigades tecno moves on, f1 drivers rely on 100ths of a second advantage also the 262 and meteor both were not designed to go supersonic no one knew what was going to happen when the barriers are met subsonic was there limits the world is full of if and buts and what ifs. history is now written and cant be changed you should know that
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest Yes because being a 100mph faster is a big thing in fact its a huge thing., especially at that time.
Wrong, there were bombers that were faster than the meteorite in 45'
Tech moves on.. and sometimes stays the same, Every jet manufacturer now uses some form of the German Axial type engine.
Would be utterly ridiculous to think the Meteorite could go supersonic, it would disintgrate much over 600mph.
History can be changed.. it happens all the time, TRUTH CANNOT BE CHANGED
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer no german bomber flew faster than the meteor in 45 thats for sure who said that the meteor was supersonic? and it did fly over 600mph and lived to tell the tale you changed the argument now on the theme of axial jets not once in any posts has the mention of axial engines been made until now remember the oak tree you should change your name to dr who if you think history can be changed who really knows what the truth is, truth is only in the story tellers mind
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest Was the Mosquito not faster than 416mph???
yes it did, specially fitted non-combat aircraft. 600mph was the the Max speed for any combat Meteorite.
You are the one insisting that the british invented the jet engine, it was the Germans axial engine that was first to enter service.Why is Whittles work even relevant if it did not lead to the jet engine used today.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer I said no german bomber was faster than a meteor look again, born just at the end of war qualifies me enough, and growing up into the jet age, working in the industry, my mother built spitfires and seafires, planes are in my blood and no bs as you put it needs to pass my fingertips ,learned to fly enough said
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest I said there were "bombers" that were faster than the meteor, Not just German bombers.. I said qoute "Wrong, there were bombers that were faster than the meteorite in 45 "
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@bongosrest Actually there was a German bomber faster than the meteorite in WW2, the AR 234.. but you will probably deny that too.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer axial flow engines a couple of names for you A. A. Griffith and Hayne Constant did work and trials on axial flow engines long before Ohain who used their theory's' and methods again i point to the oak tree, as with all inventions somebody comes along and improves it and so the branches get longer and more branches are added no one person or nationality can claim they were the ones who invented the jet engine but with out one or the other we would all be still living in caves
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest Wrong again, gas turbine had already been in use decades before these two clowns came along and mucked around with it. Much of Whittles unsuccessful 1930 design was copied Griffiths, his work largely based on the turbine of Norwegian Ægidius Elling. The first Axial comp. were made in 1927 at Maschinenfabrik Oerlikon. As Irishman James Burke likes to say "all the bits were already lying around, all it took was the right man to come along and put the bits together" That man was Ohain
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer if you really want to picky the gas turbine goes back centuries even before the ark so to speak , putting all the bits together does not make you an inventor glad now you have admitted that, and at last your starting to read wikipedia instead of inventing your own words, the modern jet engine bare's little resemblance to the engines of ohian , limits of the whittle and ohain engines where soon reached and other methods needed to be invented to improve it this is where britian led
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest Absolutely untrue, while the concept of the simple turbine had been around for a very long time the "gas turbine" as we know it today was a 20th century idea. Nonsense, like saying that the Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane because they used bits of exsisting technology like the Otto engine or bicycle chain.
Von Ohain experimented with both centrifugal and axial types but realized early on that that it was the centrifugal type (Whittle engine) was a dead end.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer the wright brothers were the first to fly, they did not invent the airplane we have nature to thank for that, the otto engine came from earlier internal combustion engine types ,he just invented the 4 stroke cycle of operation which on the face of it is inefficient the two stoke engine (invented by a brit) much more efficient improved by east german engineer (ernst degner) and further improved by the japanese further refined by italians and now is coming home for finishing
bongosrest 6 days ago
@bongosrest The Wright brothers invented the airfoil that actually created an upforce and a way to control the aeroplane. Earlier contraptions sometimes lifted for a short hop, but they were uncontrollable and most often had totally flat or excessivly curved wings.
YDDES 6 days ago
@YDDES The Wrights produced the first aircraft that sustained flight.. and was controlable in all THREE AXIS of flight by producing the first roll or aileron control system. they are also credited with another huge leap in aviation technolgy that made flight possible, the application of the airfoil to the design of the propeller.
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@bongosrest Now your really full of BS, No brit ever patented or produced a workable compression 2 stroke engine before Karl Benz did.
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@doktorbimmer Dugald Clerk and Joseph Day. you see dude you loose it all the time when your wrong there where several types of 2 stroke motor all rubbish untill the two named above you always want to swear, thats the difference i produce the facts you produce as much hot air as a jumo 25 hour shelf life engine
bongosrest 5 days ago
@bongosrest Maybe your the one that needs to check his facts, Karl Benz built the first 2 stroke and patented it 1879, before Clerk who did not even build an engine for years after his 1881 patent, Day a much later an obscure footnote on subject his claim was actually the work of Fredrick Cock. The TBO of the 004 is often misquoted from tests done by the Americans after the war, the absence of nickel due to war stortages that was part of its original design compromised its servce life.
doktorbimmer 5 days ago
@bongosrest What if? I told you I just invented a time machine.. it works by placing a PEZ candy across the top of a 9 volt battery, I have it here scribbled out on the back of a napkin. I haven't actually built one yet or know if it works but since I just posted here on Youtube I'm going to take credit for inventing time travel, even if a 100yrs from now some really does build a sucessful time machine I can still take credit for it. Why not? it seems a perfectly acceptable to the british.
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@doktorbimmer your too late mate jules verne beat you to it ,many a good idea has been written on the back of a fag packet, and patented without the need to make it, it happened then and happens now and will still happen in the future as you find out when you have built your time machine where ever you stop with it there will be a brit there waiting for you saying i inevented that mate
bongosrest 5 days ago
@bongosrest Why don't you just save yourself all the trouble and insist that from now on everything ever invented in the past or the future was invented by british.
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@doktorbimmer brits invented the industrial revolution and generally if you look into the history of anything invented there will be a brit in there somewhere after all it did populate 2/3rds of the earths surface and remember most off our american cousins origins are from the uk , credit where credit is due george washington was a brit so dont be ashamed that there may be some brit blood in you, two nations here that have more in common than you think
bongosrest 5 days ago
@bongosrest Invented the industrial revolution? What next? Are you going to claim that brits invented air and water too? I see you have taken my joking advice and now you are simply claiming that brits invented everything! Well good luck with that, and good luck finding your way back to reality too.. you've obviously gone way off the deep end.
doktorbimmer 5 days ago
@bongosrest Well, I confess. just as I expected.. I specifically mentioned the invention of the airplane to have a little fun with you.. to see if you would either.. A) claim the british somehow invented it. or B) deny that the Wrights actually invented it. Of coarse you chose 'B' (because how could those rogue American colonist have possible invented something so important as the airplane.) by suggesting that perhaps the airplane could not be invented by mere mortals if not by the brits!!!!
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@doktorbimmer how sad you are to want to have a little fun with me,sounds gay where have i mentioned the brtis invented the airplane? the wrights did not invent the airplane they where first to get a decent manned flight model planes where flying long before the wright brothers almost forgot the birds have been showing us how it should be done (ill just check to see if the brits invented the bird) i dont class the americans as rogue colonists, no taxation without representation quite right
bongosrest 5 days ago
@bongosrest oh poor lad, your just angry because you got tricked or just that I you are so predictable. In fact, that you persist that the brits invented everything, the birds invented the airplane or that oak trees had anything to do with jet engines frankly makes you sound a bit loony.
doktorbimmer 5 days ago
@doktorbimmer ha ha it is you that has been tricked we brits call it reeled in hook line and sinker you took the bait mate and you been caught you contradict every thing anybody says i went of topic just to see your reaction and you took the bait if you like germany and the germans so much then go over there stop bitching after all its a free western world thanks to us brits and the usa lets keep it this way
bongosrest 5 days ago
@bongosrest Nice try, but your full of shite mate. You cant go off topic if you never started off with one.. you've been all over the place from square go.
doktorbimmer 5 days ago
@bongosrest Shocking! that you would credit the French with inventing time travel! certainly it must of been a brit that somehow thought of it first right eh???
Well, at least no danger that anyone will deny that it was brit that invented a machine that changes history, Bonkers Bongosrest, you have proven your claim to inventing it.
doktorbimmer 5 days ago
@bongosrest Now it is the obsolete Whittle engine that bares little resemblance to todays modern jet engine, it is a direct decendant of the axail flow turbojets designed and built in Germany during WW2 and things like two stage compressors, variable stators, anular combustors, and air cooled turbine blades were all technology that came out of Germany during the war. It didn't leave brits much to improve on.. just to try and take credit for.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer all work carried out by the two previous mentioned names ,designing something is not the same as inventing something , the quote "it did not leave brits much to improve upon"" get real the modern jet engine is heaps better than what was around in the 40/50s the apu engine in a modern day jet liner produces more power than them ,and this engine is tiny and is used just for powering the electrics and now the jet engine comes in allsorts of flavours thanks to uk and us input
bongosrest 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bongosrest "designing something is not the same as inventing something" Thats exactly my point, this is why Von Ohain is credited with inventing the the jet engine and not Whittle (except in the UK) Whittle 1930 "design" never produced a sucessful engine so he did not "invent" his engine before Von Ohain. An APU is not a "jet engine" it is a "gas turbine" it seems you still have not grasped the concept of their basic difference.
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@bongosrest You just said, qoute; "the apu engine in a modern day jet liner produces more power than them" Really? Airliner APUs produce 2,000lbs of thrust these days???
So far you have failed to impress me with your vast knowledge of jet aviation.
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@bongosrest You what still amazes me to no end is how you brits still insist that you invented the jet engine by way of Whittle! The Whittle centifugal type engine was an evolutionary dead-end in jet engine delopement, its now extinct! populating scrap heaps and museum collections. Even Rolls-Royce now builds the German type Axial flow compressor engine, with multi-compressor, multi-stage, ceramic coated anular combustors, air-cooled turbine blades... ALL WW2 GERMAN TECHNOLOGY.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer The Meteors top speed record is not at all impressive anyway, Me109R held the top speed record of 469mph back in 1939, the Me163 was already at 598mph in 1944! 9 months after the war the best they could do 616mph!
That fact that its airframe, wings, tail, nose and canopy all having had major reinforcements or redesigned on more than once, Meteors engines were limited to 80% or less and orders given not to ever exceed 600mph due to aerodynamic instability & airframe failure
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer looks like your loosing it dude read some more we did invent the jet engine full stop, you can whittle on all you like ,and tell me when have you been in a dog fight or air combat as you call it on your play station id say when you have done over 2000 hours flying like i have come back and talk to me the last 500 hours in stunt and display flying ,
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest Sounds like you don't read much at.
Are you saying Whittle was the first to think of a turbojet? That he built the first jet or the Whittle engine was the first to actually fly????
I don't play or have a playstation or Xbox or a Wii or whatever else you kids play nowadays.
2000 hrs, your just a sprout then lad, and how many hours of combat time?
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer oh i wish i was a kid again , why is it you dont read properly go back over the posts i have been in the aircraft industry for over 45 years ,2000 hours of flying on my own funds in the uk takes more than going without a few things in life zero combat time and you have plenty i take it
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest Why is it you don't write properly? Its hard to read your comments, filled with half baked history and BS.
Just as I though.. Sounds like someone thats just used to getting your way, and as I suspect not qualified to back up many of your more ridiculous statements.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer its a shame you are so blinkered into believing that all things great where inventions of germans it would be the same if i believed that all things great where invented by brits but look around your house and think about where a product was invented (not made or improved upon but invented ) you would be in for a shock dude
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest All? I'm certain I said "more" not All. Now you just proved my point that you are the hypocrite now you twist my comment.
Actually most of the things I see around my house were invented right here in USA, but if you look to the road, the sky or a military base you will see many things that originate from Germany.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer you also fail to mention how many imprisoned jewish and other foreign engineers you had working for you, the meteor went on to be a great aircraft you try to speak of german superiority in technology this simply is not the case i did not write the history books you need to read more, the brits are a nation of inventors the germans a nation of engineers, big difference and lets face it we all now live in a reasonable peace full western world because of ww2 , be greatfull
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest You sound like a hypocrite, As if the brits never profited or were aided during the war by its millions of historicly conquered subjugated unwilling colonial 'subjects'
The Meteorite went on to be a great aircraft? apparently you don't know much about its history.
The German technology was not superior? Then why the rush to grab as much as possible after war before the Soviets did?
More great inventions came from Germany, the brits well known for taking credit for them.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer did the germans not try to have its own empire? did it not subjugate its own people and the people of east Africa at least us brits don't deny this ,but you keep claiming germans invented this and that, whittle patented his jet in 1930 the rush to grab comment is a bit lame it was rush of the germans to get to usa/uk before the russians got them there is only one hypocrite here as ,a, you don;t read to well and deny other facts ,
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bongosrest Oh, but its OK if Brits rules the entire globe?
No, British cannot deny their crimes against humanity.. but they often tend to forget!
Whittle's 1930 patent NEVER PRODUCED A WORKING ENGINE
Von Ohain designed and built the first successful turbojet engine, period!
Next I expect you will say that captured German technology was never actually used by USA/UK after the war.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer there was a lot less trouble around the world when the brits did rule the world dude, name a crime against humanity that the brits did, read more about whittles patent,wrong about von ohain period, never did say that the usa and uk did not use or adapt german tecno the same as germany copied or adapted many brit ideas lets face it without the steam engine none of this would have happened, from an acorn mighty oaks grow , spreading its branches far and wide for all to harvest
bongosrest 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer
slow speed is a high advantage in a dog fight, as is manouverability, and guns, especially if your opponent can do slow speed turns....and high speed burns and you can't then you are toast.
captainumbnuts3 1 week ago
@captainumbnuts3 Your thinking in outdated terms, Not when you opponent has a 100mph speed advantage.. the same tactics do not apply. The Me262 was really the worlds first jet interceptor.. the only thing that was missing was guided air-to-air missles (they were already in the works) and for the allies to catch up.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer Slower than most propeller aircraft?,your in danger of making yourself look a little bit silly .
iroscoe 1 week ago
@iroscoe Touche' my friend, but of coarse you know thats not what I meant. by 1945 the Meteors 417mph top speed was in no danger of breaking any propeller aircraft speed records, there were dozens of prop planes that could best that speed.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
without nazi germany, we would be twenty years behind right now in technology. We owe the nazi regime a lot of our modern life.
bombarderoazul 2 weeks ago 21
@bombarderoazul without nazi germany world will save about 50 millions of peoples lifes and who know where we would be if they will create, invent, build instead of being killied in battlefields and death camps
zavhoz 2 weeks ago
@zavhoz Yes, I'm certain the Soviets couldn't do it all by themselves..
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@bombarderoazul Without the push war provides a lot of technology wouldn't of be developed,but you could argue that when it came to it the Nazi's actually stifled and mismanaged German creativity exiling,persecuting and killing some of their brightest allowing their own and the industrial capacity they captured to underperform until it was far to late . If i was a German the constant crediting of the Nazis with German tech would really piss me of .
iroscoe 1 week ago
@iroscoe Your in danger of sounding a bit like a hypocrite, certainly the Nazi's were not the most caring or nurturing regime, but don't make it sound like the British class system promotes creativity and equallity or that England never captured and subjugated other countries and cultures.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer I never mentioned British creativity one way or the other,i was merely praising German creativity whilst pointing out the perfidious influence the Nazis had on it if that upsets you then so be it .
iroscoe 1 week ago
@iroscoe Not at all, it just sounded like Germany had somehow cornered the market on technological creativity at the cost of personal human suffering.. perhaps I was mistaken. Have a nice day :)
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@iroscoe
the US reached the moon in 1969 thanks to Nazi rocket technology.
captainumbnuts3 1 week ago 24
@captainumbnuts3 Not nazi. you should thank the Germans scientists and their great technical ideas!!
Phoenicion 1 week ago
@captainumbnuts3 Not "Nazi" rocket technology. "German" rocket technology. Or did USA launch the Space Shuttles due to "Republican" rocket technology?
YDDES 6 days ago
@YDDES Did you just compared Republicans to the Nazis??
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@doktorbimmer I just said that it wasn't the politicians, but the scientists who invented the rockets. So, it was no more "Nazi technology" than it was "Republican technology". That would be like agreeing with the Nazis that there existed "Jewis science" and "Nazi science". Science is science and rocket technology is rocket technology. Regardless of the political systems.
YDDES 6 days ago
@YDDES Well, still sounded like you were making the inference? certainly a very poor analogy. Although the "Nazis" started out as a political party (liberal unionist) it became infamous as a Fascist regime, In the US the "Republicans" are but on part of a multi-party democratic system. It would then still be correct to say that technology produced during the Nazi regime was "Nazi technology" even though rocket science is not a political system, regardless of ones personal opinion of the Nazis
doktorbimmer 6 days ago
@doktorbimmer I don't agree with You. There was no "Nazi rocket technology". Then Sputnik was the result of "Communist technology" and Apollo of "Capitalist technology. Are the Indian satellites the result of "Hindu technology" and the Iranian rockets of "Muslim technology"?
Technology is technology, politics is politics and religion is religion.
YDDES 5 days ago
@YDDES If the Soviet communist were still in power they would certainly disagree with you that Sputnik wasn't "communist technology". As far as your religious arguement its an even worse analogy, say that Jesus came back and told a bunch of devout Christians to build a rocket, who all were organized in a society under a strictly Christian system that rocket would undoubtly be called "Christian technology". You cannot deny the ownership of a groups effort just because you don't like them.
doktorbimmer 5 days ago
@doktorbimmer OK, If You say there was a "Nazi technology", was there also a "Nazi science" as the Nazis themselves stated? If, in what respect did it differ from ordinary science?
That creates the question: In what respect did the "Nazi rocket technology" differ from other rocket technology?
YDDES 5 days ago
@YDDES The answer lies within your own question... you want to put a label on something? right? Thats what your really asking.. e.g.; In what respect does Israeli politics differ from ordinary politics? answer; Israeli politics belong to Israeli's.. its a matter of ownership, there are many forms of ownership in this case creative ownership, wheither an individual or a group, ownership is claimed by those who create it, it applies equally to politics, technology or science.
doktorbimmer 5 days ago
@doktorbimmer I still don't agree. There can't be such things as "Nazi science" or "Jewish science" as the Nazis stated. Science is science. Then there is pseudo science, which is not science but was declared as science by, for exampe the Nazis ("untermenchen") and the Stalin-communists (Lysenkovs "theories"). Rocket science is rocket science, regardless of what kind of politics the engineers working with it prefere.
YDDES 5 days ago
@YDDES You can't have it both ways, when separate or segregate a person, group or thing you are catagorizing it.. labeling it. Rocket science is science and if you differentiate a group of scientist and those scientists are Nazi's, aiding Nazi's or controlled by Nazi's they are Nazi scientist, the work they produced can therefor be labeled Nazi rocket science.. a catagory of Nazi science.
doktorbimmer 5 days ago
@doktorbimmer OK, so there actually is "capitalist science", " republican science", "democrate science", "dictatorship science" and "anarchist science"?
What kind of science is then nuclear science, astronomy science and geology science?
YDDES 5 days ago
@YDDES Do you not understand the meaning of the word "Science"? Now your just being silly and wasting your time.. there are mutiple diffinitions (5) of the word "Science" why don't you look it up?
doktorbimmer 4 days ago
@doktorbimmer Shortly, "science" is the scientifical way of thinking and acting. Evidence based, contrary to faith based.
But, OK, let's agree that we don't agree. To me, USA didn't develop their rockets with "Nazi rocket science". They used rocket science and some of the engineers came from Germany. A few of them had been members in the NSDAP.
YDDES 4 days ago
@YDDES "science" is the scientifical way of thinking and acting." AND ITS EFFORTS AND ACHIEVMENTS! As I said before, "you can't have it both ways" If you accept the fact that there are catagories of science, then you cannot deny the fact that a catagory exsists!
YOU CERTAINLY CANNOT DENY THE USA USED "NAZI ROCKET SCIENCE OR TECHNOLOGY
You can say all day long that you don't like the Nazi's but you can't say they didn't exsist or deny what they achieved.
doktorbimmer 3 days ago
@doktorbimmer No, I don't accept that there are "cathegories of science". Science is science. Pseudo science and quasi science are NOT science. Einsteins relativety theory is not "Jewish science" as the Nazis stated. Is it?
No, I don't like Nazis, but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that I don't cathegorize science.
Were Goddards rocket experiments capitalist, republican or democrat science/technolgy?
YDDES 3 days ago
@YDDES Doublespeak is disguising the truth. if you chose to deny that some things cannot be catagorized while you yourself at the same time catagorize things that only suit you opinions or theory.
"Jewish Science" or "Nazi Science has multiple meanings without context, It could mean the study of, the work by or the theories of (that group). Nazi or Jewish are groups, Einstein and Gottard are individuals... Apples are not Oranges. Catagorization either includes or excludes. You are in denial
doktorbimmer 3 days ago
@doktorbimmer von Braun was an individual too. Just like every German (or American, or Soviet) rocket scientist. And, I really doubt that all the German rocket scientists were members of the NSDAP.
YDDES 3 days ago
Comment removed
doktorbimmer 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YDDES Yes, von Braun was an individual person, he was German, and he worked in the field of rocket science... but he also a Nazi party member, worked for and aided the Nazi party with his work.. in Nazi Germany (between 1933-1945) when Germany was under Nazi control. He was part of a group of Nazi rocket scientist, his work promoted and advanced the acheivements of Nazi rocket science... a form of Nazi Science. All these statements are factual and true. you cannot deny these facts
doktorbimmer 3 days ago
Comment removed
doktorbimmer 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YDDES You cannot fool me with your doublespeak and twisting the meanings of the "words" you chose to use. It baffles me that you are incapable of understanding the concepts, that some words have multiple meanings or that similar things can be catagorized in different ways.. you only seem to be willing or able to accept labels if they suit your own version of the truth, it underlys either a childish immaturity or some mental condition such as Cognitive dissonance
doktorbimmer 3 days ago
@doktorbimmer For some reason this didn't turn up here. Only in my mail: "Yes, von Braun was an individual person, he was German, and he worked in the field of rocket science... but he also a Nazi party member, worked for and aided the Nazi party with his work.. in Nazi Germany (between 1933-1945) when Germany was under Nazi control. He was part of a group of Nazi rocket scientist, his work promoted and advanced the acheivements of Nazi rocket science... a form of Nazi Science."
Cont...
YDDES 3 days ago
@doktorbimmer ...cont: OK, then, since the American rocket scientists were under influence of Capitalism, their rocket science was Capitalistc, and since the Soviet scientists were under the influence of Communism, their rocket science was Communistic. Is the British rocket science then Monarchistic? What is the Swedish rocket science? The Japanese? The Indian?...
YDDES 3 days ago
@YDDES Enough with the doublespeak please! It now just become a silly game with you.. when you use Capitalistic instead of Capitalist you change its meaning.. Capitalistic implies something different than the context you used in your previous arguement.
doktorbimmer 2 days ago
@doktorbimmer Well, English is not my native language, so I admit I do some mistakes. And that was a mistake. But, I agree, this has become silly. You can't handle the Nazis different than other political ideologies when discussing this matter.
If you think You can, You'r free to do it. But it's illogical.
YDDES 2 days ago
@YDDES Well that certainly explains your lack of comprehension of some of the points I made.Thank you for contradicting yourself and proving my arguement.
doktorbimmer 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YDDES Don't forget your the one that said there is no such thing as Nazi rocket technology! asking the stupid questions, or that you asked captainnumbnuts "Or did USA launch the Space Shuttles due to "Republican" rocket technology?"
doktorbimmer 2 days ago
@YDDES Categorization is the process in which ideas and objects are recognized, differentiated and understood.[1] Categorization implies that objects are grouped into categories, usually for some specific purpose. Ideally, a category illuminates a relationship between the subjects and objects of knowledge. Categorization is fundamental in language, prediction, inference, decision making and in all kinds of environmental interaction.
doktorbimmer 4 days ago
@YDDES Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
doktorbimmer 4 days ago
@YDDES Your arguement is without logic or merit, if you take something and you divide it (say into two parts) and give a name, classification or label to only one half but leave the other half unnamed.. does that unnamed half cease to exsist? you cannot deny its exsistance because you consciously chose not to give it a name.
doktorbimmer 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YDDES Your arguement is without logic or merit, if you take something and you divide it (say into two parts) and give a name, classification or label to only one half but leave the other half unnamed.. does that unnamed half cease to exsist? you cannot deny its exsistance because you consciously chose not to give it a name.
doktorbimmer 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YDDES Your arguement is without logic or merit, if you take something and you divide it (say into two parts) and give a name, classification or label to only one half but leave the other half unnamed.. does that unnamed half cease to exsist? you cannot deny its exsistance because you consciously chose not to give it a name.
doktorbimmer 5 days ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@bombarderoazul we owe the nazi regime nothing ,technology moves on with or without wars ,inventors of all nationality's are held back because of a lack of funds and most advantages in technology are not an advantage for long, tomorrows in thing is yesterdays junk
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bombarderoazul
What a stupid comment. You owe the nazi scientists and engineers a lot for the developments they created. War accelerates it yes, but what Hitler did was wrong.
mikespike502005 1 week ago
@bombarderoazul : German scientists and engineers would likely have developed these weapons even without the Nazis or WWII. Give credit where it is due: it wasn't the politicians, but the scientists and engineers that had talent. Hitler was all for using the 262 as a bomber, not a fighter. To be historically correct, Russians, Brits, Japanese, Germans and Americans all made enormous technological progress during concurrent with the Nazi regime's tenure. Et alors?
69wabbit 1 week ago
@69wabbit Exactly the Nazis hindered rather than helped,they wasted time and resources persecuting some of their compatriots who might otherwise of made valuable contributions to their war effort,even putting aside moral outrage in purely practical terms they were retarded,a German war effort free of their baleful influence might of been much more effective .
iroscoe 1 week ago
@bombarderoazul War inspires inovation
ZImpresive 1 week ago
@bombarderoazul And without Britain you'd be speaking fucking german as well.
petecockcroft 1 week ago
@petecockcroft You mean without America? The brits would be speaking German..
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer and you think the usa was not the next target? , had britian fallen, no doubt the usa was next , i dont think the germans would have had such an easy ride if they had invaded the uk there would have been a hell of a lot more resistance movements and activity you can win a war but not a nation , the germans could never have invaded the usa in a conventional manor it would have been done with v1 and v2 and bombers ,now if russia had fallen it may have been a different matter
bongosrest 1 week ago
Comment removed
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bongosrest Fallen? or perhaps surrendered, I believe thats what the royals had in mind... not surprising, the royal family is part German after all. Winston Churchill was the one that got the US in the fight kept britan going, and of coarse he was half American.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@bongosrest Yes , good comment yourself.
American's skill in warfare consisted of blasting away like idiots -and praying their firepower was superior. This actually doesn't work against a Nation that can apply a little thought to the situation EssieP.
Why don't you go and watch "Saving Ryan's Privates" again. That's what the USA is really good at -Gay Porn.
petecockcroft 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@doktorbimmer Utter wank.
You know you weren't even in the war when Hitler bombed the shit out of us and also fought the Russians.
Without us the Russians would have been swamped.
Then with all those extra resources he would have swiftly taken Britain.
With all of Europe , Asia, Africa and especially Russia under his belt -you would have been fucked.
But this is pretty common knowledge.
Can you not see that Britain divided Hitler's troops to Africa and France
petecockcroft 1 week ago
@petecockcroft How rude, are all brits this nasty? I hope not... It might reinforce some of the negative stereotypes about the british.
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer Yes , some of us have had enough of being told how fantastic the Nazi's were.
petecockcroft 1 week ago
@petecockcroft Maybe you should check your aim... I never said anything glorifying the virtues of Nazism... maybe that some of their planes were better.. your not able to have a discussion about airplanes without slinging expletives?
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@doktorbimmer I hope you can see that was almost like saying - "With Nazi Germany we'd be 20 years ahead"
Anyway , I'm a big fan of the 262 , and while I don't know an awful lot - I-m very drawn to it for it's charisma.
Was the Mosquito able to overhall an Me-262?
That's something I'd like to know
petecockcroft 1 week ago
@petecockcroft As I said I don't have interest in or support Nazi ideology.. just technology. Yes, I agree the Me262 is an amazing aircraft, even more impressive that its engines were redesigned and able to fly without any nickel alloys in its production.
The Mosquito was built in many versions most between 380-415mph with some special Merlin77 recon. models at 437mph, (the P-38 Lighting was 443mph)
Me262 at 560mph would still be 120mph faster than the Mosquito and 140mph than Meteor
doktorbimmer 1 week ago
@petecockcroft WELL SAID
bongosrest 1 week ago
@bombarderoazul Wrong nazi was a regime. you should thank the Germans scientists and their great technical ideas!!
Phoenicion 1 week ago
Where can I find this song?
wallabeez 2 weeks ago