nazi info real or fiction?

[Splitter]

Stealth was a possible advantage. Also vertical take off/landing and rapid change of direction in flight. If the whole craft is a "lifting body" in any direction, the possibilities are promising. From what I understand, however, the proper propulsion and stability systems were not available. I have only seen real evidence of very short, low level flights from American saucers.

Would it surprise me to learn that the US has a flying saucer in some super secret "X" project? Not really. The US has thrown a lot of resources at different aircraft projects, some seemingly far fetched, in the last 50 years.

Invisible bombers were once a pipe dream. Is the Aurora spy plane real and functional? What exactly does it look like? Where did the technology originate? We dunno. Many things are possible.

Definitely the Nazis held onto some far fetched hopes for their super weapons. Some of these super weapons programs were years ahead of their time and some were pure fantasy. Most took away so many resources they helped the Allies win the war.

The Nazi rocket program was ahead of its' time clearly, but it put us (humans) in orbit around a decade later and lead directly to ICBM's. Nazi stealth programs were ahead of their time but probably led to some insights into stealth technology that put the US ahead in that race. Even their jet technology was ahead of the Allies but was used improperly for too long (blitz bomber vs. interceptor). Both American and Soviet swept wing fighters in Korea are thought to have their origins in WWII German designs. Was the X-15 a rocket plane and did the Germans actually field rocket planes in WWII?

Think about it, one of the biggest parts of the end game to WWII was the race between the Americans and Soviets to capture/attract German scientists. Both sides in what became the Cold War knew their was advanced knowledge there to be had for whoever got to it first.

Still, most of the programs were to make the Fuhrer happy and "keep hope alive"...which worked out well for the Allies. Thank goodness.

Splitter

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Splitter

From what I understand, however, the proper propulsion and stability systems were not available. I have only seen real evidence of very short, low level flights from American saucers.

AFAIK ... the only operational one was Canadian and by the early 60's the best it could do is get a few centimetres off the ground

This sort of ludicrous mythical "Indianna Jones" technology is more suited to a Xbox version of Crimson Skies then a serious flight sim.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

AFAIK ... the only operational one was Canadian and by the early 60's the best it could do is get a few centimetres off the ground

This sort of ludicrous mythical "Indianna Jones" technology is more suited to a Xbox version of Crimson Skies then a serious flight sim.

I remember seeing footage of saucers with US markings hovering and going over some terrain, but I also remember most of them being tethered lol.

Agreed that for WWII technology there was never anything even close to functional and such things are better left to arcade type games.

Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe was a great game even it didn't go as far as to include saucers lol.

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

Stealth was a possible advantage. Also vertical take off/landing and rapid change of direction in flight.

Why would it be more stealthy - even accepting that such concepts were relevant during WW 2, which is unlikely - I've seen no evidence whatsoever that the Nazis understood stealth technology. And what has 'vertical takeoff' and 'rapid change of direction' got to do with the known characteristics of saucer-shaped aiircraft?

Would it surprise me to learn that the US has a flying saucer in some super secret "X" project?

It doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't be surprised if the US had a flying saucer. It would surprise me if they did.

Think about it, one of the biggest parts of the end game to WWII was the race between the Americans and Soviets to capture/attract German scientists.

Was it? Can you back this statement up with evidence? I thought that the primary objectives during the 'end game' was to (a) destroy German military opposition, and (b) establish control over territory. Given that almost all significant military/technological advances made in the succeeding few decades were based on knowledge already in the hands of the Allies, chasing after a few scientists and technicians may have been a worthwile sideline, but it was hardly a priority.

Yes, the US 'captured/attracted' Werner Von Braun, and later landed a man on the Moon. But the Soviet Union didn't capture him, and still got a man into space before the Americans. Then again, they had been working on liquid-fuel rockets before the Nazis anyway.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Why would it be more stealthy - even accepting that such concepts were relevant during WW 2, which is unlikely - I've seen no evidence whatsoever that the Nazis understood stealth technology. And what has 'vertical takeoff' and 'rapid change of direction' got to do with the known characteristics of saucer-shaped aiircraft?


It doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't be surprised if the US had a flying saucer. It would surprise me if they did.

Was it? Can you back this statement up with evidence? I thought that the primary objectives during the 'end game' was to (a) destroy German military opposition, and (b) establish control over territory. Given that almost all significant military/technological advances made in the succeeding few decades were based on knowledge already in the hands of the Allies, chasing after a few scientists and technicians may have been a worthwile sideline, but it was hardly a priority.

Yes, the US 'captured/attracted' Werner Von Braun, and later landed a man on the Moon. But the Soviet Union didn't capture him, and still got a man into space before the Americans. Then again, they had been working on liquid-fuel rockets before the Nazis anyway.

Oh my, large questions maybe not suited to this forum.

RADAR was used during WWII. The Germans were developing the Horten bomber which was less visible to RADAR with it's design that was, surprise, not unlike the B2 Stealth bomber (which was not unlike the YB-49 right down to the wing span).

RADAR was a HUGE reason that the Brits won the Battle of Britain. The Germans knew this eventually and even employed their own RADAR systems. It is only logical that they would have been aware of the advantages of avoiding/delaying detection by RADAR.

Why would the Canadians, Americans, and Brits have put resources into saucer research after WWII if they did not think their were some advantages to the shape? would it be advantageous for an airship to be able to take off vertically? I guess so, we got the Harrier eventually. Would there be an advantage to an aircraft with a very low stall speed? I guess, many aircraft have that as a design element. Ability to rapidly change directions important? I guess, we even throw in vectored thrust these days.

If you do not know about the race to capture German scientists, it would be an interesting research project for you. No offense to the Russians on this board, but I am sure they are aware that there was a special antipathy between the Soviets and Germans in WWII. If any two sides fought an all out, no holds barred war, those two nations did. It would be an understatement to say that there was no love lost.

German scientists (and soldiers and many of importance) did everything they could to surrender to American or British forces rather than to Soviet forces. Quite frankly, they were afraid of what might befall them under the Soviets....probably because of the way the Germans had treated the Soviets during the war.

One of the biggest "prizes" that the Soviets garnered from the German technology and scientists/technicians they captured was their aircraft designs. There was a reason the Soviets beat the Americans to the punch in fielding the Mig 15 in Korea. It went back to what they captured in WWII from Germany. The Americans copied the soviet design later just like the Soviets copied the American nuclear and rocket technology (the rocket technology for the Americans was greatly enhanced by the Germans as you know).

Understand that the Americans and soviets did not trust each other. The Brits trusted the Soviets even less. The future Cold War was already brewing. Some Americans (and Brits) wanted to take the war all the way into the Soviet Union and get rid of Stalin. In Europe, the Brits and Americans raced the Soviets for the prizes of war at the end. The Soviets got to Berlin first....and then we had the Berlin airlift as a direct result a few years later.

There was real competition at the end of the war, once it was decided, to procure the best prizes in preparing for the future.

I'm an American and of course proud of my country over all. But, that doesn't mean that I can discount the effectiveness of the Axis powers in certain areas, like scientific advances. They weren't dummies and we were not ahead in all areas. The victors did all they could to reap the rewards.

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

Why would the Canadians, Americans, and Brits have put resources into saucer research after WWII if they did not think their were some advantages to the shape?

Did they? Can you actually give any evidence that they did?

The Brits trusted the Soviets even less.

Erm, is this the reason we (the Brits) supplied them with early jet engines...

Some Americans (and Brits) wanted to take the war all the way into the Soviet Union and get rid of Stalin.

True. If they'd tried it, the armed forces would have mutinied though. This 'continuation of war' was largely a fantasy at the time, and most popular amongst those who would rather have joined the Axis anyway. It has little to do with the military/political realities of the period.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Did they? Can you actually give any evidence that they did?


Erm, is this the reason we (the Brits) supplied them with early jet engines...


True. If they'd tried it, the armed forces would have mutinied though. This 'continuation of war' was largely a fantasy at the time, and most popular amongst those who would rather have joined the Axis anyway. It has little to do with the military/political realities of the period.

Churchill and Roosevelt were largely in agreement on many things (oh, that's after the US finally decided to get into the war after leaving Churchill to deal with the Nazis by himself for a while). They both came from basically democratic countries with largely capitalist economies. Stalin was a communist and socialist. The two ideologies could not co-exist except in the presence of a bigger enemy: Hitler.

Churchill and Roosevelt/Truman listened to what Stalin espoused and understood his "purges". Therefore, they saw him as a threat going into the future. However, Churchill clearly saw the military potential of the Soviets post war. He could not be their friend but did not want to be their enemy. He attempted on several occasions to "make nice", but he was rather staunchly anti-communist.

WWII showed the old axiom that the enemy of my enemy is my friend on several occasions.

As to saucer research (BTW, no reason to debate this for this game other than as a curiosity, yes?), check out these links for a start. Wikpedia is NOT the end all and be all of research, but some of the important terms and names are there that can be used in further research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...haped_aircraft

http://www.crystalinks.com/silverbug.html

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/...o/avrocar.html

Their attempts at creating these craft seem absurd now in retrospect given their technology at the time. But they certainly thought there was enough there to be explored. All I can think is that at one time the world was flat and man could not fly, but science moves forward.

And yes, if the US and Brits tried to take the war to the Soviets as some wanted, they would probably have been as soundly defeated as Germany had been. History has shown that it is just about impossible to invade Russia and win.

The differing political and economic ideologies between the three "super powers" of the time were never resolved at the end of WWII. The West and East were too different and too distrustful of one another. The two factions (US and Britain vs. Soviet Union) deferred the coming inevitable fight. So over the next few decades, they fought proxy wars against one another and tried to intimidate the other side through military and economic advances. IE, the Cold War.

It's fascinating how allies during WWII would just a few years later become dire enemies.

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

Splitter, are you not aware that Churchill lost the general election in July 1945? What he would have liked to have done at that point is of little consequence.

Adman, from what I can find (not a lot), the Sack AS-6 was a 'An extremely unconventional 1944 design with a saucer-shaped wing and a tractor propeller' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_..._World_War_Two. The Vought XF5U was an unusual design, but hardly a 'flying saucer' in the sense that the phrase is usually used. It was a propeller-driven aircraft, taking off and flying in the normal manner. The concept dates back to the late 1930s (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n13498090/), and was first tried in the US. It therefore has little significance to 'Nazi flying saucers' either.

This then leaves the Avrocar:

Judged by its performance, the Avrocar was an abject failure: it couldn't lift itself safely more than a few feet off the ground, and its bulbous design limiting high-speed performance accompanied by unbearable heat and screaming exhaust noise, made it impractical for the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar
Effectively an early, very inefficient, hovercraft.

It appears then that all this supposed 'research' resulted in nothing resembling a 'flying saucer' except the Avrocar, which could hardly fly at all.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Splitter, are you not aware that Churchill lost the general election in July 1945? What he would have liked to have done at that point is of little consequence.

Adman, from what I can find (not a lot), the Sack AS-6 was a 'An extremely unconventional 1944 design with a saucer-shaped wing and a tractor propeller' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_..._World_War_Two. The Vought XF5U was an unusual design, but hardly a 'flying saucer' in the sense that the phrase is usually used. It was a propeller-driven aircraft, taking off and flying in the normal manner. The concept dates back to the late 1930s (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n13498090/), and was first tried in the US. It therefore has little significance to 'Nazi flying saucers' either.

This then leaves the Avrocar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar
Effectively an early, very inefficient, hovercraft.

It appears then that all this supposed 'research' resulted in nothing resembling a 'flying saucer' except the Avrocar, which could hardly fly at all.

I don't think I have ever understood why Churchill was shoved to the side. He had been such an effective and popular leader during the war, even a hero to those of us not from Britain. Maybe he was just one of those people who were sent for a special purpose.

And yes, the research into saucer shapes seems to have been fruitless. I am not sure what was learned from it. I would only say that for 40+ years, the flying wing bomber concept was abandoned (to the best of my knowledge). Then the technologies and needs came together to give us the B-2 Stealth bomber.

So I have learned not to say "impossible" but rather "probably impossible right now" . Another interesting thing I have noticed is that during the Cold War there were many "UFO" sightings around the world and now those seem to have gone way down. Maybe someone somewhere was playing around with government funds that have now dried up? I dunno, it's just a thought.

BTW, from what I understand, one of the criticisms of the AvroCar program was that they didn't develop the hover craft aspect and salvage something from the program so good observation!

Splitter

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Splitter, are you not aware that Churchill lost the general election in July 1945? What he would have liked to have done at that point is of little consequence.

Adman, from what I can find (not a lot), the Sack AS-6 was a 'An extremely unconventional 1944 design with a saucer-shaped wing and a tractor propeller' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_..._World_War_Two. The Vought XF5U was an unusual design, but hardly a 'flying saucer' in the sense that the phrase is usually used. It was a propeller-driven aircraft, taking off and flying in the normal manner. The concept dates back to the late 1930s (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n13498090/), and was first tried in the US. It therefore has little significance to 'Nazi flying saucers' either.

This then leaves the Avrocar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar
Effectively an early, very inefficient, hovercraft.

It appears then that all this supposed 'research' resulted in nothing resembling a 'flying saucer' except the Avrocar, which could hardly fly at all.

well I think that's because the word "flying saucer" in modern culture conjures up ideas of anti-gravity, kind of like "UFO" conjures up ideas of alien craft, but that's simply not the definition of the phrase. A craft with a single circular shaped wing is a "flying saucer". I dont think anybody is claiming these craft were using an advanced technology (at least not any more advanced than a turbine engine) or that they were flyable. I think the question is was there an attempt to build such aircraft.