Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DC-10 And 747 Almost 60 Years Old.  
User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

It's true. Nazi aeronautical engineers produced the blueprints of the DC-10 and 747 almost 60 years ago during the second world war.

The photo above is of the earliest prototype design of the DC-10. Here it is being towed for a test flight in 1941. German scientists first believed that just a single engine would suffice. Later tests proved it was underpowered and two wing-mounted engines were added. In 1971, the cockpit was expanded to include a 3-man crew and the fuselage widened to accomodate almost 300 passengers.




Seen above during early prototype development in 1942, this prototype DC-10 still has to have cockpit, windows, and passenger cabin installed.




Ever at the cutting edge of aircraft design, German engineers in WW II produced the Messerschmitt 163 Komet, a minature version of what Boeing would later designate the 747. In this photo above, this early 747 prototype has not yet been fitted with jet engines. Nazi engineers initially believed that a small propellor mounted on the nose would provide adequate power. Later tests proved this incorrect, and 4 large hi-bypass turbofans engines were installed in 1969 when Boeing purchased the rights to this design.



Hmmmm...




An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRaddog2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2340 times:

I'm assuming this is a stupid joke, and it's not funny. Promoting the Nazis isn't appropriate.

User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2300 times:

I do not feel that this post is promoting Nazi's in any way! I think they are interesting photos, and maybe where some one got the idea of the 747 and DC-10.
Iain


User currently offlineFLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2280 times:

Oh my God...

Raddog2, you just ruined the entire topic. "Promoting the Nazis isn't appropriate," said the snotty-nosed kid.

You sure as hell aren't going to get anywhere in life with THAT sense of humor!

Grow up!

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2266 times:

Actually, in a way, the 747 can owe some lineage to the Me163. This aircraft, and the Me262 as well, both introduced the novel idea of swptback wings. This sweep was adopted by several western designs. However, the most apparant was the Boeing B-47. This spawned the wing design for the B-52, which in turn spawned the wing design for the 747, which has the most swept wing of a comercial jetliner (save for SSTs) and as such flys at higher speeds than contempory jetliners.

Oh, and just to clear it up, in case you got confused, that is not a propeller on the front of the Me163. It is actually a windmill, for giving speed data to the pilot. The Komet was of course powered by a rocket engine, which gave it a very limited endurance...



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineRaddog2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2246 times:

My POINT was that tracing the 747 and DC-10 directly back to Nazi engineering is pure BS, and vaguely offensive. Puh-leeze -- "Boeing purchased the rights" to the Me 163? Who did they purchase the rights from? The Luftwaffe? It makes me wonder what the intent of the post was -- are you trying to say that we have the Nazis to thank for modern air travel?

I'm not saying that Nazi technology didn't benefit aviation engineering -- after all the Schwalbe was the first jet plane. And as VirginFlyer points out, the Me163 did introduce the swept wing. But to say that the 747 is just a modified Me 163 is ludicrous. It's like saying the 737 is a modified Wright Flyer. And I'm sure Europeans would be offended if anyone were to suggest that the A300 is just a warmed over Nazi design.

As for you, Fly777Ual, I'm not going to resort to the sort of playground name-calling you seem to enjoy. But I remind you that some jokes can be crude and if you don't know where the line is, I want to see how far in life YOU get.


User currently offlineFLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

Ahh...the moral highground...I hear it's lovely this time of year!

Not directed [specifically] towards you, Raddog2, but why must everyone on this board:
a) Analyze everything to hell
and
b) Find every comment, joke, or post that in some way, shape, or form "crude" and "insensative"?!?

As for you, Raddog2, no one asked what your point to your post was, and frankly, no one cares. This was meant as a humorous post, with responses in the form of smiley faces and "LOL", not "But to say that the 747 is just a modified Me 163 is ludicrous."

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 7, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

Ok, ok, lets not get all het up here!!! Raddog2, I don't think you need to worry, its just a joke, not supporting nazis or claiming they invented the modern jetliner. FLY777UAL, cool your jets, ok, Raddog2 has a right to express his concerns over the content, even if they are a bit over cautious, without being blasted by other users. After all, the only reason the nazis ever got in was because people were not suspicious enough. But enough of this, lets get back to aviation, and away from the darker side of history...


"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2187 times:

Promoting the Nazis?

In this post, I mock them. I suggest that these two designs were born of idiocy by suggesting they were airliner designs, rather than the ingenius weapons they actually were.

Raddog2 wasn't clever enough to get that jab. But there is always one who doesn't get it. He filled that quota for this joke.

Hmmmm...






An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1014 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2169 times:

I think it's funny and clever. Nice production. Let's all stop being so offended every time the wind changes directions. Well done hmmm...

User currently offlinePlane_crazy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2162 times:

I'm assuming this is a stupid joke, and it's not funny. Promoting the Nazis isn't appropriate.


hey 777ual, long time no see.

Raddog, you sound like an idiot. You really know how to ruin a good thing.

UAL757


User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3702 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2153 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Raddog2, you really should to get out more.

User currently offlineWannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 677 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2121 times:

Raddog2.....Med Student.....Proctology maybe?????

User currently offlineAlitis From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

Amusing!

User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

The only thing I see here is a good joke with sarcasm to those saying "everything was initially invented by German engineers during WWII, they just didn't have another month or two to finish". I've never met any of these admirers in this forum (there were very interesting discussions, but absolutely within limits of reasonable) but more than few of them in real life... especially - and amazingly - in Russia, that suffered much more from Nazi's invasion then all the others together...

User currently offlineAb.400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2087 times:

The pilot of the DC-10 prototype doesn´t look too happy about his job.
Isn´t his head a little close to the Air-intake ?


User currently offlineCrjmech From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2089 times:

As always, good stuff from Hmmmm...   I recall seeing an episode of "Wings" on the Discovery Channel dealing with the Nazi wonderplanes. If memory serves, the Me163's fuel and oxidizer were both incredibly volitile and would combust when mixed together. They showed a technician pouring some of the fuel on to some rags and they immediately burst into flame! The oxidizer was some sort of peroxide (I think) and could strip flesh to the bone in seconds. To top it all off, the fuel and oxidizer were kept in tanks in the cockpit, one tank next to the pilots left leg, the other next to his right leg! And I thought the Kamakazi were nuts.


Thou shalt mind thine altitude,lest the ground reach up and smite thee.
User currently offlineRaddog2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2084 times:

Well, I'm sorry if I didn't "get" the joke. But the sheer juvenility of some of the people on this board never ceases to amaze me.

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6485 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2076 times:

Crjmech, your description of the ME-163 fuel is perfect.
And this fuel system certainly didn't end with the 163. A developed version of that fuel is what is used on for instance the Space Shuttle for maneuvering and attitude control. Also for the final push into orbit and for braking for re-entry.
It was used for landing and take-off on the Moon, and it is used to stabilize those com-satellites which keep this Internet forum going. And it is used on just about any space vehicle which needs maneuvering, stabilisation or attitude control.
Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineCopper1 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 439 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2065 times:

I had to clear the tears from my eyes I was laughing so hard as I was reading this. Outstanding Hmmmm, simply outstanding.

Copper1


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6485 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2046 times:

Hmmmm... - really great joke.
But are you aware how close you are to the truth? Only about two years after the end of WWII the Focke Wulff TA-183 had been developed into the MiG-15 fighter - with the help and power of the Rolls Royce Nene engine. Have a look at http://visi.net/~djohnson/fw/ta183-i.html
I took a little longer time to make a Tupolev Tu-16 Badger bomber plane out of the Junkers Ju EF-132. But then the Tu-16 was hastily converted into the world's second jet airliner Tu-104. Have a look at http://visi.net/~djohnson/junkers/juef132.html
And on the other side of the pond the Arado Project 1 inspired the Chance Vought designers to produce the F7U Cutlass carrier fighter which flew first time already in September 1948 and made good service in the US Navy throughout the 50'es. Have a look at
http://visi.net/~djohnson/arado/arpi.html

Surfing around on http://www.luft46.com gives you a lot of insight in all the ideas which popped up in the minds of people who were desparately trying to turn the direction of the war.

Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1998 times:

I'm glad that so many of you enjoyed the post. Johan pays me 2 cents a day for my services. But because I always throw in my 2 cents, I make nothing. So your appreciation is my only reward.

The fuel that the Germans used for many of their experimental rocket aircraft, including the Komet featured here, was a mixture of what was called "T-STOFF" (an 80 per cent aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide plus oxyquinoline as a stabilizer) and Z-STOFF (an aqueous solution of sodium and potassium permanganates) It was only mixed at time of combustion. They produced a super-heated steam upon contact. It was very potent.

The unhappy "DC-10" pilot in that photo has reason to look glum. These manned versions of the V1 were never billed as kamikazi-style machines. The pilot was instructed to bail out before the death dive, but it was generally believed that he was expected to die in the attempt. Luckily for this pilot, none of these manned versions ever flew in combat. He probably died in something else.

A note to AB.400: The engine on the V1 is actually not a jet engine at all. It is a strange beast known as a "pulse jet". Because the V1 was nothing but an expendable bomb to be dropped, they could not afford to equip each one with a jet engine. So they needed an engine that was cheap to produce and easy to sacrifice. The pulse jet worked simply like this: Slipstream air rams in through the spring-loaded gates in the front. That gate opening triggered a release of simple gasoline and a spark. The explosion blew the gates shut again, which shut off the supply of air and gas, and then the thrust had no where to go but out the back end. It would do this about 47 times a second. Each one a pulse. But so fast that it sounded like a steady hum. Of course, to start the pulse jet, it needed an airspeed of about 300 mph to push the gate flaps open to begin the whole process. This was achieved either through a shot of compressed air, a rocket-assisted launch, or by having it dropped from a fighter plane. But that is why the cockpit could be so close to the front end of the engine. Because there is no fan to suck in air. It just takes whatever the slipstream provides.

Did the Nazis really invent all these things? No. But the German scientists and engineers did. Remember that Einstein was also a German scientist. But some of the more radically ingenious designs that came out of Germany were simply borne out of mere fascination with new ideas. And the desperation to try to use them. The Reich was always looking for a miracle weapon to turn the war in its favor. Usually, it was too radical and too late to be of any practical use. But even the Japanese produced a manned flying bomb themselves, the Yokosuka MXY7, very similar to the V1.
However, if the tables were turned, the Americans and the British could have produced the same weapons. But they were not desperate. So, unlike the Germans, the Allies did not have to grasp at straws creating avante-garde prototypes that would take 20 to 50 more years to perfect. Such as this thing below: Look familiar?


Drawing courtesy of Aerospace Publishing.


US National Archives
The Gotha Go 229 flying wing bomber/interceptor. This is a photo of the only one ever created. It was captured by American forces at the end of the war.

Hmmmm...



An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineIndianGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1984 times:

The pic shown first looks rather like the crude "cruise missiles" that the Nazi's used against England.

User currently offlinePacific From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1057 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

Very funny planes. What a good story!
Wasn't Einstein a Jew?

Pacific


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1957 times:

Yes, but he lived in Germany and had to leave the country in 30's.

User currently offlineAb.400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

Remarkable hype´s happen in technology-developement when it is about killing/prevent to be killed.
Lucky us that we can deal with the civil versions.

Hmmm..., the Gotha 229 might turn into an Imperial Tie-fighter once in the future.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
NWA DC-10 And 747-400 At Dfw! posted Wed Jun 28 2000 05:10:44 by I-96
Aloha - 60 Years Old Today posted Wed Jul 26 2006 19:15:46 by Aloha73G
CO DC-10 And AF Concorde In One Pic posted Fri Dec 9 2005 11:15:22 by Airforum
Mystery DC-10 And RAF Plane. Can Anyone ID? posted Mon Jan 17 2005 00:55:41 by Matt D
Historical Day For The DC-10 And Those Who Love It posted Fri Feb 20 2004 02:10:54 by Copper1
I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s posted Tue Nov 25 2003 04:46:49 by Qantasclub
Routes Used With American DC-10's And MD-11's posted Mon Mar 24 2003 05:47:21 by NWA
AA DC-10 And MD-ll Question? posted Fri Aug 2 2002 17:13:12 by CB777
United DC-10 And L-1011? posted Sat Aug 4 2001 03:51:24 by Delta777-XXX
Why Are The DC-10 And MD-11 Ridiculed So Much? posted Thu May 31 2001 03:44:29 by Jm-airbus320