Lippisch Delta design — fake information and rumors

[Kiwiguy]

A friend of mine is a German translator for some leading authors on Luftwaffe aircraft types. He is a very private man and generally does not wish his name mentioned. Recently he alerted me through private correspondence that the Lippisch P.13b had been hushed up and classified top secret by the US Government post December 1944. In NARA archives you can find reports of this aircraft up until December 1944, but not afterwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippisch_P.13b

That is because my friend assures me he has come across German archival material that suggest the aircraft was successfully test flown with a coal burning ramjet engine at speeds up to Mach 1.6 before the war ended.

A smaller version of this ramjet engine was successfully test flown atop a Dornier Do-17 in the south of France.

 

[Jemiba]

The ramjet flown with a Do 217 (not Do 17) quite probably is the same, which was mentioned
yesterday here : http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5872.msg47546.html#new
But it had not much to do with a coal burning ramjet ...
And about the aircraft, testflown with Mach 1.6, I think, there's no reason today to keep quite for some-
one, who has authentic material !
Honestly, I don't believe it, but I'm curious ! ;D

 

[red admiral]

Same "friend" that tells how Hitler escaped to South America on the second Junkers Ju 390 via Japan? (The flying saucers operated by the SS flew there directly whilst carrying the stockpile of Nazi atomic bombs).....

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

A friend of mine is a German translator for some leading authors on Luftwaffe aircraft types. He is a very private man and generally does not wish his name mentioned. Recently he alerted me through private correspondence that the Lippisch P.13b had been hushed up and classified top secret by the US Government post December 1944. In NARA archives you can find reports of this aircraft up until December 1944, but not afterwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippisch_P.13b

That is because my friend assures me he has come across German archival material that suggest the aircraft was successfully test flown with a coal burning ramjet engine at speeds up to Mach 1.6 before the war ended.

A smaller version of this ramjet engine was successfully test flown atop a Dornier Do-17 in the south of France.

I call "bullshit" on this story. Regardless of what your friend tells you, I don't believe this account, its just too unlikely from a technical standpoint to even bother with thinking of the likelihood of a conspiracy keeping it secret for 60 years. Where were the squadrons of Lippisch-designed Mach 1.6 ramjet US fighters in the 1950s? Area 51 presumably? Are you aware that the (Lippisch inspired) XF-92/F-102 family took years to mature and required several aerodynamic breakthroughs (conical camber, area ruling) to be able to reach speeds of Mach 1.6?

 

[Pelzig]

I have to agree. The XF-92 was derived from testing the DM-1 glider, which was to built to validate the eventual form of the P.13a. It was never flown and once brought to the U.S. and put to the test, it was found that the DM-1 was not the most stable design. Tunnel tests showed very poor lift and flow results. Eventually, the DM-1 was modified over and over again (with some assistance from Lippisch), at least eight times, to improve it and the eventual result was the XF-92.

Now, there is footage showing a scale model of the P.13a being tested in free flight from May 1944 but that was as far as the P.13a got to flying.

A friend of mine is a German translator for some leading authors on Luftwaffe aircraft types. He is a very private man and generally does not wish his name mentioned. Recently he alerted me through private correspondence that the Lippisch P.13b had been hushed up and classified top secret by the US Government post December 1944. In NARA archives you can find reports of this aircraft up until December 1944, but not afterwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippisch_P.13b

That is because my friend assures me he has come across German archival material that suggest the aircraft was successfully test flown with a coal burning ramjet engine at speeds up to Mach 1.6 before the war ended.

A smaller version of this ramjet engine was successfully test flown atop a Dornier Do-17 in the south of France.

I call "bullshit" on this story. Regardless of what your friend tells you, I don't believe this account, its just too unlikely from a technical standpoint to even bother with thinking of the likelihood of a conspiracy keeping it secret for 60 years. Where were the squadrons of Lippisch-designed Mach 1.6 ramjet US fighters in the 1950s? Area 51 presumably? Are you aware that the (Lippisch inspired) XF-92/F-102 family took years to mature and required several aerodynamic breakthroughs (conical camber, area ruling) to be able to reach speeds of Mach 1.6?

 

[Stargazer]

Some sources said that the P 13a powered prototype never produced but I don't know why I have this on youtube
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9310.msg84577.html#msg84577

Which goes to show that the internet is as much a source of invaluable information and a powerful research tool as it is a convenient vector of all sorts of revisionist ideas and a tool of counter-propaganda. This is why I was very wary about the video clip from the start... Anything that tries to demonstrate how much more advanced Nazi Germany was than what is generally known is subject to caution. If this was the case here, it is done with utmost perversion, hiding within the timeframe of an otherwise consistent documentary.

 

[Jemiba]

"..that the internet is as much a source of invaluable information ... as it is a convenient vector
of all sorts of revisionist ideas and a tool of counter-propaganda."

Well-worded, but it isn't just the internet (although it is the medium with the lowest resistance against
such attempts), but sometimes TV, too. Remember the "docu" about "Hitlers Stealth Fighter" ? ;D

 

[edwest4]

The youtube video is very likely fake. The position of the camera to get this footage is not realistic or likely.


The internet is an excellent starting point, however, those who actually want to do research will have to do some work and look up actual documents and check published sources. It always hinders actual research by adopting a knee-jerk, "no, it's not possible" position if you, yourself, have done no actual research. Over the years, I have uncovered significant information about various technologies that interest me that either were claimed did not exist or never happened based purely on insistence and nothing more. I suggest the next time anyone says, No, you're wrong. Ask them to back up their statements with something that can be checked and verified. That is how research goes forward: through a friendly exchange of information, and even suggestions of a positive nature regarding where to look for more information.

Regarding Hitler's stealth fighter, Reimar Horten stated that the goal was to add material to "diffuse radar beams." Page 134 of Nurfluegel by Reimar Horten and Peter F. Selinger. ISBN 3-900310-09-2. English and German Text. Also, B.I.O.S. Final Report No. 869 "Ferromagnetic Material for Radar Absorption," B.I.O.S. Report No. 871 "Work of Professor Huttig on Ferromagnetic Substances for use in Radar Camouflage."


Ed

 

[Stargazer]

I suggest the next time anyone says, No, you're wrong. Ask them to back up their statements with something that can be checked and verified. That is how research goes forward: through a friendly exchange of information, and even suggestions of a positive nature regarding where to look for more information.

If I follow your thinking, what you're saying seems a bit risky, even dangerous. I'm under the impression you think it perfectly normal for anyone to come up with the most wacky theories, and that it's up to everybody else to prove them wrong. If so, it means you've got to automatically believe all the stories about alien abduction or the likes... unless you prove they are wrong? And how do you set about doing that? Isn't it more scientifically sound to refute anything that is not proven and to gradually add new possibilities when they can be verified?

 

[Orionblamblam]

It always hinders actual research by adopting a knee-jerk, "no, it's not possible" position if you, yourself, have done no actual research.

The burden of proof falls on those making the positive claim.

 

[Bailey]

It always hinders actual research by adopting a knee-jerk, "no, it's not possible" position if you, yourself, have done no actual research.

The burden of proof falls on those making the positive claim.

Sounds like a subject for a separate topic to me....this could run ;D

Regards Bailey.

 

[edwest4]

I suggest the next time anyone says, No, you're wrong. Ask them to back up their statements with something that can be checked and verified. That is how research goes forward: through a friendly exchange of information, and even suggestions of a positive nature regarding where to look for more information.

If I follow your thinking, what you're saying seems a bit risky, even dangerous. I'm under the impression you think it perfectly normal for anyone to come up with the most wacky theories, and that it's up to everybody else to prove them wrong. If so, it means you've got to automatically believe all the stories about alien abduction or the likes... unless you prove they are wrong? And how do you set about doing that? Isn't it more scientifically sound to refute anything that is not proven and to gradually add new possibilities when they can be verified?

I don't support wacky theories. What I am against are individuals who are positive they are right based on nothing. It is perfectly alright to say to some fantastic sounding claim: Where did you get that information? Or for the other person to quote an official and checkable source that indicates this or that did not happen. You see?

I stay away from internet forums that involve a lot of sniping without substance. I've been doing research for over 20 years and I've been asked to dig up good data that I can verify on a variety of subjects. I can never start with the principle that the information I've been asked to locate does not exist. And after doing this for over 20 years, I've only had one incident where information could not be located. And this may sound 'risky' to some, but generally, even on some fringe subjects, I've found that if there is a general trend toward people believing something, 9 out of 10 times, there is some truth to the matter or some mundane explanation, but there is usually something.

I hope this makes my approach a little clearer.



Ed

 

[Orionblamblam]

I don't support wacky theories. What I am against are individuals who are positive they are right based on nothing.

How about those who are skeptical to the point of near certainty based on years of experience?

For instance, let's say you've invented an anti-gravity machine that's based on converting rotational angular momentum into linear momentum. I've seen none of your work. I will still, nevertheless, create a race of genetically engineered cybernetic albino shouting gorillas to shout "Baldercrap!" from atop the angrydome, because that claim has been made before and has *always* turned out to be bunk. Similarly, fantastical claims about German WWII aeronautical advances, Only Now Coming To Light, *almost* invariably turn out to be rubbish.

 

[edwest4]

In doing research, I can't say to my employer, Ya know, I think there's nothing to it. I go out and look.

Yes, everything has to be taken on a case by case basis. I think the internet has helped ruin the idea of critical thought. I've left plenty of boards where people go on and on and end their proclamations with "but I could be wrong."

All I ask is a fair hearing and I promise not to just throw things out there without checkable references in the hope someone will simply believe me.



Ed

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Ed, to a degree I understand your point but if your employer wanted you to find evidence that pink unicorns exist, how would you even start?

It is risky to start with an unfounded premise that you believe in with no evidence, because your starting assumption can bias all your subsequent research. For a great example read 1421 by Gavin Menzies. His whole book rests on a single map of uncertain provenance that convinced Mr Menzies that China *must have* explored the world in 1421 in order to create this map. He then spend years twisting evidence to fit his theory. All evidence that doesn't fit his theory is discarded, as it must be wrong (because he *knows* his theory is right).

Closer to topic, try "Cold War Tech War" by Randall Whitcomb. He has started from the belief that the US deliberately tried to sabotage the Canadian aircraft industry, and twisted all the good, primary research he did to fit his pet theory.

A better approach is to do the research with an open mind and form a conclusion afterwards.

 

[edwest4]

Having dealt with many people over the years, including other researchers, I've found that 99.9% of people don't want to bother with obviously bad ideas or rumors. People don't want to hear about or waste their time with things that have zero history behind them, like pink unicorns. Over the years, I've noticed certain things that contribute to the probability of some event, device or person actually existing, either now or in the past. I hope this doesn't sound too esoteric but if a certain idea is floating around in the ether, odds are it got there for a reason.

I've heard a few remarkable (non-secret) things directly from people who should know. And most of the time there is evidence to be found that supports what they said. On those occasions where I find nothing about this or that claim, I simply put it aside. Sometimes, though, years later, I do come across information that explained, confirmed or denied the claim. Most of the time, there is some confirmation.

Once again, I promise not to bring up a subject that does not refer to something the reader can check for himself.

As difficult and obsessive and blind as some people can be regarding a "pet" theory, sometimes it leads to someone doing the actual work to finally prove it out. Or bury it for good. I guess I don't like loose ends, but going back and forth on internet forums without somebody doing a little more then relying on their memory or "some article I read somewhere" is crazy.

Let me be clear. In order to do research of any kind, the operative starting point is to assume that information does exist. Any other starting point short-circuits the process. Once the information is in your hands, then it can be evaluated. Another research point of mine: don't take the easy or quick answers as the end of your pursuit. I have to know my way around all the possible sources that might have what I'm looking for.

Oh sure. If I'm asked to find information about a working antigravity device, I'm out of luck. But, at least I'll have some back-up for that from credible sources. Not just the bombast I can get on too many forums on the internet. If I get a negative, I'll at least know why such devices do not work or are not possible as the case may be.


Ed

 

[Stargazer]

I hope this makes my approach a little clearer.

Certainly does. Thanks!

Let me be clear. In order to do research of any kind, the operative starting point is to assume that information does exist. Any other starting point short-circuits the process. Once the information is in your hands, then it can be evaluated.

See, we all agree after all! Always start researching with an open mind and avoid the bias. Easier said than done! But that's how it should be... Unfortunately, bias has always been part of science and research. Early scientists were desperate to understand the makings of the universe, but with the bias that God had done it all and the desire to prove it... This was of course inappropriate. Today's scientists are desperate to prove that there is no God and that it's all the result of chance. In both cases there is a strong bias that is incompatible with sound investigation. A serious scientist should observe, analyse, conclude about the "hows", the "whens" and the "wheres", and not delve into the "whys", "what fors" and "wherefores"... But by trying to give meaning or to prove the lack thereof (which they are in no position to do, either way), they outpass their territory. All of this to say that as a researcher one should stick to the evidence and not build upon it unless there is other evidence to clearly connect it with.

All of this being said, I also tend to believe, as you do, that "there is no smoke without a fire", and therefore I never discard a rumor or unverified information right away. I store it, mark it as unverified or dubious, but I keep it because although 90% of it may be total crap, there is a good chance that 10% of it results from actual fact. Unfortunately, if this theory pretty much works for older information, our internet-shaped world is so full of crap that there are just too many possibilities for lies and manipulation. A few months ago I created an imaginary car for fun, and less than two weeks later, about five dozen websites and forums around the world presented it as fact, even adding details as to the engine used, the performance and even its presence at the Frankfurt international motor show! All of this from a single photo manipulation I'd posted for fun on a forum with no intention to fool anyone! And despite my clarifying the matter on the forum, I am sure that ten years down the line, there will still be hundreds of people thinking that this was an actual project. And yet it's not even 10% correct, it's 100% crap!!!

Paul, sorry for digressing...

 

[edwest4]

So, here we are on the Wild Wild Web. I sure hope the sheriff comes around soon and clears out the people who don't believe in law 'n order.

It's a real shame what some people do.





Ed

 

[Orionblamblam]

Today's scientists are desperate to prove that there is no God ...

Really? I've seen very few attempts at such a proof, or even interest in attempting such a thing. Most science - and scientists - simply see the god hypothesis as irrelevant.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I sure hope the sheriff comes around soon and clears out the people who don't believe in law 'n order.

I imagine those who "don't believe in law 'n order" will be welcome to stay. Those who *act* on that belief, by posting incessant gibberish about Nazi flying saucers, alien technologies from Area 51, versions of the B-36 capable of attaining orbit (yes, I've actually seen someone maintain that very delusion), and so on, might be asked to at least tone it down a tad.

Anyway, back to the topic. When I was at ISU, I tried to ransack the Lippisch files for all the goodies I could copy. This meant hovering over the photocopier with reports and drawings and such... but I only once bothered to watch any of the films. As previously mentioned, I had no cost effective way to copy them (loooong before digital videocameras), and the very process of watching them was not only difficult, but nightmarish. It may be neato to watch a 60-year old film, the only copy in the entire universe... but when you realize that if you simply look at the film wrong it could turn to powere or even detonate, your interest wanes. Still, I watched a few, including one or two on the P.13. I have *vague* recollections of someone tossing a stick-and-paper glider off a hillside. It *might* be this very video, but the datafiles are too old and corrupted to be sure. Nevertheless, such a glider as shown in this video *was* built and tossed off a hillside.

Someone wants to doubt my word, hey, that's not inadvisable. It's merely unsupported hearsay, sadly.

 

[edwest4]

I've read way too much that shows that scientists have got life occurring spontaneously (you just need a planet, some time and the building blocks of life). Later, I thought about it a bit, and thought, Wait a minute. They disproved the spontaneous generation of life a while ago. Too many guys like Richard Dawkins running around using their science to explain away all God(s)/gods.






Ed

 

[edwest4]

I sure hope the sheriff comes around soon and clears out the people who don't believe in law 'n order.

I imagine those who "don't believe in law 'n order" will be welcome to stay. Those who *act* on that belief, by posting incessant gibberish about Nazi flying saucers, alien technologies from Area 51, versions of the B-36 capable of attaining orbit (yes, I've actually seen someone maintain that very delusion), and so on, might be asked to at least tone it down a tad.

Anyway, back to the topic. When I was at ISU, I tried to ransack the Lippisch files for all the goodies I could copy. This meant hovering over the photocopier with reports and drawings and such... but I only once bothered to watch any of the films. As previously mentioned, I had no cost effective way to copy them (loooong before digital videocameras), and the very process of watching them was not only difficult, but nightmarish. It may be neato to watch a 60-year old film, the only copy in the entire universe... but when you realize that if you simply look at the film wrong it could turn to powere or even detonate, your interest wanes. Still, I watched a few, including one or two on the P.13. I have *vague* recollections of someone tossing a stick-and-paper glider off a hillside. It *might* be this very video, but the datafiles are too old and corrupted to be sure. Nevertheless, such a glider as shown in this video *was* built and tossed off a hillside.

Someone wants to doubt my word, hey, that's not inadvisable. It's merely unsupported hearsay, sadly.

Works for me.




Ed

 

[Orionblamblam]

I've read way too much that shows that scientists have got life occurring spontaneously (you just need a planet, some time and the building blocks of life).

You've been reading the wrong stuff. What you've described is the Hollywod version of biogenesis. The distinction between "non-life" and "life" is ill-defined and seriously off-topic.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Here you have my two cents in favor of dreams.
Every myth and legend has a base of truth. During 2400 years the readers of the Odyssey believed that Cyclops were an invention. But XX century archeologists discovered rests of a dwarf fossil elephant in Sicily with a skull similar to a giant head and which nasal duct looked like a frontal eye. It is the origin of the Mediterranean legend.

The Chinese imperial dragon is easier…..dinosaur fossils sold in chemistries against impotence. The Indian rhinoceros discovered by the Alexander army was the origin of the medieval legend of the unicorn. Although extinct 100,000 years ago, the Elasmotherium would be a more convincing reference
http://www.northstarfigures.com/prod.php?prod=494
http://www.lonympics.co.uk/unic.htm
http://www.chinese-unicorn.com/qilin/book/contents/13-the-real-unicorn-elasmotherium/

At the time of the sunset in the African savannah light makes some animals look pink, rhinoceros included. Do you remember the PRU Spitfire painted in that color? http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5249.30.html


-"Would the Nazis have had the atomic bomb or the electromagnetic levitation, they would have won the war."
-"Would the Americans have had the atomic bomb, they would have won the Korean and Vietnamese War and would have annihilated the Talibans."
-"Would the IDF have had the atomic bomb, Lebanon would not exist anymore."

We already know that things are not so simple. Neither one way nor the other.

As for the spontaneous creation of life…… just a crystal and a bit of energy, with the kind collaboration of an interstellar cloud. Not necessary to rent a whole planet for that.

Nobody is free from skepticism though. I would not believe the existence of the Natter would I have not seen its pictures.
Or that such a simple weapon like the unguided rocket R4M Orkan could be more efficient than all the missiles and cannons in the Reich.

Weapons with curved barrel, cement projectiles, missiles with concrete wings, wooden supersonic airplanes………hard to believe, but true.