This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 08:53:46 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-11-12 01:00:30 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:33:16 -0600, John Turco
wrote:

--- snip ---

P-40 happened to quailfy.

Dutch Kindelberger said NA could build a better fighter for them than
that with the same (Allison) engine, and the agreement led to the P-51,
often called the best fighter of that war.

The Republic P-47 "Thunderbolt" is more deserving of that title. It
caused Germany's "Wehrmacht" untold misery, both as a fighter and as
a fighter-bomber.

But at a cost; a considerable cost.

However, what made the P-51 great was a different engine, the Rolls-Royce
Merlin. Most opinion is that it was not outstanding with the original
Allison -- and P-40s continued to use the Allison. Had P-40s been given
the same engine their reputation would probably be better than it is.
Nevertheless, the P-40 continued to be developed and fought successfully
in different theaters.

The Allison engines lacked turbochargers, so it's unfair to compare them
with Merlins.

Why? The Merlin lacked turbochargers also. But they did have highly
efficient superchargers.


--- snip ---

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Actually the Allisons provided in the P-40 went through some changes as
did some of the naming of the aircraft as it went through the
Tomahawk/Kittyhawk/Warhawk variants. The basic Allison they were fitted
with was the Allison V-1710. It had a gear driven single-stage
supercharger which under went several changes through the war by the
incorporation of a two-stage supercharger which had none of the
intercooler, aftercooler, or backfire screen features found on the
Merlin engine.

You should try and get hold of 'Not Much of and Engineer' by Sir
Stanley Hooker
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Much-Engin...1131612&sr=1-1
Its also available in a Kindle edition.

The same variants of the V-1710 were used in the P-39 and P-51A.
The US P-38 also used the V-1710 which was fitted with the turbo-supercharger.
The legend was the turbo-supercharger was top secret, so the British
Lend-Lease "Lightning" MkI & MkII, and the "Mustang" MkI were delivered
without superchargers. The fact of the matter was the Air Ministry and
the RAF in their misguided thinking actually ordered those aircraft to
be fitted with the same V-1710 as used in the P-40 "Tomahawk II" for
economy of maintenance.

This proved to be in the case of the "Lightning MkI & MkII", a stupid
error, as they lost both the Turbo-supercharger which provided the high
altitude performance lacking with the P-40, and the counter rotating
props which created handling issues.

For the "Mustang MkI & MkII" the fortuitous test with a Merlin led to
the P-51D and Packard production of many variants of the Merlin, since
British production could not keep up with demand. So many of the later
run Lancasters, Mosquitos, Spitfires, and Hurricanes were powered with
Packard-Merlins.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

John Turco wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of
Nations, that led to WWII.

snort

That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing?


Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World
War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country
hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI?



WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the Treaty
of Versailles.

WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A majority
of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he moved into
Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as Hitler.

--
Peter

On 2011-11-12 18:31:07 -0800, PeterN said:

On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

John Turco wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of
Nations, that led to WWII.

snort

That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing?


Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World
War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country
hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI?



WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the Treaty
of Versailles.

Are you in some time-warp. WWI was 1914-1918 Versailles was signed in 1919.

WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A majority
of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he moved
into Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as Hitler.

Chamberlain, was actually worse than the simplified history tells the story.
His appeasement policy started with Mussolini and the invasion of
Ethiopia. He went against the advice of Anthony Eden, and effectively
recognized the fascist occupation of Ethiopia. He also compounded the
Italian & German involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Mussolini out
maneuvered him in that arena. When it came to confronting Hitler at
Munich, Chamberlain undermined French Prime Minister, Edouard Daladier
who was in the process of organizing a Three Power summit to settle the
Sudeten question. Chamberlain made his agreement with Hitler,
deliberately avoiding consulting the French.

The French failure to deal with Germany militarily had nothing to do
with their political will, but fell on their planners and military
leaders. Only De Gaulle voiced opposition to the French defense
philosophy but at that time he was small fry, a colonel at the French
military academy.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 11/13/2011 12:07 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-12 18:31:07 -0800, PeterN said:

On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

John Turco wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of
Nations, that led to WWII.

snort

That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing?


Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World
War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country
hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI?



WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the
Treaty of Versailles.

Are you in some time-warp. WWI was 1914-1918 Versailles was signed in 1919.

Typo alert


WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A
majority of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he
moved into Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as
Hitler.

Chamberlain, was actually worse than the simplified history tells the
story.
His appeasement policy started with Mussolini and the invasion of
Ethiopia. He went against the advice of Anthony Eden, and effectively
recognized the fascist occupation of Ethiopia. He also compounded the
Italian & German involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Mussolini out
maneuvered him in that arena. When it came to confronting Hitler at
Munich, Chamberlain undermined French Prime Minister, Edouard Daladier
who was in the process of organizing a Three Power summit to settle the
Sudeten question. Chamberlain made his agreement with Hitler,
deliberately avoiding consulting the French.

The French failure to deal with Germany militarily had nothing to do
with their political will, but fell on their planners and military
leaders. Only De Gaulle voiced opposition to the French defense
philosophy but at that time he was small fry, a colonel at the French
military academy.


IIRC DeGaulle was ridiculed for his position. I don't recall if he was
actually disciplined.

--
Peter

John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

John Turco wrote:


There are still more Americans of at least part German descent than
of any other nationality, I understand. That is probably changing
even as we speak, but as of tonight I think it's still the case.

Right; to my knowledge, these are the top three:

Germans (60 million)

Irish (40 million)

English (35 million)

Thanks, I had no idea what the numbers were.


How's that for a switch, Neil? (Besides, it means you, yourself,
could be an undocumented pretzler.)

No, I know the village in Cork my paternal grandfather came from. And
in that village, people can still be found who will reply when
queried about him, "Oh, Harrington who went to America!" Of course,
they may just be saying that in hopes of an invite to the local pub.

My paternal grandmother, on the other hand, was a nice Bavarian girl
from Munich. But not undocumented.

So, my suspicion was one-quarter correct?

Better than that, actually, one-half correct if the previous generation is
included. My grandparents on my mother's side were both U.S.-born but
*their* parents were again Irish and German, in the same combination.

In any event, beer must've
flowed freely in that housewhold, during both Saint Patrick's Day and
Oktoberfest!

Actually we never paid any particular attention to either the saint's day or
the fest. Strong drink flowed at pretty much the same adequate rate the year
round.


Coincidentally, I had an in-law aunt from Germany, who died in 2008.

My condolences.

John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

edited for brevity

The Wright brothers vs. Chanute, Lilienthal and others for the
airplane.

The Wrights actually invented nothing except wing warping for
lateral control linked to the rudder for preventing adverse yaw.
Every other part oftheir airplane had been invented and in use
long before them -- and their rudder linking design was
essentially worthless and ignored by aircraft builders.
Nevertheless they received patents which, they believed, entitled
them to licensing fees extracted from anyone who built an
airplane, anywhere.

You're wrong about the Wrights (pun intended). They were superb
engineers, whose humble origins as bicycle mechanics belied their
genuine greatness.

Foo. What marvelous feats of engineering did the Wright brothers
perform? What did they do for aviation *at all* after 1912? Aviation
advanced rapidly while the Wrights did practically nothing but stew
in their
envy and resentment of Curtiss.

They boldly went, where no man had gone before (sorry, Trekkies).

Their special target was Glenn Curtiss, who built airplanes and
simply ignored their claims for licensing fees -- and after
Curtiss, soon every other aircraft builder did the same. The
Wrights sued Curtiss in 1912, and then over and over, and I think
they actually won most of their lawsuits; but by appeals and/or
other devices Curtiss kept building airplanes and refused to
acknowledge the Wrights' claims. Curtiss flying boats were the
first to cross the Atlantic (or one of them did, in stages, and
with considerable difficulty) in 1913. During WWI he made a
fortune building the now-famous Curtiss "Jenny".trainer, both in
the U.S.and in Canada, for the military. After the war his company
continued to make successful fighters and other military aircraft
for the U.S. and various other nations, and some commercial
aircraft as well.

Glenn Curtiss was a thief, plain and simple. It was bad enough that
Europeans didn't honor U.S. patents, yet...he ripped off his own
countrymen, the Wright Brothers.

That was the Wright brothers' baseless complaint, yes. What exactly
did Curtiss steal from them? Their airframe design? The Wrights got
that from Chanute, for the most part. The internal combustion
engine? No, that already existed. The propeller? No, Maxim had used
propellers on his steam-powered attempt at an airplane (of sorts) I
think back in the 1880s. Steamships of course were already using
them, similar in principle if not appearance. Did they invent the
airfoil? Of course not; they got that from Chanute and the
Lilienthal brothers et al., along with a great deal of other
information about designing flying machines.

The Wright Brothers brought it all together, into a satisfactory
package (i.e., their "Wright Flyer").

What else? Their weight-driven launching catapult? That wasn't a very
practical idea and was short-lived.

Crank-started cars were less than ideal, as well. Big deal.

All they had to patent as far as I'm aware was their system of wing
warping for lateral control, coupled with the rudder to prevent
adverse yaw. I don't think Curtiss *ever* used wing warping -- he
used ailerons for lateral control. What do we use now, wing warping?
No, we use ailerons and have been doing so ever since Curtiss. Wing
warping went out completely about two years into WWI.

So what did Curtiss "rip off" from the Wright brothers?

Whatever they said he did.

guffaw!

That's all it takes, huh?


So Curtiss kept building airplanes, and the Wright brothers (or
anyway the surviving one) kept suing him. Curtiss finally made some
undisclosed settlement with Wright in 1940, by which time he was no
longer building airplanes anyway and had no further interest in
aviation. Curtiss P-40 fighters flew for various Allied nations in
WWII, and Curtiss P-36s flew for the Vichy French.

In other words, he produced junkers.

I don't know that *he* was producing anything in that line by 1940 -- his
company went on developing Curtiss Hawk fighters, as they had through the
'20s and '30s. I believe most of our Army Air Corps and Naval Aviation
fighters through those decades were Curtisses, and popular fighters they
were. They sold well in various parts of the world. Glenn Curtiss himself
had drifted out of aviation by the end of the '30s, I think.

Again, what did the Wright brothers (or the remaining one) do over all those
years from WWI onward that was of any importance to aviation?

Nothing, right? Nothing. Was there ever a Wright wartime trainer, or
fighter, or dive bomber, or flying boat, or transport? Curtiss produced all
of those.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:02:04 -0600, John Turco
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:33:04 -0600, John Turco
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:07:23 -0500, John Turco
wrote:

France was then the most powerful country in continental Europe,
and should've been able to stand up to Germany, single-handedly.
Sadly, it proved to be a paper tiger, and the myth of the
supposedly invincible panzer hordes began.

Its not a myth. One of Guderian's problems was that the 'panzer
hordes' did in fact advance so rapidly that the German conventional
units were left far behind. No one, French, Belgian, British or
German, were prepared for what Guderian could do once his Panzer
units were unleashed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens


An influential U.S. newspaper (the "New York Times") created
the mythical "blitkrieg" concept. Alas, research has failed
to uncover any evidence that the Germans practiced such a
military doctrine.

Germany's hordes promptly plowed through lightweights (such
as Poland and the Netherlands), to nobody's amazement. When
the same thing happened to big, bad France, it was simply
assumed that a revolutionary new way of "lightning warfare"
had been invented.

No, it wasn't that the Germans were unstoppable. They faced
either minor powers (e.g., Poland) or incompetent major ones
(France).

With respect, your claims are a load of cobblers. :-)

Poland was an obvious pushover, whereas France had the muscle
to give Germany a tussle (my, how poetic of me!).

Do you dispute either of those points?

Thanks to Guderian, in 1940-41 the Germans had a style of
warfare which completely overwhelmed even the most determined
opposition.

You're not paying attention, my fine, feathered kiwi! The
Germans hadn't faced any "determined opposition" by the
Poles, Dutch, Norwegians and French.

What? The same French who you have just said 'had the muscle'?


Even the Russians fled in disarray, until they realized
the gravity of their situation.

Indeed, the French army was better equiped than Germany's,
and far more mechanized. When coupled with the formidable
Maginot Line, they had every means to bloody the Germans'
noses, at the very least. [Did they presume the latter
were just stupid (or too "honorable") to invade neutral
Belgium?]

Shockingly, the French quickly collapsed and then, Herr
Schicklegrubber became bold enough to attack the Soviet
Union. The Russians' early lack of preparedness further
contributed to many German victories, and the blitkrieg
legend grew out of control...it survives to this day,
largely unchallenged.

Quite true, but it is a mistake to interpret this as
signifying the Germans had nothing special.

They must've been practically orgasmic, after their first
encounter with the U.S. Army. In 1943 (February 19–25),
at Kassarine Pass, Tunisia, the Germans prevailed...and
decisively.

Alas, the American troops were inexperienced and under
British command. Eventually, they would evolve their
own able leaders (e.g., the armor magician, General
George S. Patton) and regularly clobber the Germans.

Late in WWII, the Army often encircled and captured
vast numbers of German soldiers. Far more importantly,
Kassarine Pass was the only main battle that Germany
won against the U.S.A., during the entire war!

If "blitkrieg" ever existed as a genuine military
doctrone, Patton deserves credit for it. The speed
of his fabled "Third Army" overwhelmed the staunch
German defenses in France, and the rest is history.

Germany's superb officer corp was the real key to its
success. Equivalent leadership was sorely absent among
the other European combatants' armed forces (Britain
included).

In the end, the crucial Battle of France was won by men,
not machines. Fans of the blitkrieg theory conveniently
overlook this fact, and prefer to dwell in their fantasy
world(s).

Fact? It sounds more like an unsupported opinion.

Much corroboration exists; I'm not spinning stories, here.

You should read 'Panzer Leader' by General Heinz Guderian.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

I've read Patton's "War As I Knew It" (originally published
in 1947, some two years after his tragic 1945 death). That
was way back in 1984 or '85, and I don't remember much of
it; nor am I willing to unearth my paperback edition of the
book.

My vivid memory of its painted cover is a different matter.
It features a striking and colorful scene of Patton, about
to draw his sidearm.

He's readying to shoot a stubborn burro, blocking a narrow
mountain pass in Sicily. The unfortunate animal's carcass
went over the cliff, enabling Patton's tanks to proceed.

[Tastefully depicted in "Patton" (1970), with George
C. Scott in the title role. That Hollywood movie was
based on Ladislas Farago's "Patton: Ordeal and Triumph"
(a 1964 biography), also lying around here, somewhere.]

In any event, both Guderian's and Patton's words should
be viewd with caution. Their respective perspectives
were at the tactical level and hence, too narrow to be
of value in understanding the broader strategic issues
of WWII.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/20/2011 9:02 PM, John Turco wrote:
PeterN wrote:

On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

John Turco wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of
Nations, that led to WWII.

snort

That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing?


Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World
War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country
hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI?


WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the Treaty
of Versailles.


Such "harsh terms" have been common, throughout human history. Germany's
Herr Schicklegrubber merely used Versailles as a pretext, to start WWII.

He did not use it as a Pretext. He stated the obvious, and promised
relief from its harsh terms. Just because harsh terms were historically
common, doesn't make them not short sighted and stupid.
Think our civil war. Had we hung Lee we might easily still be fighting.




If the more objective U.S. leaders had stepped in, to help negotiate a
fairer treaty, the war may likely have never begun, in the first place.
They were unconcerned with the bitterness of European squables; thus,
Germany probably would've been spared undue punishment and humiliation.



True.

WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A majority
of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he moved into
Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as Hitler.

That's exactly why theU.S. needed to become involved! Leaving matters
to sniveling weaklings (e.g., Britain's Neville Chamberlain) was sheer
shortsightedness on the Americans' part, and had tragic consequences.



--
Peter

John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

So what did Curtiss "rip off" from the Wright brothers?

Whatever they said he did.

guffaw!

That's all it takes, huh?

No, but, it's a good start.

So Curtiss kept building airplanes, and the Wright brothers (or
anyway the surviving one) kept suing him. Curtiss finally made
some undisclosed settlement with Wright in 1940, by which time
he was no longer building airplanes anyway and had no further
interest in aviation. Curtiss P-40 fighters flew for various
Allied nations in WWII, and Curtiss P-36s flew for the Vichy
French.

In other words, he produced junkers.

I don't know that *he* was producing anything in that line by 1940
-- his company went on developing Curtiss Hawk fighters, as they had
through the '20s and '30s. I believe most of our Army Air Corps and
Naval Aviation fighters through those decades were Curtisses, and
popular fighters they were. They sold well in various parts of the
world. Glenn Curtiss himself had drifted out of aviation by the end
of the '30s, I think.

If he was so great, why did he quit the aereonatical racket?

Made his fortune in it and decided to move on, I presume. He had gone from
motorcycles to airplanes in the first place, you know. He had set the
unofficial word speed record for motorcycles in 1903 on a machine of his own
design, and again in 1907 (when his speed of 136 mph stood as a record for
over 20 years). The Wrights never designed an airplane that went anywhere
near that fast.

My
notion is that it was too tough for him, if he couldn't keep stealing
ideas from more talented engineers (such as the Wrights).

Again, what did the Wright brothers (or the remaining one) do over
all those years from WWI onward that was of any importance to
aviation?

Nothing, right? Nothing. Was there ever a Wright wartime trainer, or
fighter, or dive bomber, or flying boat, or transport? Curtiss
produced all of those.

Their company built aircraft engines and propellers, which were

I'm sorry, "their company"? "THEIR company"?! I presume you mean the
Curtiss-Wright Corporation. Notice whose name got top billing.

crltical to the Allied victory in WWII. By then, Curtiss (the man)
had already slunk into obscurity!

Curtiss-Wright made engines and propellers in WW II all right but they were
clearly secondary to Pratt & Whitney engines and Hamilton Standard props
(related companies). The "Wright" engines of that time had nothing to do
with the surviving Wright brother anyway, who probably couldn't even have
explained how a twin-row radial engine worked.

John Turco wrote:
PeterN wrote:

On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

John Turco wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League
of Nations, that led to WWII.

snort

That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing?


Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing
World War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the
country hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI?


WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the
Treaty of Versailles.


Such "harsh terms" have been common, throughout human history.

I don't think so. No such harsh terms ended the previous major European war
(1870-71) or the Napoleonic wars. The Treaty of Versailles seems exceptional
in its vindictiveness.

One can understand the French being particularly ****ed about the whole
thing, since almost the entirety of the land war in the European theater was
fought on French soil, and the destruction of real property there was
enormous. Other than a few air raids (relatively trivial in effect in those
days) and of course the effects of blockade, the war was never carried to
Germany.

There had not been any war like it before, and for sheer bitterness it
probably rivaled our so-called Civil War. (There has never actually been a
civil war in the U.S.)

Germany's Herr Schicklegrubber merely used Versailles as a pretext,
to start WWII.

(a) Germany had a legitimate grievance, to say the least, and

(b) Hitler did not start WW II.


If the more objective U.S. leaders had stepped in, to help negotiate a
fairer treaty, the war may likely have never begun, in the first
place. They were unconcerned with the bitterness of European
squables; thus, Germany probably would've been spared undue
punishment and humiliation.

WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A
majority of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if
he moved into Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII
as Hitler.

That's exactly why the U.S. needed to become involved! Leaving
matters to sniveling weaklings (e.g., Britain's Neville Chamberlain)
was sheer shortsightedness on the Americans' part, and had tragic
consequences.

The U.S. did not "need to become involved" in either European war, 1914-18
or 1939-45. The first was entirely brought on by European treaties,
alliances, rivalries and commercial issues. None of that was any of our
business and we literally had no dog in that fight. Wilson had promised
during his 1916 reelection campaign to keep us out of it, and should have
kept his word.

Roosevelt did the same thing in 1940, of course: repeatedly promised
American mothers that "your boys will not be sent to fight in a foreign war"
while in fact he was scheming to do exactly that.

So we defeated Germany (not originally our enemy) and thus made eastern
Europe communist -- the communists WERE our enemy, remained a threat to us
for the next half a century and where they exist today still are a threat to
us.

And we defeated Japan, which had never been our enemy either (was our ally
in fact in WW I, and during the Boxer Rebellion) -- and thus made most of
Asia communist as well.

So apart from helping to make half the world communist, what exactly did our
"becoming involved" in what turned into another world war do for us? We lost
400,000 men and boys in the second war, fighting on the side of the
communists -- and then lost close to 60,000 more in the Korean War, fighting
communists, and about that many again in Vietnam, again fighting communists.
Would all those communist armies even have been there if we hadn't made all
of east and southeast Asia safe for them by crushing Japan?