Re: Message for Scott Lowther
- From: Scott Lowther <scottlowther@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 06:48:49 GMT
Rob Arndt wrote:
In the 3-ways I have of the Zerstorer Ausfuhung I & 2 the size is the
same for the radial-flow jet. Unless you can prove otherwise you are
ASSUMING it is a ramjet or rocket engine.
The "Der Flieger" article describes it as such.
Span: 11.8 mWrong. Given the scale bar that came with the original drawing, the span
was more like 18 meters. This is not a trivial difference.
That figure is the initial design data only...
Please present wartime information to back that up. Until I see further documentation, the trail starts with the Der Flieger transport, and *then* becomes the zerstorer,
Because there has been no documentary trail for the zerstorer. Lots of "luft 46 projects" are like that, like the supposed Lippisch glider/bomber. Like the Messerschmitt "Libelle," "Schwalbe," "Wespe," and "Zerstorer P.II," this came from a single article that has been roundly denounced as bunk.
The scale in your 3-way is indeed bigger, yet in details I would say
80% of the a/c matches the Me Zerstorer projects. It looks like
someone mixed the Zerstorer with another wing plan and lengthened it.
But then again, how do either of us know that it is not another
variant of the Zerstorer?
The thing with Luft 46 stuff is that the field has been picked clean. If you want to sell a Luft 46 book, you have to have new stuff. Sometimes it's just easier to make shit up. Witness Henshall's "radiological V-2" from "Vengeance: Hitlers Nuclear Weapon Fact of Fiction." That was just embarassing, given the ease with which it was debunked and explained as a far more mundane thing.
With that somewhat unique T-tail and no
match with Focke-Wulf... there is no other real solution.
There is a far more likely solution: misidentification and distortion.
The reference from 76 does *not* have the "Zerstorer" in it (rather, a different "zerstorer" that is even more dubious). The 98 and 02 references do not include bibliographic references, thus they cannot be verified.This is, IMO, yet another example of someone taking an obscure drawing
and just making up a story to go with it, either through laziness or malice.
That is hardly reasonable given that three different reputable refs
from 76, 98, and 02 are consistent.
You have no idea how tempted I was to just make somethign up for the last issue of APR (was thinking somethign alogn the lines of a manned second stage for the Antipodal bomber), just to see how quickly it took hold. I suspect that had I created soemthign even half-assed plausible, people would believe it.
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken