Jump to content

Talk:List of military aircraft of Germany by manufacturer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why just from 1935-1945?

[edit]

Why just from 1935-1945? The modern German air force is called the Luftwaffe, as I imagine are the air forces of other German-speaking countries such as Austria and Switzerland. -- Cabalamat 01:36, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But Austria and Switzerland are not germany... --213.68.63.68 10:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Misunderstood you. (And was not logged in.) Sorry. --Blah(de) 18:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject Aircraft

[edit]

On Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft I have started a proposal for how lists of aircraft could be rationalised on wikipedia. If you're interested, let's discuss it there -- Cabalamat 03:23, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

With the seperation of the RLM bases list, and the manufactures list, keeping new plane listings accuate ( i.e. added in one spot but not the other) can be problem. If anyone has any ideas on how to link the list so when a new plane is added it shows up in the other list that would be good. I suppose its not overly important since there's a finite number of planes and most are already listed. I hope to have at least stubs in for all the planes. That and the list now seems to cover all planes of the german airforce even before 1935. In the end i would like to have a small search window at the top where user could select fields from drop -down lists to see for example all planes of certain make or type. That they could quicky find certain planes without having to read through a long list. More practically (i.e not using the aformentioned idea), when the page is done (all aircraft listed) it might be worth having ther orginizations including one done according to aircraft type ( bomber, fighter, etc) and one listing production numbers of completion ( i.e. proposed aircraft/prototype/limted production/high prodoction). I wouldn want to do this now though, since every new plane would need require being placed several times. Greyengine5 17:24, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


UFO

[edit]

Why is the UFO-crap on this page? Is that some insider joke?

'Fraid not; too many people believe in the 'Nazi UFO' mythos. The spread of this nonsense has really taken off, since 1993.

From this list, my personal favourite is the so-called 'Lichtscheiben', a.k.a 'Gluhscheiben'. If you enter either of those terms in a search engine, like Google, the only results you'll get are this Wikipedia page and its copies on other websites, and online German lighting catalogues. It turns out that these little gems are actually lighting fixtures; in English, they'd be called 'oyster lights'.

With that much UFOs in the article is there any chance to clean up all or would it be better to delete the whole page? I am not an expert of WW2 aircrafts so there are a lot of crafts I am just not sure. I did not even delete the obvious ones so everybode can see that part of the information is wrong. Maybe it is better to have no article at all instead of one with disinformation?

A list of verifiable WWII German aeroplanes is a useful thing, so I'm not in favour of removing the article altogether.

Still, about 50 of the aircraft in this list fall into the category of 'Nazi UFO' and, so near as my researches have been able to determine, are entirely fictitious. All of those listed under BMW, for example, should go. I've taken the liberty of flagging the ones that weren't previously identified as "disputed".

My concern is that the people who put them there, in the first place, will simply replace them, in time. They don't seem to like contradiction, no matter how well evidenced those contradictions might be.

Still, the obvious nonsense can't simply be left as it is. Would it be possible -- and desirable -- to separate the two lists, with the spurious entries identified as "Disputed aircraft", or some such?

The problem is that the majority of people that dispute German disc development is that THEY have never heard of these largely classified devices nor the battles in which they were encountered. For example, the US 415th NFS encountered German disc weapons launched from BELOW their aircraft over German-held territory which interfered with the aircraft's prop engines. OFFICIAL (key word) photographs and "Foo Fighter" documentation of these German weapons exist and are available to the public despite the USAAF never explaining what that weapon was. Second, other OFFICIAL US Army and AAF Technical Intelligence Reports from 1945 list similar strange flight craft encountered over the Reich in the last year of the war. Jim Wilson of Popular Mechanics magazine researched this material for an article and through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) documents discovered that the modern USAF ADMITTED by 1995 that the Germans possessed flight discs but only conceded that they were "inherently unstable". No proper identification of those discs nor photos were disclosed. In fact, further classified German discs are not to be declassified until 2020 and the Kahla Complex where they were to be manufactured until 2045. There is also the problem of known German varied disc and circular aircraft programs that can be properly identified which include Focke's Fw Rochen patent, Sack's AS-6V-1, Epps Omega Diskus test models, Schaubergers Repulsin discoid motors, and Schwenteit Elektrische Luft Turbine und Raumschiff patent postwar that is credited as a Schriever/Miethe disc design from WW2 (the mystery V-7). All this evidence is readily available and in print as well. You might consider the German evidence as well from Luftwaffe Sonderburo 13 which was tasked with covering up civilian and military sightings of strange craft over the Reich. On September 29, 1944 a Me-262 pilot on a test run spotted the Andromeda Gerat cylindrical raumschiff traveling at 1,200 mph. His report to Sonderburo 13 is OFFICIAL and on file (although the jet pilot had no idea what the unmarked 348 foot long object was). Sonderburo 13 covered it up as an unknown Allied craft. Finally, there is the postwar evidence of a race to build these type craft as evidenced by AVRO Canada's disc designs (16 of them) and US disc designs now being declassified by Lockheed, Northrop, and NASA. The publically-displayed Avrocar VZ-9 was a ploy as that craft is not a true flight disc but a GETOL (Ground Egffect Take Off and Landing) hovering Jeep that was supposed to be armed with a rear deck bazooka or recoilless gun. It was deliberately meant to fail and to be photographed parked outside on purpose to deceive the Soviets. Several of the German engineers also hold postwar disc patents in both Germany and the US. WHY? If there were no discs how could several DIFFERENT engineers, non-related, apply for disc patents postwar as soon as it was permissible by the Allies? And WHY does Operation Bluebook (an official US document) mention that the only craft close to matching UFO descriptions of that time period are certain developments in the Third Reich at the close of WW2? Certainly, one can differentiate the performance of a Me-262 from a UFO that can stop in mid-air after a Mach 10 sprint at odd angles that would kill a human being. The USAF knew what was classified back then and two reporters from the USAF had their film footage confiscated in the 1960s at MacDill AB when they accidently gained access to the base scrapyard. They found 4 German discs in storage there. Their eyewitness testimony and account is entirely valid- so much in fact that MacDill had to re-transfer the discs back to storage at Wright Patterson. Most people who know about such craft believe the German discs are still held there. The fact that a majority of people are ignorant of such developments does not make them myths. You may want to consider that Area 51 was always a black aircraft program (SAP= Special Aircraft Project)base that hosted the U-2, SR-71, stealth demonstrators, F-117, B-2, etc... and that maybe the holding bays in S-4 NEVER housed any alien reverse-engineered craft but only German captured EMG discs built by the SS Technical Branch Unit E-IV. That is why they do not show up with the other manufacturers because they were SS property (of Thule and Vril Gesellschaft origin)not under RLM control at all. Reich Armaments Minister Albert Speer himself in his book "Infiltration" describes his being blocked by Himmler and the SS organisation from investigating SS seperate military manufacturing facilities, materials accumulated, and projects- including the persistant rumors of the "Flying Tops" and reported of SS requirements made to him for more slave labor needed for such secret projects late war. Finally, as a writer that has compiled information on such craft let me share the history of the BMW Flugelrad series for you since you are willfully ignorant on the subject and seek to remove something you know NOTHING about:

BMW FLUGELRAD SERIES I-III (1943-1945)


The original propulsion units slated for the Schriever Flugkreisel were to be five BMW 003 jet engines with three units arranged on the disc rotor and two units on each side of the disc underbody. However, as BMW learned of Schriever’s original design the company started internal development of its own smaller-scale versions of the new “disc-fan” technology. Work began in 1943 with the BMW Flugelrad I V-1 (Versuchs or prototype 1) which was painted matte aluminum and performed its first flight tests at the Czech aerodrome at Prag-Kbley between August and September of that year. It left the hangar by its own means after which the rotor began to spin under the power of the Strahlrohr (Jet Pipe) deflector. Lifting to 1 meter and flying for 300 meters before making a hard landing. During static testing the prototype was surrounded by concrete blocks to prevent the test pilot in the unfortunate event of a disc blade breaking. In general appearance the Flugelrad lay-out was of a central body housing a single pilot covered by a hemispheric dome surrounded by a disc blade rotor of 6 meters with a lower body housing a BMW 003 jet engine, fuel tanks, a Strahlrohr deflector and fixed landing gear of four legs fitted with wheels but no brakes nor shock absorbers. Flight was achieved by jet exhaust deflection into the 16 variable-pitch disc blades with hydo-pneumatic actuators. The first design was very crude so work proceeded on the second prototype designated BMW Flugelrad I V-2 in 1944. This time, the cockpit was enlarged to house two pilots and serve as a support for the addition of an aerodynamic rudder for better control. The fixed landing gear was replaced with a more practical semi-retractable one. Rotor diameter increased to 8 meters but kept the 16 disc blades. This machine was painted yellow and performed its first flight tests in late autumn 1944 at the Neubiberg Aerodrome near BMW’s Munich facility. Severe stability problems plagued the machine and the rudder proved useless. Not to be deterred, BMW built another prototype designated BMW Flugelrad II V-1 in 1945 which kept the same body but discarded the failed rudder. The disc rotor was enlarged to 12.6 meters. The first test flight was again performed at Prag-Kbley in February 1945 with another jump at low altitude but without the ability to actually fly. Meanwhile in 1945, another BMW Flugelrad prototype was under construction and may have possibly flown during April 1945. This was the BMW Flugelrad II V-2 which was powered by two BMW 003 jet engines located in the lower body side-by-side. The cockpit was enlarged for a crew of four and rotor diameter increased to 14.4 meters with 24 disc blades. A further BMW Flugelrad II V-3 was in the model phase and differed from the V-2 version in having 21 disc blades. The final model, the BMW Flugelrad III was in the design phase and would have been the anticipated production model- a huge stratospheric reconnaissance aircraft powered by two BMW 018 jet engines each with twin Strahlrohrs, one engine mounted over the other in an upper and lower body. The upper and lower body would accommodate 6 crew, an enlarged 24 meter rotor with 32 disc blades, fully retractable tall gear, and room for an impressive array of cameras including infrared types. Nevertheless, all work ceased on the Flugelrad development programs in the Russian advance. All prototypes and documentation was ordered destroyed by the SS. As Schriever’s own failed Flugkreisel was also testing at the Prag-Kbley facility it too probably was destroyed. This machine was distinct from the Flugelrads by both its greater size, different configuration, and the tremendous roar of its five kerosene-burning jets that no Flugelrad possessed. Furthermore, Schriever’s Flugkreisel could actually fly while most of the Flugelrads could just barely hop or were tethered.

Rob Arndt

BTW, the first US stealth official aircraft was a Windecker Eagle covered in RAM- several years before the "Hopeless Diamond" F-117 design (based on a Soviet professor's Ufimtsev's translated book) was ever put down on paper. I bet you don't know that fact as well. So until you do please keep your mouth shut about aircraft you don't know about. 

Fine. If there are "Raumschiff patents" why don't you tell us the patent numbers? 
On http://market.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=42125 I found parts of your text,
but no sources.

Great. Now we have some alternate history comic books as new "sources". Is this a serious encyclopedia or just some joke?

Regardless of the publisher, Antarctic Press has reputable information compiled from the book sources listed on the main page. These come from Justo Miranda, Renato Vesco, Nick Cook, etc... So using your logic, if a comic technical manual has a Me-262 in it... then it didn't exist??? Stop making excuses...

What did I say about proponents of the 'Nazi UFO' mythos not liking contradiction?

A lot of people like to cite Renato Vesco as a source of 'reputable information'. This is largely based on the belief that he was supposed to have been was a licensed pilot and a fully-licensed aircraft engineer, who specialised in aerospace and ramjet developments. The same biographers frequently claimed that he attended the University of Rome and, before World War II, studied at the German Institute for Aerial Development; and that during the war he worked with the Germans at Fiat’s secret Lake Garda installations, in Italy. He is said to have become a senior member of the Italian Association of Aerotechnics in 1943 and, in 1944, to have commanded the technical section of the Italian Air Force. In 1946–47 Vesco, served in the Reparto Tecnico Caccia and during the 1960s, worked for the Italian Air Ministry of Defense as an undercover technical agent, investigating the UFO mystery.

See? I know the 'reputable sources', too.

Unfortunately, Vesco was born in 1924. World War II started in 1939. So tell me this, you armchair expert:

  • How could he have attended the University of Rome and studied at the German Institute for Aerial Development by the time he was 14 or 15 years old?
  • How likely is it that he was a senior member of the Italian Association of Aerotechnics since the ripe old age of 18 or 19?
  • How did he come to command 'the technical section of the Italian Air Force' by the time he was 19 or 20 years old?

Unless he were some kind of child prodigy — and the available evidence suggests that he was not — the simple answer is that he couldn’t have done any of these things.

Maurizio Verga — who actually met Vesco — gives a quite different accounting of Vesco's life and activities:

  • Between 1942 and 1944, he submitted a 50-page proposal for a stratospheric fast jet-fighter to the Luftwaffe in Gallarate. His tender was tacitly rebuffed.
  • In 1943 he joined the MVSN, presumably to fight the Allied invasion of his homeland. Not long after, though, Italy capitulated.
  • He promptly volunteered for the Air Force of the ‘Repubblica di Salò‘. Instead of becoming a pilot, however, he was immediately put to work in an office, as a bookkeeper. He was only allowed to fly toward the end of the war, when the situation grew sufficiently desperate.
  • After the war, he joined the new Italian Air Force. In spite of the fact that he had actually flown in combat, he was made a private. As such, he was stationed at the Galatina airfield, near Lecce in southern Italy, until July 1947.
  • Between 1956 and the early 1960s, he worked as an engine technician aboard various merchant ships.
  • He returned to Genoa in the mid-1960s, where he lived as a recluse until the day he died.

And since when is 'OFFICIAL' a synonym for 'FALSIFIED'? I've actually seen several of the 415th NFS Mission Reports from late 1944 and its War Diary from January 1945. There are a few mentions of 'balls of fire' and 'lights', but none of 'disc weapons'.

The notion that the Luftwaffe was fully aware of the foo-fighter phenomenon and that they had a special study, code-named 'Projekt Uranus' and backed by Sonderbüro 13 is equally spurious. The 'Projekt Uranus'/Sonderbüro 13 fantasy first appeared in 1970, in a book by French ufologist Henri Durrant, La Livres Noir De Soucoupes Volantes ('The black book of flying saucers'); and the rumour spread through Europe soon after.

It was eventually taken up by Tim Good, in Above Top Secret, where it is used to substantiate other rumours about an Anglo–American foo-fighter study. Sadly, Good had simply copied the information from Durrant's book, without checking his facts. Had he done so, he might have learned that Durrant had included the story in his book to see who would copy it, without checking first.

The hoax had been revealed in France, some years before, but hadn't filtered through to the English-speaking world before Good got hold of it.

Vril, Haunebu and the Andromeda-Gerât, meanwhile, were never mentioned by any source before Vladimir Terziski hit the scene. This is the same guy who claims to have proved that there is a breathable atmosphere, water, vegetation and even animals on the moon. Strangely enough, his descriptions of conditions on the moon sound an awful lot like those that were described by George Adamski, in Inside the space ships.

The fact that Terziski has obviously drawn heavily from Adamski's various writings seems to make no impression on those who want to believe in the existence of German flying saucers. They tend to characterise the similarities between the Haunebu and Adamski's 'Venusian scout ship', or the Andromeda-Gerât and Adamski's 'mother ship', as corroborative evidence. In reality, it only proves that Terziski imitated Adamski.

So instead of accusing others of 'making excuses', perhaps you should actually check the credentials of your own sources and stop taking the word of every hedge authority at face value?

OK, here are some facts for you:

1) Granted, Rudolf Lusar, Renato Vesco, Justo Miranda, and Ernst Zundel have made some grievous errors in telling the story of German disc aircraft development during WW2; however, the disc development programs did exist and there is more than adequate proof of them. - the 415th NFS records indicate that the fiery objects that first plagued them over French airspace came from the GROUND (launched) from German-held territory and that in many encounters their aircraft suffered engine interference and radar blackout. Messerschmitt's Oberammegau facility pioneered the electrostatic weapon used by one of these weapons which Allied Intelligence mistakenly lumped together under the "Foo Fighter" designation. They are in reality four different weapons: AEG spherical Kugelwaffen, the disc WNF Feuerball, its larger cousin the lone Kugelblitz, and Siefenblasen anti-radar decoy balloons based on the Kreigsmarine's Aphrodita balloons. Photographic evidence of Kugelwaffen, Feuerball discs, and Seifenblasen do exist and can be found. Also, when the "Foo Fighter" controversy stopped in April 1945 with Germany's collapse it amazingly started all over again in the PTO over Japan in August 1945 with the 20th and 21st BGs. Coincidence? No, German submarine technology transfer (along with the jet engines, missiles, uranium for the Japanese atomic bomb project, etc...) - British BIOS Reports acknowledge German disc aircraft development as well as Han Coler's gravitic battery- the Magnetstromapparat (which the SS turned into an electricity converter). - German celestial guidance units for Thule/Vril aircraft have been discovered at Sandia Labs, manufactured by AEG and Siemens. But amazingly, the Hakenkreuz on the instrument is not- it is a Thule Sonnerad symbol that would not be found on a Luftwaffe aircraft nor in the V-2 rockets captured by Patton. What use would the Luftwaffe have for celestial guidance unless they were operating an electromagnetic field which made a magnetic compass useless? This was an SS instrument for Thule/Vril disc technology. Unit is KT-P2 with Wrk Nm on it. - Epp's Omega Diskus scale models, Sack's A.S.6, and Schauberger's Repulsin discoid motors are totally known and there is an abundance of photographic and historic evidence about them. - Postwar patents by Heinrich Focke, Heinrich Fleissner, Josef Andreas Epp, Viktor Schauberger, Hermann Klaas, Bruno Schwenteit (for Miethe-Schreiver), Henri Coanda, and other German scientists, engineers, etc... are held in both Germany and the US. How could so many UNRELATED people immediately postwar file for disc patents? And WHY the sudden drive by the US, Britain, Canada, and the USSR for this SPECIFIC type of design? - Operation Bluebook, an OFFICIAL US document, states that (para-phrasing) only "certain developments of the Third Reich in the closing months of WW2 come close to the performance of the UFOs they were investigating". This makes no sense at all unless they are referring to German disc aircraft. A Me-262 or even the Sanger hypersonic bomber project could in NO WAY match the performance of unknown disc craft that could accelerate to MACH 10, make a law-of-physics-defying turn that would kill a human pilot, and then stop in mid-air. The USAF had knowledge of the German discs because they held them at Wright Patterson AB before transferring them to MacDill AB for scrapping. So they were completely correct with their statement. - USAF reporters for the USAF's in-house magazine in the 1960s visited MacDill and gained unauthorized access to the scrapyard for an article on prototype aircraft. Their cameras and film were seized after they saw 4 German discs in the scrapyard. The next month's issue of the USAF magazine was cancelled. The reporters' story is online and in print. - Robert J. Lee's book "Fascinating Relics of the Third Reich" tells of the capture of one of the huge cylindrical Raumschiff Andromeda Gerats by the US Army and is confirmed in an interview of "The German Cylindrical UFO". This matches the report of Sept 29, 1944 by Sonderburo 13 of a Me-262 pilot sighting the first Andromeda Gerat in flight. - Jim Wilson of "Popular Mechanics" magazine through FOIA documents CONFIRMS that in 1995 the USAF finally ADMITTED the Germans had disc aircraft prototypes but stated that they were "highly unstable". The USAF, however, failed to give any details, identifications, photos, nor flight footage because the discs are still largely classified until 2020... which makes you wonder in 1945 WHAT technology would be considered that sensitive to receive a 75 year classification well into the 21st century? The Jonastal S-III complex where the discs were to be manufactured is classified until 2045- 100 years! - As for Thule and Vril, Thule started the Nazi Party and groomed Hitler as Fuhrer. Hitler himself was a Thulist as was Himmler who created the SS E-IV Technical Branch. Speer confirms this in his book "Infiltration" and even the persistant rumors of "flying tops". But he was not allowed access to SS facilities, war material, project information, etc... Vril is confirmed by the 1937 purchase of the fallow land around Arado-Brandenburg for "flight testing". Flight testing of WHAT... "if" no discs existed? Photographic evidence exists for the JFM, the RFZ series, and Vril models 1 Jager, 7 Geist, 8 Odin, and 9 Abjager. - BMW's wartime Prague facility is known and eyewitness testimony of Georg Klein verifies the Flugelrads as well as Schriever's Flugkreisel on site. All were disc fans with BMW Flugelrads more jet auto-gyro than pure flight disc.

These are just a few examples of evidence concerning the German Flugscheiben. You might also want to thank me for adding well over 100 aircraft of all types on that page and making it more comprehensive. The page was a total mess until I modified it and made corrections to all aircraft, rotorcraft, and disc craft. There isn't a single aviation book in the entire world that is as comprehensive as that List. Think about that before ruining a perfectly good page. I have started to individually reference each German disc/circular aircraft/spherical/cylindrical/annular/and circular wing on Wikipedia. Arthur Sack A.S.6, Haunebu, Focke Wulf Schnellflugzeug, and Miethe Elektrische Luft Turbine are already completed. Every disputed craft on that page I can provide references for. After all, my book Disc Aircraft of the Third Reich (1922-1945 and Beyond) is the most comprehensive of its kind. The table of contents:

Table of Contents:

Introduction by Robert Dale Arndt Jr. Pages 01-20

Jenseitsflugmaschine Pages 21-23

Rundflugzeug Series 1-6 Pages 24-27

Vril Series 1-11 Pages 28-45

Vril DORN Verteidiger Pages 46-48

Andromeda-Gerat Raumschiff Pages 49-55

Aldebaran Raumschiffen Pages 56-57

Haunebu Series I, II, II Do -Stra, III,IV Pages 58-70

KT-P2 Celestial Navigator Pages 71-72

Deutscher Flugscheiben Wettewaffe Pages 73-75

Viktor Schauberger Repulsin A &B Pages 76-79

Rudolf Schriever Flugkreisel Projekt Pages 80-85

Miethe V-7 Elektrische-Luft Turbine Pages 86-87

BMW Flugelrad Series I, II, III Pages 88-90

WNF Feuerball/ZeppelinWerk Kugelblitz Pages 91-98

AEG Kugelwaffen Pages 99-100

A German-Japanese Disc/Nakajima Subaru/Matsuraboshi? Pages 101-108

Lichtscheiben Pages 109-110

Josef Andreas Epp Omega Diskus Pages 111-115

Henri Coanda Lenticular Disc Pages 116-121

Arthur Sack A.S.6/Me-600 Bussard Pages 122-128

Focke-Wulf Schnellflugzeug Rochen Pages 129-134

Focke-Wulf 500 Hypothetical Page 135

Heinrich Fleissner Dusenscheibe Pages 136-140

Gerhard Faulker Feuersturm Pages 141-143

Hermann Noordung Wohnrad Pages 144-148

Franz Philipp Sonnenstrahl Flugscheiben Pages 149-151

Little-Known German Disc Projects Pages 152-155

Stockel Rammschussjager Page 156

Messerschmitt Me P.1079/18 Pages 157-159

Heinkel Wespe & Lerche Pages 160-165

Focke-Wulf Triebflugel Pages 166-171

DFS 360 Berserker Pages 172-176

Schmidt Himmelsturmer Pages 177-182

Giuseppe Belluzzo Turbo Proietti Pages 183-185

Mussolini “Piastra Di Volo” Disc Pages 186-193

BRD (BundesRepublikDeutschland) Discs Pages 194-195

GDR Pirna Sowjetische Flugscheibe Pages 196-198

Citing a book that you've written, which was published by a company that you own, doesn't really constitute a reliable reference. You seem to be much more concerned about the fact that people presume to disagree with you than you are about supporting your claims with independent evidence.

Until you're prepared to address the issues that have been raised, by leading reasoned arguments and supporting them with evidence that everyone can recognise and accept as independent - instead of attempting merely to bludgeon your opponents into submission with unstructured slabs of text that are big enough to choke a camel - you'll have to accept the fact that some people are going to disagree with your position. After all, many of us can read, too; and I'm fairly confident that I'm not the only person, here, to disagree with your claims.

In the end, though, the decision as to whether or not the disputed entries will be retained or deleted doesn't fall to either of us. It falls to everyone, who participates in the Wikipedia project.


Dubious/Disputed

[edit]

To whoever removed the "dubious" markings: can you add some proof please? Especially about "Vril, SS Military Technical Branch E-IV/E-V" and their spaceships i'd like to see something tangible.

To whomever removed the "disputed" flags:

You were given a fair chance to support your claims that these aircraft existed, but instead you chose to bypass the process of debate and simply deleted the flags. Not only are you gutless, but you've pretty much proved, to everyone here, that you CAN'T lead any reliable evidence to support your claims!

The "Sack AS-7" can definitely go - apparently it exists only in virtual reality. Here's a quote from "Benny's X-Plane Page":

"Since the AS-6 was not a success, I decided to build a (fictional) improved successor model, the AS-7. My first prototypes were designed as pure flying disks without a horizontal stabilizer, but with elevators integrated into the wing disk. However, these models were about as successful as the AS-6... So I added a separate horizontal stabilizer like the AS-6 had, but positioned on top of the vertical stabilizer to avoid the vacuum zone (though I don't know whether X-Plane simulates that at all). This greatly enhanced the plane's stability in the air (I guess that's why they call it a stabilizer ...)." (Emphasis added)

The URL for the page in question is http://www.sunlight.de/x-plane/jbx/as7.htm

What's next?

[edit]

The page has been disputed since September, no improvement since then. This list is basically a copy of the -1945 section of List_of_military_aircraft_of_Germany, with additional prototypes and UFOs. Looks like it is impossible to sort out all fictional aircrafts. Is there any other way to make this page useful again but to deleted it and start over again? --Moep 12:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trashing the current page and starting over is an idea, although it's likely the disputed sircraft would only be re-introduced and the whole argument would arise again. I still think that a separation of the two lists is possible, if those who credit the flying discs would be content to see them described as "alleged German flying discs", or something like that.

Citing "Benny's X-Plane Page" is irrelevent since that person knew NOTHING about Arthur Sack's connection to Messerschmitt nor the Gottingen K1253 circular wing designs performed in 1941 by Messerschmitt and Dr. Lippisch. I PERSONALLY contacted Benny and told him of the REAL AS-7V-1 proposal (after the AS-6V-1 was strafed and cut-up for firewood in 1945). Messerschmitt in the closing month or two of the war considered a disc-type based on Sack's failed Bierdeckel and provisionally designated it Me-600. The Komet pilots at the test facility coined the name "Bussard" (Buzzard) for any Sack disc a/c that actually made it off the ground, based on a German interview postwar. Benny was unaware of the entire history of the AS-6 alone without knowledge of any further development plans by Messerschmitt. His fictional design does NOT match the Me-600 proposal, so his design IS fictional. He also designed an AS-8 twin prop which you failed to mention. Considering the fact that Arthur Sack also had designs for conventional fighters since he was an aero-modeller pre-war and the fact this information is missing in US texts proves that German information on this a/c is more reliable than US information. At least I took the time to research and evaluate hundreds of German texts on Sack and the A.S.6 work before writing anything on it. Compare my info I supplied on Wikipedia for the A.S.6 to almost any Google search. Which is more complete? Mine. And if you re-read my A.S.6 text, WITH the A.S.7V-1/Me-600 proposal you will see Benny's concept planes DOES NOT match the proposed Messerschmitt design in details.

Rob Arndt

I would also like to remind the people here that Wikipedia exists to promote knowledge. There will be of course a majority of aviation fans that will visit this page and freak out over a multitude of a/c they have never heard of before whether they be early types, prototypes, projects, and of course the disc types. The problem is that many of these people will only know RLM (German Air Ministry) designations and have no clue that the SS had its very own war production capability. It had its own army (the Waffen SS), own religion (Black Sun Order), and own scientific branch (Entwicklungsstelle IV/V). If Albert Speer as Armaments Minister could NOT gain access to Himmler's weapons programs there is little wonder that the disc craft and other odd machines are thought of as hoaxes of Neo-Nazis and Fourth Reich advocates. But once the individual discs are investigated and patents emerge, photos, documentation, and Allied reports that are both declassified and still classified... then one begins to understand where the entire postwar UFO/Black Project a/c started from- the Reich's arsenal of the SS. Most people here want to criticize my work and yet amazingly don't even know that "Black Projects" are actually SAPs (Special Access Programs)! Fear of real truth vs official history written by the victorious Allies makes many people want to deny these craft and even modern sightings of strange craft that amazingly stick close to military bases! But there are many mysterious craft and other weapons/science that the Germans invented that people have no idea about. SO how will they learn of them if no one tells of them? My second non-fiction book Strange Vehicles of Pre-War Germany & the Third Reich (1928-1945) describes these craft:

MERCEDES T80 THE GERMAN LAND SPEED RECORD VEHICLE

KILLINGER AND FREUND MOTORRAD THE FRONT WHEEL DRIVE MOTORCYCLE

FRANZ KUCKENBERG SCHIENENZEPPELIN THE RAIL ZEPPELIN BULLET TRAIN

ALKETT VSKFZ 617 MINENRAUMER THE MINESWEEPING GIANT ARMORED TRACTOR

KRUPP KUGELPANZER MYSTERIOUS GERMAN BALL TANK

BORGWARD SEETEUFEL TRACKED AMPHIBIOUS MIDGET SUBMARINE

OPEL RAKATEN MOTORRAD THE ROCKET MOTORCYCLE

RAUMPANZER TIGER (P) RAMMTIGER ANTI-OBSTACLE RAMMING TANK

HOLZBRENNER VOLKSWAGENS WOOD-BURNING CARS

OPEL ROCKET VEHICLES ROCKET TRAIN AND RACING CARS

Now honestly, how many people here have heard of these vehicles? I'm willing to bet 0 at worst and a few at best. I have already added the Mercedes T80 and Killinger & Freund Motorcycle to Wikipedia because it is important that people learn of new things. So, be careful what you edit or delete if you have no knowledge of these things.

Rob Arndt

Please add the patent numbers for the discs you are talking about. --Moep 13:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough

[edit]

Who gives a rodent's posterior about some woodstove on wheels? By your rationale, Rob, if you wrote a book about horses and unicorns, the fact that horses exist proves that unicorns exist.

First, you need to take a look at:

Then you need either to verify your claims, as requested, or shut up! Oboroten 22:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conspiracy theories ???

[edit]

How is a list of German military aircrafts a conspiracy theory? -- Paddu 07:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the aircrafts are completely fictional, but some UFO-fans keep on adding them to the list without any verifiable source. I just noticed, some IP put the "Technical Branch E-IV" crap back on the list. So it's qualified for the Nazi_moon_base conspiracy. --Moep 21:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFO control

[edit]

I've deleted the UFO stuff from this list and put the corresponding articles on AfD.

Can we now remove the warnings?

Pjacobi 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dick. 68.195.146.13 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of military aircraft of Germany by manufacturer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LFG V 19 Straslund

[edit]

The reference to "LFG V 19 Straslund" probably contains a typo, i.e. it should probably be "LFG V 19 Stralsund". Can somebody check the source? Edcolins (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_military_aircraft_of_Germany_by_manufacturer&oldid=1202099156"