1999Porsche911

In heaven, the hispanics mow the lawns and in Hell, they are in charge of border control.

Hell also employs the English as Dentists.

pcarfan944

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircr...ircraft_id=105

Gee, do you see the resemblance? Clearly this aircraft influenced the design of the B-2 and F-117.

OCBen

Nope. By definition a flying wing has no tail. Are you having trouble seeing the tails on the F-117?

Wrong again.

That German flying wing made its maiden flight in 1945 that ended in a crash.

Northrup built the world's first flying wing in 1939. Rolled it out in 1940, and successfully flew it the following year.

Here's where I would tell you not to run away with your tail between your legs, but I'll be nice.

LVDell

Good one Ben. Saves me the trouble

Back to the 996 and GT3 forum for me. Man, it can get hostile over here in 997 country!

OCBen

Good to see you Dell. Hope everything's working out for you in NC. You missing Vegas yet?

LVDell

Not at alll

Glad to be away from the heat and back in the good ole south.

bb62

For those wishing to continue the Porsche vs. Corvette debate, I apologize in advance.

There is so much misinformation concerning the scientific and technological advances that **** German made that I thought I would clear the air with a number of points:

1. German engineering and science in general produced fewer results after 1933 than before 1933 due to the intolerance of the ***** and their effectively driving a number of peoples (German Jews included) abroad - especially their scientists who required freedom of thought to further their disciplines. This is directly reflected in the declining number of Nobel prizes won by comparing German Nobels before and after 1933.
2. The flying wing was NOT conceived by the Horton Brothers. Jack Northrop’s first “flying wing design reached as far back as 1929. “His first "Flying Wing", called X216H, was a compromise design, half conventional, half revolutionary. It flew in 1929, and he refined the concept over the next decade. Northrop’s N-1M (now on display at the National Air and Space Museum) was his first pure flying wing aircraft, and it flew first in 1940, and proved that the all wing aircraft could maintain stable and controlled flight. So, Mr. Northrop turned his attention to larger aircraft. And on May 21, 1941, he wrote a confidential letter to the Army Air Corps: '[W]e have made very successful and encouraging flights of the flying mockup (N-1M) and I believe the time is here when we can seriously consider building bomber aircraft to this design” This quote from "Clipped Wings: The Death of Jack Northrop's Flying Wing Bombers" By Dr. Bud Baker.
3. The US used JATO rockets as early as 1940. The US also developed surface to air, air to surface, air to air and surface to surface rockets during WW2. For example, in April, 1945 a "Bat" missile sank a Japanese submarine at a distance of 20 miles from the launching aircraft.
4. The German V2 program was unique in the size of the rockets used. But it should be known that the majority of technology used by Germany was directly attributable to Dr. Robert Goddard. This was confirmed by Von Braun himself. After the war and with the initiation of the NASA programs, Von Braun was partially responsible for making sure that the Goddard family received some money for the patents previously ignored by the US government (but used extensively by **** Germany).
5. The V2 program was a waste of resources in any event. The rocket would bring approximately 1 ton of high explosives within a radius of about 25km for the cost equivalent to one B29. The Allies could deliver a payload 3 to 5 times that in one Lancaster and deliver it within a radius of about 0.5km and for a fraction of the cost.
6. German WW2 manufacturing was primarily batch manufacturing while the US was using more advanced transfer line technology. Productivity for US manufactured weapons was better than twice that of German weapons, and those weapons typically suffered fewer quality problems. At their respective peaks, the US was producing 4 times the war material as **** Germany with a population only 60% larger. When the US offered to give to some US firms some of the existing German manufacturing facilities after the war, they were invariably turned down because the German manufacturing technology was hopelessly obsolete.
7. The ME262 was a good plane but only as designed – meaning that it was a good interceptor. The US P80 Shooting Star (actually in Europe during the war but not in a combat role) was every bit as fast and could maneuver better than the ME262. In a one-on-one scenario the P80 was likely to prevail if push came to shove. But that is not to say the ME262 was a bad plane, it was just designed for a different role – a role desperately needed by the Germans at the time. Two myths here though. First the Germans were not the first with an operational jet fighter squadron. The British were with the Gloster Meteor. Also the ME262 with the swept wings was not a flash of design brilliance with an offshoot of an expediency. The ME262 needed to push the CG back by about a foot for better stability and sweeping the wings was the best solution.
8. There are many technologies that the Germans had only progressed a fraction of that of the Allies. Radar, nuclear technology (which derived very little from transplanted Germans), medicine, ship design (including aircraft carriers which were probably the most technologically single weapons of the war), multi-engine planes (both for transport [C54] and bombing [B29]), and communications technology among others.
9. As for military capability, the vaunted German army still depended primarily upon horses at all points during the war. Not one German division ever had the mobility or firepower of any US division (all of which were 100% based on motor driven transport – a wet dream of the Wehrmacht). Of course the Germans did fight valiantly and efficiently (though it would be instructive to point out that only the US had a favorable kill/death ratio with Germany) while they were on the defensive (which was most of the war), and they did have good tactical (but poor strategic) leadership (and I mean at levels well below Hitler).

OK, away from WW2 stuff for a moment and back to cars. I personally like both Porsches and Corvettes, I mean, what’s not to like? How many people out there can afford either – precious few I think. I’ve owned a 356 and a bunch of mid-60s Sting Rays myself. I loved them all. One area it seems to me where the Corvette has an advantage seems to be in long term value (using only street cars not race cars). Corvettes seem to hold more of their value over the long haul. A top of the line 1967 911S won’t bring 25% of that of a top of the line 1967 Corvette. 1957 FI Corvettes are likely to cost well more than a contemporary Speedster. Even the late 70s Corvettes seem to hold more of their value on a percentage basis than the vaunted (and rightly so) early Porsche turbo 930s – and those Corvettes were junk in my opinion. I think this may because the Corvette is more deeply ingrained in American culture than the Porsche and is likely to stir a more emotional response when viewed over a 30-40 year horizon.

phantomias33

Wow bb62, not sure who you are but if this twelve page thread is what compelled you to register and post...welcome! I read all of your post...very informative! I always root for any Porsche vs. Corvette thread to just die with as few replies as possible. It's religion for folks and what the use of going on a Jewish Board and posting a Muslim vs. Jewish thread?...none. But this is cool, kind of like a dedicated OT thread right in the 997 area. I'm still reading it to see just to see where it ends up.

OCBen

Yes, excellent first post, bb62! ... And welcome to Rennlist.
Glad to have you aboard!

Deanski

Yep, and I did own one '69 L-88 which was the iron block version of a ZL1. They had all aluminum block and heads.

If I sold my L-88 today and if it was in Bloomington Gold or NCRS Top FLight condition, it would get over $275,000. They only made 216 total between 67 and 69 of these cars and the earlier ones did not have a heater inside the cabin. Then DOT requried them back in if used for street. All had "radio delete" option.

There is nothing like the feel of a 427 big block in a Vette with a 4:11 rear. Neck-snapping feel, but **** poor handling back then. Back then gas was cheap and it was all about drag racing.

I drove the new Z06 and liked it except for the issues I stated before, but still, it has raw power almost like the good 'ol days! Only now gas is $3.45 gallon for crappy 93 octane.

Enjoy whatever your passion is!

Deanski

Crazy Canuck

bb62 . . . I learned a few things.

Welcome . . .

TAILWAG

Correct me if I am wrong, but, when you are spending $ 70,000 (Porsche wise or Z06 wise)...do you really care about how much gas costs? I know if I did, I would be looking at Hondas or Toyotas instead...

But I agree with your other statement fully - just enjoy either one or both....

mastiffdog

I hadn't heard it quite that way, but that is exactly the way I felt when I test drove one at the Chevy dealer back in May.

Now that I have my 997TT and have driven it a couple hundred miles, other than the 0-60 diatribe that goes on endlessly on every Porsche forum between the two cars, I just don't get why these two vehicles are constantly being compared side by side. The cars are very different in so many ways.

icon

yes i do!
don't understand why someone would not care?
effects the whole economy!

jeff

LVDell

Agree with Jeff as well. That was just an asinine comment by TAILWAG to make about the price of gas relative to the price of a car. And by the way, my car was closer to 100K and yes I DO care about the price of gas. It effects EVERYBODY. I didn't get where I am by flushing money down the toilet.