Invisible silent German aeroplane in 1914

[rammjaeger]

Can you tell me why you are refering to US-gangster heroes, Bristol?
Very unbritish!

I thought the USA was once a British colony but now .... hm

[bristol scout]

Originally Posted by rammjaeger

Can you tell me why you are refering to US-gangster heroes, Bristol?
Very unbritish!

I thought the USA was once a British colony but now .... hm

Hi,
Well---Kees post 26 say's (by way of creating some kudos for Weyl's book)-" ....not bad for Weyl that he identified knubel"

Quite a long time ago a poorly rated author wrote the 'definitive' history of Wyatt Earp, frontier Marshall-----he became famous and wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice----except that after a while, when real experts on the old west got to work it was realised that the book was ---well---bunk!!

He got all the names right though!!!!

If that was the only criterion for a good history book Stuart Lake's book would have stood the test of time and expert audit! But it did'nt!

Niether has 'FOKKER-THE CREATIVE YEARS'-----BUT---and i say this again----I have the Book---I am the one on this thread that quoted the book-----i'm not saying---and never did, that it is worthless! I'm saying now what I have always said---it is a flawed, seriously flawed even--work of history.

Dave.

[Varese2002]

Originally Posted by rammjaeger

----

Furthermore Flugsport writes nonsense if claiming that Loddenheide is situated near München! Or did you accidently misprint the location, Kees?

----

Excuses, I reread it and Flugsport had it as Luddenheide near Münster. It is my fault, not from Flugsport.



I think your idea that Rösner and Knubel quarrelled is quite plausable.

The Eindecker Rösner I looks different from the Knubel machine as depicted on the early aviation site of Rod Filan.





Cheers

Kees

[Varese2002]

Originally Posted by bristol

----

Niether has 'FOKKER-THE CREATIVE YEARS'-----BUT---and i say this again----I have the Book---I am the one on this thread that quoted the book-----i'm not saying---and never did, that it is worthless! I'm saying now what I have always said---it is a flawed, seriously flawed even--work of history.

Dave.

Given the continuous attack of Bristol on this specific work of A.R. Weyl, it might be necessary to give some council for the defence. A.R. Weyl was I.M.O. an eminent historian, who wrote an excellent study on the early life and times of Anthony Fokker. The book of A.R. Weyl (Fokker: the creative years) is aimed at giving an answer to the question how a Dutchman arrived in Germany in 1910 and went away in 1918 leaving one of the biggest airplane concerns in Germany. Weyl at least tried to give an explanation for that. His book is not a detailed study or catalogue about all the Fokker aircraft designed and or built during that period. The ambitious aim of his book did not endear A.R. Weyl with the Fokker people in Holland, who actually lobbied hard to prevent the publishing of the book of Weyl (it was published in 1965, about 6 years after the death of A.R. Weyl). The message in the book was not very flattering for Anthony Fokker, who had given a description of himself in his autobiography in quite another way, to say it politely. The naming of Reinhold Platz in the book of Weyl as a designer did it about all.

Recently I stumbled on this passage in Flight November 16, 1956 page 796, where a letter is printed by the late J.M. Bruce.

In the history of the Sopwith l|-Strutter [Flight, September 28 and October 5] I am afraid I unintentionally perpetuated some erroneous beliefs (which I had accepted as facts) relating to aircraft armament. That eminent authority, Mr. A. R. Weyl, A.F.R.Ae.S., A.F.I.A.S., F.B.I.S., has kindly—and necessarily—written to me about these matters, and I think it is essential that readers should have details of the corrections.

The full text of this letter can be viewed here

I think there is a lot in this book of A.R. Weyl that is worthwhile and correct and the book is often included in bibliographies of studies.

So I have defenced enough. My opinion is just as clear as is Mr. Bristol.

Cheers

Kees

[bristol scout]

Hi Kees,

Yes---we both have different 'takes' on the value of the Book as a serious historical work-----and for those that are'nt aware this was picked over a bit in June in a thread entitled---"LIST OF CORRECTIONS FOR LEAMANS D.R.1 BOOK"

My initial post then was simply to agree with a previous poster who had raised doubts over the book. I then checked my Cross&Cockades as I had the Quote from it in mind, and quoted the review in part---then I quoted other, sometimes scathing critiques by well respected historians-----always reminding readers that I HAD the book as well.

Further posts by other forum members tended to agree with me----or more correctly we all tended to agree with those experts that had gone before us-----even John McKenzie----Who does'nt rate me at all---was fulsome in his agreement on this matter---and John knows a thing or two about designing aeroplanes!

On the matter of Weyl's book I stand foursquare with experts---and legends of our particular discipline---men like, but not only,
PETER M. GROSZ
ALEX IMRIE
HARRY WOODMAN
J.M.BRUCE---who you quote above--and who himself bemoaned the "lack of sources"---the very thing that seperates a History book from a work of supposition!
It is a flawed, discredited work of very limited (but--yet again--I never ever claimed no)!!! worth as a work of historical importance.

Dave.

[Varese2002]

Originally Posted by bristol

Hi Kees,

Yes---we both have different 'takes' on the value of the Book as a serious historical work-----and for those that are'nt aware this was picked over a bit in June in a thread entitled---"LIST OF CORRECTIONS FOR LEAMANS D.R.1 BOOK"

My initial post then was simply to agree with a previous poster who had raised doubts over the book. I then checked my Cross&Cockades as I had the Quote from it in mind, and quoted the review in part---then I quoted other, sometimes scathing critiques by well respected historians-----always reminding readers that I HAD the book as well.

Further posts by other forum members tended to agree with me----or more correctly we all tended to agree with those experts that had gone before us-----even John McKenzie----Who does'nt rate me at all---was fulsome in his agreement on this matter---and John knows a thing or two about designing aeroplanes!

On the matter of Weyl's book I stand foursquare with experts---and legends of our particular discipline---men like, but not only,
PETER M. GROSZ
ALEX IMRIE
HARRY WOODMAN
J.M.BRUCE---who you quote above--and who himself bemoaned the "lack of sources"---the very thing that seperates a History book from a work of supposition!
It is a flawed, discredited work of very limited (but--yet again--I never ever claimed no)!!! worth as a work of historical importance.

Dave.

As the council of the defence I am not very impressed by the arguments presented by Bristol, mostly based on opinions of big names. It is unknown how far A.R.Weyl had proceded with his book (Fokker, the creative years), but surely the eminent historian J.M.Bruce saw fit to publish the work. As he accepted that editing work, it is easy to realize that he was in line with the essence of the book. Bruce took his time to edit this book as he worked on it (intermittedly ?) from 1959 till 1965. I cannot read in the editor's note of this book that Bruce 'bemoaned the lack of sources' as interpreted by Bristol. His point was more that it (literal quote ....

One is this unable adequately to acknowledge the author's indebtedness to those who contributed information and material: this is something that he himself would have done with the scrupulous care that was characteristic of him.

.
It is also clear that the book would have looked different when Weyl had lived to do it all by himself. No one knows by how much though. It is probably the finishing of the Unfinished sysmphony by Schubert . Sure, J.M. Bruce saw the need and the worth to edit and publish a book, otherwise we would not have seen it.

The archive accumulated by A.R.Weyl in his time, containing rare archive pieces from the IdFlieg etc. was later bought in its entirity by Peter M. Grosz. The archive has now finally come round again and rests in the vaults of the Deutsches Technik Museum, Berlin.

It is a great pity that Weyl has for years after his death been followed by antagonists, with a result that his stature in aviation history is starkly diminished. See the example given by Bristol in post #16 where he comes in the thread on 'invisible' aeroplanes

As i said up front (and on a different thread some time ago) I consider the book flawed and offer these 'snippets' only for what they are worth

Notwithstanding a smiley this is quite humiliating to a writer of a book.

To quote something on A.R.Weyl, what better than from his obituary in Flight

Alfred Richard Oscar Weyl, A.F.RAe.S., A.F.I.A.S., F.B.I.S., died on February 23 [1959]. Born in Berlin 61 years ago, he came to this country in 1935 and acquired British nationality. In Germany he had held a number of responsible technical posts following active service in the Royal Prussian Air Corps in the First World War. He was a senior staff officer in the D.V.L. (Research Institute for Aeronautics) and was subsequently principal assistant to the professor of the aeronautical engineering department at Berlin university. At other periods he was in charge of special projects and did a considerable amount of test flying of prototypes. After the war he turned to design work and was responsible for a light sporting monoplane built by Udet-Flugzeugbau at Munich (later the Messerschmitt works). Soon after coming to England he founded the firm of Zander & Weyl in partnership with E. P. Zander. Later, as Dart Aircraft Ltd., the company produced the ultra-light Dart Kitten, two examples of which are still flying.
Alfred Weyl was also an authority on armament (on which subject he contributed some important articles to Flight) and self-sealing fuel tanks, and his researches included tailless aircraft development, guided-missile design and aircraft plastics technology.
A man of original and inventive turn of mind, he was extremely forthright in his opinions and his impatience with official policies on occasions brought repercussions which would have subdued a less fiery spirit.

Quite a career professionally, personnally difficult with a fleeing from a Hitler suppressed Germany. The last sentence is perhaps the reason why The creative years bookhas had such a reception. As in old Greek dramas the bringer of the (bad) news is also under attack, although not as bad as in the Greek times when that bringer was decapitated. It is now 'only' done mentally.

I rest my case. Mr. A.R. Weyl had a great career in aviation and wrote a good book of the period of Fokker covering the years 1910 - 1918. Writers of books can consider this book in their list of secundary literature, just as the autobiography of Fokker / Gould can be used. It is the writer's duty to balance his primary and secundary sources.

I leave it to the judge (unfortunately there is no one in aviation history ) and hope to spend my given time here on the Forum Aerodrome on other subjects than the book of A.R.Weyl. FOKKER; the creative years.

Cheers

Kees

[bristol scout]

Hi Kees,

Now this is odd!
Does the EDITORS NOTE in your copy read differently to mine??? I would imagine not!

"THE EDITING AND PREPARATION OF THIS BOOK FOR PUBLICATION WERE PERFORMED AFTER THE AUTHORS UNTIMELY DEATH. NOT ONLY WERE HIS PERSONAL AND AUTHENTIC ADVICE AND GUIDANCE ON THE TEXT ITSELF LACKING; THERE WAS NO CLUE TO THE SOURCES OF MOST OF THE MATERIAL ON WHICH HE DREW IN COMPILING THIS HISTORY.

"no clue to the sources" and as no sources appear anywhere in the text this, surely constitutes 'no sources' And a history book that has no sources to be checked against is a flawed work of historical importance.

I have never said A.R. Weyl was a flawed historian-----just thar FOKKER- THE CREATIVE YEARS is a flawed history book. We should perhaps agree to disagree

Dave.

[Varese2002]

Originally Posted by bristol

Hi Kees,

Now this is odd!
Does the EDITORS NOTE in your copy read differently to mine??? I would imagine not!

"THE EDITING AND PREPARATION OF THIS BOOK FOR PUBLICATION WERE PERFORMED AFTER THE AUTHORS UNTIMELY DEATH. NOT ONLY WERE HIS PERSONAL AND AUTHENTIC ADVICE AND GUIDANCE ON THE TEXT ITSELF LACKING; THERE WAS NO CLUE TO THE SOURCES OF MOST OF THE MATERIAL ON WHICH HE DREW IN COMPILING THIS HISTORY.

"no clue to the sources" and as no sources appear anywhere in the text this, surely constitutes 'no sources' And a history book that has no sources to be checked against is a flawed work of historical importance.

I have never said A.R. Weyl was a flawed historian-----just thar FOKKER- THE CREATIVE YEARS is a flawed history book. We should perhaps agree to disagree

Dave.

Mr. Bristol. Although I wear spectacles I can easily read what is written by J.M.Bruce in his editors note, there is really no need to write it with capital letters again.
As you could have read in my reply (post #36) your cited sentence from the editor's note is directly followed by another sentence, giving some particulars about the foregoing sentence. I do not need to explain that to you, can be read by yourself.

I hope that you do not think that A.R.Weyl and J.M.Bruce made it all up and wrote a book without any sources? Surely the Weyl archive was special enough to be bought by Peter M. Grosz and surely a lot of people furnished archive pueces on which this book is based. In practice I have seen few books in aviation history which quotes all the sources via footnotes as is a prerequisite in scientific works.

Your fine nuance that the Fokker book is flawed, but that A.R.Weyl (and J.M.Bruce probably) was not a flawed historian, does not sound logical. If one writes a flawed history book, the writer is usually labeled as a flawed historian I think. Surely the person of A.R. Weyl is dragged in the discussion of the book (I have even seen in writing that he had a personal hatred against Fokker and was making it up in his Fokker book).

The postive point of this discussion is that I have researched somewhat (of course with sources !) about the life and works of A.R. Weyl. This is a collection of his writings in Aircraft Engineering and The Aeroplane from ca. 1944 - 1948, all of 112 pages. The description can be found here.

Really, I think you have no case. I do realize that it will not refrain you from voicing repetitively that the Fokker book (really A.R. Weyl wrote more books and contributed to others) is a 'flawed, seriously flawed book'.

Addendum - bibliography of the books written (or partly written) by A.R. Weyl. Not necessarily complete. Excluded are magazine articles and the now famous book FOKKER; the creative years (the capitals are in the title) which appeared in two printings (1965 and 1987). No need to include that here in his bibliography as everybody knows he (and J.M.Bruce) had written it. Needless to say both printings are long OOP.

Weyl, A. R. 1949. Guided missiles: : the evolution and principles of guided and directed missiles for military and peaceful purposes. London: Temple Press.

Weyl, A. R. 1928. The cells of giant airplanes. Technical memorandum // National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 478. Washington, DC: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.

Everling, Emil, Börge Houmann, and A. R. Weyl. 1928. Meer und Luft. Erfindungen und Fortschritte, BD. IV. Berlin: Gwdion-Verlag.

Offermann, Erich, Walter G. Noack, and A. R. Weyl. 1927. Riesenflugzeuge. Handbuch der Flugzeugkunde, Bd. IV. Berlin: Richard Carl Schmidt & Co.

Cheers

Kees

[bristol scout]

Mr. Varese,
And I see that you have no intention of agreeing to disagree!

"Platz is a very controversial figure, but his reputation was raised to heights he never had at Fokker by the work of A.R. Weyl's Fokker-The Creative Years " Then the author mentions how reading the work of P.M.Grosz, "Will put things beautifully right"
He goes on to say---
"Apart from this, my own research revealed that Platz might not even have been a designer at all....."

Achim Engels----Yet another expert ---or as you perhaps pejoratively call them---"big names"--Odd that as you cite J.M. Bruce--certainly an expert repeatedly yourself.

And of course I ---and all of us--in any discipline 'go with the experts'---if my doctor tells me iv'e got a brain tumour, I will be very silly indeed to go away convinced that iv'e only got a headache and take a couple of pain killers. We listen to expert opinion---I do, and am quite unrepentent about it.

But I can see that, even after mentioning five of these 'big names' as you call them---and all the other forum members who agree (on the other thread) we are quite obviously polarised on this subject and therefore wasting each others time----but just before leaving this I would mention one thing.

Yes---indeed it is very possible to decide that an author---any author can write a bad work, on any subject, yet not be a bad author.

Cheers.

[Varese2002]

Mr. Bristol

I read with envy your endurance to come up again with old arguments already used in the discussion. You keep dragging in extra experts (Achim Engels) and even all the other forum members who agree (on the other thread). You surely are backed up by a whole cohort of people, dwarfing any individual who might have other ideas ....

Two points:

• you are distorting my arguments of J.M.Bruce (a debating trick). J.M. Bruce was the editor of the book, who sure has a responsibility and saw the need to publish the book, because otherwise the world would be poorer without it

• good writers produce good books, because a good writer will not publish a book which is below his norms. Mr. Weyl was an excellent writer on aviation matter and history, as shown very often. So his book is a book following his norms. It is one way or another

Let us not drag in Reinhold Platz here, as he is one of the most contested figures in history, ranging from a 'master welder' (really a nobody historically) to 'chief designer of Fokker'. I have the faint idea that we will not agree on his actual role and activitities with Fokker.

I do not think 'big name' is a pejorative for experts.

The whole discussion has at least given me more information about the life and work of A.R. Weyl and incidentally brushed up my english writing somewhat as a non-native speaker. For me I shut the discussion down and will not give it more time than I already have done.

Kees