# REAL Secret Weapons? (Foo Fighter!) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 2, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000 "2010-05-02T02:30:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/21 "2010-05-03T00:00:13Z")
Regarding early jets, the Italians flew the firts jet plane (Caproni). However, it was a hybrid-the compressor was powered by a piston engine. As far as the ME-262 goes, yes, it was fast-but the engines life was measured in hours. Too late and too little. I saw a German ME-262 “Komet” at the 8th Airforce Museum-it was the first (and only) rocket powered fighter. I think it killed more of its pilots than allied airmen. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/22 "2010-05-03T00:07:47Z")
The SR-71? ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/23 "2010-05-03T00:28:59Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I saw a German ME-262 “Komet” at the 8th Airforce Museum-it was the first (and only) rocket powered fighter. I think it killed more of its pilots than allied airmen. That would be the ME-163 actually. Very interesting aircraft, but not one I’d care to fly. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/24 "2010-05-03T00:43:29Z")
What if you could put a small, modern turbojet in it? ---
**Author:** ![yendis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ed8c4c/32.png) [@yendis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yendis)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/25 "2010-05-03T06:59:28Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > What if you could put a small, modern turbojet in it? The performance would be about the same. The Me-163s top speed was limited by aerodynamics not engine power, as the plane aproached the speed of sound it would suffer from Mach tuck which would force the nose down. From [this](http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight6.htm) page: “On the Me 163, the combination of the aft shift in aerodynamic center and shock stall led to a dangerous condition known as “Mach tuck.” If the Mach number exceeded approximately 0.85, the airplane would begin to nose down on its own. The pilot would naturally react by pulling on the stick and deflecting the elevons upward. This would cause a shock wave to form on the underside of the wing at the elevon hinge line. The elevons would shock stall and be unable to bring the nose up, causing the airplane to pitch over into an ever-steepening dive. The only hope for recovery was to wait until the airplane had dived to a lower altitude where the speed of sound is higher, thus reducing Mach number, and the elevons would regain effectiveness.” Of course the biggest advantage of using a modern jet is that jet fuel doesn’t \*dissolve \*the pilot after a bad landing. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/26 "2010-05-03T08:30:47Z")
> [@Mach Tuck](#): > > That would be the ME-163 actually. Very interesting aircraft, but not one I’d care to fly. I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near the damn thing. The fuel and oxidizer spontaneously reacted on contact. It didn’t just kill the pilots, it could kill you just trying to put gas in it. I’m not sure if I’d classify it as a fighter, though. It’s job was to go after allied bomber formations. It might be more accurate to call it an interceptor. ---
**Author:** ![kombatminipig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5ac83/32.png) [@kombatminipig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kombatminipig)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/27 "2010-05-03T11:48:52Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I’m not sure if I’d classify it as a fighter, though. It’s job was to go after allied bomber formations. It might be more accurate to call it an interceptor. I’d call _a bad idea_ 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/28 "2010-05-03T12:31:01Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Who’s this Alex guy? Does he have a newsletter I might subscribe to? Why, [yes](http://www.infowars.com/), yes he does – and it shames me that I immediately knew which “Alex” he was talking about. :o ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/29 "2010-05-03T13:19:01Z")
Back to the OP, possibly ironclad warships might count. Kind of stretch, as they weren’t so much an incredible innovation, but rather something everybody was thinking about, but didn’t know how they’d actually work in practice. That they were a common idea is proved by the amazing fact that the first two ironclad ships-- of very different design and by opposite sides in the war – first went into action within a day of each other. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/30 "2010-05-03T13:39:50Z")
I’m not sure ironclads count. They weren’t exactly secret. Also, in my case at least, US hisytory teaching tends to gloss over the achievements of other nations, and the French _Gloire_ (and her sister ships) and the British _Warrior_ preceded the _Virginia_ and the _Monitor_. They may not have looked like ironclads, because they were covered with wood, but they were functional ironclads, with steam-driven screws and all (and sails as well – people used to hedge their bets). The _Warrior_ still floats. > **[HMS Warrior (1860)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warrior_%281860%29)** > > HMS Warrior is a 40-gun steam-powered armoured frigate\[Note 1\] built for the Royal Navy in 1859–1861. She was the name ship of the Warrior-class ironclads. Warrior and her sister ship HMS Black Prince were the first armour-plated, iron-hulled warships, and were built in response to France's launching in 1859 of the first ocean-going ironclad warship, the wooden-hulled Gloire. Warrior conducted a publicity tour of Great Britain in 1863 and spent her active career with the Channel Squadron. Obs... ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/31 "2010-05-03T13:51:21Z")
I’d say the Millatreuse qualifies as a secret weapon that turned out to be real. Too bad they employed it poorly when they actually put it into action. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/32 "2010-05-03T14:04:06Z")
As far as Secret Weapons go, I’m still impressed by the Dam Buster bombs, which actually worked as advertised (and not as I, at least, would naively expect) [http://www.dambusters.org.uk/](http://www.dambusters.org.uk/) But I don’t think it fits the OP’s criterion as “legendary” and much-talked-about. These came effectively out of nowhere. And that, I think, is the case of most secret weapons. Actually, reading about the history of Secret Weapons (especially in WWII), the sad fact is that most of them didn’t really work at all. Explosive-powered Panjandrums, giant plane-torchers, and other off-the-wall weapons didn’t realy pan out. The Dam Buster bombs, the atomic bombs, and things like Radar were happy exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/33 "2010-05-03T14:15:39Z")
> [@Mach Tuck](#): > > The thing is, they couldn’t Google Frank Whittle back then. I imagine there were some people who knew that jet engine aircraft were feasible, but I’m guessing it was an unknown quantity to most. … What they didn’t have th internet in WWII? Yeah, right. Next you’ll tell us that Churchill didn’t use his cellphone to text Roosevelt every day from his bathtub. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000/34 "2010-05-03T14:40:20Z")
> [@yendis](#): > > T"On the Me 163, the combination of the aft shift in aerodynamic center and shock stall led to a dangerous condition known as “Mach tuck.” You rang? 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-secret-weapons-foo-fighter/538000.md?page=1)