As Spock would say “Fascinating” .
Would that really work? Coal fueled airplanes?
Coal dust or liquefied coal powered jet engines would work, but they would be a mess. Germany was looking for all kind of Ersatz products at the end of the war, as they were cut off from world trade. They tried to substitute oil products with coal products, and rubber for synthetic rubber made from coal too, or from dandelion sap, and they even tried to substitute Coca Cola “using only ingredients available in Germany at the time, including sugar beet, whey, and apple pomace” with a new brew they called Fanta.
FYI, the German wikipage about that concept of a plan for a fighter jet is much more circumspect about its properties, and the bit about “The P.12 and P.13a were unarmed, relying on reinforced wings to ram its opponent” is missing completely. I seriously doubt that ramming an enemy plane at Mach 2.6 is a workable idea. Even at subsonic speeds only a Hegseth or a trump would think of this macho approach as worth dying for.
It might have worked once for every plane, if you found the right pilots. 
I always bring that up when somebody wants to buy Fanta for the whole group “I won’t drink that Nazi swill!” (the true fact is I hate the taste of that cloying, nazi swill).
So, you know… Nazis?
I actually have heard (but can’t find confirmation right now) that some manufacturers are trying to create hypersonic unmanned aircraft. I’m assuming that they will be expensive enough that they would be weapons delivery systems even if they are not risking a pilot in the air, but at hypersonic speeds, actual weapons are optional.
I think that someone misunderstood the word “ramjet” (a kind of propulsion, an engine) and thought it was a jet made for ramming other jets. Utter bullshit, if you ask me.
For what it’s worth, Alexander Lippisch went on to work for Convair, in particular on the F-102 Delta Dagger, the F-106 Delta Dart and the B-58 Hustler.
I note that below that article there’s a linked Wiki page about a glider that was also originally meant to ram the enemy. Perhaps the Nazi aeronautic research establishment just had a fascination with the idea of ramming the enemy.
He had a type, didn’t he?
Or the Japanese.
The Japanese at least were trying to take out warships with kamikazes; not exchange one dead fighter for one dead enemy fighter.
I insist: someone confused a ramjet for a plane designed to ram other planes. Come on, people! Not even the nazis were that dumb. Not back then, anyway.
Not many poeple know this. President Ineptstein, for instance, does not know it. Otherwise he would drink Fanta. Or even Fanta Zero for lack of a Fanta Stuka.
And I’m pretty sure the Nazi jets probably cost more per plane than the P-51s they would have been ramming. Good solid right-wing math, that.
Some English speaking wikiautor has a fascination with ramming and no idea about planes, but the German wikipage - and they should know - about that concept of a plane (did not go further than the prototype phase) does not mention ramming at all. It reads:
Man hatte die Idee, die BV 40 einen zweiten Anflug durchführen zu lassen, und dabei einen Sprengkörper an einem Seil herabzulassen – dies gab man aber schnell auf. Für die Einrichtung des Sprengkörpers hätte eine der beiden 30-mm-Kanonen entfallen müssen.
that is:
The idea was to have the BV 40 make a second approach and lower an explosive device on a cable – but this was quickly abandoned. To accommodate the explosive device, one of the two 30-mm cannons would have had to be removed.
Finely powdered coal would work fine in a ramjet, assuming you can force it into the combustion chamber fast enough. Probably use a pressurized feed tank to blow it in.
A gas turbine engine will run on pretty much anything that burns - diesel, gasoline, cooking oil, and yes they would run on powdered coal. The practical concerns of not only getting coal into the combustor, regulating the flow for maximum performance, removing the ash and making sure the turbine blades don’t erode away I leave as an exercise for the reader/engineer.
Also, German engineers and designers were looking for any concept, no matter how “out there”, that could possibly turn the tide of the war (and coincidentally keep them in a reasonably safe design lab job, off of the front lines). The more theoretically-promising-but-hard-to-pull-off-in-practice, the better!
Nothing hidden in that fascination, nope, nope, nope.
And thus we have Werner von Braun’s career. People can and have debated since 1945 whether the V1s and V2s made any difference in the war. On the one hand, ask the dead what their opinion was. On the other, would more fighters have made a difference? Did Germany have enough pilots by then?
Oh well, that’s what drives history book sales!
I put in some time but couldn’t find it. (It may exist on a paywalled site, of course.) The original 211 included Pagan, Wiccan, Unitarian Universalist, and Humanism, apparently.
The kicker for LDS is that rather than call LDS “Christian” they ended the “Christian” classification altogether. It was THAT important to Hegseth to ‘stick it to the Mormons.’
Though Utah Senator Mike Lee is spinning this change as a win…it really isn’t. The new list remains insulting to Mormons. (He is one dedicated MAGA, ol’ Mike.)
That’s the part I find sad.
That sort of thing should lead to introspection and a consideration of why discriminating against any religion might rebound. But no, they have to learn the hard way when they eventually get labeled undesirable themselves.
Yeah. You’d think there’d be a lot of learning going on around this one incident. It’s pretty openly a ‘you’re not like us, you’re not okay’ repudiation.
Yeah, years ago I read an essay by a Baptist minister who was at some (possibly sporting) event when all were asked to rise for a prayer. The prayer was non-Christian (like Hindu or Buddhist, although I have no idea if either of those faiths do public prayer), and he had a road to Damascus moment about all the non-Christians who were socially bullied into apparent participation in a Christian prayer.