Mach

Mach (pronounced mak, mahk or moch)

A number indicating the ratio of the speed of an object to the speed of sound in the medium through which the object is moving.  Also known as the Mach number; standard abbreviation is M.

1937: Named after Austrian physicist and philosopher Dr Ernst Waldfried Josef Wenzel Mach (1838–1916) who devised the system of speed measurement based on the Mach number. He’s remembered also as the founder of logical positivism, asserting the validity of a scientific law is proved only after empirical testing.  The Mach number is important in the understanding of fluid dynamics and represents the ratio of flow velocity past a boundary to the local speed of sound (Mach 1.0).  It’s most applied to aircraft which are classified:

Subsonic      Mach <1.0
Transonic     Mach =1.0
Supersonic   Mach >1.0
Hypersonic   Mach >5.0

The speed of sound varies, reducing at higher altitudes and if aircraft exceed about 250 mph (400 km/h), air near the aircraft is disturbed, locally changing the density.  This compression, increasing with speed, alters the force on the aircraft and is of great importance to aerodynamicists and structural engineers.  The Mach number is within the science of fluid dynamics because air is fluid and, at hypersonic speeds, the energy of the airframe affects the chemical bonds which hold together the nitrogen and oxygen molecules of air, the heated atmosphere becoming an ionized plasma of gas.  That’s why spacecraft re-entering earth’s atmosphere need to be insulated from high temperatures.  Mach 1 was first exceeded by an aircraft in level flight in 1947 but man-made objects travelling at that speed had long-existed, even before modern ballistics.  The crack of a whip is actually the sonic boom caused by the tip exceeding Mach 1.

The 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1

Unlike Ford’s later Boss 302 and Boss 429 Mustangs, both powered by genuine racing engines, 1969’s outwardly similar Mustang Mach 1 was a less ambitious machine for street and strip and available with a variety of engines, one of which, thanks to a little Dearborn mendacity, was very competitive in the then highly popular sport of pro-stock drag-racing.  A moniker like Mach 1 is known in contract law as mere puffery, the notion being that in advertising it's possible to assert things which (1) can be neither proven nor disproven or (2), are so absurd no reasonable person would take them seriously.  In 1969 nobody took literally the idea a Mustang could break the speed of sound which was just as well because, at ground level, Mach 1 is 767 mph (1235 km/h) while the top speed of the most powerful Mustang Mach 1 was about 130 mph (210 km/h) or Mach 0.171.  Actually, most were built for drag-racing and geared for acceleration rather than top-end speed so few were capable of more than 115 mph (185 km/h) or Mach 0.151.

1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 with 428 (FE Series) CobraJet V8.

Hankering for a seven litre (427 cubic inch) version, Ford had added their 427 V8 (FE Series) to the Mustang’s option list for 1968 but none were built (although Shelby did one (or two depending on how such things are counted) and an uncertain number were fitted by dealers pursuant to customer request.  Probably now most remembered from service in the Ford GT40 and the AC Shelby Cobra, the 427 was a famously powerful and robust unit, a trophy winner on circuits from Daytona to Le Mans but was also cantankerous, noisy, an oil-burner and, perhaps most importantly for Ford, expensive to build because of its complex lubrication and cylinder width at the extreme limit of the block’s capacity.  It had also reached the end of its development so, until their new Boss 429 V8 (385 series) became available, Ford hotted-up the previously unremarkable 428 V8 (FE), used until then smoothly to propel big luxury cars like the Thunderbird and LTD.  Pleasingly for Ford, the 428 developed for the Mach 1 gained its increased output from bolt-on bits and pieces and was cheap to produce.

1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 with 351 (Windsor Series) V8.

Belying its dramatic appearance, the nose-heavy 428 Mach 1 was actually pretty bad at just about everything except the straight-line, quarter-mile sprints at which it excelled though Ford cheated to achieve even these 400 metre-long successes.  Upon its debut in 1968, the National Hot Rod Association (drag-racing’s sanctioning body) allocated vehicles to competition classes on the basis of manufacturers’ declared power-outputs.  Ford claimed the new 428 CobraJet generated 335 horsepower which was quite an understatement, something which allowed it to dominate that year’s national championships.  After that, the authorities cracked down and used their own assessments but by then the 428 CobraJet had done its job and such was the glow of the reflected glory that Ford sold over 70,000 Mach 1 Mustangs in 1969.  Not all were equipped with the big block 428 (a 390 cubic inch (6.5 litre) FE was also available which was about as heavy as the 428 but less powerful) and as road cars, those fitted with the small block (Windsor) 351 cubic inch (5.8 litre) V8 were probably more suited to what most people did most of the time.  Ford produced the Mustang Mach 1 between 1969 and 1978 although the 1974-1978 models are not well regarded, the name revived in 2003-2004 for a small production run and in 2021 the Mach 1 returned to the Mustang range.

Thrust SST, Nevada, 1997.

Almost fifty years to the day after US Air Force (USAF) pilot Chuck Yeager (1923-2020), flying a rocket-powered Bell X-1 aircraft, broke the sound barrier in Earth's atmosphere, RAF Pilot Andy Green (b 1962) set the absolute land speed record (LSR) driving the Thrust SST to a speed of 763.035 mph (1,227.985 km/h) over the stipulated flying mile (1.6 km).  It was the first time a land vehicle officially broke the sound barrier.  Powered by two afterburning Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan engines (the same type used by the British version of the F-4 Phantom II jet fighter) developing a net thrust of some 50,000 lb/f (223 kN) which equates to something in excess of 100,000 bhp (76 MW), the Thrust SST's record still stands.  Weighing a impressive 10 tons, at full throttle the fuel burn-rate was some 4.0 gallons (4.8 US gallons; 18 litres) per second or a tiny fraction of a mile per gallon.  Under the LSR rules mandated by the World Motor Sport Council, for a record officially to be sanctioned, there must be two runs in opposite directions within a certain elapsed time and the council confirmed the speed of sound was exceeded on both runs on 15 October 1997 at Black Rock Desert, Nevada (USA).

The only known photograph of the Anglo-French Concorde flying at Mach 2 (at 25,000 feet (7600 m) Mach 2 is 1,356 mph; 2,186 km/h; 1,185 knots), taken from a Royal Air Force (RAF) Panavia Tornado fighter while over the Irish Sea, April 1985.

Machboos

Lindsay Lohan in an interview published in the November 2022 edition of Cosmopolitan magazine revealed her favorite Middle-Eastern dish to cook was machboos, part of Arab cuisine throughout the region and prepared almost always with chicken with rice and vegetables.  A kind of blend of biryani and risotto, the rice is cooked in the spiced broth of the meat or chicken, melding the spices and ingredients.  Rice is a core component of Arabic cooking and interestingly, in Arabic it’s known as ruz but in the Khaleeji dialect it is aish (life) while in Egyptian Arabic, aish refers to bread, an indication of its centrality to the diet.  Like hummus, between nations (and even families) in the Middle East, there’s often disagreement about how machboos should be prepared, most of the arguments revolving around the bzar (the spice mix) but it’s certainly adaptable, able to be served with achaar (mango or lime pickle), daqoos (a spicy tomato sauce), or yoghurt with chopped cucumber and mint.

Ingredients (for serving 4-6) (from Table Tales: Exploring Culinary Diversity in Abu Dhabi (Rizzoli)).

6 tablespoons plain yogurt, divided
2 tablespoons Emirati bzar spice mix, divided
1½ kg chicken, cut into pieces
500 g basmati rice
80 mls vegetable oil
5 cardamom pods, crushed
1 cinnamon stick
10 black peppercorns
2 whole lumi, cracked
450 grams onions, chopped
1 tablespoon ginger, crushed
1 tablespoon garlic, crushed
4 small green chilies, halved
1 teaspoon turmeric
1 teaspoon cumin
1 teaspoon coriander powder
285 grams canned tomatoes, chopped
1 teaspoon salt
Cooking oil as required
450 grams potatoes, peeled and cubed
Handful of fresh coriander, chopped

Garnish

3 tablespoons cooking oil
2 onions, thinly sliced
85 grams raw cashews
55 grams raisins
Fresh coriander, chopped

Instructions

(1) Combine 4 tablespoons of yoghurt with 1 tablespoon of the bzar in a large bowl.  Coat the chicken and then marinade for 1 hour or longer.  Rinse the rice and soak in enough water to cover for 1 hour; drain.

(2) Heat the oil in a Dutch oven over medium heat. Add the cardamom pods, cinnamon stick, peppercorns and lumi and stir for 2 minutes.  Add the onions and sauté until golden.  Add ginger, garlic, and green chilies and stir for 2 minutes.

(3) Add the chicken and marinade and then cook for a few minutes on each side.  Sprinkle in the turmeric, the remaining bzar, cumin, and the coriander powder.

(4) Add the tomatoes, salt, and 2 cups of water; bring to a boil.  Cover, lower the heat, and simmer for 30 to 45 minutes, until the chicken is done.  Transfer the chicken to a roasting pan.

(5) Remove the cinnamon stick and lumi from the stock and discard.  Add the potatoes and fresh coriander and boil until the potatoes are just tender.  Adjust the stock to get a one-to-one ratio with the rice.  Stir in the remaining yoghurt until dissolved and then add the rice.  Seal the Dutch oven with aluminum foil, cover, and cook over low heat for 30 minutes until the rice is done.

(6) Turn on the oven broiler.  Brush the chicken with some oil and broil until golden.  Serve the rice on a platter with the chicken pieces on top.  Garnish with sautéed onions, cashews, raisins, and fresh coriander.

Garnish Instructions

(7) Place a large skillet over medium-high heat and add the oil and onions; sauté until they are dark brown, but not burnt.  Remove the onions with a slotted spoon and drain on paper towels.  Sauté the cashews in the same oil until golden brown.  Finally, add the raisins during the last few minutes to complete.

Combat

 Combat (pronounced kuhm-bat or kom-bat (verb); kom-bat (noun))

(1) To fight or contend against; vigorously to oppose.

(2) In military matters, certain parts of branches of the services which engage in armed conflict with enemy forces.

(3) An action fought between two military forces.

(4) As a descriptor (in the military and of weapos and weapons systems), a means to distinguish between an item design specifically for use in combat as oppose to one intended for other purpose.

1535-1540: From the Middle English intransitive verb combat (to fight, struggle, contend), from the sixteenth century French combat, from the twelfth century Old French combattre, from the Late Latin combattere, the construct being com (with (each other) (an an archaic form of cum)) + battuere (to beat, fight) (source of the modern English verb "batter").  The transitive sense dates from the 1580s; the figurative use from the 1620s.  The noun combat (a fight (originally especially "a fight between two armed persons" and later distinguished as single combat in the 1620s)), emerged in the 1560s and soon was applied in a general sense to "any struggle or fight between opposing forces".  Combat is a noun, verb & adjective, combater & combatant are nouns, combatted & combatting are verbs and combative is an adjective; the noun plural is combats.

Combative and dressed for combat: Lindsay Lohan in boxing gloves.

The phrase hors de combat (out of action; disabled; no longer able to fight (literally "out of combat")) was constructed from hors (out, beyond), from the Latin foris (outside (literally "out of doors")) + de (of) + combat.  It dates from 1757 and was related originally to battlefield conduct (the principle of which which would later be interpolated into the the rules of war) and is now a literary and rhetorical device.  It shouldn't be confused with the French expression hors concours (out of competition) which, dating from 1884, is applied to works of art in an exhibition but not eligible to be awarded a prize.  Given the sometimes nasty battles waged in galleries, perhaps hors de combat might sometimes be as appropriate but in exhibitions it's most often used of works which have either already won a prize or have been awarded the maximum number provided for in the competition rules.  Other sporting competitions sometimes use hors concours to describe entries which don't conform with the rules of the event but are for a variety of reasons permitted to run (notably in motorsport).  The adjective combative (pugnacious, disposed to fight) is from 1819 and by the mid nineteenth century had become much associated with the long discredited pseudo-science of phrenology, the related forms being combatively and the earlier (1815) combativeness.  Combatant (contending, disposed to combat) was an adjective by the mid fifteenth century and a noun (one who engages in battle) by circa 1855, both from the Old French combatant (which survives in Modern French as combattant) (skilled at fighting, warlike) where it had also been a noun.    The adjective combative (pugnacious, aggressive; disposed to engage in conflict (though not necessarily violence)) seems not pleasing to some because the incorrect spelling combatative is not uncommon.  

The Norton Commando 750 Combat

1968 Kawasaki 500 Mach III (H1).

British manufacturers once regarded competition from the far-east with little concern but by the late 1960s, Japanese motorcycles had become serious machines enjoying commercial success.  Kawasaki’s 500cm³ (H1, Mach III) two-stroke triple debuted in 1968 while Honda’s 750-Four was released a year later, the former fast but lethally unstable, the latter more refined.  Three years on, the release of Kawasaki’s z900 confirmed the maturity of the Japanese product and the era of British complacency was over though the realization was too late to save the industry.

Nothing ever quite matched the rawness of the original Kawasaki Mach III.  Riders of high performance machines had for decades distinguished between fast, well-balanced motorcycles and those which, while rapid, needed to be handled with caution if used in anything but a straight line and on a billiard table smooth surface but even in those circumstances the Mach III could be a handful, the engine's power band narrow and the entry to it sudden and explosive.  Many were soon noting that while rear tyre life was short, the front lasted well because it spent so little time in contact with the road.  Adding to the trickiness, lacking the rigidity needed to cope with such stresses, the frame design meant there was something of a gyroscopic tendency under hard acceleration which could at least be disquieting and the consequences were often worse.  Still, nobody denied they were quick.  Clearly, only crazy people would buy such a thing but fortunately for Kawasaki (and presumably this was part of their product planning), by 1968 the Western world was populated as never before with males aged 17-25 (peak craziness years) with sufficient credit or disposable income to indulge the madness of youth.  It helped that under the Bretton Woods system (1944) of fixed exchange rates, at ¥360 to the US$, the Mach III was quite a bargain; on cost breakdown, nothing on two wheels or four came close.

1973 Kawasaki 750 Mach IV (H2).

As a design, the Mach III obviously had its flaws but as a piece of engineering, it exhibited typical Japanese soundness and attention to detail.  They borrowed much and while little was genuinely innovative, they had started with a clean sheet of paper and buyers found, unlike the British bikes, electrics were reliable and mechanical parts were not subject to the oil-leaks which the British had for decades claimed were endemic to the breed; far-eastern engineering was now mass-producing bikes a generation or more advanced.  However, the British industry was chronically under-capitalized so, lacking resources to develop new models, resorted to "improving" existing models.  While they were doing that, the Japanese manufacturers moved on and Kawasaki were planning something which would match the Mach III for performance but deliver it in a more civilized (and safer) manner.  This project was a four-stroke, four cylinder 750, developed while the Mach III was being toned down (a little) while the good idea of a broader power band and a (slightly) stiffer frame was used on the Mach IV (750 H2), the ultimate evolution of the two-stroke triple which delivered best of the the Mach III experience while (somewhat) taming the worst of its characteristics.

1969 Honda 750-Four (the crankcases of the early 750s are (a little misleadingly) referred to as the "sandcast"; they were actually gravity cast).

However, in 1969 Honda, the largest in the Japanese industry and the company which in 1964 had stunned Formula One community when their 1.5 litre V12 car won a Grand Prix, released the motorcycle which threatened the very existence of the new big Kawasaki and the four-stroke Honda 750-Four was for a generation to set the template for its genre, as influential for big motorcycles as the Boeing 707 had in 1957 been for commercial airliners.  Kawasaki reviewed this disturbing intrusion on their planning, concluding the Honda was a touring machine and that the Mach III had proved there was demand machines orientated more to high-performance.  The board looked at the demographic charts and decided to proceed, enlarging their project to 900cm³ which, with double overhead camshafts (DOHC) was tuned more for top-end power than the more relaxed, single cam (SOHC) Honda.  Released in 1972, almost a year after the Mach IV, the z900 attracted praise for its quality and performance, all delivered while offering a stability the charismatic but occasionally lethal triples never approached.

1972 Kawasaki z900

The big Nortons, named Commando since 1967, had long been a benchmark for high-performance motorcycles and although the Mach III had (on paper) matched its speed, its handling characteristics were such that it could really be enjoyed only in a straight line and even then, was best handled by cautious experts.  The Honda 750-Four and Kawasaki z900 were both vastly better as road machines and clearly the future of the breed.  The long-serving big British twins, while their handling was still impeccable, were now outdated, no longer offered a performance premium and still leaked oil.  Norton’s response in 1972 was the hastily concocted Commando Combat, the engine tweaked in the usual British manner with a high compression ratio, bigger carburetors, larger ports and a high-lift, long-duration camshaft.  These modifications, quite usual for racing engines, are not suitable for the road and the “peaky” Combat’s only advantage was great top-end power though it was noted the clever isolastic engine mounting did work well to limit the extent to which the greater vibration transmitted through the frame.  Unfortunately, the gains high in the rev-range compromised the low and mid-range performance, just where a road-bike most often operates.  Indeed, at points, the torque-curve actually went the wrong way and the only obvious way to disguise this was to lower the gearing which (1) restricted the top-speed to something embarrassing low and (2) meant even cruising speeds demanded high engine revolutions.  Sadly, it wasn’t possible for many long to enjoy the pleasures of all that power because the Combat's specification exposed weaknesses in pistons, bearings and crankshafts.  Main bearing life could be as little as 4000 miles (7000 km) but plenty of engines succumbed to other failures long before.  As a consolation, even if the Combat wouldn’t keep going, it was easy to stop, the disk brake was the best in the industry.

1972 Norton Commando 750 Combat.

So the most of the things that were changed made things worse.  Other things stayed the same including the oil leaks (the joke being seals existed to keep the dirt out, not the fluids in) and the absence of electric starting, the right legs of Norton owners reputedly more muscular than the left.  For the engine's problems the solution lay in engineering and metallurgy, a combination of a self-aligning spherical roller bearing called a superblend and un-slotted pistons.  But, by the time things were fixed, the fiasco had had triggered irreparable damage to market perceptions and Norton quietly dropped the Combat, applying the improvements to their mainstream engines without trying to match its top-end power.  Norton went bankrupt within a few years but the name has been revived several times over the past decades.

Asymmetric

Asymmetric (pronounced a-sim-et-rick)

(1) Not identical on both sides of a central line; unsymmetrical; lacking symmetry.

(2) An asymmetric shape.

(3) In logic or mathematics, holding true of members of a class in one order but not in the opposite order, as in the relation “being an ancestor of”.

(4) In chemistry, having an unsymmetrical arrangement of atoms in a molecule.

(5) In chemistry, noting a carbon atom bonded to four different atoms or groups.

(6) In chemistry (of a polymer), noting an atom or group that is within a polymer chain and is bonded to two different atoms or groups that are external to the chain.

(7) In electrical engineering, of conductors having different conductivities depending on the direction of current flow, as of diodes

(8) In aeronautics, having unequal thrust, as caused by an inoperative engine in a twin-engined aircraft.

(9) In military theory, a conflict where the parties are vastly different in terms of military capacity.  This situation is not in all circumstances disadvantageous to the nominally inferior party.

(10) In gameplay, where different players have different experiences

(11) In cryptography, not involving a mutual exchange of keys between sender a7 receiver.

(12) In set theory, of a relation R on a set S: having the property that for any two elements of S (not necessarily distinct), at least one is not related to the other via R.

1870–1875: The construct was a- + symmetric.  The a- prefix was from the Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-) (ἀν-) (an- if immediately preceding a vowel) and was added to stems to created the sense of "not, without, opposite of".  The prefix is referred to as an alpha privative and is used with stems beginning with consonants (except sometimes “h”); “an-“ is synonymous and is used in front of words that start with vowels and sometimes “h”.  Symmetric was from the Latin symmetria from Ancient Greek συμμετρία (summetría).  Symmetry was from the 1560s in the sense of "relation of parts, proportion", from the sixteenth century French symmétrie and directly from the Latin symmetria, from the Greek symmetria (agreement in dimensions, due proportion, arrangement", from symmetros (having a common measure, even, proportionate), an assimilated form of syn- (together) + metron (measure) from the primitive Indo-European me- (to measure).  The meaning "harmonic arrangement of parts" dates from the 1590s.  The suffix -ic was from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos & -ḱos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix -kos & -ḱos.  The form existed also in Ancient Greek as -ικός (-ikós), in Sanskrit as -इक (-ika) and the Old Church Slavonic as -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); A doublet of -y.  In European languages, adding -kos to noun stems carried the meaning "characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to" while on adjectival stems it acted emphatically.  In English it's always been used to form adjectives from nouns with the meaning “of or pertaining to”.  A precise technical use exists in physical chemistry where it's used to denote certain chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a higher oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix -ous; (eg sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃).  Asymmetric & asymmetrical are adjectives, asymmetricity, asymmetricality, asymmetricalness & asymmetry are nouns and asymmetrically is an adverb; the noun plural is asymmetries.

The usually symmetrically attired Lindsay Lohan demonstrates the possibilities of asymmetry.

1975 Kawasaki 750 H2 Mach IV.

Manufacturers of triple-cylinder motorcycles traditionally used single (3 into 1) or symmetrical (3 into 2) exhaust systems (although, during the 1970s, Suzuki offered some of their "Ram-Air" models with a bizarre 3 into 4 setup, the centre cylinder’s header bifurcated) but in 1969 Kawasaki adopted an asymmetric addition for one of the memorable machines of the time.  The Kawasaki 500 H1 Mach III had two outlets to the right, one to the left and was a fast, lethally unstable thing which was soon dubbed the "widow maker".  Improvements to the Mach III made it a little more manageable and its successor, the 750 H2 Mach IV was claimed to be better behaved but was faster still and best enjoyed by experts, preferably in a straight line although, with a narrow power band which peaked with a sudden rush, even that could be a challenge.  The Kawasaki triples remain the most charismatic of the Japanese motorcycles.

1973 Triumph X-75 Hurricane.

Available only during 1972-1973 and produced in small numbers, the Triumph X75 Hurricane was typical of the motorcycles being produced by the British manufacturers which had neglected development and re-investment and consequently were unable adequately to respond to the offerings of the Japanese which had done both aplenty.  Whatever their charms, models like the X75 were being rendered obsolescent, some of the underlying technology dating back decades yet, without the capital to invest, this was as good as it got and some of the fudges of the era were worse.  The X-75 was however ahead of its time in one way, it was a “factory special”, a design influenced by what custom shops in the US had been doing as one-offs for customers and in the years ahead, many manufacturers would be attracted by the concept and its healthy profit margins.  The X-75 is remembered also for the distinctive asymmetric stack of three exhaust pipes on the right-hand side.

1986 Ferrari Testarossa (1984-1991) with monospecchio.

Some of Ferrari's early-production Testarossas were fitted with a single high-mounted external mirror, on the left or right depending on the market into which it was sold and although the preferred term was the Italian “monospecchio” (one mirror), in the English speaking-world it was quickly dubbed the “flying mirror" (rendered sometimes in Italian as “specchio volante” (a ordinary wing mirror being a “specchietto laterale esterno”, proving everything sounds better in Italian)).  The unusual placement and blatant asymmetry annoyed some and delighted others, the unhappy more disgruntled still if they noticed the vent on right of the front spoiler not being matched by one to the left.  It was there to feed the air-conditioning’s radiator and while such offset singularities are not unusual in cars, many manufacturers create a matching fake as an aesthetic device: Ferrari did not.  The mirror’s curious placement was an unintended consequence of a European Union regulation (and it doubtful many institutions have in a relatively short time created as many regulations of such collective length as the EU) regarding the devices and this was interpreted by the designers as having to provide 100% rearward visibility.  Because of the sheer size of the rear bodywork necessitated by the twin radiators which sat behind the side-strakes (another distinctive Testarossa feature), the elevation was the only way this could be done but it later transpired the interpretation of the law was wrong, a perhaps forgivable mistake given the turgidity of EU legalese.

The Blohm & Voss BV 141

Focke-Wulf Fw 189 Eurl (Owl)

In aircraft, designs have for very good reason (aerodynamics, weight distribution, flying characteristics, ease of manufacture et al) tended to be symmetrical, sometimes as an engineering necessity such as the use of contra-rotationg propellers on some twin-engined airframes, a trick to offset the destabilizing effects of the torque when very potent power-plants are fitted.  There has though been the odd bizarre venture into structural asymmetry, one of the most intriguing being the Blohm & Voss BV 141, the most distinctive feature of which was an offset crew-capsule.  The BV 141 was tactical reconnaissance aircraft built in small numbers and used in a desultory manner by the Luftwaffe (the German air force) during World War II (1939-1945) and although it was studied by engineers from many countries, none seem to have been inspired to repeat the experiment. The origin of the curious craft lay in a specification issued in 1937 by the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM; the German Air Ministry) which called for a single-engine reconnaissance aircraft, optimized for visual observation and, in response, Focke-Wulf responded with their Fw 189 Eurl (Owl) which, because of the then still novel twin-boomed layout, encountered some resistance from the RLM bureaucrats but it found much favor with the Luftwaffe and, over the course of the war, some nine-hundred entered service and it was used almost exclusively as the German's standard battlefield reconnaissance aircraft.  In fact, so successful did it prove in this role that the other configurations it was designed to accommodate, that of liaison and close-support ground-attack, were never pursued.  Although its performance was modest, it was a fine airframe with superb flying qualities and an ability to absorb punishment which, on the Russian front where it was extensively deployed, became famous and captured examples provide Russian aeronautical engineers with ides which would for years influence their designs.

The RLM had also invited Arado to tender but their Ar 198, although featuring an unusual under-slung and elongated cupola which afforded for the observer a uniquely panoramic view, proved unsatisfactory in test-flights and development ceased.  Blohm and Voss hadn't been included in the RLM's invitation but anyway chose to offer a design which was radically different even by the standards of the innovative Fw 189.  The asymmetric BV 141 design was eye-catching with the crew housed in an extensively glazed capsule, offset to starboard of the centre-line with a boom offset to the left which housed the single-engine in front with the tail to the rear.  Prototypes were built as early as 1938 and the Luftwaffe conducted operational trials over both the UK and USSR between 1939-1941 but, despite being satisfactory in most respects, the Bv 141 was hampered by poor performance, a consequence of using an under-powered engined.  A re-design of the structure to accommodate more powerful units was begun but delays in development and the urgent need for the up-rated engines for machines already in production doomed the project and the Bv 141 was in 1943 abandoned.

Blohm & Voss BV 141 prototype with full-width rear elevators & stabilizers.

Production Blohm & Voss BV 141 with port-only rear elevator & stabilizer.

Despite the ungainly appearance, test-pilots reported the Fw 141 was a nicely balanced airframe, the seemingly strange weight distribution well compensated by (1) component placement, (2) the specific lift characteristics of the wing design and (3) the choice of opposite rotational direction for crankshaft and propeller, the torque generated used as a counter-balance.  Nor, despite the expectation of some, were there difficulties in handling whatever behavior was induced by the thrust versus drag asymmetry and pilots all indicated some intuitive trimming was all that was needed to compensate for any induced yaw.  The asymmetry extended even to the tail-plane, the starboard elevator and horizontal stabilizer removed (to afford the tail-gunner a wider field of fire) after the first three prototypes were built; surprisingly, this was said barely to affect the flying characteristics.  Focke-Wolf pursued the concept, a number of design-studies (including a piston & turbojet-engine hybrid) initiated but none progressed beyond the drawing-board.

Asymmetric warfare

In the twenty-first century, the term “asymmetric warfare” became widely used.  The concept describes conflicts in which there are significant disparities in power, capability and strategies between opposing forces and although the phrase has become recently fashionable, the idea is ancient, based often on the successes which could be exploited by small, mobile and agile (often irregular) forces against larger, conventionally assembled formations.  Reports of such tactics are found in accounts of conflicts in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe from as early as reliable written records have been found.  The classic example is what came later to be called “guerrilla warfare”, hit-and-run tactics which probe and attack a weak spots as they are detected, the ancestor of insurgencies, “conventional” modern terrorism and cyber-attacks.  However, even between conventional national militaries there have long been examples of the asymmetric such as the use of small, cheap weapons like torpedo boats and mines which early in the twentieth century proved effective against the big, ruinously expensive Dreadnoughts.  To some extent, the spike in use of the phrase in the post-Cold War era happened because it provided such a contrast between the nuclear weapon states which, although having a capacity to destroy entire countries without having one soldier step foot on their territory, found themselves vulnerable to low-tech, cleverly planned attacks.

Although the term “asymmetric warfare” covers encompasses a wide vista, one increasingly consistent thread is that it can be a difficult thing for "conventional" military formations to counter insurgencies conducted by irregular combatants who, in many places and for much of the time, are visually indistinguishable from the civilian population.  The difficulty lies not in achieving the desired result (destruction of the enemy) but managing to do so without causing an “excessive” number of civilian causalities; although public disapproval has meant the awful phrase “collateral damage” is now rarely heard, civilians (many of them women & children) continue greatly to suffer in such conflicts, the death toll high.  Thus the critique of the retaliatory strategy of the Israel Defence Force (IDF) in response to the attack by the Hamas on 7 October 2023, Palestinian deaths now claimed to exceed 20,000; that number is unverified and will include an unknown number of Hamas combatants but there is no doubt the percentage of civilian deaths will be high, the total casualty count estimated early in January 2024 at some 60,000.  What the IDF appear to have done is settle on the strategy adopted by Ulysses S Grant (1822–1885; US president 1869-1877) in 1863 when appointed head of the Union armies: the total destruction of the opposing forces.  That decision was a reaction to the realization the previous approach (skirmishes and the temporary taking of enemy territory which was soon re-taken) was ineffectual and war would continue as long as the other side retained even a defensive military capacity.  Grant’s strategy was, in effect: destroy the secessionist army and the secessionist cause dies out.

In the US Civil War (1861-1965) that approach worked though at an appalling cost, the 1860s a period when ballistics had advanced to the point horrific injuries could be inflicted at scale but battlefield medical tools and techniques were barely advance from Napoleonic times.  The bodies were piled high.  Grant’s success was influential on the development of the US military which eventually evolved into an organization which came to see problems as something not to be solved but overwhelmed by the massive application of force, an attitude which although now refined, permeates from the Pentagon down to platoon level.  As the US proved more than once, the strategy works as long as there’s little concern about “collateral damage”, an example of this approach being when the Sri Lankan military rejected the argument there was “no military solution” to the long running civil war (1983-2009) waged by the Tamil Tigers (the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)).  What “no military solution” means is that a war cannot be won if the rules of war are followed so the government took the decision that if war crimes and crimes against humanity were what was required to win, they would be committed.

In the 1990s, a number of political and military theorists actually advanced the doctrine “give war a chance”, the rationale being that however awful conflicts may be, if allowed to continue to the point where one side gains an unambiguous victory, the dispute is at least resolved and peace can ensue, sometimes for generations.  For most of human history, such was the usual path of war but after the formation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 things changed, the Security Council the tool of the great powers, all of which (despite their publicity) viewed wars as a part of whatever agenda they were at the time pursuing and depending on this and that, that meant their interests sometimes lay in ending conflicts and sometimes in prolonging them.  In isolation, such an arrangement probably could have worked (albeit with much “collateral damage”) but over the years, a roll-call of nations run by politicians appalled by the consequences of war began to become involved, intervening with peace plans,  offering mediation and urging the UN to deploy “peacekeeping” forces, something which became an international growth industry.  Added to that, for a number of reasons, a proliferation of non-government organizations (NGO) were formed, many of which concerned themselves with relief programmes in conflict zones and while these benefited may civilians, they also had the effect of allowing combatant forces to re-group and re-arm, meaning wars could drag on for a decade or more.

In the dreadful events in Gaza, war is certainly being given a chance and the public position of both the IDF and the Israeli government is that the strategy being pursued is one designed totally “to destroy” not merely the military capacity of Hamas but the organization itself.  Such an idea worked for Grant in the 1860s and, as the Sri Lankan military predicted they would, end-game there was achieved in 2009 on the basis of “total destruction”.  However, Gaza (and the wider Middle East) is a different time & place and even if the IDF succeeds in “neutralizing” the opposing fighters and destroying the now famous network of tunnels and ad-hoc weapons manufacturing centres, it can’t be predicted that Hamas in some form won’t survive and in that case, what seems most likely is that while the asymmetry of nominal capacity between the two sides will be more extreme than before, Hamas is more likely to hone the tactics than shift the objective.  The IDF high command are of course realists and understand there is nothing to suggest “the Hamas problem” can be solved and being practical military types, they know if a problem can’t be solved it must be managed.  In the awful calculations of asymmetric conflict, this means the IDF calculate that while future attacks will happen, the more destructive the response now, the longer will be the interval before the next event.

Valkyrie

Valkyrie (pronounced val-keer-ee, val-kahy-ree, vahl-kerr-ee or val-kuh-ree)

(1) Any of the twelve beautiful war-maidens attendant upon Odin who rode over battlefields, gathering the souls of slain warriors chosen by Odin or Tyr and taking them to Valhalla, there to wait upon them.

(2) Code name for the civil-military conspiracy against the Nazi German government, culminating in the attempt coup d'état of 20 July 1944 during which an attempt was made to assassinate Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945).

(3) A frequently used name for high performance machinery (eg Aston Martin Valkyrie, North American XB70 Valkyrie).

1768: From the Old Norse valkyrja (literally "chooser of the slain") and cognate with the Old English wælcyrie (witch).  The construct was valr (those who fell battle, slaughter (and cognate with Old English wæl)) + kyrja (chooser (and cognate with Old English cyrie)).  Kyrja was from the ablaut root of kjosa (to choose), from the Proto-Germanic keusan, from the primitive Indo-European root geus- (to taste; to choose).  The Old English form wælcyrie, strangely was less prevalent in Anglo-Saxon tales than in Scandinavian myths although linguistic anthropologists have suggested this may be a consequence of the better preservation of old texts.  Köri was an alternative Norse form of kyrjam, from the ablaut root of kjosa, from the Proto-Germanic keusan, the earlier form of which was geus (to taste; to choose) from which English ultimately gained gusto.  Richard Wagner's (1813–1883) modern German Walküre was directly from the Norse while the word was first noted in English as a proper noun (valkyries) in the 1770s and as a common noun (valkyries) since the 1880s. Valkyrie is a noun & valkyrian is an adjective; the noun plural is valkyries.

Rides of some Valkries

Valkyries Riding into Battle (1838) by Johan Gustaf Sandberg (1782–1854).

The Valkyries now get quite good press but in heathen times they were thought rather more sinister.  The literal translation of their name (choosers of the slain), referred to them choosing who gains admittance to Valhalla, the Norse resting place of fallen warriors, but in some tellings of the myth they decided also who died in battle and used their malicious magic to ensure their preferences were brought to fruition.  The tales of them writing their ledger of death are recounted in Edda, (an Old Norse term that refers to the collective of two Medieval Icelandic literary works: the Prose Edda and an older collection of poems now known as the Poetic Edda.  Assembled in Ireland during the thirteenth century and written in Icelandic, they comprise material reaching back to the Vikings and are the main sources of medieval skaldic tradition in Iceland and Norse mythology), their most gruesome side illustrated vividly in the Darraðarljóð, a poem contained within Njal’s Saga.  In the saga are depicted a dozen Valkyries prior to the Battle of Clontarf, sitting at a loom and weaving the tragic fate of the warriors using intestines for their thread, severed heads for weights, and swords and arrows for beaters, all the while chanting their intentions with ominous delight.  That might delight some radical feminists but part of the myths is also that having carried the fallen to Valhalla, there the twelve beauties waited upon them hand and foot, attending to their every whim.  Readers have always been able to take from mythology what they will.  The artists of the nineteenth century however were always evocatively romantic when depicting the Valkyries, perhaps recalling the  Nietzschean visions in the thirteenth century Norse Saga of the Volsungs in which beholding a Valkyrie is compared with staring into a flame.

Valkyrie and a Dying Hero (circa 1877) by Hans Makart (1840-1884).

The imagery exists also in the folklore of other Germanic peoples.  In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the valkyries (wælcyrie in the Old English) were female spirits of carnage and the Celts, with whom the Norse and other Germanic peoples associated for centuries, had in their mythology similar beings such as the war goddesses Badb and the Morrígan.  Whether in their loving or bloodthirsty modalities, the valkyries are part of the complex of shamanism that permeates pre-Christian Germanic religion. Much like the ravens Hugin and Munin, they’re projections of parts of Odin, semi-distinct entities part of his larger being.

North American XB-70 Valkyrie.

While the B-52 was in still in production, the Pentagon was planning its successor.  The North American XB-70 Valkyrie was nuclear-armed, long-range, deep-penetration strategic bomber, capable of cruising at Mach 3+ (circa 2000 mph (3,200 km/h)) at an altitude of 70,000 feet (circa 24 km), performance which would have rendered it close to invulnerable to both ground-based anti-aircraft fire and short-range fighter interceptors.  However, by the late 1950s, while the XB-70 was still in the prototype stage, the introduction of surface-to-air missiles put this near-invulnerability in doubt and this, coupled with the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) meant the brief era of the big strategic bombers was over.  In 1961, after two had been built (one of which was lost in an accident), the project was cancelled, viewed as a flying dreadnought overtaken by technology. 

North American XB-70 Valkyrie Specifications

Length: 189 ft 0 in (57.6 m)

Wingspan: 105 ft 0 in (32 m)

Height: 30 ft 0 in (9.1 m)

Wing area: 6,297 ft2 (585 m2)

Airfoil: Hexagonal; 0.30 Hex modified root, 0.70 Hex modified tip

Empty weight: 253,600 lb (115,030 kg; operating empty weight)

Loaded weight: 534,700 lb (242,500 kg)

Takeoff weight: 542,000 lb (246,000 kg)

Fuel capacity: 300,000 pounds (140,000 kg) or 46,745 US gallons (177,000 L)

Powerplant: 6 × General Electric YJ93-GE-3 afterburning turbojets

Dry thrust: 19,900 lbf (84 kN) each

With afterburner: 28,800 lbf[80] (128 kN) each

North American XB-70 Valkyrie Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 3.1 (2,056 mph (3,309 km/h))

Cruise speed: Mach 3.0 (2,000 mph (3,200 km/h))

Range: 3,725 nautical miles (4,288 mi (6,901 km)) on combat mission

Service ceiling: 77,350 ft (23,600 m)

Wing loading: 84.93 lb/ft2 (414.7 kg/m2)

Lift-to-drag: About 6 at Mach 2[116]

Thrust/weight: 0.314

End of an era: The Aston Martin Valkyrie

The days of such things may be numbered but the manufacturers of petrol-fueled hypercars are hastening, while they still can, to offer the rich a way amusingly (and given the aftermarket, often profitably) to spend the quantitatively-eased cash governments have given them this past decade.  In August 2021, Aston Martin unveiled the Valkyrie Spider, an open-roof version of the Formula One-inspired hybrid hypercar, the coupés produced in 2022, the Spiders the following year.  Revealed at the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance in California, the Valkyrie Spider differs from the coupé in having a removable carbon-fibre roof panel, two hinged polycarbonate side windows and front-hinged dihedral doors rather than the closed version’s gull-wings.

The powertrain of both is essentially the same, combining a 6.5 litre (397 cubic inch), Cosworth-designed, naturally-aspirated V12 and a single electric motor for a total output of 1160 bhp (865 kW) in the coupé and 20 bhp (15 kW) less in the spider, Aston Martin not commenting on the difference.  Drive is to the rear wheels through what’s described as a seven-speed “automated manual” transmission and though the coupé is slightly lighter, performance for both is said to be similar with a 0-60 mph (100 km) time around 2.5 seconds and a top speed around 217 mph (350 km/h) although it’s noted removing the roof sacrifices about 12 mph (20 km/h).  Eighty-five Valkyrie Spiders will be built, these in addition to one-hundred and fifty coupés and twenty-five race-track only specials and while pricing hasn’t been announced, leaks from the factory suggest something over US$3 million.  Interest is said to be strong although the loss of the lucrative Russian market presumably saw some adjustments in national allocations.