During WWII, a number of German companies received financial backing and slave labourers from the government at the time. Companies such as Hugo Boss, Volkswagen and Lufthansa.
A thread on Airliners.net from 1999 mentions a documentary showing Lufthansa planes flying with the Swastika on their tail. I found this image online:
What is the story behind Lufthansa's involvement with the National Socialist Party? Did they indeed receive large monetary backing from the then-government?
NSDAP was the elected ruling party in Germany from 1933 to 1945 (only the first part of it elected though); thus Lufthansa was given government money, not "Nazi"-money. During this time, they made the Swastika the flag of Germany. American Airlines sport the American flag all over their tail, and I'm sure they (at some point) have received government money as well. If you replace every occurrence of "Nazis" in your question (including title) with "government", you'll notice it becomes slightly less provocative, and the parallels to other airlines and other countries become readily apparent.
When the war started, I would assume the military requisitioned all the assets they needed including airplanes and services from Lufthansa. I'm not much of an historian though, so I can't give you any details, but I'm sure they're out there to find. I realize this doesn't really answer your question (Lufthansa's involvement with the German government), the point I'm trying to make is that it's very hard to answer, as with any airline and any government.
Look up the idea of a national airline, a flag carrier, and drop your attitude that for whatever reason they should have been banned from operating because they had been such.
Aeroflot carried the flag of the USSR proudly, the USSR killed more people than Nazi Germany ever did. Totally irrelevant. They're their country's flag carrier, so they show the flag.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with anything military. Lufthansa was state owned at the time (and indeed into the 1990s), so of course they flew the then current flag of the state, which for a decade happened to include the Swastika.
Also, the post-WW2 Lufthansa is a different company from the pre-WW2 Lufthansa. It was incorporated in 1953 and purchased the name Lufthansa on the open market as a trade name, an old and proud name in European aviation, a name associated with quality and reliability.
They still bear the national flag of Germany to this date, albeit a smaller one. But at the time it was very common for airlines to show the national flag very large and proud on the tail fin or fuselage.
During WWII, a number of German companies received financial backing and slave labourers from the government at the time. Companies such as Hugo Boss, Volkswagen and Lufthansa. A thread on Airliners.net from 1999 mentions a documentary showing Lufthansa planes flying with the Swastika on their tail. I found this image online: What is the story behind Lufthansa's involvement with the National Socialist Party? Did they indeed receive large monetary backing from the then-government?
I had posted the question below on a New York Times article, but did not get any useful replies. The series of six successful Inmarsat pings known to exist, MAY carry enough information to say... position at 3:11AM. From the ping at 3:11AM, another circle can be drawn, like the one drawn at 8:11AM. The intersection of the two circles give an arc of most likely 3:11 AM positions. At 4:11AM, we will have a series of circles from max distance and one circle from the ping. These intersections will give a series of possible arcs. This process can be repeated (with increasing complexity
Advisory Circular AC 61-136 which outlines the approval and limitations of flight training devices seems to contradict 14 CFR 61.57(c). To what extent can I use an AATD for instrument currency? In addition, to what extent can an AATD be used toward and instrument proficiency check (IPC)? Edit: I have located this document from the FAA Office of Aviation Safety that clarifies that AATDs and BATDs are governed by FAR 61.4(c) and are authorized for specific purposes and can be used in the same manner at a Flight Training Device instead of a Aviation Training Device as long as they have
My only detailed experience with carburetors is in aircraft. I'm pretty familiar with the principles behind float-type carbs, but I recently saw a schematic for a "downdraft carburetor" with a choke valve. This got me curious, so I did a little research and found that what I'm used to is an "updraft carburetor", and that (according to wikipedia) they fell out of fashion in the automotive industry in the 1930s. Why is the updraft carburetor design so prevalent in aviation? Does an updraft carb actually have a choke valve? Images below to provide a little context for those of us who
As far as my knowledge goes: There is a 250 kt speed limit under the altitude of 10.000 feet. This screenshot seem to show an aircraft below 10.000 feet and traveling at 285 kts at the time i captured the screenshot. I don't think this aircraft posed any threats to other aviation traffic as there is no other traffic in the airspace. I was just curious. EDIT: Shortly after: I see this aircraft taking off from the same airport. Doing the same thing as the first plane.
How do flying wings, like the B-2 Stealth bomber, actually keep themselves from yawing out of control without a vertical stabilizer? For the record, I assume this has to be a simple mechanics... WWII. They didn't have flight control computers back then, and the only control complaints I recall them having is that early versions had a tendency to flip over backwards when approaching stall speeds, well, that and the ground effects were pretty strong. But, no mentions of going into flat spins when going into hard maneuvers (that I recall). So how do they control that Y axis on flying wings
This is a followup to What is the measurement system used in the aviation industry? and related to this question from History. I can understand the arguments as to why adoption of SI units would not make sense for the general population, but aviation is a specialised business. All professionals are highly trained, and would (should) be well versed in both systems anyways, so the transition would be much simpler from the point of view of human factors. The technology would probably be much harder to shift but again, with more and more displays and documentation going digital in cockpits
In Did this aircraft illegally exceed 250kts below 10,000ft? it was mentioned that unlike here in the US, EASA does not have a 250 kt. speed limit below 10,000 ft. So does this mean that are we allowed to go as fast as we want? Mach 8? ;-) What is the maximum indicated airspeed specified by EASA when operating in the European Union?
The FAA will open up to flying civilian drones in 2015. Should we get pilot licenses to be ready for this? if so, is there a difference between plane or helicopter pilot license? Links related: NASA Helps Draw Up Rules for Flying Drones in the U.S FAA making plans for drone flights in U.S. U.S. colleges begin offering more drone piloting programs to keep up with domestic drone boom California bills tackle drones, personal privacy Aviation schools prepare for boom in demand for drone pilots
Suppose that an aircraft is in an exigency or emergency solely related to aviation (ie not a medical situation). Moreover, suppose that some airline passenger believes that he/she can help..., in their attempts to recover from a stall, the first officer pushed his yoke upwards (fatefully) while the reserve copilot pushed his yoke downwards (correctly). Consequently, both opposite actions nullified each other and the plane continued its fall as a result of its stall. The captain was out of the cockpit at the start of the stall. He returned afterwards (I don't recall exactly when), spent some