PDA

View Full Version : A passing though about the Me-262...



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

I_KG100_Prien
02-01-2008, 12:29 PM
http://www.***ung.net/images/1066/ceiling_cat.jpg

HuninMunin
02-01-2008, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Neat FEELING to have..

Got anything other than your opinion to support it?

As you may have noticed..

I have several that say otherwise..

Where as you have..

have..

Emmmm..

zero?

So the amount of opinions is the deciding factor? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Or were you just pointing out that your nothing is bigger then his nothing?

Jaws2002
02-01-2008, 12:36 PM
If the wings swept back angle are only the result of CoG adjustment and nothing to do with aerodynamics planed for the plane, why did they bother to make the vertical and horizontal stabilizers delta? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/me262/me262_schem_01.gif


I'll run now before I'm being dragged in this mud pit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
So the amount of opinions is the deciding factor? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Or were you just pointing out that your nothing is bigger then his nothing?
No..

But..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/I_want_to_belive.jpg

But the darn FACTS keep getting in the way http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
02-01-2008, 12:45 PM
Neat FEELING to have..

Got anything other than your opinion to support it?

Actually there were some quotes about the continuing of the angle of the wings through the roots to the fuselage earlier in the thread (in German). I can't remember if they were primary or seconday, but if secondary then they are equivalent to all the other information posted, pretty much, bar the letter from Messerschmitt, and the quote from Voigt.

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Neat FEELING to have..

Got anything other than your opinion to support it?

Actually there were some quotes about the continuing of the angle of the wings through the roots to the fuselage earlier in the thread (in German). I can't remember if they were primary or seconday, but if secondary then they are equivalent to all the other information posted, pretty much, bar the letter from Messerschmitt, and the quote from Voigt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes.. but that was done to increase stability..

As noted in one of my links..

Not..

To take advantage of the high speed benefits associated with swept wings..

Those benefits were 'dumb luck' in that they were not realized until after it was done

JZG_Thiem
02-01-2008, 12:51 PM
There was a guy with a horribly wrong idea, complete twisted view of the world as it should be, but with the will and crazyness and some (as he thought) well prepaired material to go for an attack.
He started a war over practically nothing, made some nice advances, until he was halted by a major defeat. At this point he was offered to surrender. Yet, he decided to go for a "total war", all out. Poor guy, he really didnt know what he was calling for.

All the people he attacked allied and continued to push him back far and large. He got really desperate, without option for surrender anymore (he had given away that card to play himself). He withdrew from public, and started to spill out -over and over- the same nonsense, starting to accuse everyone around him. "you fools, you fail(ed), you betray me, you have no clue". He got more and more bitter, deeper and deeper into his delusions. As the situation rapidly worsened towards the end, he resorted basically to repeating the illusion of "final victory". He pulled out "wonder weapons", which couldnt help him anyway, too late too little. Coming near the fatal end, he sat in his bunker, utterly desperate, (almost) insane, still cursing at everyone around him, while the rest of the world already got past him and his ideas and prepared to move on for the things to come.

There he is, sitting in his bunker......what will be the end? Who knows, and frankly who cares about him. The word has turned, and former allies will be turning into foes again. They were foes, but allied only to fight him, since he was the most evil and crazy thing to everyone of them.

HuninMunin
02-01-2008, 12:53 PM
Quick brain to mouth nonsense postings - check

Repetition in hope to just cry louder then the other girls - check

Childish wordplay - check

Playing the Nazi sledgehammer - check

Forum pictures as a last resort - check

Catlike typing - check

Still missing alternate logins to support your position.
Other then that it's looking good so I hearby offer you the title
of "über-Troll-Apprentice".

Aaron_GT
02-01-2008, 12:55 PM
Yes.. but that was done to increase stability..

Which is what BaronUnderpants said too.

BaronUnderpants said
"The inner wingsections was changed due to turbulance issues."

You said
"Neat FEELING to have.."

Of course you could have been some other part of his post, but without replying to specific bits noone can tell!

HuninMunin
02-01-2008, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
And the price of tea in china is what?

Can't really tell.
There are a lot of different brands.

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 12:57 PM
The 'real' reason why the Me262 wings were swept summary..

By AKA_TAGERT

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">PERSONAL SITE</span>


Luftwaffe Ring : link (http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/Messerschmit/page4.html)
A combination of excellent design and <span class="ev_code_yellow">downright luck</span> resulted in a very harmonious design while significantly stretching the known aeronautical boundaries. An example of this is the Me262's wing. The characteristic swept design was the <span class="ev_code_red">result of a need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate</span> for heavier then expected engines. <span class="ev_code_green">It was only later that the benefits of swept wings were realized.</span>


Greg Goebel : link (http://www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html)
Messerschmitt's dream fighter had the turbojets mounted in nacelles under the middle of the wings. <span class="ev_code_red">The wings were slightly swept to ensure proper center of gravity</span>


Battle-Fleet : link (http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/me262.htm)
It was the third airframe that was to become a true jet plane when it took to the air on July 18 1942 in Leipheim near Günzburg, Germany, piloted by Fritz Wendel. Instead of the planned 003 engines which were proving unreliable, the Junkers Jumo 004 had become available and was installed in its place. The 004 was heavier than the 003, and as a result the center of gravity of the plane would have been too far forward for safety. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Moving the engines to the rear was a simple solution to the problem, but as they were mounted centered on the wing spars this wasn't easy to do.</span> <span class="ev_code_red">The solution was to bend the wings themselves to the rear, leading to the enduring myth that the plane was designed as a swept-wing fighter.</span>

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">NON-PERSONAL SITE</span>


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/technical_2.htm) :
Differences in wing root forces, weight distribution, and the Center of Gravity would have completely altered the characteristics of the original Me 262. <span class="ev_code_red">His solution may have been borne of necessity,</span> but it has emerged as one of the most innovative engineering feats in the entire effort.


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that <span class="ev_code_red">the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft</span>


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
The real surprise then is why was this knowledge of the swept wing not taken advantage of worldwide before it was <span class="ev_code_green">experimentally proven</span> on the Me 262. The only plausible (if somewhat vague) explanation was the <span class="ev_code_brown">resistance to new ideas found in all scientific circles</span>


NASA : link (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch11-2.htm)
<span class="ev_code_red">the wing was swept back slightly to position the wing aerodynamic center in the correct relation to the airplane center of gravity.</span>


HOW STUFF WORKS : link (http://science.howstuffworks.com/messerschmitt-me-262.htm)
The Messerschmitt Me 262's dramatic <span class="ev_code_red">swept wings were mandated when engineers discovered that the weight of the engine pods threw off the plane's center of gravity; the wing sweep restored equilibrium</span>


Indopedia : link (http://indopedia.org/Messerschmitt_Me_262.html)
During development the weight of the engines grew until they started to seriously affect the plane's center of gravity and stability. To correct this without major changes to the design, in March 1940 <span class="ev_code_red">the wings were swept rearward to restore the proper center of gravity,</span> giving rise <span class="ev_code_green">to a persistent myth that the plane began life as a swept-wing design.</span>


HISTORYNET.COM: link (http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/flight_technology/3038021.html)
<span class="ev_code_red">calculations on the center of gravity had dictated the use of swept back wings on the Me-262 jet fighter; </span><span class="ev_code_green">their aerodynamic benefits were realized later</span>

<span class="ev_code_black">MAGAZINES</span>


Airpower 01-MAR-05 Author: Jenkins, Dennis R. : link (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3842317/Me-262-Wunderplane-or-compromise.html#abstract)
Interestingly, although the Me 262 is usually portrayed as being the forebear of many advanced concepts, it was actually very much a compromise aircraft and its designers were not particularly happy with several aspects of it. <span class="ev_code_red">The "advanced" swept-wing was an inelegant solution to a center-of-gravity problem,</span> while the underslung nacelles compensated for oversized and overweight power plants. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Its designers were not supermen changing the world, but competent engineers responding to events largely out of their control.</span>


Air Classics Apr 2003 by O'Leary, Michael, Larsen, Jim : link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200304/ai_n9230356)
Not only was the jet engine barely a working idea but <span class="ev_code_green">the advantages (and disadvantages) of the swept wing simply were not known. Oddly, the performance benefits of the swept wing were not completely realized in the initial design concepts</span> - <span class="ev_code_red">rather, that type of wing was utilized when it became obvious that the engines were going to be much heavier than initially planned and the center of gravity would drastically change without sweeping the wings.</span><span class="ev_code_green"> It was only later that the benefits were discovered!</span>


PLANET AEROSPACE : link (http://www.planet-aerospace.com/pas/content/OF00000200000057/1/13/200004131.pdf)
<span class="ev_code_yellow">The choice of swept wings was, incidentally,</span> motivated by <span class="ev_code_red">the need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate for the increasing weight of the engines</span> in the course of the development work. <span class="ev_code_green">No-one in the team had any idea yet of the importance of delta wings for supersonic flight in general. </span>


AFA AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION October 1996 Vol. 79, No.10 Wings By Walter J. Boyne : link (http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct1996/1096wings.asp)
<span class="ev_code_yellow">Accidental Benefit</span>

Fixed wing sweep had been built into dozens of aircraft since the earliest days of flight, often as a solution to center-of-gravity problems. Sweep designed to raise the limiting Mach number had been a subject of study since the early 1930s <span class="ev_code_yellow">but appeared quite by accident on an early operational jet fighter, the Messerschmitt Me-262,</span> first flown July 18, 1942. The Me-262 had been originally designed as a straight-wing aircraft, <span class="ev_code_red">but the need to compensate for engine growth and changes in the center of gravity caused the designer to sweep the wings,</span> with the <span class="ev_code_yellow">accidental aerodynamic benefit</span> of increasing the aircraft's critical Mach number.


AERO BRUSH - SUMMER 2006 Willy Messerschmit by Walter Boyne : link (http://www.asaa-avart.org/sample_aerobrush.pdf)
The original design was a straight wing aircraft with its twin engines mounted mid-wing ala those of the Meteor, and with a conventional oval fuselage. The intended BMW jet engines were not available, and a decision was made to go to the larger, heavier Junkers Jumo 004 that Anselm Franz had created. The new engines would not fit in the mid-wing nacelles, and so were mounted in what became the classic engine pod, slung stylishly under the wing. And because the engines were heavier, <span class="ev_code_red">the center of gravity was now off. The solution was the same adopted by Curtiss on its biplane observation planes of the 1930s"”-sweep the wing back, in this case 18 degrees.</span>

<span class="ev_code_black">BOOKS</span>


The Jet Race and the Second World War by Sterling Michael Pavelec
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error01.JPG


ACES IN COMMAND by Walter J. Boyne
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error02.JPG


Performance, Stability, Dynamics, and Control of Airplanes by Bandu N Pamadi
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error03.JPG


Aeronautical Research in Germany from Lilienthal until Today
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error04.JPG


The Best of WINGS - Return of theSwallow - The Messerschmitt Me262 Wings, April 1980
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error05.JPG

<span class="ev_code_black">DEFINITIONS of WORDS and PHRASES used within</span>


<span class="ev_code_black">ACCIDENTAL</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/accidental)
occurring unexpectedly or by chance

<span class="ev_code_black">INCIDENTALLY</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/incidentally)
not intentionally

<span class="ev_code_black">FORTUITOUS</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fortuitos)
occurring by chance
fortunate lucky
coming or happening by a lucky chance

<span class="ev_code_black">DUMB LUCK</span> link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Luck)
it is considered to have happened unintentionally and without planning

<span class="ev_code_black">LEGEND</span>

<span class="ev_code_yellow">YELLOW: Dumb Luck like references</span>
<span class="ev_code_green">GREEN: Did not realize the benefits of swept wings until after it was done</span>
<span class="ev_code_red">RED: Wings were swept to correct the cg error</span>
<span class="ev_code_brown">BROWN: Willy was as reluctant as the rest of the world to implement new technology</span>

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Quick brain to mouth nonsense postings - check

Repetition in hope to just cry louder then the other girls - check

Childish wordplay - check

Playing the Nazi sledgehammer - check

Forum pictures as a last resort - check

Catlike typing - check

Still missing alternate logins to support your position.
Other then that it's looking good so I hearby offer you the title
of "über-Troll-Apprentice".
Ever notice how they attack the messenger and not the message..

Why do you think that is?

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes.. but that was done to increase stability..

Which is what BaronUnderpants said too.

BaronUnderpants said
"The inner wingsections was changed due to turbulance issues."

You said
"Neat FEELING to have.."

Of course you could have been some other part of his post, but without replying to specific bits noone can tell! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The latter..

Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
02-01-2008, 01:00 PM
http://en.ce.cn/Insight/200708/24/t20070824_12663467.shtml

The "Pu'er Seven Cake Tea" costing around RMB30 yuan was priced at RMB300 yuan to RMB500 yuan.

Aaron_GT
02-01-2008, 01:01 PM
The later..

Later or latter?

Aaron_GT
02-01-2008, 01:02 PM
Tagert, if you want to post details of the quotes without adding lots of stuff into the thread, then creating a side thread and getting the mods to lock it and then posting a link to it would help, unless you are adding stuff to it each time. If you are adding stuff to it you can post the link and then the additional material.

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Tagert, if you want to post details of the quotes without adding lots of stuff into the thread, then creating a side thread and getting the mods to lock it and then posting a link to it would help, unless you are adding stuff to it each time. If you are adding stuff to it you can post the link and then the additional material.
New stuff and spelling corrections being added all the time..

In that it is clear you and yours want to focus more on me and my spelling than the data/prof

Hence my motivation to get it posted..

And posted correctly..

Once all those BIG ISSUES like later vs. latter are out of the way..

Maybe..

Just maybe you guys will start to address the message instead of the messenger?

I know it is allot to ask..

But I got to try!

HuninMunin
02-01-2008, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Quick brain to mouth nonsense postings - check

Repetition in hope to just cry louder then the other girls - check

Childish wordplay - check

Playing the Nazi sledgehammer - check

Forum pictures as a last resort - check

Catlike typing - check

Still missing alternate logins to support your position.
Other then that it's looking good so I hearby offer you the title
of "über-Troll-Apprentice".
Ever notice how they attack the messenger and not the message..

Why do you think that is? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this case the envelope was found empty but the messenger refuses to see it.
Denial will lead to a bad end.

Aaron_GT
02-01-2008, 01:07 PM
Occasionally your spelling gets in the way of understanding what it is you are saying, although mostly it's possible to work out what you meant.

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Quick brain to mouth nonsense postings - check

Repetition in hope to just cry louder then the other girls - check

Childish wordplay - check

Playing the Nazi sledgehammer - check

Forum pictures as a last resort - check

Catlike typing - check

Still missing alternate logins to support your position.
Other then that it's looking good so I hearby offer you the title
of "über-Troll-Apprentice".
Ever notice how they attack the messenger and not the message..

Why do you think that is? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this case the envelope was found empty but the messenger refuses to see it.
Denial will lead to a bad end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat FEELING to have..

Got anything other than your opinion to support it?

As you may have noticed..

I have several that say otherwise..

Where as you have..

have..

Emmmm..

zero?

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Occasionally your spelling gets in the way of understanding what it is you are saying, although mostly it's possible to work out what you meant. Hence the update for you than!

God knows I don't want you to get hung up on later vs latter

HuninMunin
02-01-2008, 01:29 PM
You made the claim - you back it up.
With sources.

Opinions are not sources.

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
You made the claim - you back it up.
With sources.
My Pleasure!

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">PERSONAL SITE</span>


Luftwaffe Ring : link (http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/Messerschmit/page4.html)
A combination of excellent design and <span class="ev_code_yellow">downright luck</span> resulted in a very harmonious design while significantly stretching the known aeronautical boundaries. An example of this is the Me262's wing. The characteristic swept design was the <span class="ev_code_red">result of a need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate</span> for heavier then expected engines. <span class="ev_code_green">It was only later that the benefits of swept wings were realized.</span>


Greg Goebel : link (http://www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html)
Messerschmitt's dream fighter had the turbojets mounted in nacelles under the middle of the wings. <span class="ev_code_red">The wings were slightly swept to ensure proper center of gravity</span>


Battle-Fleet : link (http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/me262.htm)
It was the third airframe that was to become a true jet plane when it took to the air on July 18 1942 in Leipheim near Günzburg, Germany, piloted by Fritz Wendel. Instead of the planned 003 engines which were proving unreliable, the Junkers Jumo 004 had become available and was installed in its place. The 004 was heavier than the 003, and as a result the center of gravity of the plane would have been too far forward for safety. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Moving the engines to the rear was a simple solution to the problem, but as they were mounted centered on the wing spars this wasn't easy to do.</span> <span class="ev_code_red">The solution was to bend the wings themselves to the rear, leading to the enduring myth that the plane was designed as a swept-wing fighter.</span>

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">NON-PERSONAL SITE</span>


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/technical_2.htm) :
Differences in wing root forces, weight distribution, and the Center of Gravity would have completely altered the characteristics of the original Me 262. <span class="ev_code_red">His solution may have been borne of necessity,</span> but it has emerged as one of the most innovative engineering feats in the entire effort.


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that <span class="ev_code_red">the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft</span>


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
The real surprise then is why was this knowledge of the swept wing not taken advantage of worldwide before it was <span class="ev_code_green">experimentally proven</span> on the Me 262. The only plausible (if somewhat vague) explanation was the <span class="ev_code_brown">resistance to new ideas found in all scientific circles</span>


NASA : link (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch11-2.htm)
<span class="ev_code_red">the wing was swept back slightly to position the wing aerodynamic center in the correct relation to the airplane center of gravity.</span>


HOW STUFF WORKS : link (http://science.howstuffworks.com/messerschmitt-me-262.htm)
The Messerschmitt Me 262's dramatic <span class="ev_code_red">swept wings were mandated when engineers discovered that the weight of the engine pods threw off the plane's center of gravity; the wing sweep restored equilibrium</span>


Indopedia : link (http://indopedia.org/Messerschmitt_Me_262.html)
During development the weight of the engines grew until they started to seriously affect the plane's center of gravity and stability. To correct this without major changes to the design, in March 1940 <span class="ev_code_red">the wings were swept rearward to restore the proper center of gravity,</span> giving rise <span class="ev_code_green">to a persistent myth that the plane began life as a swept-wing design.</span>


HISTORYNET.COM: link (http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/flight_technology/3038021.html)
<span class="ev_code_red">calculations on the center of gravity had dictated the use of swept back wings on the Me-262 jet fighter; </span><span class="ev_code_green">their aerodynamic benefits were realized later</span>

<span class="ev_code_black">MAGAZINES</span>


Airpower 01-MAR-05 Author: Jenkins, Dennis R. : link (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3842317/Me-262-Wunderplane-or-compromise.html#abstract)
Interestingly, although the Me 262 is usually portrayed as being the forebear of many advanced concepts, it was actually very much a compromise aircraft and its designers were not particularly happy with several aspects of it. <span class="ev_code_red">The "advanced" swept-wing was an inelegant solution to a center-of-gravity problem,</span> while the underslung nacelles compensated for oversized and overweight power plants. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Its designers were not supermen changing the world, but competent engineers responding to events largely out of their control.</span>


Air Classics Apr 2003 by O'Leary, Michael, Larsen, Jim : link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200304/ai_n9230356)
Not only was the jet engine barely a working idea but <span class="ev_code_green">the advantages (and disadvantages) of the swept wing simply were not known. Oddly, the performance benefits of the swept wing were not completely realized in the initial design concepts</span> - <span class="ev_code_red">rather, that type of wing was utilized when it became obvious that the engines were going to be much heavier than initially planned and the center of gravity would drastically change without sweeping the wings.</span><span class="ev_code_green"> It was only later that the benefits were discovered!</span>


PLANET AEROSPACE : link (http://www.planet-aerospace.com/pas/content/OF00000200000057/1/13/200004131.pdf)
<span class="ev_code_yellow">The choice of swept wings was, incidentally,</span> motivated by <span class="ev_code_red">the need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate for the increasing weight of the engines</span> in the course of the development work. <span class="ev_code_green">No-one in the team had any idea yet of the importance of delta wings for supersonic flight in general. </span>


AFA AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION October 1996 Vol. 79, No.10 Wings By Walter J. Boyne : link (http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct1996/1096wings.asp)
<span class="ev_code_yellow">Accidental Benefit</span>

Fixed wing sweep had been built into dozens of aircraft since the earliest days of flight, often as a solution to center-of-gravity problems. Sweep designed to raise the limiting Mach number had been a subject of study since the early 1930s <span class="ev_code_yellow">but appeared quite by accident on an early operational jet fighter, the Messerschmitt Me-262,</span> first flown July 18, 1942. The Me-262 had been originally designed as a straight-wing aircraft, <span class="ev_code_red">but the need to compensate for engine growth and changes in the center of gravity caused the designer to sweep the wings,</span> with the <span class="ev_code_yellow">accidental aerodynamic benefit</span> of increasing the aircraft's critical Mach number.


AERO BRUSH - SUMMER 2006 Willy Messerschmit by Walter Boyne : link (http://www.asaa-avart.org/sample_aerobrush.pdf)
The original design was a straight wing aircraft with its twin engines mounted mid-wing ala those of the Meteor, and with a conventional oval fuselage. The intended BMW jet engines were not available, and a decision was made to go to the larger, heavier Junkers Jumo 004 that Anselm Franz had created. The new engines would not fit in the mid-wing nacelles, and so were mounted in what became the classic engine pod, slung stylishly under the wing. And because the engines were heavier, <span class="ev_code_red">the center of gravity was now off. The solution was the same adopted by Curtiss on its biplane observation planes of the 1930s"”-sweep the wing back, in this case 18 degrees.</span>

<span class="ev_code_black">BOOKS</span>


The Jet Race and the Second World War by Sterling Michael Pavelec
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error01.JPG


ACES IN COMMAND by Walter J. Boyne
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error02.JPG


Performance, Stability, Dynamics, and Control of Airplanes by Bandu N Pamadi
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error03.JPG


Aeronautical Research in Germany from Lilienthal until Today
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error04.JPG


The Best of WINGS - Return of theSwallow - The Messerschmitt Me262 Wings, April 1980
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error05.JPG

<span class="ev_code_black">DEFINITIONS of WORDS and PHRASES used within</span>


<span class="ev_code_black">ACCIDENTAL</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/accidental)
occurring unexpectedly or by chance

<span class="ev_code_black">INCIDENTALLY</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/incidentally)
not intentionally

<span class="ev_code_black">FORTUITOUS</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fortuitos)
occurring by chance
fortunate lucky
coming or happening by a lucky chance

<span class="ev_code_black">DUMB LUCK</span> link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Luck)
it is considered to have happened unintentionally and without planning

<span class="ev_code_black">LEGEND</span>

<span class="ev_code_yellow">YELLOW: Dumb Luck like references</span>
<span class="ev_code_green">GREEN: Did not realize the benefits of swept wings until after it was done</span>
<span class="ev_code_red">RED: Wings were swept to correct the cg error</span>
<span class="ev_code_brown">BROWN: Willy was as reluctant as the rest of the world to implement new technology</span>


Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Opinions are not sources.
Agreed 100%

HuninMunin
02-01-2008, 01:57 PM
As dumb as a piece of bread.

Primary sources -> good for taggy

Secondary sources -> not good for taggy

Taggy look for primary literature and all will be warm and fuzzy inside, yes?

M_Gunz
02-01-2008, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I knew half of your anger was due to me pointing out your half educated errors wrt the TE equation being depended on time..

Another example of Taggy's lack of comprehension... ignorance is his GIFT!

Just make it up as you go, Troll!

JSG72
02-01-2008, 03:01 PM
Hmmm.... Nice to see AKA_TAGERT.

Has hopefully cleared up the ME 262s role as one of the lesser influential jet designs to come out from the German War industry.

So can someone now start a thread on the influence of the Gotha 229.

On post Vietnam War aircraft design. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Dumb Luck?(Wasn't that a village next to Da Nang.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Loco-S
02-01-2008, 03:35 PM
We can see the Taggert premise: if you cant win with modified truths and downright manipulation of evidence, bully them and spam mercilessly the same thing over and over until they get tired and surrender to your agenda.

aint happening taggy, no matter how many Nancys, schlemiels, leroys and savvys you post, half truths are always lies.

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
We can see the Taggert premise: if you cant win with modified truths and downright manipulation of evidence, bully them and spam mercilessly the same thing over and over until they get tired and surrender to your agenda.

aint happening taggy, no matter how many Nancys, schlemiels, leroys and savvys you post, half truths are always lies. modified truths..

This coming from the guy who's sig now contains a out of context quote of the Me262 program..

The double standards here would be comical if they were not so sad!

On that note..

note..

The lack of Loco's response to me pointing that out in a prior reply to him..

Where he submited that out of context quote..

Did he address it?

No..

The nazi plane lovers tactic..

Attack the messenger when you can not attack the message.

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I knew half of your anger was due to me pointing out your half educated errors wrt the TE equation being depended on time..

Another example of Taggy's lack of comprehension... ignorance is his GIFT!

Just make it up as you go, Troll! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>make it up!

LOL!

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
As dumb as a piece of bread.

Primary sources -> good for taggy

Secondary sources -> not good for taggy

Taggy look for primary literature and all will be warm and fuzzy inside, yes? What is it your babbling on about?

My data/links/quotes are there for all to see..

Where as your data/links/quotes are not..

Let me guess..

You using some sort of Nazi plane lovin stealth technology to hide your data/links/quotes? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Loco-S
02-01-2008, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
We can see the Taggert premise: if you cant win with modified truths and downright manipulation of evidence, bully them and spam mercilessly the same thing over and over until they get tired and surrender to your agenda.

aint happening taggy, no matter how many Nancys, schlemiels, leroys and savvys you post, half truths are always lies. modified truths..

This coming from the guy who's sig now contains a out of context quote of the Me262 program..

The double standards here would be comical if they were not so sad!

On that note..

note..

The lack of Loco's response to me pointing that out in a prior reply to him..

Where he submited that out of context quote..

Did he address it?

No..

The nazi plane lovers tactic..

Attack the messenger when you can not attack the message. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

out of context?...ha ha ha ha ha..you claim the plane is a flop, a dead end, non revolutionary, basically stupid and non consequential for anything other than making pepsi cans, and then when your tactic gets busted, you claim we all are stupid or nazi lovers?....dude, get a grip, its not about nazi loving or nazi hating, its about the airplane that you cant possibly consider it was NOT made in the good ol' USA, with technology way ahead of anything the good ol' USA had , that got them with the pants down, that was ( according with YOUR data) "A shock to the US aviation community" so you are stuck on stupid when you say "The 262 was a piece of garbage" , dumb luck that the US didnt had, that makes all the Boeing products "NAZI loving stuff", that makes the SR71 nazi loving stuff, that makes the aircraft you fly to visit Mom, a nazi plane, why? because a smart "Nazi" had the "dumb luck" to get the plane that changed history as you know it...does it hurt?

in regard to the US space program, Goddard was dead, Von Braun MADE the US space program, get used to it, without the V2 ( Redstone rockets strike anything on your metastasized gray matter?), no US man would have walked on the moon and the soviet flag would have been flying on the moon, Kelly Johnson used a LOT of the captured German data to create his jets, Ram jets, and the axial flow god almighty J58 toting SR 71

JSG72
02-01-2008, 05:02 PM
I am with you! ermm.. Taggy? On this one.

Who are these blind fools?

Loco-S
02-01-2008, 05:20 PM
Dance taggert...dance!:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/Kurbalaganda/DerAdolphs.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/Kurbalaganda/255861_983_avatar.gif

JSG72
02-01-2008, 05:20 PM
Deary me. Even when German,British, American, Czec. Japanese.and Clanger! publications.

Refute any notion of this crafts influence on future designs.

Having ate more hot dinners, than many of yous have had any experience of surfing to back up, any argument over the me262.

I feel.

That my last sentence.

Was back to front.

Loco-S
02-01-2008, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Deary me. Even when German,British, American, Czec. Japanese.and Clanger! publications.

Refute any notion of this crafts influence on future designs.

Having ate more hot dinners, than many of yous have had any expeience of surfing to back up, any argument over the me262.

I feel, that the last, sentence was back to front.

can you re phrase what you said?...I think babelfish is not a good online translator....

JSG72
02-01-2008, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Deary me. Even when German,British, American, Czec. Japanese.and Clanger! publications.

Refute any notion of this crafts influence on future designs.

Having ate more hot dinners, than many of yous have had any expeience of surfing to back up, any argument over the me262.

I feel, that the last, sentence was back to front.

can you re phrase what you said?...I think babelfish is not a good online translator.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course I can rephrase it.

And perhaps I may have to. As it would appear that my attempts at humour? Have somewhat eluded you?

Anyways. Just to say.

My own childhood delusions of the ME262 were somewhat shattered when I investigated and found the truth.

BTW. It took me 30 years to realise that this "Wundercraft". Was just a Comic book analogy.

I can take comfort in the fact, that. It surely couldn't take you so long.

Loco-S
02-01-2008, 06:22 PM
Nah, too short of a range, required loong runways, lacked throttle response, was defenseless on final approach, engines were super short lived ( less than 12 hours TBO on a nice summer day) and was not quite a performer on turns, but hey, it was faster than the enemy and packed a can of whoppass with those four cannons......the issue is that the plane paved the way to modern aircraft as we know it now, and this taggert guy has a pet peeve against anything not made in the US of A, he believes that if its not made in the US, doesnt deserve to be recognized, I have the same issues against soviet planes, according to me: bad quality, poor survivability, crappy design/copy...but hey..thats me, it doesnt mean that what I believe imust be the truth, and I dont try to impose my point of view through spam.

JSG72
02-01-2008, 06:38 PM
Hey! Loco-S

I feel that Tagert has most definately.

Spoken the truth on this bird.
Beleive me when I say that the ME 262 is most certainly one of the most evocative aircraft. I had come accross.

However! (And I don't want to be patronising).

When you really get into it.

It was interesting and a serious "What If?".

But that is all

Keep up, the interest.

I do not know enough about Soviet designs to challenge your statements.

Loco-S
02-01-2008, 06:46 PM
I truly believe that the Arado 234 was better suited for fighter role than the 262, the 262 was too advanced for the time,and it suffered because of this, you can not put an experimental airplane in combat without ironing out all the wrinkles first.

I_KG100_Prien
02-01-2008, 06:51 PM
http://www.***ung.net/images/1282/image001.jpg

JSG72
02-01-2008, 06:51 PM
Nooooo! Loco-S

The 234 was no more a fighter than "Fly in the air".

Post a thread on the 234 "As a fighter"?

If you get passed page 5.

Your homework. Will earn you a platinum star!

DrHerb
02-01-2008, 07:10 PM
holy smokes! 40 pages! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

M_Gunz
02-01-2008, 07:31 PM
Arado 234? Was a bomber last time I checked.

There were B-17's that shot down 109's and 190's.....

Loco, to be fair about it, Taggy wrote Nazi Plane Lovers which I take to mean

Lovers of Nazi Planes

For what it's worth.

Loco-S
02-01-2008, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Arado 234? Was a bomber last time I checked.

There were B-17's that shot down 109's and 190's.....

Loco, to be fair about it, Taggy wrote Nazi Plane Lovers which I take to mean

Lovers of Nazi Planes

For what it's worth.

not worth a rats rear end, I consider German planes: German planes, nazis were a bunch of raving lunatics bent on ethnic genocide, same could be considered that planes made under a specific US government considered "republican or democrat planes"

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
out of context?...
Yes very


Originally posted by Loco-S:
ha ha ha ha ha..
Your loosing it


Originally posted by Loco-S:
you claim the plane is a flop, a dead end,
Yes..

To be crystal..

Here is a summary of what I said, and the reasoning and justification behind each


AKA_TAGERT explains it once again for the reading challenged:
1) Wings were swept to correct the cg
2) Dumb luck
3) It was a dead end
4) It was a flop

As for #1, I have provided dozens of quotes from folks that know more about the Me262 than anyone here!
As for #2, It goes hand in hand with #1, It is in my words, Words that I have shown are equal to what others have said about the benefits of sweeping the wings beyond the correction of the cg (fortuitous)
As for #3, To the layman it seems harsh and unthinkable, but all one has to do is look at the jet fighters from the 50s onward and note that 99% of them don't have the engines slung under the wings!!
As for #4, that is my opinion, one that is based on how long it took them to develop it and get it into service.. I know allot of the Nazi plane lovers will try and blame Hitler for that one, but the fact of the mater is the engines them selfs were the biggest delay factor.


Originally posted by Loco-S:
non revolutionary, basically stupid and non consequential for anything other than making pepsi cans,
That is a bold face lie!

I challenge you to quote me where I ever said that!

You cant!

Why?

Because I never said that!

This is just another case of where you hope that if you repeat it over and over some here may think it is true..

But it is not.

Nice try though!

Clearly nothing is beneath you though!


Originally posted by Loco-S:
and then when your tactic gets busted,
tactics?

Let me see if I understand you correctly..

Making a statement..

Like the ones above..

Than being asked to explain myself and provide data/quotes to suport my statments..

Which I did..

Is a tactic?

Please!

You really are loosing it son!


Originally posted by Loco-S:
you claim we all are stupid or nazi lovers?....dude,
That is a bold face lie!

I challenge you to quote me where I ever said that!

You cant!

Why?

Because I never said that!

This is just another case of where you hope that if you repeat it over and over some here may think it is true..

But it is not.

Nice try though!

Clearly nothing is beneath you though!


Originally posted by Loco-S:
get a grip, its not about nazi loving or nazi hating, its about the airplane that you cant possibly consider it was NOT made in the good ol' USA, with technology way ahead of anything the good ol' USA had , that got them with the pants down, that was ( according with YOUR data) "A shock to the US aviation community" so you are stuck on stupid when you say "The 262 was a piece of garbage" , dumb luck that the US didnt had, that makes all the Boeing products "NAZI loving stuff", that makes the SR71 nazi loving stuff, that makes the aircraft you fly to visit Mom, a nazi plane, why? because a smart "Nazi" had the "dumb luck" to get the plane that changed history as you know it...does it hurt?
It has nothing to do with where or when it was made..

All it has to do with is the truth..

And the truth is the wings were swept to correct the cg error


Originally posted by Loco-S:
in regard to the US space program, Goddard was dead, Von Braun MADE the US space program, get used to it, without the V2 ( Redstone rockets strike anything on your metastasized gray matter?), no US man would have walked on the moon and the soviet flag would have been flying on the moon,
Never said Von Braun was not needed..

He clearly knew more about Goddard's work than most!!

That made him very useful!!

About the only thing I ever did say with certainty is the V2 made use of 20 of Goddard's patents form the 1920 and 1930s..

Biggest difference being Von replaced the cameras and scientific equipment with a bomb..

Gibb said it best when he said Goddard made rockets work.. Von made them kill


Originally posted by Loco-S:
Kelly Johnson used a LOT of the captured German data to create his jets, Ram jets, and the axial flow god almighty J58 toting SR 71
That is a neat FEELING to have..

Where is your dat..

I mean..

Where is your primary source! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Loco-S
02-01-2008, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/Kurbalaganda/onionmagazine_1020.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2008, 08:21 PM
Now how is it that I just KNEW you would not take me up on my challenge!

You and yours are so easy! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Viper2005_
02-01-2008, 11:12 PM
Tagert, it is one thing to suggest that the 262's wings were swept primarily for CoG reasons, and quite another to suggest that Messerschmitt were not aware of the benefits of wing sweep in transonic flight when the Me262 was initially designed.

The former is a reasonable position to take based upon the available evidence.

I would suggest that the latter is unlikely given the widely acknowledged pre-war German work in the field, and the Me262HGII & Me262HGIII studies. It is far more likely that the Me262 was intended to be a strictly subsonic aeroplane, offering a significant advantage over existing piston engined aircraft in exchange for the inherent risks associated with the introduction of the turbojet to operational service, and that the introduction of the "functional" swept wing was intended to be left until a subsequent aeroplane, thereby diluting the risk whilst retaining a useful performance advantage.

To put this into perspective, remember that the advantages of carbon fibre have been well known since the 1960s, but mere knowledge of its potential did not lead to its immediate introduction, even into fighter aeroplanes.

M_Gunz
02-01-2008, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
I consider German planes: German planes, nazis were a bunch of raving lunatics bent on ethnic genocide, same could be considered that planes made under a specific US government considered "republican or democrat planes"

Well, if you're going to make sense then don't expect to be understood by the Uber-Troll.

SheerLuckHolmes
02-01-2008, 11:52 PM
Wow.. 40 pages of this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Adult men and still arguing...

Even if ME 262 was a dead end and even if the swept wings were a dump luck, it still is the jet with most credited aerial victories. And still the pilot with most jet-victories is a german (Heinz Bär). Pretty well done even though germans had worst planes in the world and their pilots were inferior to U.S.A.F. pilots (according to our heavenly messenger) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Sorry AKKA_TAGERT, I just couldn't resist.

Keep up the good work... let us try to get this to 50 pager

But seriously guys... Taggy has a lot of truth in his postings.. according to book "The German Fighter since 1915" by Rüdiger Kosin, in pages 167 -> he tells that at first the wings were planned like normal straight wings, they were redesigned swept to correct the CoG. But no prototype wing was ever made that wasn't swept. So they could calculate and redesign it even without building it.
SheerLuck

Ugly_Kid
02-02-2008, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Tagert, it is one thing to suggest that the 262's wings were swept primarily for CoG reasons, and quite another to suggest that Messerschmitt were not aware of the benefits of wing sweep in transonic flight when the Me262 was initially designed.

The former is a reasonable position to take based upon the available evidence.

I would suggest that the latter is unlikely given the widely acknowledged pre-war German work in the field, and the Me262HGII & Me262HGIII studies.


Shhh...the latter is the words-not-to-be-spoken - before you know you will be goose-stepping in your living room. You see it opposes "dumb luck", and "stupid nazi" theory. Tabu...

Anyone see the carefully googled "evidence" (cge) contradicting itself:
<span class="ev_code_yellow">YELLOW: Dumb Luck like references</span>
<span class="ev_code_green">GREEN: Did not realize the benefits of swept wings until after it was done</span>
<span class="ev_code_brown">BROWN: Willy was as reluctant as the rest of the world to implement new technology</span>

You see, Willy could not have been reluctant since he had no idea according to yellow and green...

Of course the c.g is also still unclear since, links talk mostly about too forward c.g and falsely blaming Jumo (which places a question about the general quality and insight of all this "cge" in respect to 262 development). It has been clearly shown that it was due to BMW, likewise we are missing any kind of explanation why humangous increase from Jumos induced no such radical additional change. It is ok to repeat c.g problems, but so far none of the posted material explains that in detail or with any kind of assesment. I would appreciate one quote that breaks it down to understandable, verifiable facts than hundred that just go on with it like a mantra.

It would be of immense additional value if the carefully googled evidence (cge) did not contain crude mistakes:

"No-one in the team had any idea yet of the importance of delta wings for supersonic flight in general."

Yes, I am not sure the delta-wing concept came that early, but I can check (it is possible I scarcely recall some late-war delta-napkins). However, it would greatly boost the credibility of this very convincing piece of evidence if they were not talking about delta-wing that WAS NOT in 262 and talk about swept wing that WAS in 262 (subsonic).

"Messerschmitt did not realize that by sweeping the wings, he would promote speed, he did it for stability"

That is novel approach, sweeping wings is generally known to increase instability...

I am afraid part of the repeatedly posted "spam" qualifies outright as rubbish. Of course, "Quantity has a quality all its own", Josef Stalin

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 12:30 AM
But seriously guys... Taggy has a lot of truth in his postings.. according to book "The German Fighter since 1915" by Rüdiger Kosin, in pages 167 -> he tells that at first the wings were planned like normal straight wings, they were redesigned swept to correct the CoG. But no prototype wing was ever made that wasn't swept. So they could calculate and redesign it even without building it.

Given the number of facts available, esp if you consider secondary sources that echo each
other more than a minority of primary source facts, and more esp when you include outright
opinion as "fact" (yeah, fact that so-and-so had that opinion) then it is easy enough to
throw up a wall of picked cherries.
If at the same time you disallow any other information then you can build a formidable
looking case -- to someone who doesn't know any better how flaky-shaky that wall of "fact" is.

And that's precisely the kind of BS that Tagert has been doing.

By the same method I should believe at least half of all serious-sounding movies, TV shows,
and election promises from politicians.

Gibbage1
02-02-2008, 12:51 AM
So what source SHOULD we trust? The 1 nameless source you seem to hold faith in, or the 20 or so named sources Tag is providing?

Dont take this personally, but so far im leaning twards Taggert unless you can supply AT LEAST some counter sources.

Ugly_Kid
02-02-2008, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Dont take this personally, but so far im leaning twards Taggert unless you can supply AT LEAST some counter sources.

Of course, but you still have a task to explain why couple of war weary Me 262 showed fresh pair of heels on P-80 in US own trials...

You probably get Copperhead to join your bandwagon but that's about all there is to your Alamo...

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So what source SHOULD we trust? The 1 nameless source you seem to hold faith in, or the 20 or so named sources Tag is providing?

So it's my 1 vs Tagert's 20? Of course that cleverly ignores what others have shown in order
to raise the appearance of ratio. Really cunning of you Gib.

I was using a Tagert-100%-Approved-Experts source, in fact I used more than one if you count.
I did so to ridicule Tagert's BS use of his "source".

I'm really excited now since the economy will get better, we will have an effective anti-ICBM
missile system in place real soon now, the project to send men to Mars is underway and Iraq
will have a stable government before we're all broke.
In addition, Tinkerbell is not going to die because enough people clapped really hard, oh joy!

Ugly_Kid
02-02-2008, 01:08 AM
Sofar the only bit with merit to support the c.g part of the discussion was posted by Holzauge not Tagert (unfortunately the second one of a high value from Heliopause got deleted). For the Germans having no idea part you are skating on very thin ice...

Gibbage1
02-02-2008, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

Of course, but you still have a task to explain why couple of war weary Me 262 showed fresh pair of heels on P-80 in US own trials...

You probably get Copperhead to join your bandwagon but that's about all there is to your Alamo...

War weary? Whatever. THey had about 100 Me-262's laying around, never used, right out of the factory because they had no pilots or fuel for them. So why would they crate up two "war weary" when we captured a factory full of them?

Also, they never engaged the P-80 in ANY mock combat. The reports that the ME-262 was better came down to pilot opinion, and we all know how much water that holds around here.

Ratsack
02-02-2008, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Sofar the only bit with merit to support the c.g part of the discussion was posted by Holzauge not Tagert (unfortunately the second one of a high value from Heliopause got deleted). For the Germans having no idea part you are skating on very thin ice...

Precisely. Taggy has posted nothing of value as an historical source, as I have demonstrated very clearly. Everything he's posted is at best secondary.

Even worse, when Aaron GT and I called him on that last night, he not only tried to re-define the term 'primary source', he demonstrated conclusively that HE'S NEVER EVEN UNDERSTOOD THE CONCEPT.

Talk about self pwnage. And this is the guy that thinks he's provided 'proof' of something.

That apology is long overdue, now.

Ratsack

Gibbage1
02-02-2008, 01:21 AM
So now Tagerts sources are all secondary. Are your sources "primary"? So far, all I have seen is a small snipit from an un-documented page. Your definition of "primary" must be VERY different then mine.

Ratsack
02-02-2008, 01:38 AM
Absolutely, Taggy's sources are secondary at best. Read my review of them on page 36 of this thread. I then followed with a check of the NASA article, and it cites a tertiary source. You can see this at the bottom page 36, too.

Taggy has been well and truly pwned on this. But he'll never admit it.

Ratsack

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The reports that the ME-262 was better came down to pilot opinion



The USAAF compared the P-80 Shooting Star and Me 262 concluding: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."[19]

Source - #19# ^ Ethell and Price 1994, p. 180.

Ethell, Jeffrey and Price, Alfred. World War II Fighting Jets. St. Paul, Minnesota: Motorbooks International, 1994. ISBN 1-55750-940-9.

You see the number 19 in brackets right after the quote? That is A REFERENCE TO A CITATION.
I put the CITATION right after the quote though where I got that, it is at the bottom.
You can see that the CITED part refers to a source, World War II Fighting Jets, and it even
tells the page(s) where the quote came from. I don't have the book and while the local library
system does have 23 books with Jeff Ethell as an author and 9 books with Alfred Price as an
author, none of them are World War II Fighting Jets. You want to see page 180 to check for
other context then go right ahead, find the book and grace all of us on what THEIR source is.

WITHOUT that citation the whole quote would have been unsupported words of the author of that
article I got the quote from. WITH the citation it now carries to the Ethell and Price book.

THAT is how it works. Now please show the CITATIONS on the lines that Taggy cherry-picked
while ignoring other CITED lines in the same articles that counter his conclusions.

If you come up short there then just reply with nonsense... like repeat your argument unchanged.

Ugly_Kid
02-02-2008, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The reports that the ME-262 was better came down to pilot opinion, and we all know how much water that holds around here.

More than yours, I would say, at least in the real world out there. How much it is worth HERE I can not of course say.

Plus, the fact that the result was so outright embarrassing that the report had to be carefully rewritten and archived as classified in due course. Please go on...Like I say no wonder, whom you side with...

Ratsack
02-02-2008, 02:48 AM
@ Ugly_Kid

Is that cartoon in your sig a Hofbrau advertisement or something?

cheers,
Ratsack

Gibbage1
02-02-2008, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:

Taggy has been well and truly pwned on this. But he'll never admit it.

Ratsack

You seem to be skillfully dodging the main question. What are YOUR sources, and what makes them "primary"?

Boandlgramer
02-02-2008, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
@ Ugly_Kid

Is that cartoon in your sig a Hofbrau advertisement or something?

cheers,
Ratsack ´


Ratsack.


HB stands for "Herzogliches Brauhaus " in Tegernsee. (its a village and a lake about 60 km south of munich.
Just 30 km away from my home http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The man on the picture is looking for his dog, but he can not see him.
wonder why ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luftluuver
02-02-2008, 04:13 AM
The Rat's source must be the same as where he got early model 109 production numbers from. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Ratsack
02-02-2008, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:

Taggy has been well and truly pwned on this. But he'll never admit it.

Ratsack

You seem to be skillfully dodging the main question. What are YOUR sources, and what makes them "primary"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No dodging at all. I'm merely expecting you to read what's already been posted. Unlike Taggy, I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself.

Please read pages 36 and 37 of this thread. You'll see Taggy doing his little dance in there, you'll also find references to primary documents. You'll also find a nice little epxlanation of what a primary source is. In anticipation that you won't look, I'll quote that last bit for you here:


Aaron wrote:
No, primary is primary, it is not relative to -you-, it is relative to the events.

A source that is primary is one directly related in time and space to the event that occured. Anything else is a secondary source.

Please, learn the terms first.

That's nice and succinct. Ugly Kid's scan qualifies. The quote from Voigt posted by Holtzgauge does.

Nothing else in this thread does. End of friggin' story.

Ratsack

Gibbage1
02-02-2008, 04:41 AM
Rat. You have YET to provide YOUR reference, and ONLY disputed his, and then claim mythical "pwnage" like some 13 year old kiddie who just found out how cool the interweb is. Now, unless you can provide "primary" resources of your own, let the gown-ups debate. Enough dance. Put up or shut up.

leitmotiv
02-02-2008, 04:51 AM
<span class="ev_code_RED">THIS FREAKING THREAD IS STILL GOING??????!!!!!!!!!!</span>


http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/ases/nowotny2.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2008, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Tagert, it is one thing to suggest that the 262's wings were swept primarily for CoG reasons,
Just to be crystal..

I am NOT suggesting it..

I am saying it..


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
and quite another to suggest that Messerschmitt were not aware of the benefits of wing sweep in transonic flight when the Me262 was initially designed.

The former is a reasonable position to take based upon the available evidence.

I would suggest that the latter is unlikely given the widely acknowledged pre-war German work in the field, and the Me262HGII & Me262HGIII studies.
Just to be crystal..

I never said he was NOT aware..

All I ever said is what the folks over at stormbirds say, i.e.


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
The real surprise then is why was this knowledge of the swept wing not taken advantage of worldwide before it was <span class="ev_code_green">experimentally proven</span> on the Me 262. The only plausible (if somewhat vague) explanation was the <span class="ev_code_brown">resistance to new ideas found in all scientific circles</span>


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
It is far more likely that the Me262 was intended to be a strictly subsonic aeroplane, offering a significant advantage over existing piston engined aircraft in exchange for the inherent risks associated with the introduction of the turbojet to operational service,
Agreed 100%

Making a jet was risky enough.


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
and that the introduction of the "functional" swept wing was intended to be left until a subsequent aeroplane, thereby diluting the risk whilst retaining a useful performance advantage.
Agreed 100%


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
To put this into perspective, remember that the advantages of carbon fibre have been well known since the 1960s, but mere knowledge of its potential did not lead to its immediate introduction, even into fighter aeroplanes.
Bingo!

Which is exactally what the folks over at stormbirds were alluding to when they said..


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
The real surprise then is why was this knowledge of the swept wing not taken advantage of worldwide before it was <span class="ev_code_green">experimentally proven</span> on the Me 262. The only plausible (if somewhat vague) explanation was the <span class="ev_code_brown">resistance to new ideas found in all scientific circles</span>

<span class="ev_code_yellow">YELLOW: Dumb Luck like references</span>
<span class="ev_code_green">GREEN: Did not realize the benefits of swept wings until after it was done</span>
<span class="ev_code_red">RED: Wings were swept to correct the cg error</span>
<span class="ev_code_brown">BROWN: Willy was as reluctant as the rest of the world to implement new technology</span>

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2008, 07:54 AM
The 'real' reason why the Me262 wings were swept summary..

Spelling corrections included for AraonGT along with a few link fixes

By AKA_TAGERT

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">PERSONAL SITE</span>


Luftwaffe Ring : link (http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/Messerschmit/page4.html)
A combination of excellent design and <span class="ev_code_yellow">downright luck</span> resulted in a very harmonious design while significantly stretching the known aeronautical boundaries. An example of this is the Me262's wing. The characteristic swept design was the <span class="ev_code_red">result of a need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate</span> for heavier then expected engines. <span class="ev_code_green">It was only later that the benefits of swept wings were realized.</span>


Greg Goebel : link (http://www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html)
Messerschmitt's dream fighter had the turbojets mounted in nacelles under the middle of the wings. <span class="ev_code_red">The wings were slightly swept to ensure proper center of gravity</span>


Battle-Fleet : link (http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/me262.htm)
It was the third airframe that was to become a true jet plane when it took to the air on July 18 1942 in Leipheim near Günzburg, Germany, piloted by Fritz Wendel. Instead of the planned 003 engines which were proving unreliable, the Junkers Jumo 004 had become available and was installed in its place. The 004 was heavier than the 003, and as a result the center of gravity of the plane would have been too far forward for safety. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Moving the engines to the rear was a simple solution to the problem, but as they were mounted centered on the wing spars this wasn't easy to do.</span> <span class="ev_code_red">The solution was to bend the wings themselves to the rear, leading to the enduring myth that the plane was designed as a swept-wing fighter.</span>

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">NON-PERSONAL SITE</span>


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/technical_2.htm) :
Differences in wing root forces, weight distribution, and the Center of Gravity would have completely altered the characteristics of the original Me 262. <span class="ev_code_red">His solution may have been borne of necessity,</span> but it has emerged as one of the most innovative engineering feats in the entire effort.


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that <span class="ev_code_red">the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft</span>


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
The real surprise then is why was this knowledge of the swept wing not taken advantage of worldwide before it was <span class="ev_code_green">experimentally proven</span> on the Me 262. The only plausible (if somewhat vague) explanation was the <span class="ev_code_brown">resistance to new ideas found in all scientific circles</span>


NASA : link (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch11-2.htm)
<span class="ev_code_red">the wing was swept back slightly to position the wing aerodynamic center in the correct relation to the airplane center of gravity.</span>


HOW STUFF WORKS : link (http://science.howstuffworks.com/messerschmitt-me-262.htm)
The Messerschmitt Me 262's dramatic <span class="ev_code_red">swept wings were mandated when engineers discovered that the weight of the engine pods threw off the plane's center of gravity; the wing sweep restored equilibrium</span>


Indopedia : link (http://indopedia.org/Messerschmitt_Me_262.html)
During development the weight of the engines grew until they started to seriously affect the plane's center of gravity and stability. To correct this without major changes to the design, in March 1940 <span class="ev_code_red">the wings were swept rearward to restore the proper center of gravity,</span> giving rise <span class="ev_code_green">to a persistent myth that the plane began life as a swept-wing design.</span>


HISTORYNET.COM: link (http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/flight_technology/3038021.html)
<span class="ev_code_red">calculations on the center of gravity had dictated the use of swept back wings on the Me-262 jet fighter; </span><span class="ev_code_green">their aerodynamic benefits were realized later</span>

<span class="ev_code_black">MAGAZINES</span>


Airpower 01-MAR-05 Author: Jenkins, Dennis R. : link (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3842317/Me-262-Wunderplane-or-compromise.html#abstract)
Interestingly, although the Me 262 is usually portrayed as being the forebear of many advanced concepts, it was actually very much a compromise aircraft and its designers were not particularly happy with several aspects of it. <span class="ev_code_red">The "advanced" swept-wing was an inelegant solution to a center-of-gravity problem,</span> while the underslung nacelles compensated for oversized and overweight power plants. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Its designers were not supermen changing the world, but competent engineers responding to events largely out of their control.</span>


Air Classics Apr 2003 by O'Leary, Michael, Larsen, Jim : link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200304/ai_n9230356)
Not only was the jet engine barely a working idea but <span class="ev_code_green">the advantages (and disadvantages) of the swept wing simply were not known. Oddly, the performance benefits of the swept wing were not completely realized in the initial design concepts</span> - <span class="ev_code_red">rather, that type of wing was utilized when it became obvious that the engines were going to be much heavier than initially planned and the center of gravity would drastically change without sweeping the wings.</span><span class="ev_code_green"> It was only later that the benefits were discovered!</span>


PLANET AEROSPACE : link (http://www.planet-aerospace.com/pas/content/OF00000200000057/1/13/200004131.pdf)
<span class="ev_code_yellow">The choice of swept wings was, incidentally,</span> motivated by <span class="ev_code_red">the need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate for the increasing weight of the engines</span> in the course of the development work. <span class="ev_code_green">No-one in the team had any idea yet of the importance of delta wings for supersonic flight in general. </span>


AFA AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION October 1996 Vol. 79, No.10 Wings By Walter J. Boyne : link (http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct1996/1096wings.asp)
<span class="ev_code_yellow">Accidental Benefit</span>

Fixed wing sweep had been built into dozens of aircraft since the earliest days of flight, often as a solution to center-of-gravity problems. Sweep designed to raise the limiting Mach number had been a subject of study since the early 1930s <span class="ev_code_yellow">but appeared quite by accident on an early operational jet fighter, the Messerschmitt Me-262,</span> first flown July 18, 1942. The Me-262 had been originally designed as a straight-wing aircraft, <span class="ev_code_red">but the need to compensate for engine growth and changes in the center of gravity caused the designer to sweep the wings,</span> with the <span class="ev_code_yellow">accidental aerodynamic benefit</span> of increasing the aircraft's critical Mach number.


AERO BRUSH - SUMMER 2006 Willy Messerschmit by Walter Boyne : link (http://www.asaa-avart.org/sample_aerobrush.pdf)
The original design was a straight wing aircraft with its twin engines mounted mid-wing ala those of the Meteor, and with a conventional oval fuselage. The intended BMW jet engines were not available, and a decision was made to go to the larger, heavier Junkers Jumo 004 that Anselm Franz had created. The new engines would not fit in the mid-wing nacelles, and so were mounted in what became the classic engine pod, slung stylishly under the wing. And because the engines were heavier, <span class="ev_code_red">the center of gravity was now off. The solution was the same adopted by Curtiss on its biplane observation planes of the 1930s"”-sweep the wing back, in this case 18 degrees.</span>

<span class="ev_code_black">BOOKS</span>


The Jet Race and the Second World War by Sterling Michael Pavelec
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error01.JPG


ACES IN COMMAND by Walter J. Boyne
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error02.JPG


Performance, Stability, Dynamics, and Control of Airplanes by Bandu N Pamadi
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error03.JPG


Aeronautical Research in Germany from Lilienthal until Today
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error04.JPG


The Best of WINGS - Return of theSwallow - The Messerschmitt Me262 Wings, April 1980
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error05.JPG

<span class="ev_code_black">DEFINITIONS of WORDS and PHRASES used within</span>


<span class="ev_code_black">ACCIDENTAL</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/accidental)
occurring unexpectedly or by chance

<span class="ev_code_black">INCIDENTALLY</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/incidentally)
not intentionally

<span class="ev_code_black">FORTUITOUS</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fortuitos)
occurring by chance
fortunate lucky
coming or happening by a lucky chance

<span class="ev_code_black">DUMB LUCK</span> link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Luck)
it is considered to have happened unintentionally and without planning

<span class="ev_code_black">LEGEND</span>

<span class="ev_code_yellow">YELLOW: Dumb Luck like references</span>
<span class="ev_code_green">GREEN: Did not realize the benefits of swept wings until after it was done</span>
<span class="ev_code_red">RED: Wings were swept to correct the cg error</span>
<span class="ev_code_brown">BROWN: Willy was as reluctant as the rest of the world to implement new technology</span>

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2008, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by SheerLuckHolmes:
Wow.. 40 pages of this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Adult men and still arguing...
Enh!

That is not WOW of this thread IMHO..

The WOW part of this thread is the difference in standards, i.e.

The standards to which negative info on the Me262 is held..

relative to..

The standards to which positive info on the Me262 is held..

That is the WOW IMHO!


Originally posted by SheerLuckHolmes:
Even if ME 262 was a dead end and even if the swept wings were a dump luck, it still is the jet with most credited aerial victories. And still the pilot with most jet-victories is a german (Heinz Bär). Pretty well done
Agreed 100%


Originally posted by SheerLuckHolmes:
even though germans had worst planes in the world and their pilots were inferior to U.S.A.F. pilots (according to our heavenly messenger) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Sorry AKKA_TAGERT, I just couldn't resist.
ROTFL


Originally posted by SheerLuckHolmes:
Keep up the good work... let us try to get this to 50 pager
My guess is we will make it by the end of this day..


Originally posted by SheerLuckHolmes:
But seriously guys... Taggy has a lot of truth in his postings.. according to book "The German Fighter since 1915" by Rüdiger Kosin, in pages 167 -> he tells that at first the wings were planned like normal straight wings, they were redesigned swept to correct the CoG. But no prototype wing was ever made that wasn't swept. So they could calculate and redesign it even without building it.
Bingo!


Originally posted by SheerLuckHolmes:
SheerLuck
Agreed 100%

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Taggy has been well and truly pwned on this. But he'll never admit it.

Ratsack

He's too busy trying to get behind anyone and claim to have 'gotten' them.

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2008, 08:38 AM
Poor Nancy

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2008, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Precisely. Taggy has posted nothing of value as an historical source, as I have demonstrated very clearly. Everything he's posted is at best secondary.
Hardly..

You posted your opinions of the data/prof I provided..

You posted nothing that can counter the data/prof I provided..


Originally posted by Ratsack:
Even worse, when Aaron GT and I called him on that last night, he not only tried to re-define the term 'primary source', he demonstrated conclusively that HE'S NEVER EVEN UNDERSTOOD THE CONCEPT.
Gilty!

See I never took any of those high school debating classes, nor did I ever set out to be some kind of liberal news writer..

So I am still ignorant as to the defined difference between primary and secondary..

I also could care less to learn about those differences..

In that even if I did..

It would not change the FACT that you and yours have double standards..

Yes FACT..

In that in this very thread you and yours acepted Loco's quote from www.strombirds.com (http://www.strombirds.com) without question..

Why?

Because it said something positive about the Me262

It is only when someone..

Like myself..

Says something negative that the standard of primary source is trotted out..

With that said..

You and yours have not provided primary or secondary or thirdary or etc sources to counter the data/prof I have provided..

That is how it has always worked here..

Until now..

Until you got nothing to counter the data/prof I have provided..

That is when you brought up the primary requirement!

It would be comical if it was not so sad!



Originally posted by Ratsack:
Talk about self pwnage.
LOL!

This from the guy who has nothing but an opinion about my secondary sources/data/prof!

The way he talks you would think he had a primary or secondary source that states the wings were swept to NOT correct the cg error!

All he has is his own opinion about my so called secondary sources/data/prof


Originally posted by Ratsack:
And this is the guy that thinks he's provided 'proof' of something.
One thing is certain..

I have provided more than you have!

I have provided data/quotes/links to support all my claims..

All you have provided is your opinions on what I have provided


Originally posted by Ratsack:
That apology is long overdue, now.
Another example of you saying something over and over in the hopes that it will stick..

The FACT is I have said nothing that requires an apology!

The PROF of that statment is in your inability to quote anything I said that would require an apoligy..

Oh..

Just so you know..

Your feelings getting hurt by me pointing out there is no easter bunny or that the Me262 wings were swept for cg purposes does not count as a reason for me to apologise..

The truth never needs an apology !

Loco-S
02-02-2008, 08:40 AM
http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/history/history2.htm

the 262's legacy continued well into the cold war period: the North American F-86 Sabre employed a wing design that was derived from advanced studies which the Germans had conducted during the Me262 project.

taggy wrote:


Just to be crystal..

I never said he was NOT aware..


Was the wings of the Me262 were swept to correct the error in the cg..

Not intentional design..

But..

That truth is a very hard pill to swallow for all the folks that grew up believing that it was intentional..


The Me262 airframe was a dead end for fighter designs


Dumb Luck..


As I already stated.. Being aware of the benefits of swept wings at the time the Me262 was being build does not mean the Me262 was designed around that knowledge..

In English.. Just because Willy knew about it, does not be the Me262 intended to take advantage of it..

SAVVY?


WILLY MESSERSCHMITT, Augsburg, 01.17.1940


Herrn
Professor Dr. Albert B e t z
Aerodynamic Testfacility
G ö t t i n g e n
__________________
Bunsenstr. 1c


Dear Professor Betz!

I thank you for the consignment of your test results concerning Pfeilpfügel. (lit. arrowings)
I am overly astonished over the gain in using more swep. Out of this reason I see it as urgently required to repeat these so generous test results in a large wind tunnel.

Those variable sweps during flight you proposed should make some difficulties construction wise. I am of the conviction though, in case these swepts should become an urgent requirement, we should be able to overcome these problems.

Again i thank you for the consignment of your readings and the proposals you made and stay with best of wishes.

Yours
(Insert Willies name)
http://freenet-homepage.de/majamaki/willy.jpg



Poor Nancy..

Try as you must to take the focus off the stormbirds quote..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It only highlights your pain!

The FACT is the Me262 wings were swept to correct the cg..

Which is not to be confused with the Germans knew nothing about the benefits of a swept wing aircraft..

Simply that they did not do it intentionally on the Me262..

They did it to correct an error in the design..

Which is all I have ever said!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There is a big difference between dumb luck and intentionally doing something


I was pretty bummed out too when my dad told me at the age of 5 that there was no Santa Claws


http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm

Influence of the Me262 on Post-War Aircraft

It is a generally well known fact that German designs for advanced jet aircraft (and rockets, for that matter) influenced postwar aircraft development to varying degrees. While the Allies preferred to copy from the very advanced German projects because they already had some experience with jet power, the Soviets had no such experience. Therefore, they took from already completed and proven designs. Primary among these were the Arado Ar234, Me163, and the Me262, the worlds first operational jet fighter.
How exactly can we pin down the influence of the Me 262 in particular then? Well, we can start by ascertaining that the various high - speed trials with the Me 262 proved without a doubt the advantage of the swept wing over the straight wing (such as those featured on the Gloster Meteor and the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star). Also, problems with compressibility were noted at speeds approaching the speed of sound. In layman's terms, because of the aircraft's speed, the air flow would increase pressure on the nose and start pushing it down. While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft, it is also true that the Germans were aware of the advantages of the swept wing since the 30s! It is also true that design aesthetics by the design team, irrespective of any initial misgivings about practicality, influenced the wing shape of the 262.

Here are the details; in 1933, the German aerodynamicists Busemann and O. Walchner published a scientific essay titled "Profile Characteristics at Supersonic Speed". By the next year, space flight pioneer Professor Eugen Sanger connected their research with his own rocket research writing a paper titled "Rocket Aircraft in Active Air Defense", pointing the way to the supersonic interceptor. And finally, a conference on high speed fight was held in Rome from September 8th to October 6th 1935. There the above mentioned Adolf Busemann from the Aviation Research Organization (LFA) in Braunschweig gave a lecture titled "Aerodynamic Lift at Supersonic Speed". In this historic lecture he described the swept wing effect to the aviation community. The story continues with many more interesting events over the years.

But I digress. Back to the Me 262. The real surprise then is why was this knowledge of the swept wing not taken advantage of worldwide before it was experimentally proven on the Me 262. The only plausible (if somewhat vague) explanation was the resistance to new ideas found in all scientific circles. What concrete connections can we show between later aircraft and the Me 262 and later aircraft you ask? Don't worry, there is enough circumstantial and material evidence....

The best way to approach this subject is to split it into subsections, highlighting the use of 262 technology by general countries and superpowers.


That is a neat FEELING to have..

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2008, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/history/history2.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the 262's legacy continued well into the cold war period: the North American F-86 Sabre employed a wing design that was derived from advanced studies which the Germans had conducted during the Me262 project.

taggy wrote:


Just to be crystal..

I never said he was NOT aware..


Was the wings of the Me262 were swept to correct the error in the cg..

Not intentional design..

But..

That truth is a very hard pill to swallow for all the folks that grew up believing that it was intentional..


The Me262 airframe was a dead end for fighter designs


Dumb Luck..


As I already stated.. Being aware of the benefits of swept wings at the time the Me262 was being build does not mean the Me262 was designed around that knowledge..

In English.. Just because Willy knew about it, does not be the Me262 intended to take advantage of it..

SAVVY?


WILLY MESSERSCHMITT, Augsburg, 01.17.1940


Herrn
Professor Dr. Albert B e t z
Aerodynamic Testfacility
G ö t t i n g e n
__________________
Bunsenstr. 1c


Dear Professor Betz!

I thank you for the consignment of your test results concerning Pfeilpfügel. (lit. arrowings)
I am overly astonished over the gain in using more swep. Out of this reason I see it as urgently required to repeat these so generous test results in a large wind tunnel.

Those variable sweps during flight you proposed should make some difficulties construction wise. I am of the conviction though, in case these swepts should become an urgent requirement, we should be able to overcome these problems.

Again i thank you for the consignment of your readings and the proposals you made and stay with best of wishes.

Yours
(Insert Willies name)
http://freenet-homepage.de/majamaki/willy.jpg



Poor Nancy..

Try as you must to take the focus off the stormbirds quote..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It only highlights your pain!

The FACT is the Me262 wings were swept to correct the cg..

Which is not to be confused with the Germans knew nothing about the benefits of a swept wing aircraft..

Simply that they did not do it intentionally on the Me262..

They did it to correct an error in the design..

Which is all I have ever said!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There is a big difference between dumb luck and intentionally doing something


I was pretty bummed out too when my dad told me at the age of 5 that there was no Santa Claws


http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm

Influence of the Me262 on Post-War Aircraft

It is a generally well known fact that German designs for advanced jet aircraft (and rockets, for that matter) influenced postwar aircraft development to varying degrees. While the Allies preferred to copy from the very advanced German projects because they already had some experience with jet power, the Soviets had no such experience. Therefore, they took from already completed and proven designs. Primary among these were the Arado Ar234, Me163, and the Me262, the worlds first operational jet fighter.
How exactly can we pin down the influence of the Me 262 in particular then? Well, we can start by ascertaining that the various high - speed trials with the Me 262 proved without a doubt the advantage of the swept wing over the straight wing (such as those featured on the Gloster Meteor and the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star). Also, problems with compressibility were noted at speeds approaching the speed of sound. In layman's terms, because of the aircraft's speed, the air flow would increase pressure on the nose and start pushing it down. While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft, it is also true that the Germans were aware of the advantages of the swept wing since the 30s! It is also true that design aesthetics by the design team, irrespective of any initial misgivings about practicality, influenced the wing shape of the 262.

Here are the details; in 1933, the German aerodynamicists Busemann and O. Walchner published a scientific essay titled "Profile Characteristics at Supersonic Speed". By the next year, space flight pioneer Professor Eugen Sanger connected their research with his own rocket research writing a paper titled "Rocket Aircraft in Active Air Defense", pointing the way to the supersonic interceptor. And finally, a conference on high speed fight was held in Rome from September 8th to October 6th 1935. There the above mentioned Adolf Busemann from the Aviation Research Organization (LFA) in Braunschweig gave a lecture titled "Aerodynamic Lift at Supersonic Speed". In this historic lecture he described the swept wing effect to the aviation community. The story continues with many more interesting events over the years.

But I digress. Back to the Me 262. The real surprise then is why was this knowledge of the swept wing not taken advantage of worldwide before it was experimentally proven on the Me 262. The only plausible (if somewhat vague) explanation was the resistance to new ideas found in all scientific circles. What concrete connections can we show between later aircraft and the Me 262 and later aircraft you ask? Don't worry, there is enough circumstantial and material evidence....

The best way to approach this subject is to split it into subsections, highlighting the use of 262 technology by general countries and superpowers.


That is a neat FEELING to have.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Note..

Not one quote by me to support anything you 'FEEL' I said!

Your 'opinion' of what I meant vs. what I said does not count as FACT.

If anything..

This recent post of yours only confirms what I have been saying..

That you got nothing!

Sorry..

Nice try though!

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2008, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The Rat's source must be the same as where he got early model 109 production numbers from. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif As in pulled out of his backside?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I wonder if he considers his backside primary or secondary? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2008, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The USAAF compared the P-80 Shooting Star and Me 262 concluding: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."[19]

Source - #19# ^ Ethell and Price 1994, p. 180.

Ethell, Jeffrey and Price, Alfred. World War II Fighting Jets. St. Paul, Minnesota: Motorbooks International, 1994. ISBN 1-55750-940-9.

You see the number 19 in brackets right after the quote? That is A REFERENCE TO A CITATION. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You bone head!

You don't even understand what Rat is going on about!

I have provided CITATIONS in that I provided a picture of the page from the book, book cover with title and author, and wrt magazines the name and publication dates and pages!

You are so clueless!!

I love it when you go off all preachie like and end up making yourself look foolish!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Just to prove how right I am..

Allow me to play the Ratsack game..

What is Ethell's and Price's PRIMARY SOURCE for that statement?


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I put the CITATION right after the quote though where I got that, it is at the bottom.
You can see that the CITED part refers to a source, World War II Fighting Jets, and it even
tells the page(s) where the quote came from. I don't have the book and while the local library
system does have 23 books with Jeff Ethell as an author and 9 books with Alfred Price as an
author, none of them are World War II Fighting Jets. You want to see page 180 to check for
other context then go right ahead, find the book and grace all of us on what THEIR source is.

WITHOUT that citation the whole quote would have been unsupported words of the author of that
article I got the quote from. WITH the citation it now carries to the Ethell and Price book.

THAT is how it works. Now please show the CITATIONS on the lines that Taggy cherry-picked
while ignoring other CITED lines in the same articles that counter his conclusions.

If you come up short there then just reply with nonsense... like repeat your argument unchanged.
LOL!

You better change your sig from..

My views are solely my own and do not reflect the views of my Squad or its members"

to

My views are solely my own and do not reflect the views of ANYONE ELSE" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Loco-S
02-02-2008, 08:54 AM
Dont apologize tag, your masterful game of words is more than enough to show that you dont have a clue on how to play your game.

Loco-S
02-02-2008, 09:08 AM
http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm

Loco-S
02-02-2008, 09:13 AM
History
Little is documented about the origin of refrigerator magnets. That is, we didn't find any information during our five minutes of searching the web. However, it's safe to assume that they didn't exist before metal refrigerators. This probably would have been around the early 1920's, when refrigerators (as opposed to ice boxes) began to be marketed.

John_Wayne_
02-02-2008, 09:28 AM
And yet magnets existed before refrigerators. Just like swept wings before jet planes. Go figure.

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2008, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
History
Little is documented about the origin of refrigerator magnets. That is, we didn't find any information during our five minutes of searching the web. However, it's safe to assume that they didn't exist before metal refrigerators. This probably would have been around the early 1920's, when refrigerators (as opposed to ice boxes) began to be marketed. LOL!

I have to ask..

What is your primary sorce on that!

Ask Milton!

Im sure he can help yah out with that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2008, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now how is it that I just KNEW you would not take me up on my challenge!

You and yours are so easy!

Allow me to re-post the things you have yet to address..


Originally posted by Loco-S:
non revolutionary, basically stupid and non consequential for anything other than making pepsi cans,
That is a bold face lie!

I challenge you to quote me where I ever said that!

You cant!

Why?

Because I never said that!

This is just another case of where you hope that if you repeat it over and over some here may think it is true..

But it is not.

Nice try though!

Clearly nothing is beneath you though!


Originally posted by Loco-S:
you claim we all are stupid or nazi lovers?....dude,
That is a bold face lie!

I challenge you to quote me where I ever said that!

You cant!

Why?

Because I never said that!

This is just another case of where you hope that if you repeat it over and over some here may think it is true..

But it is not.

Nice try though!

Clearly nothing is beneath you though!

Aaron_GT
02-02-2008, 11:00 AM
Arado 234? Was a bomber last time I checked.

Night and heavy all weather fighter were planned, but never built. A lot of late war German stuff falls into that category!

Aaron_GT
02-02-2008, 11:08 AM
Viper wrote:

The former is a reasonable position to take based upon the available evidence.

I would suggest that the latter is unlikely given the widely acknowledged pre-war German work in the field, and the Me262HGII & Me262HGIII studies. It is far more likely that the Me262 was intended to be a strictly subsonic aeroplane, offering a significant advantage over existing piston engined aircraft in exchange for the inherent risks associated with the introduction of the turbojet to operational service, and that the introduction of the "functional" swept wing was intended to be left until a subsequent aeroplane, thereby diluting the risk whilst retaining a useful performance advantage.

It pretty much sums up my opinion on it too.

The wildcard is what direction the CofG/CofL balance was out in, and a testable method for that is possibly using knowledge of 262 structure and aerodynamics.

The interesting bit is the quote in one of the sources Tagert quotes which indicates a -reversion- to a straight wing (for the first wind tunnel models?) It would be interesting to find out if there was a reversion, and if there are any other elements to the full 262 story. A hypothesis (which is fasifiable if primary sources say otherwise) that any attempt for the first version of the 262 swept was abandoned, and swept development pushed to HG-II and later, but with 18 degree sweep needed because of CofG/CofL in the V1 after all (but not the sweep planned for the HG-II etc). If the records exist they should be able to confirm or deny this possibility.

I did find a record of a couple of potential Vickers bomber from the end of 1942, planned with prop engines initially, but intended to be ultimately with jets, and one of these had swept wings from the outset, one may have received it. But these were canard and tailless designs, which changes the aerodynamic scenery enough. But interesting, and added to the AWA.54A with jets and sweep (outer panels only) sweep from the outset. No information on the reason for the AWA.54A's sweep (1943 design).

Aaron_GT
02-02-2008, 11:12 AM
Anyone see the carefully googled "evidence" (cge) contradicting itself:
YELLOW: Dumb Luck like references

yes, this is the bit of Tagert's thesis that does not work.

I am of the opinion that the sweep in the 262 was most likely for CofG/CofL issues, but given the HG-II and HG-III plans Messerschmitt and his team were patently not unaware that 18 degree sweep would have a minor benefit to critical mach, even if that was not the reason for the sweep.

So the sweep isn't dumb luck, but an engineering solution to a problem (CofG/CofL) with a known side benefit, just not the benefit that the sweep was the target of the sweep.

Aaron_GT
02-02-2008, 11:15 AM
Yes, I am not sure the delta-wing concept came that early, but I can check (it is possible I scarcely recall some late-war delta-napkins).

I get the impression that a little was known about the benfits due to testing all manner of wing configurations in the Ootz valley supersonic wind tunnel in the 1940s, but the real work was done post war. I know most about the UK work - Fairey and Avro. They were hampered early on by the lack of supersonic test facilities at Farnborough (although one of the German test centres had been carted back to Farnborough, the Ootz facility ended up being moved to France).

Aaron_GT
02-02-2008, 11:18 AM
So what source SHOULD we trust? The 1 nameless source you seem to hold faith in, or the 20 or so named sources Tag is providing?

The issue is about whether the sources are primary are secondary (in terms of which are trustworthy). Quoting 20 secondary sources that are based on a single primary source is actually less convincing then citing a single primary source if the primary source that the secondary sources are based on is not present.

Without annotations and lists of citations from the sources that Tagert quotes it's not even clear whether they are necessarily primary - some look to be at best tertiary.

The closer a source is to primary, and the better its annotation (so you can track it back as close to the primary as possible) the better. The NASA source looks to be one of the best in the set quoted on this.

luftluuver
02-02-2008, 11:29 AM
Work on the HG I did not start til early 1944. This is some several years after the initial 18* swept was done. The HG I had the regular 262 wing but had a leading edge extension on the inner wing section. (V tail and cut down canopy as well)

The GA drawing of the HG II was not issued til the end of July 1944.

The GA drawing of the HG III was not issued til the end of Dec 1944.

People should read the 4 volume, 882 page, series of books on the Me262 by Smith and Creek.

Aaron_GT
02-02-2008, 11:30 AM
Ugly Kid's scan qualifies. The quote from Voigt posted by Holtzgauge does.

Yes, the primary sources are few. I'd say the photo of the wind tunnel model also qualifies. Whether things can be tracked back through the NASA document to primary I don't kmow.

There may or may not be other primary information sitting in an archive somewhere. The photo of the wind tunnel model and the diagrams of the results of wind tunnel tests came from somewhere. The various allied powers after WW2 took away various amounts of documents, and I thought that Bell and Boeing were the ones that looked at the Messerschmitt data the most, so there might be something stuck in the back of a long-forgotten filing cabinet in Seattle that might be found in another 20 years!

The only other option is (and this is sometimes done by archaeologists to try out theories) is build a (computer) model of a 262 with various wing and engine configurations and see how it 'flies'.

Aaron_GT
02-02-2008, 11:35 AM
Thanks luuftluver - sounds like good information. I trust you so no need to scan the entire book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
[QUOTE]
You can see that the CITED part refers to a source, World War II Fighting Jets, and it even
tells the page(s) where the quote came from. I don't have the book and while the local library
system does have 23 books with Jeff Ethell as an author and 9 books with Alfred Price as an
author, none of them are World War II Fighting Jets. You want to see page 180 to check for
other context then go right ahead, find the book and grace all of us on what THEIR source is.


Where did I say PRIMARY SOURCE?

I did not.

Doodle-dip quotes lines that don't have ANY citations and talks fact and proof, but I get
the old raft of guff for explaining what to look for.

Gee, what are the chances that Alfred Price and Jeff Ethel do not have a source listed for
what is OBVIOUSLY a direct quote from the time that the 262 was compared to the P-80's --
in fact just from what models of P-80 a minimum date can be deduced.

JSG72
02-02-2008, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Work on the HG I did not start til early 1944. This is some several years after the initial 18* swept was done. The HG I had the regular 262 wing but had a leading edge extension on the inner wing section. (V tail and cut down canopy as well)

The GA drawing of the HG II was not issued til the end of July 1944.

The GA drawing of the HG III was not issued til the end of Dec 1944.

People should read the 4 volume, 882 page, series of books on the Me262 by Smith and Creek.

I have, these publications. Along with JV44

I don't recall reading that the "Butterfly tail was ever fitted and flown.
Neither in any of my other 262 references.

Will check.

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by JSG72:
I don't recall reading that the "Butterfly tail was ever fitted and flown.
Neither in any of my other 262 referances.

Will check.

All that I have seen only refers to drawings started in 44 and not early in 44.
Maybe they were busy at Mtt around then, but then I can't PROVE just how busy.

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Without annotations and lists of citations from the sources that Tagert quotes it's not even clear whether they are necessarily primary - some look to be at best tertiary.

Apparently the idea that not everything primary is equal hasn't made it very far either.

I will trust a professional historian to not be making up quotes in published books so I
do take that quote from Price and Ethell as strong evidence of actual fact. But I must be
slow trying to pass something like that off to sharp individuals like Gib and Taggy!

Blood_Splat
02-02-2008, 12:06 PM
Everyone in this thread has earned their wings.
http://www.pewterreplicas.co.uk/second%20site%20pictures/phallus%20flying.jpg

Gibbage1
02-02-2008, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I will trust a professional historian to not be making up quotes in published books so I
do take that quote from Price and Ethell as strong evidence of actual fact. But I must be
slow trying to pass something like that off to sharp individuals like Gib and Taggy!

I have STILL yet to see ANYONE post ANYTHING "primary" to counter all or even any of Tag's sources. So far, the weight of evidence, even if its secondary, is on his side. Unless you guys show some "primary" evidence yourself, stop whining about Tag NOT providing it.

Aaron_GT
02-02-2008, 01:51 PM
The evidence is thus:

For CofG movement (Voigt, primary)

against dumb luck:
Letter by Messerschmitt about wing sweep.

I.e. we have a situation (based on the evidence at hand) in which the primary reason for sweep was for CofG, but the effects on critical mach were probably understood too, just not that relevant at that point. So the positive effects on critical mach were not dumb luck, but not important in the design process either as the sweep was to balance the CofL/CofG.

Where some of the secondary evidence is a little confused is that some indicate too forward CofG to be a problem, others too aft. Based on the physics it would have to be too aft as the effect CofL change of sweep would be much greater than any effect on CofG from sweep.

The evidence that luftluver cites (I haven't seen the book, but if the drawings are reproduced there that gets us fairly close to the primary evidence - primary would be the plans themselves, but I assume the book hasn't photoshopped something up and there is good provenance - an evidence chain) then it seems that despite knowing about sweep then it seems sweep in the 262 wasn't a priority until it was well under way. Given the problems with engines that might not be totally surprising. It would be interesting to see what the dates are for other Messerschmitt swept wing plans (excluding the Lippisch tailless designs, as tailless aerodynamics are a bit different), to see what the time gap between being aware of sweep (definitely by 1940) and actually doing something concrete about it for the primary purpose of addressing criticial mach.

There might be other primary evidence hidden down the back of a filing cabinet somewhere, or hidden in someone's attic, but we don't have that, and the participants are to my knowledge all no longer with us, so that's about it.

JSG72
02-02-2008, 02:06 PM
Ok just flicking through "Messerscmitt Me 262" by Willy Radinger and Walter Schick and page 79 gives an overview of the HG series. of which only the HG1 in its form with an enlarged tailfin and swept back tail surfaces actually flew.

ME 262 volume 4 by Smith and Creek. has a 24 page chapter on "The search for Speed" with pics of A "V" tail as fitted to BF 109 V48

"Stormbird Rising" by Hugh Morgan
Has a paragraph on page 39 refering to the 262 V9 prototype. The basis of the HG1

Aircraft monograph 9 "Me 262 Schwalbe Pt 2" by Seweryn Fleischer, and Marek Rys.

Doesnt say anything about the HG Prototypes. But does have a photo on page 21 of the wrecked V9 V1+AD as it was found at Lager-Lechfield.

Showing it had been reverted back to normal configuration.

Ugly_Kid
02-02-2008, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
to see what the time gap between being aware of sweep (definitely by 1940) and actually doing something concrete about it for the primary purpose of addressing criticial mach.


I think P 1101 comes earlier than 262 HG. 1944 there were six different HG programs running on Mtt. 262 HG I, HG II (destroyed shortly before first trials 1945), 262 HG III, P1101 and P 1106.

In discussion about 262 Mach-number increase 5.1.1944 Willy suggested building a prototype, with internal single jet engine (intake on nose), and 35? sweep. Later July 44 OKL asked five companies to work on a suggestion for a fighter with 1000 km/h top speed in 7 km. As a consequence Mtt offered P.1101 to OKL on 10.09.44.

However, what is "concretely do something about it"? Based on Busemann's and Betz's results from 1939 Messerschmitt ordered a series of measurements in Göttingen. Wings with sweep from 15? to 45? with different aspect ratios , also with forward sweep and inclusive engine gondolas and fuselage.

From the results we know, for example through Professor Luedwieg's presentation 1940.

What has not been mentioned before is Ludwig Bölkow's technical report 22/40 from 21.10.1940 that said:

"Die Messungen zeigen, daß es möglich ist, mit einem Profil NACA 0012-64 und einem Pfeilwinkel zwischen 33? und 38? mindestens bis zur Machzahl Ma = 0.9 d.h bis 1100 km/h am Boden zu fliegen, ohne daß ein Einfluß der Kompressibilität auf den Widerstand meßbar ist."

"The measurements show that it is possible with NACA 0012-64 profile and wing sweep between 33? and 38? to reach Mach numbers up to 0.9, meaning flying 1100 km/h on sea level, with no measurable effect from compressibility on the drag.

Ludwig Bölkow was the guy that was responsible for 262 high speed aerodynamics in the dev. team. This is a first hand account of concrete knowledge of effects of wing sweep, dated October 1940.

262 V-1 flew first time with Jumo 210 alone on 18.04.1941. So Bölkow know about the Mach and sweep before 262 flew in any form or shape. That technical note also dates also to app. same month as the outer wings were swept 1940 IRC. Opposite to Gibbage's claim there was no straight wing 262 to fly.

Any source that denies the concrete knowledge of the 262 developers about the swept wing in high Mach numbers before the thing even flew is inaccurate and not thoroughly researched, plain and simple (probably also just googled together). This means that most of the Tagert's carefully googled evidence featuring the green colour, for instance, is not even worth the bytes used for storing it. If one prefers to believe it, with no afterthought, then by all means.

Ugly_Kid
02-02-2008, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
HB stands for "Herzogliches Brauhaus " in Tegernsee. (its a village and a lake about 60 km south of munich.
Just 30 km away from my home http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Correct, well researched http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JSG72
02-02-2008, 02:44 PM
As luftluuver. mentions

"Me 262 Volume One" by Smith and Creek

Is 223 page source of information on the Early development Prototypes with Transcripts from phone conversations As well as drawings/Datasheets and letters.

Page 61. 3rd paragraph

"On 19 December 1939, a mock-up of the P1065 was inspected by representatives of LC2/III with a mock-up of the proposed cabin arrangement being examined a month late. By early February 1940 a description of the layoutproposed for the first prototype was issued. Two BMW P.3302 engines were to be mounted below the wings, the leading edges of the outer sections of which were now to be swept back some 18 degrees. This was done originally to solve problems that higher weight estimates and an increase in diameter of the turbojets from 600 to 690 mm(23.5 to 27 inches) were causing with the aircrafts centre of gravity. Subsequent investigation was to show that this sweep-back decreased compressibility effects and therefore substantially improved the aircrafts Mach number."

And soooo... Check out the dates?

Leading edge sweep incorporated on final proposal Feb 1940 to the data report on actual sweep effects October 1940!

Ugly_Kid
02-02-2008, 03:04 PM
Read again, it says: February 1940, "were to be mounted", "were now to be swept". IRC correctly the lost scan from Heliopause, spoke about August 1940, referring to a note from Voigt, definitely 1940, month can be different...

The point being here that most of the poorly researched internet sites or superficial books claim that the benefits were found first through the experience from flying the 262. No, they were known before the blasted thing took off even for the first time.

Additionally, Bölkow published his technical report in October 1940. This is the conclusion at the end of the investigation, the study had been going on since 1939, Bölkow participating. The awareness of the effects were already there 1939 at the point where the study was launched, the study was about expanding the practical knowledge (different sweeps, also different engine configurations). So after 1939 latest you do not really need to claim that if Bölkow was told 1940 "swept wings reduce compressibility effects" that he would have answered "Really? How interesting, never realized..."

Wurkeri
02-02-2008, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Any source that denies the concrete knowledge of the 262 developers about the swept wing in high Mach numbers before the thing even flew is rubbish, plain and simple.

I'm bit wondering why do you seem to ignore Ebert, Kaiser&Peters. They are very specific on this issue and make clear that the design team had knowledge on the benefits of the sweep but choosed the more conventional route to avoid risks. Note that Kaiser was Voigt's assistant and as a supervisor of the Me 163B project, he certainly knew the state of the knowledge inside the company.

JSG72
02-02-2008, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Read again, it says: February 1940, "were to be mounted", "were now to be swept". IRC correctly the lost scan from Heliopause, spoke about August 1940, referring to a note from Voigt, definitely 1940, month can be different...

The point being here that most of the poorly researched internet sites or superficial books claim that the benefits were found first through the experience from flying the 262. No, they were known before the damned thing took off even for the first time.

Additionally, Bölkow published his technical report in October 1940. This is the conclusion at the end of the investigation, the study had been going on since 1939, Bölkow participating.

You forgot to mention the reason for the sweep on the final proposal?

Oh and pargraph 2 on the page of the book I quoted from.

The wing itself was still similar in planform to the Bf 109E but by February 1940 Bolkows theoretical calculations had produced the Wxy-E series of wing profiles which were later tested sucessfully in the AVA wind tunnel at Gottingen. In factthese were never fitted to the Me 262, but later became an important feature of the design of the post-war North American F-86 Sabre. Two engine layouts were proposed initially, either two BMW P3302 engines slung beneath the wings or two of the slimmer BMW P.3304s mounted centrally but byNovember 1939, a third design had entered the picture when details of Anseln Franz's Junkers T 1(Jumo 004 A) became available.

Ugly_Kid
02-02-2008, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
I'm bit wondering why do you seem to ignore Ebert, Kaiser&Peters. They are very specific on this issue and make clear that the design team had knowledge on the benefits of the sweep but choosed the more conventional route to avoid risks. Note that Kaiser was Voigt's assistant and as a supervisor of the Me 163B project, he certainly knew the state of the knowledge inside the company.

What is there to ignore, am I claiming something else? For sure the moderate sweep (aka "more conventional" than for example 45?) was a risk reduction (same as leaving the thin 9% transonic profile from Bölkow on the side, as I also already mentioned), I doubt they would have used more for the first time, one way or another.

The only issue I have is with the claims of "dumb luck" or "accidental" or "being first aware through experience". This is simply not true. I think that the guys like Prandtl, Busemann, von Karman etc. deserve the recognition for what they did to the aviation and frankly this naziblabla is quite tiresome.

Concerning 262 what I leave open are questions (and I would like to know from a first hand answer too):
-for mere c.g why sweep at all, after all up to 1941 they were still moving the engines around. Structurally, the solution was introducing completely new loading situation, therefore an aerodynamic motivation can not be excluded for the chosen solution. Surely if structure group decided to solve a c.g balance issue with sweeping they would have needed to consult aerodynamics. Merely shifting engines or other mass items less so...
-They also knew about the static instability caused by a wing sweep, even in normal subsonic area much earlier than about anything else. Why would they choose aerodynamical solution that would directly work against one engine operations when building a twin? Stronger aerodynamic motivation?
-if it was mere c.g issue, particularly forward c.g problem induced by BMW engines, why did not the Jumos cause any reaction?
-Who persuaded the stress department to follow the suit and with what selling argument?

These are questions (there are more but I am tired of repeating myself), real issues that have not been answered on 43 pages of pointless spam orgie. They are, however, valid points, I think. Until they are answered, taking a quote somewhere and nodding satisfied "c.g, why of course" is taking a very simplistic view to the matter and not thinking further than ones own nose.

Loco-S
02-02-2008, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now how is it that I just KNEW you would not take me up on my challenge!

You and yours are so easy!

>so what are you referring as "you and yours"?..commercial pilot, rated in two jet types ( soon to be three) airframe and powerplant mechanic, certified flight instructor, ATP rating, IFR certified, with a degree in business management, specialist on carbon modifications, fabrication, design and implementation on carbon composite jets, who has constructed six fully certified airplanes, and working on four pre certification jets, who speaks fluently two languages, plus read three more?, or a common layman with a degree in trolling like you?

Allow me to re-post the things you have yet to address..


Originally posted by Loco-S:
non revolutionary, basically stupid and non consequential for anything other than making pepsi cans,
That is a bold face lie!

I challenge you to quote me where I ever said that!

You cant!



Why?

Because I never said that!

>I can:
I only included them to show you that I am not the only one to use phrases like 'dumb luck' to describe the Me262 wing job../ quote:
DUMB LUCK link it is considered to have happened unintentionally and without planning /All in all the 262 was a flop../The 262 design was a dead end for fighters.. /Take the swepped wings for example..You know that thing they allways seem to get the Germans credit for comming up wiht../Asfor a figher airframe it was a dead end/Dumb luck yes..But that is a far cry from intentional design/As I already stated.. Being aware of the benefits of swept wings at the time the Me262 was being build does not mean the Me262 was designed around that knowledge../So what part of me telling you that knowing about it has nothing to do with it being part of the intended implementation do you NOT understand?/

This is just another case of where you hope that if you repeat it over and over some here may think it is true..

But it is not.

Nice try though!

Clearly nothing is beneath you though!


Originally posted by Loco-S:
you claim we all are stupid or nazi lovers?....dude,
That is a bold face lie!

>I can:
Poor Nancy../Poor Nancy../Milton.../poor Milton.../The nazi plane lovers tactic../You using some sort of Nazi plane lovin stealth technology to hide your data/links/quotes?/There are two types..

1) Loves Nazi planes for what they actully were
2) Loves Nazi planes for what the myth says they were

Poor Milton/Or does anyone else notice that the 'nazi plane lovers'/Nazi plane loving rose colored glass waring folks../The problem is the truth about the Me262 upsets allot of nazi plane lovers who for years have believed the myths to be true./Sorry if that bursts alot of nazi lovin bubbles around here../etc....

I challenge you to quote me where I ever said that!

You cant!

Why?

Because I never said that!

This is just another case of where you hope that if you repeat it over and over some here may think it is true..

But it is not.

Nice try though!

Clearly nothing is beneath you though! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you fail to notice me, hovering over you, because you are beneath, like a cigarrete butt.

now Buzz off troll, I have a coffee to drink.

Wurkeri
02-02-2008, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
What is there to ignore, am I claiming something else? For sure the moderate sweep (aka "more conventional" than for example 45?) was a risk reduction (same as leaving the thin 9% transonic profile from Bölkow on the side, as I also already mentioned), I doubt they would have used more for the first time, one way or another.

Voigt as well as Ebert, Kaiser & Peters are very clear on the reason why the wing sweep was made ie solely CoG. You can of course speculate on engine weighs and on design team knowledge on the the benefits of the sweep but I don't see much beef there unless someone comes up with documentation.

JSG72
02-02-2008, 04:10 PM
MMMmmm....

Ugly Kid'

It would appear that you are drawing conclusions of your own that have nothing to do with the development of the Me 262.

But are more to do with your "Gut Feelings" on general aero dynamics/Weight distribution incorporated on any plane.

Oh and Page 69 of Source publication.

Has 9 planform (Full Detail) drawings of the evolution of the 262 wing. from original design proposal to production. Drawn from Official documents.

The only conclusions I can draw is that The whole picture has to be looked at and not just Soundbites pertaining to small detail obtained on the NET.
By obtaining Well researched publications.
you may be able to takein the influences of all matters.

Ratsack
02-02-2008, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Rat. You have YET to provide YOUR reference, and ONLY disputed his, and then claim mythical "pwnage" like some 13 year old kiddie who just found out how cool the interweb is. Now, unless you can provide "primary" resources of your own, let the gown-ups debate. Enough dance. Put up or shut up.

What is this juvenile twaddle? Read what's posted, small boy.

Ratsack

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
In that in this very thread you and yours acepted Loco's quote from www.strombirds.com (http://www.strombirds.com) without question..

Why?

Because YOU had so much to say about STORMBIRDS as a source which makes it GOOD ENOUGH for
your ******ed nancy-boy @$$ is why. So THAT should have SHUT YOU UP seeing as how THE POINT
was and still IS how INCONSISTENTLY you apply information.

But we get this far and you've turned THAT into something you THINK you can b!tch about.

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I will trust a professional historian to not be making up quotes in published books so I
do take that quote from Price and Ethell as strong evidence of actual fact. But I must be
slow trying to pass something like that off to sharp individuals like Gib and Taggy!

I have STILL yet to see ANYONE post ANYTHING "primary" to counter all or even any of Tag's sources. So far, the weight of evidence, even if its secondary, is on his side. Unless you guys show some "primary" evidence yourself, stop whining about Tag NOT providing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want PRIMARY? Fine.

What Tagert has been doing with his 'sources', taking snips and ignoring what on the same
site conflicts with his conclusions -- that is happening NOW. The PRIMARY SOURCE is this
thread.

Go ahead if you haven't really followed, neither I nor anyone else has to prove JACK about
the 262 to show that Tagert is posting BS. Tagert laid those tracks herself.

JSG72
02-02-2008, 04:56 PM
Can I sweep the Stage now? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Ratsack
02-02-2008, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Precisely. Taggy has posted nothing of value as an historical source, as I have demonstrated very clearly. Everything he's posted is at best secondary.
Hardly.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, FACT. And no, you can't redefine the word 'fact' to suit yourself, either.



You posted your opinions of the data/prof
1. No, not opinions. I read them and told you what they cited. Nothing. That's not an opinion, that's a communication of fact.
2. These 'data/prof' as you call them are not data or proofs. They're only opinion.



You posted nothing that can counter the [EDITED FOR CLARITY: opinions I provided..

Incorrect on a point of FACT again. Go and read page 4 of this thread.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Even worse, when Aaron GT and I called him on that last night, he not only tried to re-define the term 'primary source', he demonstrated conclusively that HE'S NEVER EVEN UNDERSTOOD THE CONCEPT.
Gilty! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I suppose you mean Guilty.



See I never took any of those high school debating classes,

Neither did I.


...nor did I ever set out to be some kind of liberal news writer...

Ditto. But I can nevertheless spell, read and understand what's posted here. What's your other excuse?


So I am still ignorant as to the defined difference between primary and secondary...


None of which excuses you for misusing a term and pointlessly arguing for 40 plus pages when you CLEARLY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.


I also could care less to learn about those differences...
Then you have no view on this or any other historical topic that's worth reading. Time for you to shut up, then.



It would not change the FACT that you and yours have double standards...

There you go again, getting all personal with the 'you and yours' business. Glass houses, fool.

Again, as I noted before, you can't redefine 'fact' to suite your self.


Yes FACT...
No, your opinion because you've been so thoroughly and comprehensively trounced on this subject, and yet you still try to deny it.


In that in this very thread you and yours acepted Loco's quote from www.strombirds.com (http://www.strombirds.com) without question...
1. I see you're still trying to get personal.
2. I never commented on that or any other quote from that site except to point out that it's all opinion. Unfortunately, you obviously can't tell the difference between opinion and fact.



It is only when someone..

Like myself..

Says something negative that the standard of primary source is trotted out...
This is your poor-little-misunderstood-victimized-me argument. Sniff. I'm touched. Really.

It's a shame that it's buhlsheet like the rest of what you've written for 42 pages plus. The emphasis on this forum in matters of historical debate is always upon primary sources, where those are available.

Even worse, you've been poncing around this thread for days saying you've provided facts, when you've delivered nothing but opinion. You only start bleating about standards after you've called on it and found wanting.



With that said..

You and yours have not provided primary or secondary or thirdary or etc sources to counter the data/prof I have provided...
1. There you go getting all personal again.
2. On the contrary, read page 4. Yes, way back there. It makes utter nonsense of your silly claim about dumb luck.



That is how it has always worked here...

Until now...


Until you got nothing to counter the data/prof I have provided..

That is when you brought up the primary requirement!
No, dear, go back to page 4.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Talk about self pwnage.
LOL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You've been pwned again.


This from the guy who has nothing but an opinion about my secondary sources/data/prof!
Read above, petal. I know you can do it if you try. I showed you what your 'sources' relied upon for their opinions. Nothing. That's a fact, not an opinion, petal.



The way he talks you would think he had a primary or secondary source that states the wings were swept to NOT correct the cg error!
Picking up Gibbage's straw man, I see. I have to tell ya, it's tatty already. YOU are the one who's been prancing and poncing over this thread for days, spamming the front end of every page with your little spray, claiming you've got FACTS and that you've PROVEN something.

I've demonstrated that you're full of hot air, and nothing else. This has so upset you that you're now trying to rewrite the history of this thread.



All he has is his own opinion about my so called secondary sources/data/prof
Not opinion, petal, but fact.



All you have provided is your opinions on what I have provided
No, petal, I've given you the facts about what you've provided.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
That apology is long overdue, now.
Another example of you saying something over and over in the hopes that it will stick..

The FACT is I have said nothing that requires an apology! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're arguing that lying and being offensive don't require apologies where you come from? Interesting place you live.



The PROF of that statment is in your inability to quote anything I said that would require an apoligy...

Poor petal, from your first post in this thread:


Take the swepped wings for example..

You know that thing they allways seem to get the Germans credit for comming up wiht..

Awful spelling and grammar aside, I think we get your meaning here. You seem to be saying the Germans always get credit for coming up with the swept wing. It is a FACT that Busemann was the first to demonstrate its performance benefits in 1935.

What would you like to say about your comment, now?


They did not sweep the wings becuase they knew swepped wings were the way of the future..


There is the document on the next page (p. 4) of the thread demonstrating the opposite. There is also the book on German aircraft design from Lillenthal, which notes (with a citation, mind you) that military swept-wing designs were on the drawing boards of all the major manufacturers in Germany.

What would you like to say about your comment, now?


In that pod slung engines caused the CG to be too far forward with straight wings..

This has been demonstrated to be garbage.

What would you like to say about your comment, now?


The truth never needs an apology !

No, but lies and abuse do.

Time for you to take some responsibility for what you say, and apologise

Ratsack

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 05:03 PM
Can I sweep the Stage now? Roll Eyes

Not till you finish your dance number.

Ratsack
02-02-2008, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
...

The interesting bit is the quote in one of the sources Tagert quotes which indicates a -reversion- to a straight wing (for the first wind tunnel models?) ...

I think the sense in which they meant 'reconsidered' was that they had doubts about the straight wing, and assessed ('considered') its suitability again in light of their doubts. Thus re-considered.

I don't think they meant that they wanted to put a straight wing back on. I had the same interpretation when I read that bit, too. Then I re-read it.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
02-02-2008, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
...

The only issue I have is with the claims of "dumb luck" or "accidental" or "being first aware through experience". This is simply not true. I think that the guys like Prandtl, Busemann, von Karman etc. deserve the recognition for what they did to the aviation and frankly this naziblabla is quite tiresome.
...

Quite right, and well said.

cheers,
Ratsack

Loco-S
02-02-2008, 07:56 PM
seems to be that there was some parallel between high speed research between US and Germany, at least on the theoretical aspect, altough Germany did actually develop and experimented the swept wing concept onto an experimental basis, the US ( NACA) lagged because of political considerations, the main issue is that even after the war Busemann was consulted regularly about the trans sonic regime and the high level of technology required to solve some problems....

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html


There was polite discussion of Busemann's paper, but little else, since propeller-driven aircraft of the 1930s lacked the performance to merit serious consideration of such a radical design. Within a decade, the evolution of the turbojet dramatically changed the picture. In 1942, designers for the Messerschmitt firm, builders of the remarkable Me-262 jet fighter, realized the potential of swept wing aircraft and studied Busemann's paper more intently. Following promising wind tunnel tests, Messerschmitt had a swept wing research plane under development, but the war ended before the plane was finished.


The Germans arrived courtesy of "Operation Paperclip," a high-level government plan to scoop up leading German scientists and engineers during the closing months of World War II. Adolf Busemann eventually wound up at NACA's Langley laboratory, and scores of others joined Air Force, Army, and contractor staffs throughout the United States. Information from the research done by Robert Jones had begun to filter through the country's aeronautical community before the Germans arrived. Their presence, buttressed by the obvious progress represented by advanced German aircraft produced by 1945, bestowed the imprimatur of proof to swept wing configurations. At Boeing, designers at work on a new jet bomber tore up sketches for a conventional plane with straight wings and built the B-47 instead. With its long, swept wings, the B-47 launched Boeing into a remarkably successful family of swept wing bombers and jet airliners. At North American, a conventional jet fighter with straight wings, the XP-46, went through a dramatic metamorphosis, eventually taking to the air as the famed F-86 Sabre, a swept wing fighter that racked up an enviable combat record during the Korean conflict in the 1950s.[quote]

[quote]Ongoing Tests

A need for high-speed wind tunnel tests still existed. In the 7 x 10-foot tunnel at Langley, technicians built a hump in the test section; as the air stream accelerated over the hump, models could be tested at Mach 1.2 before the "choking" phenomenon occurred. A research program came up with the idea of absorbing the shock waves by means of longitudinal openings, or slots, in the test section. The slotted-throat tunnel became a milestone in wind tunnel evolution, permitting a full spectrum of transonic flow studies. In another high-speed test program, Langley used rocket-propelled models, launching them from a new test facility at Wallops Island, north of Langley on the Virginia coast. This became the Pilotless Aircraft Research Division (PARD), established in the autumn of 1945. During the next few years, PARD used rocket boosters to make high-speed tests on a variety of models representing new planes under development. These included most of the subsonic and supersonic aircraft flown by the armed services during the decades after World War II. In the 1960s, PARD facilities supported the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs as well.

As full-sized aircraft took to the air, new problems inevitably cropped up. Researchers soon realized that a sharp increase in drag occurred in the transonic region. Slow acceleration through this phase of flight consumed precious fuel and also created control problems. At Langley, Richard T. Whitcomb became immersed in the problem of transonic drag. In the course of his analysis, Whitcomb developed a hunch that the section of an airplane where the fuselage joined the wing was a key to the issue. After listening to some comments by Adolph Busemann on airflow characteristics in the transonic regime, Whitcomb hit upon the answer to the drag problem- -the concept of the area rule.

Essentially, the area rule postulated that the cross-section of an airplane should remain reasonably constant from nose to tail, minimizing disturbance of the air flow and drag. But the juncture of the wing root to the fuselage of a typical plane represented a sudden increase in the cross-sectional area, creating the drag that produced the problems encountered in transonic flight. Whitcomb's solution was to compensate for this added wing area by reducing the area of the fuselage. The result was the "wasp-waisted" look, often called the "Coke bottle" fuselage. Almost immediately, it proved its value. A new fighter, Convair's XF-102, was designed as a supersonic combat plane but repeatedly frustrated the efforts of test pilots and aerodynamicists to achieve its design speed. Rebuilt with an area rule fuselage, the XF-102 sped through the transonic region like a champion; the Coke bottle fuselage became a feature on many high performance aircraft of the era: the F-106 Delta Dart (successor to the F-102), Grumman F-11, the Convair B-58 Hustler bomber, and others.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-081-DFRC.html


X-5

The Bell X-5 was built to test the feasibility of changing the sweep angle of an aircraft's wings in flight. This had advantages from both an operational and research point of view. An operational aircraft could take off with its wings fully extended, reducing both its take off speed and the length of the runway needed.
X-5 front view parked

Once in the air, the wings could be swept back, reducing drag and increasing the aircraft's speed. For an experimental aircraft, the ability to vary the wing's sweep angle would greatly expand the research possibilities. Existing swept wing experimental aircraft, such as the D-558-II, XF-92A, X-2 and X-4, could each provide aeronautical data at only a single wing angle. A variable swept wing aircraft would be equivalent to a series of such experimental aircraft, as it could change the wing angle to the desired research objectives.

Although the NACA conducted independent wind tunnel research on variable sweep wings in 1945, the X-5 originated with the Messerschmitt P.1101 experimental aircraft. This was a small jet with wings that could be adjusted on the ground to three fixed angles between 35 and 45 degrees. The P.1101 had not flown before it was captured by U.S. troops in April 1945. The aircraft was examined by Bell Aircraft engineers following its arrival in the U.S. Robert Wood, head of Bell's design team, proposed in July 1948 that a modified and enlarged version of the P.1101 be built. Unlike the original aircraft, the proposed Bell aircraft could change its sweep angle in flight, rather than being set on the ground before takeoff. The NACA, which had continued to make studies of variable sweep aircraft, supported Bell's proposal. This was a major reason why Air Force Headquarters approved the project on February 4, 1949.


Variable sweep wings became a design feature in aircraft beginning in the 1960s and continuing into the 1980s. These included the F-111, the F-14 and B-1 in the U.S., the Su-22 and Su-24 attack aircraft and the Tu-22M and Tu-160 strategic bombers built in the (then) Soviet Union, and the European Tornado strike aircraft and interceptor.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4304/ch2.htm

The NACA has been condemned for its laggard development of the jet engine. Especially after the war, when German progress had become known, the NACA was criticized for not throwing all its resources into producing a workable jet airplane for the war.7 Though there is an element of truth in the contention that the NACA "missed the boat," in the prewar context of the late 1930s, exploration of jet propulsion may have seemed a luxury those preparing for the expected crisis could not afford. It was, perhaps, less a question of stodginess in outlook than a decision to work in directions that might be more immediately productive. In beginning research in new areas, there is, of course, no way to predict how long it will take to produce useful results, and myriad problems remained to be solved in the field of propeller-powered aircraft. In 1939 the NACA's facilities at Langley were stretched almost to capacity, and even though the two new laboratories, Ames and the Cleveland engine laboratory, would in time relieve pressure on Langley, their planning created new demands on the NACA.


In 1946 the NACA initiated discussion within the government for a policy that would delineate the areas of responsibility of the various aeronautical factions. Obviously the NACA was most concerned about its role vis-a-vis the military. There was rancor on both sides. The Army Air Forces felt let down by NACA's failure to develop the jet engine in time for use during the war, and the NACA felt it had neglected just that type of basic research because it had been overwhelmed doing testing and clean-up for the military. The attempt to clarify positions was only partially successful. As might have been expected, and as the NACA had desired, its main province was defined as "fundamental research"; the military would explore and develop for military use the results of such research. Where, exactly, the line [42] was to be drawn was still moot. In July 1947 the Army Air Forces became a separate service as the United States Air Force, and thereafter was the NACA's main competitor.


As Vannevar Bush had noted, one of the great needs in science and technology was the rapid dissemination of research results to those who might make use of them.26 On an international level, this concern for knowledge of the latest aeronautical developments had naturally been focused on Germany, where aeronautical engineers rivaled those in the United States. As the war ended, the Alsos mission of American scientists and engineers had been sent to study German laboratories and to retrieve useful research results.27

One discovery of the mission was that the Germans had made little progress in transonic research. Though the Allies had little to gain from German research in this respect, it was comforting to know that the same difficulties the Americans and the British had encountered in this field had been experienced also by the Germans. Another product of the Alsos mission was information on the revolutionary German swept-wing research.

[43] Illustrative of the concept of coordination and dissemination urged by Bush, the models and test results on swept wings in Germany enabled the Boeing Aircraft Company to proceed quickly with a swept-wing bomber. A Boeing engineer was a member of one of the groups surveying German developments, and he relayed the information back to his company, which gambled, with happy results, and produced the B-47.28

But, interestingly, the German research on the swept wing had been paralleled in the United States. A NACA researcher, R. T. Jones, who at the time worked at the Langley laboratory, had been doing theoretical research on the swept wing for transonic flight. The concept was not new; in Germany, Adolph Busemann had proposed a swept wing in 1935.29 However, as Jones later noted in a letter explaining his contribution, Busemann "did not make the point that a subsonic type of flow would appear if the wing were swept behind the Mach lines"-i.e., more obliquely.30


When von Karman's Army Air Forces Scientific Advisory Group was in Europe investigating German aeronautical research a short time later, they questioned Busemann on Jones's research, which had been the topic of conversation during the long flight to Europe. Busemann corroborated Jones's findings. It was, as one member of the Alsos mission recalled, "a scientific Coincidence.... Another example of the case where a background of common knowledge may lead to identical, important theories pursued inde-[44] pendently and simultaneously by warring centers -the United States and Germany-even though isolated from each other in the intervening six years by security classification."35

Ratsack
02-02-2008, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
MMMmmm....

Ugly Kid'

It would appear that you are drawing conclusions of your own that have nothing to do with the development of the Me 262.

But are more to do with your "Gut Feelings" on general aero dynamics/Weight distribution incorporated on any plane.

Oh and Page 69 of Source publication.

Has 9 planform (Full Detail) drawings of the evolution of the 262 wing. from original design proposal to production. Drawn from Official documents.

The only conclusions I can draw is that The whole picture has to be looked at and not just Soundbites pertaining to small detail obtained on the NET.
By obtaining Well researched publications.
you may be able to takein the influences of all matters.

Would you like some help with your punctuation?

Ratsack

Gibbage1
02-02-2008, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:

What is this juvenile twaddle? Read what's posted, small boy.

Ratsack

I did. You never listed ANY of your own sources, just disputed Tagerts.

Gibbage1
02-02-2008, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
neither I nor anyone else has to prove JACK about
the 262

Typical Luftwhiner. "I dont need proof, but everyone else does!", and when you get shown proof "Well that proof isent good enough, so ha!". This is pointless. Its like debating with a 5 year old that keeps saying "No, you are!".

Like I said, put up, or shut up.

Loco-S
02-02-2008, 08:08 PM
Gib, you have changed a lot since the old PL days, you praising a troll?

Gibbage1
02-02-2008, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
Gib, you have changed a lot since the old PL days, you praising a troll?

No. Just challenging one to show me some "primany" resources that support his theories.

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
neither I nor anyone else has to prove JACK about
the 262

Typical Luftwhiner. "I dont need proof, but everyone else does!", and when you get shown proof "Well that proof isent good enough, so ha!". This is pointless. Its like debating with a 5 year old that keeps saying "No, you are!".

Like I said, put up, or shut up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read again Gib and then please answer, why do I need to prove anything about the 262 when I am
not trying to show anything about the 262?

What I was showing is the inconsistency with which Tagert applied his information.
All the parts are right here in this thread, HIS posts with parts not underlined that conflict
with his conclusions and sections of sites that he says must be accepted that do the same.

Tagert's sources are not consistent with his conclusions except for the parts he underlined
as has been shown. If you can't see a problem with that then you are badly logic-handicapped
and there is no point discussing anything with you, as above.

Gibbage1
02-02-2008, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

Read again Gib and then please answer, why do I need to prove anything about the 262 when I am
not trying to show anything about the 262?


At LEAST he is showing references supporting his claim. Nobody else has done that, and not even near the volume.

M_Gunz
02-02-2008, 10:14 PM
He shows in the same pages information conflicting with his claims.
He just doesn't underline those parts.

But you are more interested in "winning" than making sense or being real so bye-bye.

Ratsack
02-03-2008, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:

What is this juvenile twaddle? Read what's posted, small boy.

Ratsack

I did. You never listed ANY of your own sources, just disputed Tagerts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You infant. It is WHAT is turned up, not WHO turns it up. Did you not see:

1. Ugly Kid's scan of Messerschmitt's letter; and
2. Holtzgauge's quote from an interview with Voigt.

Well they are the only two primary sources here. That's it.

For all of the noise Taggy made, not only could he not come up with a primary source, he couldn't even come up with an article that cited one. In fact, he couldn't come up with anything that cited a source AT ALL, except for the NASA article, which cited a book. By definition, a book is not primary unless written by somebody involved in the project. Boyne doesn't qualify.

It's really rather typical of you and Taggy that you're now running around complaining about being held to 'a higher standard'. The simple fact of the matter is that Taggy made indefensible comments, and hasn't the guts to admit it.

If you want to back him, fine, but you picked the wrong horse.

Ratsack

Ratsack
02-03-2008, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

At LEAST he is showing references supporting his claim. Nobody else has done that, and not even near the volume.

Are you really that stupid, or are you pretending for the sake of the argument?

Volume doesn't count. The same incorrect source quoted over and over again doesn't amount to anything. It's even worse if you got a whole bunch secondary and tertiary sources that quote each other. The reader is presented with a wall of 'information' that, on closer inspection, doesn't amount to a pinch of dry goat sh1t. This is what Taggy's done.

Now go and do some tertiary research and learn how it's done, then you might have an opinion worth hearing on this.

Ratsack

M_Gunz
02-03-2008, 07:02 AM
reading Gib and Taggy is like watching a young dog that's got his head into a paper bag and
can't figure it out enough to put a paw up and get it off, so it runs around with the bag
on the head, still yappin.

SPCA won't let you come out and shoot it before it breeds......

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Are you really that stupid, or are you pretending for the sake of the argument?

Volume doesn't count. The same incorrect source quoted over and over again doesn't amount to anything. It's even worse if you got a whole bunch secondary and tertiary sources that quote each other. The reader is presented with a wall of 'information' that, on closer inspection, doesn't amount to a pinch of dry goat sh1t. This is what Taggy's done.

Now go and do some tertiary research and learn how it's done, then you might have an opinion worth hearing on this.

Ratsack


Hmmm...don't think I could have said that better myself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

And I really appreciate those that posted PRIMARY sources regarding swept wings and the development of the Me-262. I hadn't realized the awareness in Germany of sweep theory as it relates to high-speed flight had come so _early_(!)

This is really a crucial milestone in both flight and science that has been largely overlooked and ignored over the years.

Now I know for sure that the wings of the Me262 were not swept exclusively for Cg reasons. Cool!

One13
02-03-2008, 07:28 AM
Every thing I have read about wing-sweep in relation to transonic cabability says you need a minimum of 35 to 37 degrees of sweep to have any effect. Many postwar designs used more and Messerschmitt also designed wings with a sweep of 45 degrees for the 262, but none were built during the war.

The 18 degree sweep of the Me262 would have had no effect on its transonic cabability.

HuninMunin
02-03-2008, 07:37 AM
You have said that before and it still is not in context with this discussion.
The Me 262A was never designed for transonic speeds ( the HG projects were designed for a further exploration of that area).
It was not about eliminating critical Mach ( as in the X-1, Sabre f.e. ) but about ******ing it's effects.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Where did I say PRIMARY SOURCE?
Poor Nancy

Your double standard is showing..

OBVIOUSLY a direct quote..

LOL!

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Without annotations and lists of citations from the sources that Tagert quotes it's not even clear whether they are necessarily primary - some look to be at best tertiary.

Apparently the idea that not everything primary is equal hasn't made it very far either.

I will trust a professional historian to not be making up quotes in published books so I
do take that quote from Price and Ethell as strong evidence of actual fact. But I must be
slow trying to pass something like that off to sharp individuals like Gib and Taggy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
ROTFL

And they say I cheery pick!

So Milton is 'convinced' that was an orginal quote..

Even though the citation refers back to Price and Ethell's book instead of the primary source..

The 'imaginary' source that only exists in Milton's dreams

And none of the nazi plane lovers bat an eye..

So funny it is sad!

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Showing it had been reverted back to normal configuration.
Interesting!

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Leading edge sweep incorporated on final proposal Feb 1940 to the data report on actual sweep effects October 1940!
That is what I would call..

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/370451211_5da2041bf6.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
I'm bit wondering why do you seem to ignore Ebert, Kaiser&Peters. They are very specific on this issue and make clear that the design team had knowledge on the benefits of the sweep but choosed the more conventional route to avoid risks.
Bingo!

You can see that at that time it was a very new and risky area..

In that even after the results were in..

Willy didn't fully believe/trust the results and called for more testing to be done.


WILLY MESSERSCHMITT, Augsburg, 01.17.1940:
I am <span class="ev_code_yellow">overly astonished</span> over the gain in using more swep. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Out of this reason</span> I see it as urgently required <span class="ev_code_yellow">to repeat these</span> so generous test results in a large wind tunnel.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
you fail to notice me, hovering over you, because you are beneath, like a cigarrete butt.

now Buzz off troll, I have a coffee to drink.
Now how is it that I just KNEW you would not take me up on my challenge!

You and yours are so easy!

Allow me to re-post the things you have yet to address..


Originally posted by Loco-S:
non revolutionary, basically stupid and non consequential for anything other than making pepsi cans,
That is a bold face lie!

I challenge you to quote me where I ever said that!

You cant!

Why?

Because I never said that!

This is just another case of where you hope that if you repeat it over and over some here may think it is true..

But it is not.

Nice try though!

Clearly nothing is beneath you though!


Originally posted by Loco-S:
you claim we all are stupid or nazi lovers?....dude,
That is a bold face lie!

I challenge you to quote me where I ever said that!

You cant!

Why?

Because I never said that!

This is just another case of where you hope that if you repeat it over and over some here may think it is true..

But it is not.

Nice try though!

Clearly nothing is beneath you though!

Ugly_Kid
02-03-2008, 08:30 AM
Ludwig Bölkow, Messerschmitt AG, technical report 22/40 21.10.1940:

"Die Messungen zeigen, daß es möglich ist, mit einem Profil NACA 0012-64 und einem Pfeilwinkel zwischen 33? und 38? mindestens bis zur Machzahl Ma = 0.9 d.h bis 1100 km/h am Boden zu fliegen, ohne daß ein Einfluß der Kompressibilität auf den Widerstand meßbar ist."

I suppose when they first found about the benefits of the sweep in praxis couple of years later, actually flying the 262, Bölkow's answer must have been:"Really?, how interesting, who would have thought, dumb luck..."

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
In that in this very thread you and yours acepted Loco's quote from www.strombirds.com (http://www.strombirds.com) without question..

Why?

Because YOU had so much to say about STORMBIRDS as a source which makes it GOOD ENOUGH for
your ******ed nancy-boy @$$ is why. So THAT should have SHUT YOU UP seeing as how THE POINT
was and still IS how INCONSISTENTLY you apply information.

But we get this far and you've turned THAT into something you THINK you can b!tch about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your double standards are showing again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I will trust a professional historian to not be making up quotes in published books so I
do take that quote from Price and Ethell as strong evidence of actual fact. But I must be
slow trying to pass something like that off to sharp individuals like Gib and Taggy!

I have STILL yet to see ANYONE post ANYTHING "primary" to counter all or even any of Tag's sources. So far, the weight of evidence, even if its secondary, is on his side. Unless you guys show some "primary" evidence yourself, stop whining about Tag NOT providing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want PRIMARY? Fine.

What Tagert has been doing with his 'sources', taking snips and ignoring what on the same
site conflicts with his conclusions -- that is happening NOW. The PRIMARY SOURCE is this
thread.

Go ahead if you haven't really followed, neither I nor anyone else has to prove JACK about
the 262 to show that Tagert is posting BS. Tagert laid those tracks herself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds like someone needs a hug?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Precisely. Taggy has posted nothing of value as an historical source, as I have demonstrated very clearly. Everything he's posted is at best secondary.
Hardly.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, FACT. And no, you can't redefine the word 'fact' to suit yourself, either.



You posted your opinions of the data/prof
1. No, not opinions. I read them and told you what they cited. Nothing. That's not an opinion, that's a communication of fact.
2. These 'data/prof' as you call them are not data or proofs. They're only opinion.



You posted nothing that can counter the [EDITED FOR CLARITY: opinions I provided..

Incorrect on a point of FACT again. Go and read page 4 of this thread.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Even worse, when Aaron GT and I called him on that last night, he not only tried to re-define the term 'primary source', he demonstrated conclusively that HE'S NEVER EVEN UNDERSTOOD THE CONCEPT.
Gilty! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I suppose you mean Guilty.



See I never took any of those high school debating classes,

Neither did I.


...nor did I ever set out to be some kind of liberal news writer...

Ditto. But I can nevertheless spell, read and understand what's posted here. What's your other excuse?


So I am still ignorant as to the defined difference between primary and secondary...


None of which excuses you for misusing a term and pointlessly arguing for 40 plus pages when you CLEARLY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.


I also could care less to learn about those differences...
Then you have no view on this or any other historical topic that's worth reading. Time for you to shut up, then.



It would not change the FACT that you and yours have double standards...

There you go again, getting all personal with the 'you and yours' business. Glass houses, fool.

Again, as I noted before, you can't redefine 'fact' to suite your self.


Yes FACT...
No, your opinion because you've been so thoroughly and comprehensively trounced on this subject, and yet you still try to deny it.


In that in this very thread you and yours acepted Loco's quote from www.strombirds.com (http://www.strombirds.com) without question...
1. I see you're still trying to get personal.
2. I never commented on that or any other quote from that site except to point out that it's all opinion. Unfortunately, you obviously can't tell the difference between opinion and fact.



It is only when someone..

Like myself..

Says something negative that the standard of primary source is trotted out...
This is your poor-little-misunderstood-victimized-me argument. Sniff. I'm touched. Really.

It's a shame that it's buhlsheet like the rest of what you've written for 42 pages plus. The emphasis on this forum in matters of historical debate is always upon primary sources, where those are available.

Even worse, you've been poncing around this thread for days saying you've provided facts, when you've delivered nothing but opinion. You only start bleating about standards after you've called on it and found wanting.



With that said..

You and yours have not provided primary or secondary or thirdary or etc sources to counter the data/prof I have provided...
1. There you go getting all personal again.
2. On the contrary, read page 4. Yes, way back there. It makes utter nonsense of your silly claim about dumb luck.



That is how it has always worked here...

Until now...


Until you got nothing to counter the data/prof I have provided..

That is when you brought up the primary requirement!
No, dear, go back to page 4.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Talk about self pwnage.
LOL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You've been pwned again.


This from the guy who has nothing but an opinion about my secondary sources/data/prof!
Read above, petal. I know you can do it if you try. I showed you what your 'sources' relied upon for their opinions. Nothing. That's a fact, not an opinion, petal.



The way he talks you would think he had a primary or secondary source that states the wings were swept to NOT correct the cg error!
Picking up Gibbage's straw man, I see. I have to tell ya, it's tatty already. YOU are the one who's been prancing and poncing over this thread for days, spamming the front end of every page with your little spray, claiming you've got FACTS and that you've PROVEN something.

I've demonstrated that you're full of hot air, and nothing else. This has so upset you that you're now trying to rewrite the history of this thread.



All he has is his own opinion about my so called secondary sources/data/prof
Not opinion, petal, but fact.



All you have provided is your opinions on what I have provided
No, petal, I've given you the facts about what you've provided.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
That apology is long overdue, now.
Another example of you saying something over and over in the hopes that it will stick..

The FACT is I have said nothing that requires an apology! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're arguing that lying and being offensive don't require apologies where you come from? Interesting place you live.



The PROF of that statment is in your inability to quote anything I said that would require an apoligy...

Poor petal, from your first post in this thread:


Take the swepped wings for example..

You know that thing they allways seem to get the Germans credit for comming up wiht..

Awful spelling and grammar aside, I think we get your meaning here. You seem to be saying the Germans always get credit for coming up with the swept wing. It is a FACT that Busemann was the first to demonstrate its performance benefits in 1935.

What would you like to say about your comment, now?


They did not sweep the wings becuase they knew swepped wings were the way of the future..


There is the document on the next page (p. 4) of the thread demonstrating the opposite. There is also the book on German aircraft design from Lillenthal, which notes (with a citation, mind you) that military swept-wing designs were on the drawing boards of all the major manufacturers in Germany.

What would you like to say about your comment, now?


In that pod slung engines caused the CG to be too far forward with straight wings..

This has been demonstrated to be garbage.

What would you like to say about your comment, now?


The truth never needs an apology !

No, but lies and abuse do.

Time for you to take some responsibility for what you say, and apologise

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your double standards are showing too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ugly_Kid
02-03-2008, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by One13:
Every thing I have read about wing-sweep in relation to transonic cabability says you need a minimum of 35 to 37 degrees of sweep to have any effect. Many postwar designs used more and Messerschmitt also designed wings with a sweep of 45 degrees for the 262, but none were built during the war.

The 18 degree sweep of the Me262 would have had no effect on its transonic cabability.

Minimum? Airliners that take full benefit of this effect in their operating regime feature about 30-35? sweep.

A passing thought, since the popular "the Germans
knew naught" thesis is that they later accidentally found out about the benefits of sweep in praxis flying that 262, what did they then find out? That wing tips were further back than roots or what?

Irony to the side, in this very thread within all this rubbish, there is also a curve that shows the opposite and shows that, for example, P-80 suffers from drag divergence considerably earlier. Effect is not huge, granted, but there is one.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:42 AM
So NASA web sights are ok to quote now?

Ok cool..

From your own quote I saw this..


Originally posted by Loco-S:
One discovery of the mission was that the Germans had made little progress in transonic research. Though the Allies had little to gain from German research in this respect, it was comforting to know that the same difficulties the Americans and the British had encountered in this field had been experienced also by the Germans.

And I Agree 100% with your quote! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
02-03-2008, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
In that in this very thread you and yours acepted Loco's quote from www.strombirds.com (http://www.strombirds.com) without question..

Why?

Because YOU had so much to say about STORMBIRDS as a source which makes it GOOD ENOUGH for
your ******ed nancy-boy @$$ is why. So THAT should have SHUT YOU UP seeing as how THE POINT
was and still IS how INCONSISTENTLY you apply information.

But we get this far and you've turned THAT into something you THINK you can b!tch about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your double standards are showing again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used YOUR sources to show YOUR double standards, ******.
Put your paw up and push that paper bag off your head before I point you out across the highway.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
In that in this very thread you and yours acepted Loco's quote from www.strombirds.com (http://www.strombirds.com) without question..

Why?

Because YOU had so much to say about STORMBIRDS as a source which makes it GOOD ENOUGH for
your ******ed nancy-boy @$$ is why. So THAT should have SHUT YOU UP seeing as how THE POINT
was and still IS how INCONSISTENTLY you apply information.

But we get this far and you've turned THAT into something you THINK you can b!tch about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your double standards are showing again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used YOUR sources to show YOUR double standards, ******.
Put your paw up and push that paper bag off your head before I point you out across the highway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey..

Max..

Tell me the one again about..

How you 'FEEL' the text/quote in Price and Ethell's book is an ORIGINAL and thus PRIMARY source..

Even though the CITATION does NOT CITE the ORIGINAL PRIMARY source..

It simply CITES Price and Ethell..

But that DOES NOT mater here..

Because you 'FEEL' in your harts of harts that it is an ORIGINAL and thus PRIMARY source..

But it DOES mater for anything I provide..

In that is about the funniest S I have seen come out of you in weeks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
02-03-2008, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by One13:
Every thing I have read about wing-sweep in relation to transonic cabability says you need a minimum of 35 to 37 degrees of sweep to have any effect. Many postwar designs used more and Messerschmitt also designed wings with a sweep of 45 degrees for the 262, but none were built during the war.

The 18 degree sweep of the Me262 would have had no effect on its transonic cabability.

Minimum? Airliners that take full benefit of this effect in their operating regime feature about 30-35? sweep.

A passing thought, since the popular "the Germans
knew naught" thesis is that they later accidentally found out about the benefits of sweep in praxis flying that 262, what did they then find out? That wing tips were further back than roots or what?

Irony to the side, in this very thread within all this rubbish, there is also a curve that shows the opposite and shows that, for example, P-80 suffers from drag divergence considerably earlier. Effect is not huge, granted, but there is one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it a laugh that Messerschmidt was supposed to have had some benefit through dumb luck
after doing something that is not supposed to have any benefit at all.

Sorry but these guys can't take two steps in logic before falling over or making leaps.
Gib can't make even one step and Tagert just sits and denies, "No! It's YOU! No! You!".
Truly Pathetic.

Back in the start, didn't Viper post an estimated 6% increase in critical mach?

I_KG100_Prien
02-03-2008, 08:52 AM
If this thread were a sick calf.. I'd be shooting it right about now...

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:52 AM
The 'real' reason why the Me262 wings were swept summary..

Included data/quotes provided by Loco and JSG72

By AKA_TAGERT

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">PERSONAL SITE</span>


Luftwaffe Ring : link (http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/Messerschmit/page4.html)
A combination of excellent design and <span class="ev_code_yellow">downright luck</span> resulted in a very harmonious design while significantly stretching the known aeronautical boundaries. An example of this is the Me262's wing. The characteristic swept design was the <span class="ev_code_red">result of a need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate</span> for heavier then expected engines. <span class="ev_code_green">It was only later that the benefits of swept wings were realized.</span>


Greg Goebel : link (http://www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html)
Messerschmitt's dream fighter had the turbojets mounted in nacelles under the middle of the wings. <span class="ev_code_red">The wings were slightly swept to ensure proper center of gravity</span>


Battle-Fleet : link (http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/me262.htm)
It was the third airframe that was to become a true jet plane when it took to the air on July 18 1942 in Leipheim near Günzburg, Germany, piloted by Fritz Wendel. Instead of the planned 003 engines which were proving unreliable, the Junkers Jumo 004 had become available and was installed in its place. The 004 was heavier than the 003, and as a result the center of gravity of the plane would have been too far forward for safety. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Moving the engines to the rear was a simple solution to the problem, but as they were mounted centered on the wing spars this wasn't easy to do.</span> <span class="ev_code_red">The solution was to bend the wings themselves to the rear, leading to the enduring myth that the plane was designed as a swept-wing fighter.</span>

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">NON-PERSONAL SITE</span>


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/technical_2.htm) :
Differences in wing root forces, weight distribution, and the Center of Gravity would have completely altered the characteristics of the original Me 262. <span class="ev_code_red">His solution may have been borne of necessity,</span> but it has emerged as one of the most innovative engineering feats in the entire effort.


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that <span class="ev_code_red">the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft</span>


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
The real surprise then is why was this knowledge of the swept wing not taken advantage of worldwide before it was <span class="ev_code_green">experimentally proven</span> on the Me 262. The only plausible (if somewhat vague) explanation was the <span class="ev_code_brown">resistance to new ideas found in all scientific circles</span>


NASA HISTORY: link (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch11-2.htm)
<span class="ev_code_red">the wing was swept back slightly to position the wing aerodynamic center in the correct relation to the airplane center of gravity.</span>


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html) (provided by Loco):
<span class="ev_code_brown">There was polite discussion of Busemann's paper, but little else, since propeller-driven aircraft of the 1930s lacked the performance to merit serious consideration of such a radical design.[/b]</span> Within a decade, the evolution of the turbojet dramatically changed the picture. In 1942, designers for the Messerschmitt firm, builders of the remarkable Me-262 jet fighter, <span class="ev_code_green">realized</span> the potential of swept wing aircraft and studied Busemann's paper <span class="ev_code_green">more intently. Following</span> promising wind tunnel tests, Messerschmitt had a swept wing research plane under development, but the war ended before the plane was finished.


HOW STUFF WORKS : link (http://science.howstuffworks.com/messerschmitt-me-262.htm)
The Messerschmitt Me 262's dramatic <span class="ev_code_red">swept wings were mandated when engineers discovered that the weight of the engine pods threw off the plane's center of gravity; the wing sweep restored equilibrium</span>


Indopedia : link (http://indopedia.org/Messerschmitt_Me_262.html)
During development the weight of the engines grew until they started to seriously affect the plane's center of gravity and stability. To correct this without major changes to the design, in March 1940 <span class="ev_code_red">the wings were swept rearward to restore the proper center of gravity,</span> giving rise <span class="ev_code_green">to a persistent myth that the plane began life as a swept-wing design.</span>


HISTORYNET.COM: link (http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/flight_technology/3038021.html)
<span class="ev_code_red">calculations on the center of gravity had dictated the use of swept back wings on the Me-262 jet fighter; </span><span class="ev_code_green">their aerodynamic benefits were realized later</span>

<span class="ev_code_black">MAGAZINES</span>


Airpower 01-MAR-05 Author: Jenkins, Dennis R. : link (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3842317/Me-262-Wunderplane-or-compromise.html#abstract)
Interestingly, although the Me 262 is usually portrayed as being the forebear of many advanced concepts, it was actually very much a compromise aircraft and its designers were not particularly happy with several aspects of it. <span class="ev_code_red">The "advanced" swept-wing was an inelegant solution to a center-of-gravity problem,</span> while the underslung nacelles compensated for oversized and overweight power plants. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Its designers were not supermen changing the world, but competent engineers responding to events largely out of their control.</span>


Air Classics Apr 2003 by O'Leary, Michael, Larsen, Jim : link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200304/ai_n9230356)
Not only was the jet engine barely a working idea but <span class="ev_code_green">the advantages (and disadvantages) of the swept wing simply were not known. Oddly, the performance benefits of the swept wing were not completely realized in the initial design concepts</span> - <span class="ev_code_red">rather, that type of wing was utilized when it became obvious that the engines were going to be much heavier than initially planned and the center of gravity would drastically change without sweeping the wings.</span><span class="ev_code_green"> It was only later that the benefits were discovered!</span>


PLANET AEROSPACE : link (http://www.planet-aerospace.com/pas/content/OF00000200000057/1/13/200004131.pdf)
<span class="ev_code_yellow">The choice of swept wings was, incidentally,</span> motivated by <span class="ev_code_red">the need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate for the increasing weight of the engines</span> in the course of the development work. <span class="ev_code_green">No-one in the team had any idea yet of the importance of delta wings for supersonic flight in general. </span>


AFA AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION October 1996 Vol. 79, No.10 Wings By Walter J. Boyne : link (http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct1996/1096wings.asp)
<span class="ev_code_yellow">Accidental Benefit</span>

Fixed wing sweep had been built into dozens of aircraft since the earliest days of flight, often as a solution to center-of-gravity problems. Sweep designed to raise the limiting Mach number had been a subject of study since the early 1930s <span class="ev_code_yellow">but appeared quite by accident on an early operational jet fighter, the Messerschmitt Me-262,</span> first flown July 18, 1942. The Me-262 had been originally designed as a straight-wing aircraft, <span class="ev_code_red">but the need to compensate for engine growth and changes in the center of gravity caused the designer to sweep the wings,</span> with the <span class="ev_code_yellow">accidental aerodynamic benefit</span> of increasing the aircraft's critical Mach number.


AERO BRUSH - SUMMER 2006 Willy Messerschmit by Walter Boyne : link (http://www.asaa-avart.org/sample_aerobrush.pdf)
The original design was a straight wing aircraft with its twin engines mounted mid-wing ala those of the Meteor, and with a conventional oval fuselage. The intended BMW jet engines were not available, and a decision was made to go to the larger, heavier Junkers Jumo 004 that Anselm Franz had created. The new engines would not fit in the mid-wing nacelles, and so were mounted in what became the classic engine pod, slung stylishly under the wing. And because the engines were heavier, <span class="ev_code_red">the center of gravity was now off. The solution was the same adopted by Curtiss on its biplane observation planes of the 1930s"”-sweep the wing back, in this case 18 degrees.</span>

<span class="ev_code_black">BOOKS</span>


The Jet Race and the Second World War by Sterling Michael Pavelec
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error01.JPG


ACES IN COMMAND by Walter J. Boyne
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error02.JPG


Performance, Stability, Dynamics, and Control of Airplanes by Bandu N Pamadi
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error03.JPG


Aeronautical Research in Germany from Lilienthal until Today
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error04.JPG


The Best of WINGS - Return of theSwallow - The Messerschmitt Me262 Wings, April 1980
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error05.JPG


"Me 262 Volume One" by Smith and Creek pg 61 (provided by JSG72):
On 19 December 1939, a mock-up of the P1065 was inspected by representatives of LC2/III with a mock-up of the proposed cabin arrangement being examined a month late. By early February 1940 a description of the layout proposed for the first prototype was issued. Two BMW P.3302 engines were to be mounted below the wings, the leading edges of the outer sections of which were now to be swept back some 18 degrees. <span class="ev_code_red">This was done originally to solve problems that higher weight estimates and an increase in diameter of the turbojets from 600 to 690 mm(23.5 to 27 inches) were causing with the aircrafts center of gravity.</span> <span class="ev_code_green">Subsequent investigation was to show that this sweep-back decreased compressibility effects and therefore substantially improved the aircrafts Mach number.</span>
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">Of special interests..
This book is a 223 page source of information on the Early development Prototypes with Transcripts
from phone conversations As well as drawings/Datasheets and letters.
Also make note of the dates, the leading edge sweep incorporated on final proposal Feb 1940 to the
data report on actual sweep effects October 1940!</pre>

<span class="ev_code_black">PAPERS</span>


WILLY MESSERSCHMITT, Augsburg, 01.17.1940:
I am <span class="ev_code_green">overly astonished</span> over the gain in using more swep. <span class="ev_code_green">Out of this reason</span> I see it as urgently required <span class="ev_code_green">to repeat</span> these so generous test results in a large wind tunnel.

<span class="ev_code_black">DEFINITIONS of WORDS and PHRASES used within</span>


<span class="ev_code_black">ACCIDENTAL</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/accidental)
occurring unexpectedly or by chance

<span class="ev_code_black">INCIDENTALLY</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/incidentally)
not intentionally

<span class="ev_code_black">FORTUITOUS</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fortuitos)
occurring by chance
fortunate lucky
coming or happening by a lucky chance

<span class="ev_code_black">DUMB LUCK</span> link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Luck)
it is considered to have happened unintentionally and without planning

<span class="ev_code_black">LEGEND</span>

<span class="ev_code_yellow">YELLOW: Dumb Luck like references</span>
<span class="ev_code_green">GREEN: Did not trust Betz results until AFTER it was proven expermently on the Me262</span>
<span class="ev_code_red">RED: Wings were swept to correct the cg error</span>
<span class="ev_code_brown">BROWN: All were reluctant to implement new unproven technology during the war</span>

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I find it a laugh that Messerschmidt was supposed to have had some benefit through dumb luck
Why?

When Willy himself was not convinced..

In that even after the results were in..

Willy didn't fully believe/trust the results and called for more testing to be done.


WILLY MESSERSCHMITT, Augsburg, 01.17.1940:
I am <span class="ev_code_yellow">overly astonished</span> over the gain in using more swep. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Out of this reason</span> I see it as urgently required <span class="ev_code_yellow">to repeat these</span> so generous test results in a large wind tunnel.

M_Gunz
02-03-2008, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Max..

Tell me the one again about..

How you 'FEEL' the text in Price and Ethell's book it an ORGINAL and thus PRIMARY source..

Even though the CITATION does not CITE the ORGINAL PRIMARY souce..

But that does not mater here..

Becuase you FEEL it is..

But it does mater for anything I provide..

In that is about the funniest S I have seen come out of you in weeks!

You are a childish idiot. I posted with qualifiers all over that and yet you want to insist
on misapplying the new things you've JUST learned about as if that's all there is.

All you've shown is your inability to understand written words and think logically.
But you just sit there and play your little kid denials since that's all you've got.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:53 AM
Sounds like someone needs a hug?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
MMMmmm....

Ugly Kid'

It would appear that you are drawing conclusions of your own that have nothing to do with the development of the Me 262.

But are more to do with your "Gut Feelings" on general aero dynamics/Weight distribution incorporated on any plane.

Oh and Page 69 of Source publication.

Has 9 planform (Full Detail) drawings of the evolution of the 262 wing. from original design proposal to production. Drawn from Official documents.

The only conclusions I can draw is that The whole picture has to be looked at and not just Soundbites pertaining to small detail obtained on the NET.
By obtaining Well researched publications.
you may be able to takein the influences of all matters.

Would you like some help with your punctuation?

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ever notice how the Nazi plane lovers switch to attacking the messenger when they can no longer attack the message?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:

At LEAST he is showing references supporting his claim. Nobody else has done that, and not even near the volume.

Are you really that stupid, or are you pretending for the sake of the argument?

Volume doesn't count. The same incorrect source quoted over and over again doesn't amount to anything. It's even worse if you got a whole bunch secondary and tertiary sources that quote each other. The reader is presented with a wall of 'information' that, on closer inspection, doesn't amount to a pinch of dry goat sh1t. This is what Taggy's done.

Now go and do some tertiary research and learn how it's done, then you might have an opinion worth hearing on this.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ever notice how the Nazi plane lovers switch to attacking the messenger when they can no longer attack the message?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:

What is this juvenile twaddle? Read what's posted, small boy.

Ratsack

I did. You never listed ANY of your own sources, just disputed Tagerts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You infant. It is WHAT is turned up, not WHO turns it up. Did you not see:

1. Ugly Kid's scan of Messerschmitt's letter; and
2. Holtzgauge's quote from an interview with Voigt.

Well they are the only two primary sources here. That's it.

For all of the noise Taggy made, not only could he not come up with a primary source, he couldn't even come up with an article that cited one. In fact, he couldn't come up with anything that cited a source AT ALL, except for the NASA article, which cited a book. By definition, a book is not primary unless written by somebody involved in the project. Boyne doesn't qualify.

It's really rather typical of you and Taggy that you're now running around complaining about being held to 'a higher standard'. The simple fact of the matter is that Taggy made indefensible comments, and hasn't the guts to admit it.

If you want to back him, fine, but you picked the wrong horse.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ever notice how the Nazi plane lovers switch to attacking the messenger when they can no longer attack the message?

M_Gunz
02-03-2008, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">WILLY MESSERSCHMITT, Augsburg, 01.17.1940:
I am <span class="ev_code_yellow">overly astonished</span> over the gain in using more swep. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Out of this reason</span> I see it as urgently required <span class="ev_code_yellow">to repeat these</span> so generous test results in a large wind tunnel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Learn to read.

He talks about the gains of using MORE sweep, that he had just found out about.

MORE sweep, as in MORE than how much they were using already -- found from where, you do not show
but then you are not interested in knowing, you play with words like a three year old with blocks.
You spell nothing out that you claim to despite your claims.

Gain in using more sweep -- indicates (that's a qualifier, stupid) some benefit already from
the sweep they already have whether expected or through testing. This was before even the
BoB so perhaps we can rule 262 testing out which leaves Willie already expecting some good
effect and noting there could be more.

I guess that the US space program was a flop since they didn't go to the moon on the first
mission, or even by the 10th, -if- I look at it in your warped manner. Qualifiers again!

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 09:25 AM
Remove your rose colored glasses and try again

anarchy52
02-03-2008, 09:28 AM
Heh, it took only 40 pages for the nazi effect?

I just don't understand why 262 hurts Tagert so much that he would go through all this rubbish to prove that ol' Willy was a dumbkopf who accidentally created the best fighter of WWII.

Changing the wing geometry to the unproven swept wing design in order to correct CoG issue (which could be solved in a far more conventional manner by adding ballast in the tail) seems to me as not very plausible scenario.

I don't know if any other aircraft designer in the history of powered flight made such a radical and risky aerodynamic change to solve such a prosaic problem...

And about the sources stating that wings were swept exclusively to correct CoG problem reminds me of another debunked myth - the legend of Prokhorovka. Myth that was perpetuated over and over by authors doing Copy&Paste research. Until authentic combat reports were found we all read the story of hundreds of tanks charging like medieval cavalry, which proved to be utter bull.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 09:29 AM
Another Nazi plane lover bites the dust

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Another Nazi plane lover bites the dust

Ever notice how Tagert switches to attacking the messenger when he can no longer attack the message?

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by One13:
Every thing I have read about wing-sweep in relation to transonic cabability says you need a minimum of 35 to 37 degrees of sweep to have any effect. Many postwar designs used more and Messerschmitt also designed wings with a sweep of 45 degrees for the 262, but none were built during the war.

The 18 degree sweep of the Me262 would have had no effect on its transonic cabability.

I agree, but then again the Me-262 was never built or designed to operate in the transonic and certainly not the supersonic range.

It's design did however, give it the highest tactical mach number of any aircraft built during the war. In fact it's _tactical_ mach number was as high or higher than the _critical_ mach number for many planes.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Another Nazi plane lover bites the dust

Ever notice how Tagert switches to attacking the messenger when he can no longer attack the message? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nice try..

But no sale..

In that loving Nazi planes is not an attack..

I love Nazi planes too..

Just not enough to make excuses for them and drink the swept wing Kool-Aid..

Or did you consider me pointing out that he bit the dust is an attack?

If so..

That too would be in error..

JSG72
02-03-2008, 10:30 AM
Just to set the record straight.

I am a Luftwaffe Fan.(The Guy with the book http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif)

With over 700 publications of all aspects of their organization and equipment.

I did not come on here to **** of the Me262.

I find, its story fascinating.

I only came on to contribute what information I have.
I am not entirely computer literate. But I can read and post quotes from many "Primary Sources" that have been translated into English.

I do have a book by Price and Ethel within my collection called "German Jets in Combat."

There doesn't appear to be anything within this volume of much detailed interest.Other than broad interpretations.

I have No argument with anyone on this thread
I am only trying to supply the information I have to those who APPEAR, to have an iterest in the subject

Or was it? Willy Messerschmit. Darn! If he only knew then what we know now.

A Quote from Ludwig Bolkow :

"We felt that we were participating in a new aviation age. This was the motivation that formed an enthusiastic team living with new problems day and night.There was a fever of expectation, an eager expectation of the results"

I have no desire to being Tarred with the same brush as AKA TAGERT. (In fact I am more than likely Anathema to his persona).

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So that explains why the P-80 had only 1 engine, yet was faster then the Me-262 with its "superior" engine. Huh. Wait....

It really wasn't any faster than the Me-262 at any point during WWII.

Pilots that flew both aircraft side by side in comparison tests at Wright Field _after_ the war:

"...I was fascinated to discover that the 262 and Shooting Star performed identically - the same range, top speed, acceleration, and rate of climb" -Chuck Yeager

Other pilots in the US that flew both aircraft felt the Me262 was superior:

"The final test report stated that the comparison tests were pretty close. No enormous advantage of one over the other. I don't really believe that. I think the Me-262 was superior to the P-80 across the board. I flew the 262, and that's what I believe." - Bob Strobell

(Both pilots quoted in the book American Raiders by Wolfgang Samuel)

A summary of the tactical trials report by Technical Intelligence at Wright's Field:

"The overall conclusion was that T2-711(Me262 assigned number) was superior to the average Lockheed P-80A in acceleration and speed, and comperable in climb performance, despite a weight penalty of 2,000lbs. A maximum True Air Speed of 568 mph was measured at a pressure altitude of 20,200ft." - Phil Butler (War Prizes)

What is really interesting about the Wright Field test is that the aileron and elevator servotabs of Me262 T2-11 were never connected during reassembly and was flown in this condition during the tests!

JSG72
02-03-2008, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So that explains why the P-80 had only 1 engine, yet was faster then the Me-262 with its "superior" engine. Huh. Wait....

It really wasn't any faster than the Me-262 at any point during WWII.

Pilots that flew both aircraft side by side in comparison tests at Wright Field _after_ the war:

"...I was fascinated to discover that the 262 and Shooting Star performed identically - the same range, top speed, acceleration, and rate of climb" -Chuck Yeager

Other pilots in the US that flew both aircraft felt the Me262 was superior:

"The final test report stated that the comparison tests were pretty close. No enormous advantage of one over the other. I don't really believe that. I think the Me-262 was superior to the P-80 across the board. I flew the 262, and that's what I believe." - Bob Strobell

(Both pilots quoted in the book American Raiders by Wolfgang Samuel)

A summary of the tactical trials report by Technical Intelligence at Wright's Field:

"The overall conclusion was that T2-711(Me262 assigned number) was superior to the average Lockheed P-80A in acceleration and speed, and comperable in climb performance, despite a weight penalty of 2,000lbs. A maximum True Air Speed of 568 mph was measured at a pressure altitude of 20,200ft." - Phil Butler (War Prizes)

What is really interesting about the Wright Field test is that the aileron and elevator servotabs of Me262 T2-11 were never connected during reassembly and was flown in this condition during the tests! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Al Boyd (Who flew the 262 T2-11 in the comparison trails with the Xp-80) and whos report was submitted Quotes:

"There was no comparison as far as I am concerned between the operational capability of the Me 262 and the P-80.
There was nothing comparable with the Me 262 in Britain or the US. It was another couple of years before the P-80 began to approach it."

and Lt-Cmdr Eric Brown.
RAE Captured Enemy Aircraft flight:

"I carried out high Mach dives on the ME 262 up to a maximumof 0.84 and they fully confirmed all Gerd Linders observations. The important thing however was that I had ascertained the tactical usability of the Me 262 up to Mach 0.82 and this capability had undoubtably endowed Messerschmitt's fighter with a marked advantage over every operational aircraft of World War Two."

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 11:38 AM
A very interesting book on the race for German technological secrets after WWII:

American Raiders: The Race to Capture the Luftwaffe's Secrets, by Wolfgang Samuel
ISBN 1-57806-649-2

Talks about Operation Lusty, Project Overcast, and Project Paperclip and details the _huge_ influence German technology had on the world of aviation after WWII.


I can't recommend this reading to Taggy and Gibbage however, as it may have drastic consequences to their self-esteem.

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Al Boyd (Who flew the 262 T2-11 in the comparison trails with the Xp-80) and whos report was submitted Quotes:

"There was no comparison as far as I am concerned between the operational capability of the Me 262 and the P-80.
There was nothing comparable with the Me 262 in Britain or the US. It was another couple of years before the P-80 began to approach it."




Excellent quote, and agrees completely with the conclusions reached by pilots like Bob Strobell and the post-war tests at Wright Field.

The P-80 after a considerable amount of time became a fine aircraft, but was never a combat worthy airframe during WWII. In fact, German tech from BMW and Junkers as well as the post-war publicity campaign by Watson's Wizzers flying Me262s had a large impact on jump-starting the floundering P-80 program.

Samuel's book details some of this and it is very interesting....

M_Gunz
02-03-2008, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
A very interesting book on the race for German technological secrets after WWII:

American Raiders: The Race to Capture the Luftwaffe's Secrets, by Wolfgang Samuel
ISBN 1-57806-649-2

Talks about Operation Lusty, Project Overcast, and Project Paperclip and details the _huge_ influence German technology had on the world of aviation after WWII.


I can't recommend this reading to Taggy and Gibbage however, as it may have drastic consequences to their self-esteem.

Don't worry about that. Either one would scan for groups of words that could be taken out of
context to prove what they already know as facts. End result, they feel better.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 12:34 PM
The 'real' reason why the Me262 wings were swept summary..

By AKA_TAGERT

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">PERSONAL SITE</span>


Luftwaffe Ring : link (http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/Messerschmit/page4.html)
A combination of excellent design and <span class="ev_code_yellow">downright luck</span> resulted in a very harmonious design while significantly stretching the known aeronautical boundaries. An example of this is the Me262's wing. The characteristic swept design was the <span class="ev_code_red">result of a need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate</span> for heavier then expected engines. <span class="ev_code_green">It was only later that the benefits of swept wings were realized.</span>


Greg Goebel : link (http://www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html)
Messerschmitt's dream fighter had the turbojets mounted in nacelles under the middle of the wings. <span class="ev_code_red">The wings were slightly swept to ensure proper center of gravity</span>


Battle-Fleet : link (http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/me262.htm)
It was the third airframe that was to become a true jet plane when it took to the air on July 18 1942 in Leipheim near Günzburg, Germany, piloted by Fritz Wendel. Instead of the planned 003 engines which were proving unreliable, the Junkers Jumo 004 had become available and was installed in its place. The 004 was heavier than the 003, and as a result the center of gravity of the plane would have been too far forward for safety. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Moving the engines to the rear was a simple solution to the problem, but as they were mounted centered on the wing spars this wasn't easy to do.</span> <span class="ev_code_red">The solution was to bend the wings themselves to the rear, leading to the enduring myth that the plane was designed as a swept-wing fighter.</span>

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">NON-PERSONAL SITE</span>


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/technical_2.htm) :
Differences in wing root forces, weight distribution, and the Center of Gravity would have completely altered the characteristics of the original Me 262. <span class="ev_code_red">His solution may have been borne of necessity,</span> but it has emerged as one of the most innovative engineering feats in the entire effort.


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that <span class="ev_code_red">the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft</span>


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
The real surprise then is why was this knowledge of the swept wing not taken advantage of worldwide before it was <span class="ev_code_green">experimentally proven</span> on the Me 262. The only plausible (if somewhat vague) explanation was the <span class="ev_code_brown">resistance to new ideas found in all scientific circles</span>


NASA HISTORY: link (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch11-2.htm)
<span class="ev_code_red">the wing was swept back slightly to position the wing aerodynamic center in the correct relation to the airplane center of gravity.</span>


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html) (provided by Loco):
<span class="ev_code_brown">There was polite discussion of Busemann's paper, but little else, since propeller-driven aircraft of the 1930s lacked the performance to merit serious consideration of such a radical design.</span> Within a decade, the evolution of the turbojet dramatically changed the picture. In 1942, designers for the Messerschmitt firm, builders of the remarkable Me-262 jet fighter, <span class="ev_code_green">realized</span> the potential of swept wing aircraft and studied Busemann's paper <span class="ev_code_green">more intently. Following</span> promising wind tunnel tests, Messerschmitt had a swept wing research plane under development, but the war ended before the plane was finished.


HOW STUFF WORKS : link (http://science.howstuffworks.com/messerschmitt-me-262.htm)
The Messerschmitt Me 262's dramatic <span class="ev_code_red">swept wings were mandated when engineers discovered that the weight of the engine pods threw off the plane's center of gravity; the wing sweep restored equilibrium</span>


Indopedia : link (http://indopedia.org/Messerschmitt_Me_262.html)
During development the weight of the engines grew until they started to seriously affect the plane's center of gravity and stability. To correct this without major changes to the design, in March 1940 <span class="ev_code_red">the wings were swept rearward to restore the proper center of gravity,</span> giving rise <span class="ev_code_green">to a persistent myth that the plane began life as a swept-wing design.</span>


HISTORYNET.COM: link (http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/flight_technology/3038021.html)
<span class="ev_code_red">calculations on the center of gravity had dictated the use of swept back wings on the Me-262 jet fighter; </span><span class="ev_code_green">their aerodynamic benefits were realized later</span>

<span class="ev_code_black">MAGAZINES</span>


Airpower 01-MAR-05 Author: Jenkins, Dennis R. : link (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3842317/Me-262-Wunderplane-or-compromise.html#abstract)
Interestingly, although the Me 262 is usually portrayed as being the forebear of many advanced concepts, it was actually very much a compromise aircraft and its designers were not particularly happy with several aspects of it. <span class="ev_code_red">The "advanced" swept-wing was an inelegant solution to a center-of-gravity problem,</span> while the underslung nacelles compensated for oversized and overweight power plants. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Its designers were not supermen changing the world, but competent engineers responding to events largely out of their control.</span>


Air Classics Apr 2003 by O'Leary, Michael, Larsen, Jim : link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200304/ai_n9230356)
Not only was the jet engine barely a working idea but <span class="ev_code_green">the advantages (and disadvantages) of the swept wing simply were not known. Oddly, the performance benefits of the swept wing were not completely realized in the initial design concepts</span> - <span class="ev_code_red">rather, that type of wing was utilized when it became obvious that the engines were going to be much heavier than initially planned and the center of gravity would drastically change without sweeping the wings.</span><span class="ev_code_green"> It was only later that the benefits were discovered!</span>


PLANET AEROSPACE : link (http://www.planet-aerospace.com/pas/content/OF00000200000057/1/13/200004131.pdf)
<span class="ev_code_yellow">The choice of swept wings was, incidentally,</span> motivated by <span class="ev_code_red">the need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate for the increasing weight of the engines</span> in the course of the development work. <span class="ev_code_green">No-one in the team had any idea yet of the importance of delta wings for supersonic flight in general. </span>


AFA AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION October 1996 Vol. 79, No.10 Wings By Walter J. Boyne : link (http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct1996/1096wings.asp)
<span class="ev_code_yellow">Accidental Benefit</span>

Fixed wing sweep had been built into dozens of aircraft since the earliest days of flight, often as a solution to center-of-gravity problems. Sweep designed to raise the limiting Mach number had been a subject of study since the early 1930s <span class="ev_code_yellow">but appeared quite by accident on an early operational jet fighter, the Messerschmitt Me-262,</span> first flown July 18, 1942. The Me-262 had been originally designed as a straight-wing aircraft, <span class="ev_code_red">but the need to compensate for engine growth and changes in the center of gravity caused the designer to sweep the wings,</span> with the <span class="ev_code_yellow">accidental aerodynamic benefit</span> of increasing the aircraft's critical Mach number.


AERO BRUSH - SUMMER 2006 Willy Messerschmit by Walter Boyne : link (http://www.asaa-avart.org/sample_aerobrush.pdf)
The original design was a straight wing aircraft with its twin engines mounted mid-wing ala those of the Meteor, and with a conventional oval fuselage. The intended BMW jet engines were not available, and a decision was made to go to the larger, heavier Junkers Jumo 004 that Anselm Franz had created. The new engines would not fit in the mid-wing nacelles, and so were mounted in what became the classic engine pod, slung stylishly under the wing. And because the engines were heavier, <span class="ev_code_red">the center of gravity was now off. The solution was the same adopted by Curtiss on its biplane observation planes of the 1930s"”-sweep the wing back, in this case 18 degrees.</span>

<span class="ev_code_black">BOOKS</span>


The Jet Race and the Second World War by Sterling Michael Pavelec
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error01.JPG


ACES IN COMMAND by Walter J. Boyne
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error02.JPG


Performance, Stability, Dynamics, and Control of Airplanes by Bandu N Pamadi
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error03.JPG


Aeronautical Research in Germany from Lilienthal until Today
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error04.JPG


The Best of WINGS - Return of theSwallow - The Messerschmitt Me262 Wings, April 1980
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error05.JPG


Me 262 Volume One" by Smith and Creek pg 61 (provided by JSG72):
On 19 December 1939, a mock-up of the P1065 was inspected by representatives of LC2/III with a mock-up of the proposed cabin arrangement being examined a month late. By early February 1940 a description of the layout proposed for the first prototype was issued. Two BMW P.3302 engines were to be mounted below the wings, the leading edges of the outer sections of which were now to be swept back some 18 degrees. <span class="ev_code_red">This was done originally to solve problems that higher weight estimates and an increase in diameter of the turbojets from 600 to 690 mm(23.5 to 27 inches) were causing with the aircraft's center of gravity.</span> <span class="ev_code_green">Subsequent investigation was to show that this sweep-back decreased compressibility effects and therefore substantially improved the aircraft's Mach number.</span>
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">Of special interests..
This book is a 223 page source of information on the Early development Prototypes with Transcripts from
phone conversations As well as drawings/Data sheets and letters.
Also make note of the dates, the leading edge sweep incorporated on final proposal Feb 1940 to the data
report on actual sweep effects October 1940!</pre>

<span class="ev_code_black">PAPERS</span>


WILLY MESSERSCHMITT, Augsburg, 01.17.1940 (translation provided by Bewolf):
I am <span class="ev_code_green">overly astonished</span> over the gain in using more sweep. <span class="ev_code_green">Out of this reason</span> I see it as urgently required <span class="ev_code_brown">to repeat</span> these so generous test results in a large wind tunnel.

<span class="ev_code_black">RELATED INFO</span>


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
It is also the case that American engineers, including NACA personnel, had already made independent progress along the same design path when the German hardware and drawings were turned up at the end of World War II.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
In the United States, progress toward swept wing design proceeded independently of the Germans, although admittedly behind them.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
In a memo to Sikorsky in 1941, he (Michael Gluhareff,) described a possible pursuit-interceptor having a delta-shaped wing swept back at an angle of 56 degrees. The reason, he wrote, was to achieve "a considerable delay in the action (onset) of the compressibility effect. The general shape and form of the aircraft is, therefore, outstandingly adaptable for extremely high speeds."


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
The concept of wings with subsonic sweep came to Jones in January 1945, and he eagerly discussed it with Air Force and NACA colleagues during the next few weeks. Finally, he was confident enough to make a formal statement to the NACA chieftains. On 5 March 1945, he wrote to the NACA's director of research, George W. Lewis. "I have recently made a theoretical analysis which indicates that a V-shaped wing traveling point foremost would be less affected by compressibility than other planforms," he explained. "In fact, if the angle of the V is kept small relative to the Mach angle, the lift and center of pressure remain the same at speeds both above and below the speed of sound


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
For wind tunnel tests, the second model was truly a diminutive article, crafted of sheet steel by Jones and two other engineers. Langley's supersonic tunnel had a 9-inch throat, so the model had a 1.5-inch wingspan, in the shape of a delta. The promising test results, issued 11 May 1945, were released before Allied investigators in Europe had the opportunity to interview German aerodynamicists on delta shapes and swept wing developments.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
Information from the research done by Robert Jones had begun to filter through the country's aeronautical community before the Germans arrived.

Looks like another myth has been busted..

The one where folks think the US was caught totally off guard by the benefits of swept wings..

<span class="ev_code_black">DEFINITIONS of WORDS and PHRASES used within</span>


<span class="ev_code_black">ACCIDENTAL</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/accidental)
occurring unexpectedly or by chance

<span class="ev_code_black">INCIDENTALLY</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/incidentally)
not intentionally

<span class="ev_code_black">FORTUITOUS</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fortuitos)
occurring by chance
fortunate lucky
coming or happening by a lucky chance

<span class="ev_code_black">DUMB LUCK</span> link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Luck)
it is considered to have happened unintentionally and without planning

<span class="ev_code_black">LEGEND</span>

<span class="ev_code_yellow">YELLOW: Dumb Luck like references</span>
<span class="ev_code_green">GREEN: Did not trust Betz results until AFTER it was proven unintentionally on the Me262</span>
<span class="ev_code_red">RED: Wings were swept to correct the cg error</span>
<span class="ev_code_brown">BROWN: All were reluctant to implement new unproven technology during the war</span>

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
A very interesting book on the race for German technological secrets after WWII:

American Raiders: The Race to Capture the Luftwaffe's Secrets, by Wolfgang Samuel
ISBN 1-57806-649-2

Talks about Operation Lusty, Project Overcast, and Project Paperclip and details the _huge_ influence German technology had on the world of aviation after WWII.


I can't recommend this reading to Taggy and Gibbage however, as it may have drastic consequences to their self-esteem.

Don't worry about that. Either one would scan for groups of words that could be taken out of
context to prove what they already know as facts. End result, they feel better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey..

Max..

Psssssst!!

Tell me the one again..

About..

How you 'FEEL' the text in Price and Ethell's book it an ORIGINAL and thus PRIMARY source..

Even though the CITATION does not CITE the ORIGINAL PRIMARY souce..

But that does not mater here..

Because you FEEL it is..

But it does mater for anything I provide..

In that is about the funniest S I have seen come out of you in weeks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
I can't recommend this reading to Taggy and Gibbage however, as it may have drastic consequences to their self-esteem.
Emmmmmm..

Don't count on it..


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
It is also the case that American engineers, including NACA personnel, had already made independent progress along the same design path when the German hardware and drawings were turned up at the end of World War II.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
In the United States, progress toward swept wing design proceeded independently of the Germans, although admittedly behind them.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
In a memo to Sikorsky in 1941, he (Michael Gluhareff,) described a possible pursuit-interceptor having a delta-shaped wing swept back at an angle of 56 degrees. The reason, he wrote, was to achieve "a considerable delay in the action (onset) of the compressibility effect. The general shape and form of the aircraft is, therefore, outstandingly adaptable for extremely high speeds."


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
The concept of wings with subsonic sweep came to Jones in January 1945, and he eagerly discussed it with Air Force and NACA colleagues during the next few weeks. Finally, he was confident enough to make a formal statement to the NACA chieftains. On 5 March 1945, he wrote to the NACA's director of research, George W. Lewis. "I have recently made a theoretical analysis which indicates that a V-shaped wing traveling point foremost would be less affected by compressibility than other planforms," he explained. "In fact, if the angle of the V is kept small relative to the Mach angle, the lift and center of pressure remain the same at speeds both above and below the speed of sound


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
For wind tunnel tests, the second model was truly a diminutive article, crafted of sheet steel by Jones and two other engineers. Langley's supersonic tunnel had a 9-inch throat, so the model had a 1.5-inch wingspan, in the shape of a delta. The promising test results, issued 11 May 1945, were released before Allied investigators in Europe had the opportunity to interview German aerodynamicists on delta shapes and swept wing developments.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
Information from the research done by Robert Jones had begun to filter through the country's aeronautical community before the Germans arrived.

Looks like another myth has been busted..

The one where folks think the US was caught totally off guard by the benefits of swept wings..

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> ???????
??:::::::??
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSS AAA VVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVYYYYYYY YYYYYYY ??:::::::::::?
SS:::::::::::::::S A:::A V::::::V V::::::VV::::::V V::::::VY:::::Y Y:::::Y?:::::????:::::?
S:::::SSSSSS::::::S A:::::A V::::::V V::::::VV::::::V V::::::VY:::::Y Y:::::Y?::::? ?::::?
S:::::S SSSSSSS A:::::::AV::::::V V::::::VV::::::V V::::::VY::::::Y Y::::::Y?::::? ?::::?
S:::::S A:::::::::AV:::::V V:::::V V:::::V V:::::V YYY:::::Y Y:::::YYY?????? ?::::?
S:::::S A:::::A:::::AV:::::V V:::::V V:::::V V:::::V Y:::::Y Y:::::Y ?::::?
S::::SSSS A:::::A A:::::AV:::::V V:::::V V:::::V V:::::V Y:::::Y:::::Y ?::::?
SS::::::SSSSS A:::::A A:::::AV:::::V V:::::V V:::::V V:::::V Y:::::::::Y ?::::?
SSS::::::::SS A:::::A A:::::AV:::::V V:::::V V:::::V V:::::V Y:::::::Y ?::::?
SSSSSS::::S A:::::AAAAAAAAA:::::AV:::::V V:::::V V:::::V V:::::V Y:::::Y ?::::?
S:::::S A:::::::::::::::::::::AV:::::V:::::V V:::::V:::::V Y:::::Y ?::::?
S:::::S A:::::AAAAAAAAAAAAA:::::AV:::::::::V V:::::::::V Y:::::Y ??::??
SSSSSSS S:::::S A:::::A A:::::AV:::::::V V:::::::V Y:::::Y ????
S::::::SSSSSS:::::SA:::::A A:::::AV:::::V V:::::V YYYY:::::YYYY
S:::::::::::::::SSA:::::A A:::::AV:::V V:::V Y:::::::::::Y ???
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSS AAAAAAA AAAAAAAVVV VVV YYYYYYYYYYYYY ??:??
??? </pre>

JSG72
02-03-2008, 01:14 PM
Hey

AKA_

I have supported you in your mission to prove the Non inluence of the Me-262 in the further development of Fighter aircraft after the war.

And have gone on to quote Allied pilots views of comparison tests.

However! and I won't shout

Would it be true to say that NASA employed and protected more German scientists after the War than any individual German Research/Aircraft establishment during the conflict?

I fully appreciate that substantial work was carried out in the USA before and during the War.

Do you not agree? that a genuine Kick in the *** was affected after the herding together of all information and Scientists pertaining to german research in avionics.

Something that the British tried to do without the scientists?(Only the paper).

And something that the US. tried to keep a closely guarded secret of until after the Cold War. As after the War the US. Was paranoid about the Russians stealing a march on them by using whatever German Secrets, they had obtained.(They got the engines)

Anyways. As far as this Topic goes "I do not beleive that the ME-262 design was in much way as influential in Post-War aircraft design.
However the German Research industry undoubtably WAS!!!"

Can I sweep the stage now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Hey

AKA_

I have supported you in your mission to prove the Non inluence of the Me-262 in the further development of Fighter aircraft after the war.

And have gone on to quote Allied pilots views of comparison tests.
Yes..

And feel free to bring that fact up in the future..

Should I ever forget and imply that your not being on the up and up on some future topic!

Your a class act in my book!

By class I mean you hold the value of the truth higher than the value of a myth!

S!


Originally posted by JSG72:
However! and I won't shout

Would it be true to say that NASA employed and protected more German scientists after the War than any individual German Research/Aircraft establishment during the conflict?
Hmmmm

I don't know about more..

But we definitely protected some..

That, from what I have heard say..

Should have been tossed into the gallows at the Nuremberg trials..


Originally posted by JSG72:
I fully appreciate that substantial work was carried out in the USA before and during the War.

Do you not agree?
100%


Originally posted by JSG72:
that a genuine Kick in the *** was affected after the herding together of all information pertaining to german research in avionics.
Something that the British tried to do without the scientists?(Only the paper).
And something that the US. tried to keep a closely guarded secret of until after the Cold War. As after the War the US. Was paranoid about the Russians stealing a march on them by using whatever German Secrets, they had obtained.
Sounds reasonable to me!


Originally posted by JSG72:
Anyways. As far as this Topic goes "I do not beleive that the ME-262 design was in much way as influential in Post-War aircraft design.
However the German Research industry undoubtably WAS!!!"
Motivation wise for sure..

But anyone that thinks planes like the B2 were copies of or related to planes like the Go229 are sadly mistaken..

All in all..

I think they helped.. and helped allot..

As for rockets..

No one understood Goddard's work better than Von Bran..

But..

The biggest part of snatching them up was to keep them out of the hands of the USSR


Originally posted by JSG72:
Can I sweep the stage now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
ROTFL!

Holtzauge
02-03-2008, 01:19 PM
It's amazing that this thread has kept going for so long.

Since there still seems to be some doubts about why the sweep was done, here's another log on the fire!

Enjoy!

Die Entwicklung der deutchen Jagdflugzeuge, Rüdiger Kosin, Bernhard & Graefe Verlag, 1990, page 178 (on the development of the Me 262):

"Es ist an Tiefdecker mit geraden Flügeln. Noch denkt man nicht an Flügelpfeilung zur Erhöhung der kritischen Machzahl"

"Durch Schwenken des aussenflügels und damit Rückverlegung des Auftriebsmittelpunktes ist man einer Vershiebung des Flugzeugschwerpunktes wegen Gewichtserhöhung der Triebwerke begegnet, um nicht die gesamte an Flügelmittelteil, Fahrwerk, Rumpfflügelverband usw. Geleistete Arbeit widerholen müssen. So entsteht ein Flügel der von Triebwerk an nach aussen um rund 15 grad gepfeilt ist."

Rudimentary translation:

"It is at low-wing aircraft with straight wings. Still one does not think of wing sweepback to increase the critical Mach number."

"By swivelling the outerwing and moving the center of lift backwards to counter the increased engine weight in order not to have to redo the middle part of the fuselage, adjoining section and landing gear design etc. This results in wing which from the engine out is swept approximately 15 degrees"


BTW: I see that Tagert has collected his data in a compilation that basically covers half a page supporting the case that the sweep was caused by CG considerations.

Is there some similar data compilation that supports that the sweep on the Me 262 was done with Mach effects in mind or is it still just a collection of speculation and conjecture?

M_Gunz
02-03-2008, 01:19 PM
I don't suppose that seeing those swept wing jets and delta wing rocket planes might have
served as a clue that something was up during the war. Why, US engineers were savvy before
then for sure. They didn't USE any of that because it would be unfair to the enemy!

How to compete with the VOLUME of spam in this thread?
Should I make huge banners or just post a complete developing manifesto for every little
change or excuse I can think of? Since more lines posted means "winning".
Maybe I should make links to lame pictures or link pictures and include lame captions.
Oh, the choices, the alternatives to meaningful content when the goal is to bury other
people's posts!

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I don't suppose that seeing those swept wing jets and delta wing rocket planes might have
served as a clue that something was up during the war. Why, US engineers were savvy before
then for sure. They didn't USE any of that because it would be unfair to the enemy!

How to compete with the VOLUME of spam in this thread?
Should I make huge banners or just post a complete developing manifesto for every little
change or excuse I can think of? Since more lines posted means "winning".
Maybe I should make links to lame pictures or link pictures and include lame captions.
Oh, the choices, the alternatives to meaningful content when the goal is to bury other
people's posts! FACTS and DATES getting in your way again Milton?

Ugly_Kid
02-03-2008, 01:32 PM
Delta wing in supersonic employing oblique shockwave is not the same as swept wing in subsonic flow... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:

BTW: I see that Tagert has collected his data in a compilation that basically covers half a page supporting the case that the sweep was caused by CG considerations.

Is there some similar data compilation that supports that the sweep on the Me 262 was done with Mach effects in mind or is it still just a collection of speculation and conjecture?
still speculation and conjecture..

PS thanks for the info.. Ill add it to the list

JSG72
02-03-2008, 01:43 PM
The US.

Did not have to accelerate their research at the time.
They came into the War late and already had a substantial Industry,of conventional design that was able to overwhelm the German and Japanese.

It was not until it was realised that the Communist State of Russia(And also capable of production in vast numbers) may have been able to also utelise captured information/scientists from Germany.

That the US. accelerated their programmes with the aid of any German scientist they could get hold of.

And I don't just mean in Avionics.

Industrial Ethos Tank/Gun/Armour/Battlefield tactics all have been included within the influences that NAZI Germany have on us today.

Bejings! It is almost as if we lost the WAR. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JSG72
02-03-2008, 01:52 PM
Look around You!

Oh and BTW. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Tagert.

I see you edited your post/Quoting my post.

Just as I have edited this.

The fact that Folks in here are not satisfied unless they can read "Primary Sources" (Of which they probably wouldn't understand).

Is another legacy of the influence of NAZI Germany. Adopted within US. Culture. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Ugly_Kid
02-03-2008, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:

"By swivelling the outerwing and moving the center of lift backwards to counter the increased engine weight in order not to have to redo the middle part of the fuselage, adjoining section and landing gear design etc. This results in wing which from the engine out is swept approximately 15 degrees"


Good thing that they spared the effort...
.
.
.
Since in due course they changed the landing gear, the adjoining section and for good measures the engines too...

The main point, however, being on the point that they were aware of the aerodynamical effects - hence the final result hardly was a surprise aka dumb luck.

You see also here in your quote the second great dilemma. Most often the increased engine weight is given as a cause for c.g moving too much forward - clearly in majority of the quotes. In your own quote they speak about shifting aerodynamic centre backwards as a corrective measure!, a very strange solution to counter a too forward c.g (aka making problem worse), less so for a too backward c.g - something I pointed out quite a long time ago. (My first post?). I am more interested getting more light to this kind of controversies and details than reading "data compilations" I can google myself. (I do not mean to say that there is a conflict within your quote. There is not, since they only mention engines, weight change and c.g shift but do not say forward or rearward, but there sure is one between this and the rest)

JSG72
02-03-2008, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:

"By swivelling the outerwing and moving the center of lift backwards to counter the increased engine weight in order not to have to redo the middle part of the fuselage, adjoining section and landing gear design etc. This results in wing which from the engine out is swept approximately 15 degrees"


Good thing that they spared the effort...

.
.
.

Since in due course they changed the landing gear, adjoining section and for good measures the engines too...

The main point, however, being on the point that they were aware of the aerodynamical effects - hence the final result hardly was a surprise aka dumb luck.

You see also here in your quote the second great dilemma. Most often the increased engine weight is given as a cause for c.g moving too much forward - clearly in majority of the quotes. In your own quote they speak about shifting aerodynamic centre backwards as a corrective measure!, a very strange solution to counter a too forward c.g (aka making problem worse), less so for a too backward c.g - something I pointed out quite a long time ago. (My first post?). I am more interested getting more light to this kind of controversies and details than reading "data compilations" I can google myself. (I do not mean to say that there is a conflict in your quote. There is not, since they only mention engines, weight change and c.g shift but do not say forward or rearward) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...

Would it be easier to just change the outer wing section to accomodate any engine combination.

Or would it have been better to redesign the Whole wing. with its position/mountings/undercarraige placement and ability to accomodate whatever engine was available.

And this is even before considering what weight was going in the nose!!.

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Looks like another myth has been busted..

The one where folks think the US was caught totally off guard by the benefits of swept wings..




This is nothing but another straw man argument, and a rather weak one at that. Who said anything about the US being caught totally off guard?

Only you.

Nonetheless, it is accurate to to say the US _was_ caught off guard as the historical record CLEARLY shows.

Your "NASA GOING SUPERSONIC" quotes really does nothing to change that. In fact your quotes actually underscore quite strongly the giant technology gap that existed between Germany and the US in this field at the end of WWII:

A memo from 1941?

A "technical analysis" from Robert Jones in January, 1945?

A nine inch wind tunnel and a 1.5 inch model airplane from the same guy in May 1945???

If that's all they had to go on even in 1945, no wonder every one of their new designs on the drawing board had straight wings!

Wow, talk about grasping at straws...but then again what would we expect from Mr. Straw man.



NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link
In the United States, progress toward swept wing design proceeded independently of the Germans, although admittedly behind them.

...to say the least.

Holtzauge
02-03-2008, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:

"By swivelling the outerwing and moving the center of lift backwards to counter the increased engine weight in order not to have to redo the middle part of the fuselage, adjoining section and landing gear design etc. This results in wing which from the engine out is swept approximately 15 degrees"


Good thing that they spared the effort...
.
.
.
Since in due course they changed the landing gear, the adjoining section and for good measures the engines too...

The main point, however, being on the point that they were aware of the aerodynamical effects - hence the final result hardly was a surprise aka dumb luck.

You see also here in your quote the second great dilemma. Most often the increased engine weight is given as a cause for c.g moving too much forward - clearly in majority of the quotes. In your own quote they speak about shifting aerodynamic centre backwards as a corrective measure!, a very strange solution to counter a too forward c.g (aka making problem worse), less so for a too backward c.g - something I pointed out quite a long time ago. (My first post?). I am more interested getting more light to this kind of controversies and details than reading "data compilations" I can google myself. (I do not mean to say that there is a conflict within your quote. There is not, since they only mention engines, weight change and c.g shift but do not say forward or rearward, but there sure is one between this and the rest) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did Voigt say anything about a forward CG shift causing the sweep ?

No he did not.

He just said it was to correct the CG. I do not think he bothered to say in which direction because the answer is obvious http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
02-03-2008, 02:18 PM
100 sources that all work from 1 or 2 original documents do not equal 100 proofs.

If you are trying to establish a fact, you need the original documents or reference,
it is not added to by other people writing based on the same document alone.

So when someone else shows other documents that show the idea DERIVED from the original
or even the words of the original (unless everything ever printed is true?), even 100
secondaries from the first have little or no meaning. You can't say "your one to my 20"
when the 20 as based on only one.

Oh, why bother? I used 4 whole sentences there. Only question is will it come back
sideways, backwards or in re-arranged pieces? It won't stop the stupid claims of sources.

Holtzauge
02-03-2008, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
100 sources that all work from 1 or 2 original documents do not equal 100 proofs.

If you are trying to establish a fact, you need the original documents or reference,
it is not added to by other people writing based on the same document alone.

So when someone else shows other documents that show the idea DERIVED from the original
or even the words of the original (unless everything ever printed is true?), even 100
secondaries from the first have little or no meaning. You can't say "your one to my 20"
when the 20 as based on only one.

Oh, why bother? I used 4 whole sentences there. Only question is will it come back
sideways, backwards or in re-arranged pieces? It won't stop the stupid claims of sources.

Sorry to hear that you think claiming sources is stupid. Do you yourself have anything constructive to contribute?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 02:31 PM
Don't hold your breath Holtzauge! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

Looks like another myth has been busted..

The one where folks think the US was caught totally off guard by the benefits of swept wings..




This is nothing but another straw man argument, and a rather weak one at that. Who said anything about the US being caught totally off guard?

Only you.

Nonetheless, it is accurate to to say the US _was_ caught off guard as the historical record CLEARLY shows.

Your "NASA GOING SUPERSONIC" quotes really does nothing to change that. In fact your quotes actually underscore quite strongly the giant technology gap that existed between Germany and the US in this field at the end of WWII:

A memo from 1941?

A "technical analysis" from Robert Jones in January, 1945?

A nine inch wind tunnel and a 1.5 inch model airplane from the same guy in May 1945???

If that's all they had to go on even in 1945, no wonder every one of their new designs on the drawing board had straight wings!

Wow, talk about grasping at straws...but then again what would we expect from Mr. Straw man.



NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link
In the United States, progress toward swept wing design proceeded independently of the Germans, although admittedly behind them.

...to say the least. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You poor thing..

Facts got you down bubba?

Ugly_Kid
02-03-2008, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
He just said it was to correct the CG. I do not think he bothered to say in which direction because the answer is obvious http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Maybe, but apparently not judging from the material that gets spammed on every page...

JSG72
02-03-2008, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
100 sources that all work from 1 or 2 original documents do not equal 100 proofs.

If you are trying to establish a fact, you need the original documents or reference,
it is not added to by other people writing based on the same document alone.

So when someone else shows other documents that show the idea DERIVED from the original
or even the words of the original (unless everything ever printed is true?), even 100
secondaries from the first have little or no meaning. You can't say "your one to my 20"
when the 20 as based on only one.

Oh, why bother? I used 4 whole sentences there. Only question is will it come back
sideways, backwards or in re-arranged pieces? It won't stop the stupid claims of sources.

Do you hear voices?

Unfortuanately. We don't have a time machine.(Don't get me started)

And so. We have to work with whatever documentation/Recorded quotes, from scientists that worked on the project that have been releleased.

I can only form my conclusions fron 35 years of collecting publications pertaining to said matter and form my conclusions.

If their is some undermining conspiracy about the ME-262. (A plane that has formed virtually Zilch influence on Post-War design.)

Then I haven't heard of it!(Apart from this thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif).

JSG72
02-03-2008, 02:55 PM
Come on you guys.

The audience have left the building.

Hopefully with discussion going on in the street!

Brush is in hand.

Could someone lift this big carpet.

There is a, whole lot of dust to sweep under it.

Give me a call, when another production is booked.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 02:59 PM
ROTFL

M_Gunz
02-03-2008, 03:05 PM
Do you have a working brain?

Secondary sources that do not quote references are not good for proofs.
The ones that do can be checked.
Two secondary sources that quote the same primary source are not worth more than one.

So where you get this hearing voices from or any of that, you pulled out of your self.

35 years of publications, they all got their basis from how many original events?

I've seen bad primary data from WWI era that was used again in later years.
Then those secondary sources were referenced in still more books and articles.
Other primary data and actual tests showed different but hey, it was popular.
Should truth be determined by word count, we would 'know' lies in many cases.

Someone says "this was done for this reason" and later someone else adds "and no other",
or someone says what they believed without knowing or accepting the whole, what you do?
Shoot down anything else even backed by primary data on the basis of secondary sources!

I can go to old books and 'disprove' plate tectonics or even that the world is round.
Really all I can show with those is that people did believe those things and wrote that.
Even if I have nothing else to go on, going on that leads to wrong ideas. History is
chock full of wrong ideas and bad interpretations even when honest people write it.
That's why some historians and sources, and I go back far on this, are known as not
credible by the ones who are very diligent in checking. But to Joe Average the History
Channel may be regarded as absolute, word up and derive your own conclusions from that
and they --have-- to be true since History Channel said so.

On a forum it is better to say IMO or I think than to open up and then scramble up a
net search to defend what was a thought or opinion in the first place.

I think that the 262 was for WWII a revolutionary fighter. That agrees with the first
part of post 1 in this thread. People trying to make a big deal about early or mid
development to try and leap that up a ladder of abstraction with few real sections have
proved nothing of meaning about that. It's half-founded gossip repeated and echoed, so
what when other evidence runs counter to it? I don't take the number of people making
the gossip as anything more than gossip, aka opinions shaded by feelings with some fact
to back up more that is not. You believe what you want.

M_Gunz
02-03-2008, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Come on you guys.

The audience have left the building.

Hopefully with discussion going on in the street!

Brush is in hand.

Could someone lift this big carpet.

There is a, whole lot of dust to sweep under it.

Give me a call, when another production is booked.

Just go PM a mod and get it locked if you're not really just making your own little show.

BaronUnderpants
02-03-2008, 03:09 PM
As per usuall...the loudest will end the threadh. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


P.S. Tagggy dear, iv never seen someone take up so much space with so little facts.


A true master indeed.


True, i havent provided my own facts either, real ones or made up, only questions and guesses.

JSG72
02-03-2008, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
ROTFL

Switch the light out?

" B2" Eh? I never said anything about the B2.

Dumb Luck. I say: Just because the Ho 9 planeform had a low signiture.

See you. For the adult feature?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
As per usuall...the loudest will end the threadh. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


P.S. Tagggy dear, iv never seen someone take up so much space with so little facts.


A true master indeed. Ever notice how the nazi plane lovers attack the messenger when they can not attack the message?

JSG72
02-03-2008, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Do you have a working brain?

Secondary sources that do not quote references are not good for proofs.
The ones that do can be checked.
Two secondary sources that quote the same primary source are not worth more than one.

So where you get this hearing voices from or any of that, you pulled out of your self.

35 years of publications, they all got their basis from how many original events?

I've seen bad primary data from WWI era that was used again in later years.
Then those secondary sources were referenced in still more books and articles.
Other primary data and actual tests showed different but hey, it was popular.
Should truth be determined by word count, we would 'know' lies in many cases.

Someone says "this was done for this reason" and later someone else adds "and no other",
or someone says what they believed without knowing or accepting the whole, what you do?
Shoot down anything else even backed by primary data on the basis of secondary sources!

I can go to old books and 'disprove' plate tectonics or even that the world is round.
Really all I can show with those is that people did believe those things and wrote that.
Even if I have nothing else to go on, going on that leads to wrong ideas. History is
chock full of wrong ideas and bad interpretations even when honest people write it.
That's why some historians and sources, and I go back far on this, are known as not
credible by the ones who are very diligent in checking. But to Joe Average the History
Channel may be regarded as absolute, word up and derive your own conclusions from that
and they --have-- to be true since History Channel said so.

On a forum it is better to say IMO or I think than to open up and then scramble up a
net search to defend what was a thought or opinion in the first place.

I think that the 262 was for WWII a revolutionary fighter. That agrees with the first
part of post 1 in this thread. People trying to make a big deal about early or mid
development to try and leap that up a ladder of abstraction with few real sections have
proved nothing of meaning about that. It's half-founded gossip repeated and echoed, so
what when other evidence runs counter to it? I don't take the number of people making
the gossip as anything more than gossip, aka opinions shaded by feelings with some fact
to back up more that is not. You believe what you want.

Think there is someone arguing.

Out on the street. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
ROTFL

Switch the light out?

" B2" Eh? I never said anything about the B2.

Dumb Luck. I say: Just because the Ho 9 planeform had a low signiture.

See you. For the adult feature? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What?

No.. Didn't mean to imply that you were saying the B2..

I just bring it up the B2 as another example of the US couldn't have done anything without captured nazi technology and personal myth

In that allot of folks that believe the swept wings of the Me262 was done to take advantage of the benefits of swept wings also tend to believe the B2 was a copy of the Go229!

JSG72
02-03-2008, 03:30 PM
Yeh! Right.

Wait, for the sequel.

Shut the door and lock it, on the way out.

This thread is dead.

We'll have to go through this again tommorow?

Klemm.co
02-03-2008, 03:35 PM
Fastest thread ever (in number of pages added when i check back). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Sad people some of you are, indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

JSG72
02-03-2008, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Klemm.co:
Fastest thread ever (in number of pages added when i check back). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Sad people some of you are, indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Move along son.

I have to take this lipstick smeared US. SOAB. home.

Oh and BTW. Adult feature.....

Umph! forget it. You wouldn't get in.

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
You poor thing..

Facts got you down bubba?

I did a google image search for "tagert" and this is what popped up:

http://pentaclerecords.net/darien3/oz_scarecrow_1.jpg

Anybody got a match?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
You poor thing..

Facts got you down bubba?

I did a google image search for "tagert" and this is what popped up:

http://pentaclerecords.net/darien3/oz_scarecrow_1.jpg

Anybody got a match? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ever notice how the nazi plane lovers attack the messenger when they can not attack the message?

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 04:01 PM
http://www.911buycostume.com/Pages/crowns/strawman.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 04:02 PM
Looks like someone needs a hug?

Would this be a bad time to mention that there is not easter bunny either?

JSG72
02-03-2008, 04:03 PM
Hey! Aka-

This guy causing you trouble?

Stick by me.

Stop talking to strangers

That was CUJO_1970

Maybe you'll learn. Not to comunicate with those guys.

Now! Keep walking.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 04:04 PM
ROTFL!

CUJO and Milton do have that ready to snap look about them don't they! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JSG72
02-03-2008, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
ROTFL!

Will you get on the pavement!

This is a dangerous area.

Who knows what kinda ****. They will throw at you.

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Ever notice how the nazi plane lovers attack the messenger when they can not attack the message?


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I love Nazi planes too..



LOL, straight from the horse's mouth...

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Ever notice how the nazi plane lovers attack the messenger when they can not attack the message?


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I love Nazi planes too..



LOL, straight from the horse's mouth... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what part of me telling you that I am a nazi plane lover too..

Did you not understand the 1st time I explained it to you?

Let me guess..

Your just conveniently ignoring that statement from me to you..

Just like your ignoring all the evidence that the wings of the Me262 were swept to correct the cg..

That is a real gift you got there!

But..

You should know there are two types..

1) Love them for what they were..
2) Love them for what the myths say they were..

Where you and yours are type 2 and I am type 1

SAVVY?

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Just like your ignoring all the evidence that the wings of the Me262 were swept to correct the cg..




LMAO another straw man argument!

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 04:18 PM
http://blog.givewell.net/images/blog%202007%2007%2010.jpg

JSG72
02-03-2008, 04:20 PM
Look AKA_

I have told you before.

Home. is just around the corner.

If you can sprint. You could make it.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 04:20 PM
But..

CUJO appears to be very upset..

And having a little hissy fit tantrum..

How sad..

So..

In his mind..

If you can not attack the message..

Attack the messenger to the point of getting the thread locked..

Tactics like that is how the Nazis took power in the first place..

Kill off anyone that does not agree with them and trys to post the truth.

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 04:24 PM
Tagert, what part of...

"The German scientists in charge of this development(sweep theory) had been working on it for the past ten years, whereas similar development in the United States had just barely started." Col. Donald Putt

...are you having trouble understanding son?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Tagert, what part of...

"The German scientists in charge of this development(sweep theory) had been working on it for the past ten years, whereas similar development in the United States had just barely started." Col. Donald Putt

...are you having trouble understanding son? I understand that you are confused..

In thinking that working on it means the wings of the Me262 were swept for that reason..

Maybe a sinpit from my data/prof will help you out?

<span class="ev_code_black">LEGEND</span>

<span class="ev_code_yellow">YELLOW: Dumb Luck like references</span>
<span class="ev_code_green">GREEN: Did not trust Betz results until AFTER it was proven unintentionally on the Me262</span>
<span class="ev_code_red">RED: Wings were swept to correct the cg error</span>
<span class="ev_code_brown">BROWN: All were reluctant to implement new unproven technology during the war</span>

Now go back and read it again..

An while you do so..

Pay close att to the brown and green text!

PS your welcome!

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 04:28 PM
Tagert, what part of...

"In fact, it was as a result of what we found there that the B-47 had swept-back wings." Col. Donald Putt

...are you having trouble understanding son?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Tagert, what part of...

"In fact, it was as a result of what we found there that the B-47 had swept-back wings." Col. Donald Putt

...are you having trouble understanding son? Again..

Maybe a sinpit from my data/prof will help you out?

<span class="ev_code_black">LEGEND</span>

<span class="ev_code_yellow">YELLOW: Dumb Luck like references</span>
<span class="ev_code_green">GREEN: Did not trust Betz results until AFTER it was proven unintentionally on the Me262</span>
<span class="ev_code_red">RED: Wings were swept to correct the cg error</span>
<span class="ev_code_brown">BROWN: All were reluctant to implement new unproven technology during the war</span>

Now go back and read it again..

An while you do so..

Pay close att to the brown and green text!

Oh..

And you might want to take a gander at this part too..

Here..

Ill post it for you..

<span class="ev_code_black">PAPERS</span>


WILLY MESSERSCHMITT, Augsburg, 01.17.1940 (translation provided by Bewolf):
I am <span class="ev_code_green">overly astonished</span> over the gain in using more sweep. <span class="ev_code_green">Out of this reason</span> I see it as urgently required <span class="ev_code_brown">to repeat</span> these so generous test results in a large wind tunnel.

<span class="ev_code_black">RELATED INFO</span>


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
It is also the case that American engineers, including NACA personnel, had already made independent progress along the same design path when the German hardware and drawings were turned up at the end of World War II.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
In the United States, progress toward swept wing design proceeded independently of the Germans, although admittedly behind them.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
In a memo to Sikorsky in 1941, he (Michael Gluhareff,) described a possible pursuit-interceptor having a delta-shaped wing swept back at an angle of 56 degrees. The reason, he wrote, was to achieve "a considerable delay in the action (onset) of the compressibility effect. The general shape and form of the aircraft is, therefore, outstandingly adaptable for extremely high speeds."


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
The concept of wings with subsonic sweep came to Jones in January 1945, and he eagerly discussed it with Air Force and NACA colleagues during the next few weeks. Finally, he was confident enough to make a formal statement to the NACA chieftains. On 5 March 1945, he wrote to the NACA's director of research, George W. Lewis. "I have recently made a theoretical analysis which indicates that a V-shaped wing traveling point foremost would be less affected by compressibility than other plantforms," he explained. "In fact, if the angle of the V is kept small relative to the Mach angle, the lift and center of pressure remain the same at speeds both above and below the speed of sound


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
For wind tunnel tests, the second model was truly a diminutive article, crafted of sheet steel by Jones and two other engineers. Langley's supersonic tunnel had a 9-inch throat, so the model had a 1.5-inch wingspan, in the shape of a delta. The promising test results, issued 11 May 1945, were released before Allied investigators in Europe had the opportunity to interview German aerodynamicists on delta shapes and swept wing developments.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
Information from the research done by Robert Jones had begun to filter through the country's aeronautical community before the Germans arrived.

PS your welcome!

JSG72
02-03-2008, 04:35 PM
AKA_

You have a big mouth

That some would take umbridge with.

But as far as this thread goes.

You and I. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif Have won the argument. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Now here is your home/cell.

Get in and Shut up.

You will never make the Adult Show acting as you are.

I am, off.

Time travel is where it's at. 262s/ Delta Daggers./Jump Jets are small beer as opposed to the secrets the US. have on Warping time.

See you before!

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 04:40 PM
Tagert, what part of...

"...probably 75 to 90 per cent of the technical aeronautical information in Germany was available at this establishment and that information on research and development which had not previously been investigated in the United States would require approximately two years to accomplish in the United States with the facilities available there." - Dr. Theodore von Karmann, director of AAF Scientific Advisory Group

...are you having trouble understanding son?

JSG72
02-03-2008, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
AKA_

You have a big mouth

That some would take umbridge with.

But as far as this thread goes.

You and I. Have won the argument. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Now here is your home/cell.

Get in and Shut up.

You will never make the Adult Show acting as you are.

I am, off.

Time travel is where it's at. 262s/ Delta Daggers./Jump Jets are small beer as opposed to the secrets the US. have on Warping time.

See you before! S! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 04:50 PM
Tagert, what part of..

"...about three years my be gained in missile development if the Peenemunde supersonic wind tunnel were evacuated along with key German personnel." Dr. Fritz Zwick, AAFSAG

do you not understand, son?

BaronUnderpants
02-03-2008, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
AKA_

You have a big mouth

That some would take umbridge with.

But as far as this thread goes.

You and I. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif Have won the argument. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Now here is your home/cell.

Get in and Shut up.

You will never make the Adult Show acting as you are.

I am, off.

Time travel is where it's at. 262s/ Delta Daggers./Jump Jets are small beer as opposed to the secrets the US. have on Warping time.

See you before!



Im very intrested in your 35-year long research into the 262.

Care to share?

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 05:03 PM
Tagert, what part of...

"What was really needed to redress the United States's scientific backwardness were the men who had designed and built the jets, missiles, and wind tunnels. Those scientists, those men of vision needed to be brought to the United States to make up quickly for years of missed opportunity and neglect. Only they had the know-how to move the United States forward..." - Wolfgang Samuel, American Raiders/The Birth of Project Overcast p. 357

...are you having trouble understanding, son?

JSG72
02-03-2008, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
AKA_

You have a big mouth

That some would take umbridge with.

But as far as this thread goes.

You and I. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif Have won the argument. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Now here is your home/cell.

Get in and Shut up.

You will never make the Adult Show acting as you are.

I am, off.

Time travel is where it's at. 262s/ Delta Daggers./Jump Jets are small beer as opposed to the secrets the US. have on Warping time.

See you before!



Im very intrested in your 35-year long research into the 262.

Care to share? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will you please let me into my house?

Over the past 40 years

I have had an interest. In all things "Luftwaffe/Reich Defence Orientated".

But if you could excuse me. The Adult Show comes on soon.

I can only share through previous published Knowledge.

It is up to the enquisitor to read.anything I recommend.

BaronUnderpants
02-03-2008, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
AKA_

You have a big mouth

That some would take umbridge with.

But as far as this thread goes.

You and I. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif Have won the argument. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Now here is your home/cell.

Get in and Shut up.

You will never make the Adult Show acting as you are.

I am, off.

Time travel is where it's at. 262s/ Delta Daggers./Jump Jets are small beer as opposed to the secrets the US. have on Warping time.

See you before!



Im very intrested in your 35-year long research into the 262.

Care to share? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will you please let me into my house?

Over the past 40 years

I have had an interest. In all things "Luftwaffe/Reich Defence Orientated".

But if you could excuse me. The Adult Show comes on soon.

I can only share through previous published Knowledge.

It is up to the enquisitor to read.anything I recommend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Is that english for:


U have a opinion based on a 40-year long
intrest in aviation?

Well, join the club.



If u mean:

I can read the same stuff u read and form an opinion (not nessecerily the same as yours) based on what i read....well, i allredy know that thank u very much.


I just thought u had some critical facts that noone else had....sounded like it.

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 05:18 PM
Tagert, what part of...

"Occupation of German scientific and industrial establishments has revealed the fact that we have been alarmingly backward in many fields of research. If we do not take this opportunity to seize the apparatus and the brains that developed it and put the combination back to work promptly, we will remain several years behind while we attempt to cover a field already exploited. Pride and face-saving have no place in national insurance." - Major General Hugh J. Kerr, USSTAF, Air Service Command.

are you having trouble understanding, son?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 05:21 PM
The 'real' reason why the Me262 wings were swept summary..

By AKA_TAGERT

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">PERSONAL SITE</span>


Luftwaffe Ring : link (http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/Messerschmit/page4.html)
A combination of excellent design and <span class="ev_code_yellow">downright luck</span> resulted in a very harmonious design while significantly stretching the known aeronautical boundaries. An example of this is the Me262's wing. The characteristic swept design was the <span class="ev_code_red">result of a need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate</span> for heavier then expected engines. <span class="ev_code_green">It was only later that the benefits of swept wings were realized.</span>


Greg Goebel : link (http://www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html)
Messerschmitt's dream fighter had the turbojets mounted in nacelles under the middle of the wings. <span class="ev_code_red">The wings were slightly swept to ensure proper center of gravity</span>


Battle-Fleet : link (http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/me262.htm)
It was the third airframe that was to become a true jet plane when it took to the air on July 18 1942 in Leipheim near Günzburg, Germany, piloted by Fritz Wendel. Instead of the planned 003 engines which were proving unreliable, the Junkers Jumo 004 had become available and was installed in its place. The 004 was heavier than the 003, and as a result the center of gravity of the plane would have been too far forward for safety. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Moving the engines to the rear was a simple solution to the problem, but as they were mounted centered on the wing spars this wasn't easy to do.</span> <span class="ev_code_red">The solution was to bend the wings themselves to the rear, leading to the enduring myth that the plane was designed as a swept-wing fighter.</span>

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">NON-PERSONAL SITE</span>


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/technical_2.htm) :
Differences in wing root forces, weight distribution, and the Center of Gravity would have completely altered the characteristics of the original Me 262. <span class="ev_code_red">His solution may have been borne of necessity,</span> but it has emerged as one of the most innovative engineering feats in the entire effort.


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that <span class="ev_code_red">the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft</span>


Me262 Project : link (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
The real surprise then is why was this knowledge of the swept wing not taken advantage of worldwide before it was <span class="ev_code_green">experimentally proven</span> on the Me 262. The only plausible (if somewhat vague) explanation was the <span class="ev_code_brown">resistance to new ideas found in all scientific circles</span>


NASA HISTORY: link (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch11-2.htm)
<span class="ev_code_red">the wing was swept back slightly to position the wing aerodynamic center in the correct relation to the airplane center of gravity.</span>


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html) (provided by Loco):
<span class="ev_code_brown">There was polite discussion of Busemann's paper, but little else, since propeller-driven aircraft of the 1930s lacked the performance to merit serious consideration of such a radical design.</span> Within a decade, the evolution of the turbojet dramatically changed the picture. In 1942, designers for the Messerschmitt firm, builders of the remarkable Me-262 jet fighter, <span class="ev_code_green">realized</span> the potential of swept wing aircraft and studied Busemann's paper <span class="ev_code_green">more intently. Following</span> promising wind tunnel tests, Messerschmitt had a swept wing research plane under development, but the war ended before the plane was finished.


HOW STUFF WORKS : link (http://science.howstuffworks.com/messerschmitt-me-262.htm)
The Messerschmitt Me 262's dramatic <span class="ev_code_red">swept wings were mandated when engineers discovered that the weight of the engine pods threw off the plane's center of gravity; the wing sweep restored equilibrium</span>


Indopedia : link (http://indopedia.org/Messerschmitt_Me_262.html)
During development the weight of the engines grew until they started to seriously affect the plane's center of gravity and stability. To correct this without major changes to the design, in March 1940 <span class="ev_code_red">the wings were swept rearward to restore the proper center of gravity,</span> giving rise <span class="ev_code_green">to a persistent myth that the plane began life as a swept-wing design.</span>


HISTORYNET.COM: link (http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/flight_technology/3038021.html)
<span class="ev_code_red">calculations on the center of gravity had dictated the use of swept back wings on the Me-262 jet fighter; </span><span class="ev_code_green">their aerodynamic benefits were realized later</span>

<span class="ev_code_black">MAGAZINES</span>


Airpower 01-MAR-05 Author: Jenkins, Dennis R. : link (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3842317/Me-262-Wunderplane-or-compromise.html#abstract)
Interestingly, although the Me 262 is usually portrayed as being the forebear of many advanced concepts, it was actually very much a compromise aircraft and its designers were not particularly happy with several aspects of it. <span class="ev_code_red">The "advanced" swept-wing was an inelegant solution to a center-of-gravity problem,</span> while the underslung nacelles compensated for oversized and overweight power plants. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Its designers were not supermen changing the world, but competent engineers responding to events largely out of their control.</span>


Air Classics Apr 2003 by O'Leary, Michael, Larsen, Jim : link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200304/ai_n9230356)
Not only was the jet engine barely a working idea but <span class="ev_code_green">the advantages (and disadvantages) of the swept wing simply were not known. Oddly, the performance benefits of the swept wing were not completely realized in the initial design concepts</span> - <span class="ev_code_red">rather, that type of wing was utilized when it became obvious that the engines were going to be much heavier than initially planned and the center of gravity would drastically change without sweeping the wings.</span><span class="ev_code_green"> It was only later that the benefits were discovered!</span>


PLANET AEROSPACE : link (http://www.planet-aerospace.com/pas/content/OF00000200000057/1/13/200004131.pdf)
<span class="ev_code_yellow">The choice of swept wings was, incidentally,</span> motivated by <span class="ev_code_red">the need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate for the increasing weight of the engines</span> in the course of the development work. <span class="ev_code_green">No-one in the team had any idea yet of the importance of delta wings for supersonic flight in general. </span>


AFA AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION October 1996 Vol. 79, No.10 Wings By Walter J. Boyne : link (http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct1996/1096wings.asp)
<span class="ev_code_yellow">Accidental Benefit</span>

Fixed wing sweep had been built into dozens of aircraft since the earliest days of flight, often as a solution to center-of-gravity problems. Sweep designed to raise the limiting Mach number had been a subject of study since the early 1930s <span class="ev_code_yellow">but appeared quite by accident on an early operational jet fighter, the Messerschmitt Me-262,</span> first flown July 18, 1942. The Me-262 had been originally designed as a straight-wing aircraft, <span class="ev_code_red">but the need to compensate for engine growth and changes in the center of gravity caused the designer to sweep the wings,</span> with the <span class="ev_code_yellow">accidental aerodynamic benefit</span> of increasing the aircraft's critical Mach number.


AERO BRUSH - SUMMER 2006 Willy Messerschmit by Walter Boyne : link (http://www.asaa-avart.org/sample_aerobrush.pdf)
The original design was a straight wing aircraft with its twin engines mounted mid-wing ala those of the Meteor, and with a conventional oval fuselage. The intended BMW jet engines were not available, and a decision was made to go to the larger, heavier Junkers Jumo 004 that Anselm Franz had created. The new engines would not fit in the mid-wing nacelles, and so were mounted in what became the classic engine pod, slung stylishly under the wing. And because the engines were heavier, <span class="ev_code_red">the center of gravity was now off. The solution was the same adopted by Curtiss on its biplane observation planes of the 1930s"”-sweep the wing back, in this case 18 degrees.</span>

<span class="ev_code_black">BOOKS</span>


The Jet Race and the Second World War by Sterling Michael Pavelec
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error01.JPG


ACES IN COMMAND by Walter J. Boyne
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error02.JPG


Performance, Stability, Dynamics, and Control of Airplanes by Bandu N Pamadi
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error03.JPG


Aeronautical Research in Germany from Lilienthal until Today
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error04.JPG


The Best of WINGS - Return of theSwallow - The Messerschmitt Me262 Wings, April 1980
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/SWEPT_WINGS_FOR_CG/Me262_sweeped_wings_to_correct_cg_error05.JPG


Die Entwicklung der deutchen Jagdflugzeuge, Rüdiger Kosin, Bernhard & Graefe Verlag, 1990, pg 178 :
Es ist an Tiefdecker mit geraden Flügeln. Noch denkt man nicht an Flügelpfeilung zur Erhöhung der kritischen Machzahl"

Durch Schwenken des aussenflügels und damit Rückverlegung des Auftriebsmittelpunktes ist man einer Vershiebung des Flugzeugschwerpunktes wegen Gewichtserhöhung der Triebwerke begegnet, um nicht die gesamte an Flügelmittelteil, Fahrwerk, Rumpfflügelverband usw. Geleistete Arbeit widerholen müssen. So entsteht ein Flügel der von Triebwerk an nach aussen um rund 15 grad gepfeilt ist.

Rudimentary translation by Holtzauge:

It is at low-wing aircraft with straight wings. Still one does not think of wing sweepback to increase the critical Mach number.

By swivelling the outerwing and <span class="ev_code_red">moving the center of lift backwards to counter the increased engine weight </span>in order not to have to redo the middle part of the fuselage, adjoining section and landing gear design etc. This results in wing which from the engine out is swept approximately 15 degrees


Me 262 Volume One" by Smith and Creek pg 61 (provided by JSG72):
On 19 December 1939, a mock-up of the P1065 was inspected by representatives of LC2/III with a mock-up of the proposed cabin arrangement being examined a month late. By early February 1940 a description of the layout proposed for the first prototype was issued. Two BMW P.3302 engines were to be mounted below the wings, the leading edges of the outer sections of which were now to be swept back some 18 degrees. <span class="ev_code_red">This was done originally to solve problems that higher weight estimates and an increase in diameter of the turbojets from 600 to 690 mm(23.5 to 27 inches) were causing with the aircraft's center of gravity.</span> <span class="ev_code_green">Subsequent investigation was to show that this sweep-back decreased compressibility effects and therefore substantially improved the aircraft's Mach number.</span>
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">Of special interests..
This book is a 223 page source of information on the Early development Prototypes with Transcripts from
phone conversations As well as drawings/Data sheets and letters.
Also make note of the dates, the leading edge sweep incorporated on final proposal Feb 1940 to the data
report on actual sweep effects October 1940!</pre>

<span class="ev_code_black">PAPERS</span>


WILLY MESSERSCHMITT, Augsburg, 01.17.1940 (translation provided by Bewolf):
I am <span class="ev_code_green">overly astonished</span> over the gain in using more sweep. <span class="ev_code_green">Out of this reason</span> I see it as urgently required <span class="ev_code_brown">to repeat</span> these so generous test results in a large wind tunnel.

<span class="ev_code_black">RELATED INFO</span>


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
It is also the case that American engineers, including NACA personnel, had already made independent progress along the same design path when the German hardware and drawings were turned up at the end of World War II.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
In the United States, progress toward swept wing design proceeded independently of the Germans, although admittedly behind them.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
In a memo to Sikorsky in 1941, he (Michael Gluhareff,) described a possible pursuit-interceptor having a delta-shaped wing swept back at an angle of 56 degrees. The reason, he wrote, was to achieve "a considerable delay in the action (onset) of the compressibility effect. The general shape and form of the aircraft is, therefore, outstandingly adaptable for extremely high speeds."


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
The concept of wings with subsonic sweep came to Jones in January 1945, and he eagerly discussed it with Air Force and NACA colleagues during the next few weeks. Finally, he was confident enough to make a formal statement to the NACA chieftains. On 5 March 1945, he wrote to the NACA's director of research, George W. Lewis. "I have recently made a theoretical analysis which indicates that a V-shaped wing traveling point foremost would be less affected by compressibility than other plantforms," he explained. "In fact, if the angle of the V is kept small relative to the Mach angle, the lift and center of pressure remain the same at speeds both above and below the speed of sound


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
For wind tunnel tests, the second model was truly a diminutive article, crafted of sheet steel by Jones and two other engineers. Langley's supersonic tunnel had a 9-inch throat, so the model had a 1.5-inch wingspan, in the shape of a delta. The promising test results, issued 11 May 1945, were released before Allied investigators in Europe had the opportunity to interview German aerodynamicists on delta shapes and swept wing developments.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
Information from the research done by Robert Jones had begun to filter through the country's aeronautical community before the Germans arrived.

Looks like another myth has been busted..

The one where folks think the US was caught totally off guard by the benefits of swept wings..

<span class="ev_code_black">DEFINITIONS of WORDS and PHRASES used within</span>


<span class="ev_code_black">ACCIDENTAL</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/accidental)
occurring unexpectedly or by chance

<span class="ev_code_black">INCIDENTALLY</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/incidentally)
not intentionally

<span class="ev_code_black">FORTUITOUS</span> link (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fortuitos)
occurring by chance
fortunate lucky
coming or happening by a lucky chance

<span class="ev_code_black">DUMB LUCK</span> link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Luck)
it is considered to have happened unintentionally and without planning

<span class="ev_code_black">LEGEND</span>

<span class="ev_code_yellow">YELLOW: Dumb Luck like references</span>
<span class="ev_code_green">GREEN: Did not trust Betz results until AFTER it was proven unintentionally on the Me262</span>
<span class="ev_code_red">RED: Wings were swept to correct the cg error</span>
<span class="ev_code_brown">BROWN: All were reluctant to implement new unproven technology during the war</span>

CUJO_1970
02-03-2008, 05:31 PM
Tagert, what part of...



"The German scientists in charge of this development(sweep theory) had been working on it for the past ten years, whereas similar development in the United States had just barely started." Col. Donald Putt


"In fact, it was as a result of what we found there that the B-47 had swept-back wings." Col. Donald Putt

"...probably 75 to 90 per cent of the technical aeronautical information in Germany was available at this establishment and that information on research and development which had not previously been investigated in the United States would require approximately two years to accomplish in the United States with the facilities available there." - Dr. Theodore von Karmann, director of AAF Scientific Advisory Group

"...about three years my be gained in missile development if the Peenemunde supersonic wind tunnel were evacuated along with key German personnel." Dr. Fritz Zwick, AAFSAG

"What was really needed to redress the United States's scientific backwardness were the men who had designed and built the jets, missiles, and wind tunnels. Those scientists, those men of vision needed to be brought to the United States to make up quickly for years of missed opportunity and neglect. Only they had the know-how to move the United States forward..." - Wolfgang Samuel, American Raiders/The Birth of Project Overcast p. 357

"Occupation of German scientific and industrial establishments has revealed the fact that we have been alarmingly backward in many fields of research. If we do not take this opportunity to seize the apparatus and the brains that developed it and put the combination back to work promptly, we will remain several years behind while we attempt to cover a field already exploited. Pride and face-saving have no place in national insurance." - Major General Hugh J. Kerr, USSTAF, Air Service Command.

...are you having a problem understanding, son?

JSG72
02-03-2008, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
AKA_

You have a big mouth

That some would take umbridge with.

But as far as this thread goes.

You and I. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif Have won the argument. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Now here is your home/cell.

Get in and Shut up.

You will never make the Adult Show acting as you are.

I am, off.

Time travel is where it's at. 262s/ Delta Daggers./Jump Jets are small beer as opposed to the secrets the US. have on Warping time.

See you before!



Im very intrested in your 35-year long research into the 262.

Care to share? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will you please let me into my house?

Over the past 40 years

I have had an interest. In all things "Luftwaffe/Reich Defence Orientated".

But if you could excuse me. The Adult Show comes on soon.

I can only share through previous published Knowledge.

It is up to the enquisitor to read.anything I recommend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Is that english for:


U have a opinion based on a 40-year long
intrest in aviation?

Well, join the club.



If u mean:

I can read the same stuff u read and form an opinion (not nessecerily the same as yours) based on what i read....well, i allredy know that thank u very much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have an interest in Defense of the Reich aviation subjects(Hence my Avatar).

I do not porport to know, all things about aviation.

You can read the same stuff. I read if you wish.

It is the understanding that can cause conflict.

Beleive me when I say that:

"My views have changed somewhat, since new evidence has came to light"

I.E. I don't just read 40 yr old books http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Now! Could you post another thread?

Night night... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Tagert, what part of...



"The German scientists in charge of this development(sweep theory) had been working on it for the past ten years, whereas similar development in the United States had just barely started." Col. Donald Putt


"In fact, it was as a result of what we found there that the B-47 had swept-back wings." Col. Donald Putt

"...probably 75 to 90 per cent of the technical aeronautical information in Germany was available at this establishment and that information on research and development which had not previously been investigated in the United States would require approximately two years to accomplish in the United States with the facilities available there." - Dr. Theodore von Karmann, director of AAF Scientific Advisory Group

"...about three years my be gained in missile development if the Peenemunde supersonic wind tunnel were evacuated along with key German personnel." Dr. Fritz Zwick, AAFSAG

"What was really needed to redress the United States's scientific backwardness were the men who had designed and built the jets, missiles, and wind tunnels. Those scientists, those men of vision needed to be brought to the United States to make up quickly for years of missed opportunity and neglect. Only they had the know-how to move the United States forward..." - Wolfgang Samuel, American Raiders/The Birth of Project Overcast p. 357

"Occupation of German scientific and industrial establishments has revealed the fact that we have been alarmingly backward in many fields of research. If we do not take this opportunity to seize the apparatus and the brains that developed it and put the combination back to work promptly, we will remain several years behind while we attempt to cover a field already exploited. Pride and face-saving have no place in national insurance." - Major General Hugh J. Kerr, USSTAF, Air Service Command.

...are you having a problem understanding, son?
No problem at all!

I understand it completely and have addresses all this already..

But..

Maybe you missed it?

Here..

Allow me to re-post the parts that address your confusion on the subject..


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
It is also the case that American engineers, including NACA personnel, had already made independent progress along the same design path when the German hardware and drawings were turned up at the end of World War II.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
In the United States, progress toward swept wing design proceeded independently of the Germans, although admittedly behind them.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
In a memo to Sikorsky in 1941, he (Michael Gluhareff,) described a possible pursuit-interceptor having a delta-shaped wing swept back at an angle of 56 degrees. The reason, he wrote, was to achieve "a considerable delay in the action (onset) of the compressibility effect. The general shape and form of the aircraft is, therefore, outstandingly adaptable for extremely high speeds."


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
The concept of wings with subsonic sweep came to Jones in January 1945, and he eagerly discussed it with Air Force and NACA colleagues during the next few weeks. Finally, he was confident enough to make a formal statement to the NACA chieftains. On 5 March 1945, he wrote to the NACA's director of research, George W. Lewis. "I have recently made a theoretical analysis which indicates that a V-shaped wing traveling point foremost would be less affected by compressibility than other plantforms," he explained. "In fact, if the angle of the V is kept small relative to the Mach angle, the lift and center of pressure remain the same at speeds both above and below the speed of sound


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
For wind tunnel tests, the second model was truly a diminutive article, crafted of sheet steel by Jones and two other engineers. Langley's supersonic tunnel had a 9-inch throat, so the model had a 1.5-inch wingspan, in the shape of a delta. The promising test results, issued 11 May 1945, were released before Allied investigators in Europe had the opportunity to interview German aerodynamicists on delta shapes and swept wing developments.


NASA GOING SUPERSONIC (1945-1958) Chapter 3 : link (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html)
Information from the research done by Robert Jones had begun to filter through the country's aeronautical community before the Germans arrived.

SAVVY?

Now what part of the wings on the Me262 were swept to correct the cg..

And..

That the benefits beyond correcting the cg were dumb luck..

Are you still struggling with?

M_Gunz
02-03-2008, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
The Adult Show comes on soon.

I wasn't sure about you two.

M_Gunz
02-03-2008, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
100 sources that all work from 1 or 2 original documents do not equal 100 proofs.

If you are trying to establish a fact, you need the original documents or reference,
it is not added to by other people writing based on the same document alone.

So when someone else shows other documents that show the idea DERIVED from the original
or even the words of the original (unless everything ever printed is true?), even 100
secondaries from the first have little or no meaning. You can't say "your one to my 20"
when the 20 as based on only one.

Oh, why bother? I used 4 whole sentences there. Only question is will it come back
sideways, backwards or in re-arranged pieces? It won't stop the stupid claims of sources.

Sorry to hear that you think claiming sources is stupid. Do you yourself have anything constructive to contribute? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to see you feel the need to put words into my mouth.
But if that's the only way you can argue then no wonder you suck up to Tagert.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2008, 08:59 PM
Sounds like someone needs a hug?

Loco-S
02-03-2008, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam you MUST swallow what I say spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam you MUST swallow what I say spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam you MUST swallow what I say spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam you MUST swallow what I say spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam you MUST swallow what I say spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam you MUST swallow what I say spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam you MUST swallow what I say

taggy, you are more nazi than the nazis themselves.

M_Gunz
02-04-2008, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
taggy, you are more nazi than the nazis themselves.

I think not. Tagert is much bigger than Hitler. Tagert is the UBI-Stalin.

csThor
02-04-2008, 01:35 AM
Don't you guys ever get tired of hearing your own voice? 50 pages *shakes head* http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

CUJO_1970
02-04-2008, 02:25 AM
Here's a picture of tagert dancing the tagert two-step:

http://www.appscout.com/images/spam%20boy.jpg

...and hoping against hope that people will fall for it.

CUJO_1970
02-04-2008, 02:30 AM
Dumb-luck wrote:
http://holydogwater.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/spam.jpg

Feathered_IV
02-04-2008, 02:40 AM
Woohoo!!! Happy fifty pages. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/2774/ironchefasplode5zn.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-04-2008, 09:33 AM
Yikes

I never would have thought that providing well documented data/quotes/prof and links to the orginal sorces would upset so many folks!

To the point of saying I am worse than a Nazi and/or Stallin!

I must have really stuck a nerve here and un-earthed something someone was trying desperatly to hide for a very long time to recive such a but hurt hissy fit responce! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
02-04-2008, 09:43 AM
Kurfurst has been outdone except in style for which he has never lacked so badly.

Good job at picked so many cherries, Uber-Troll!

You've even removed the last one that I pointed out does conflict with your agenda.

AKA_TAGERT
02-04-2008, 02:17 PM
Poor Nancy..

What part of me providing the link to the web sight can in no way be considered cherry picking do you not understand?

What part of me providing the picture of the whole page in a book can in no way be considered cherry picking do you not understand?

For example..

Take your buddy Loco with is new sig..

Not only is his proof taken out of context..

But he only provides a portion of the page..

That is the definiton of cherry picking!

Now I know you're a little slow..

But please tell me you're not that slow!

And that your just saying cherry picking because your still but hurt from the last time I make you look silly in front of god and everyone!

Holtzauge
02-04-2008, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
100 sources that all work from 1 or 2 original documents do not equal 100 proofs.

If you are trying to establish a fact, you need the original documents or reference,
it is not added to by other people writing based on the same document alone.

So when someone else shows other documents that show the idea DERIVED from the original
or even the words of the original (unless everything ever printed is true?), even 100
secondaries from the first have little or no meaning. You can't say "your one to my 20"
when the 20 as based on only one.

Oh, why bother? I used 4 whole sentences there. Only question is will it come back
sideways, backwards or in re-arranged pieces? It won't stop the stupid claims of sources.

Sorry to hear that you think claiming sources is stupid. Do you yourself have anything constructive to contribute? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to see you feel the need to put words into my mouth.
But if that's the only way you can argue then no wonder you suck up to Tagert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If something sucks here it's you. I don't see you contributing anything but personal attacks.

Sayonara buddy.

WeedEater9p
02-04-2008, 03:22 PM
In Russia, you dont fly plane, plane flies YOU.

http://www.magnificentoctopus.com/propaganda/roflcopter.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

BaronUnderpants
02-04-2008, 03:55 PM
"Dumb luck" Nr.2


October 2, 1941, first rocket powered flight at Peenemünde, during which 1004 km/h was reached


http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc79/Maax1000/cosford107.jpg



Please note the "dumb luck" wing configuration (23.3 degrees i belive) all in a design finalised in 1939, if my info is correct.



(Info not on the Me 163 shown in picture).


Werk Nr. Stammkennzeichen Code Unit Date Remarks

1630000001 KE+SW V-4 Messerschmitt 13 February 1941 First fliding flight at Lechfeld
Messerschmitt June/July 1941 To Peenemünde
Messerschmitt 10 August 1941 First rocket-powered flight (Ethell reports 13 Aug)
1 October 1941 Record flight with a speed of 1004 km/h


Note: No explanation so far as to why V-4 prototype preceeded V-1 to V-3 in achieving a first gliding flight.

luftluuver
02-04-2008, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
"Dumb luck" Nr.2

October 2, 1941, first rocket powered flight at Peenemünde, during which 1004 km/h was reached

Please note the "dumb luck" wing configuration (23.3 degrees i belive) all in a design finalizsed in 1937, if my info is correct.
Your info is INCORRECT.