PDA

View Full Version : About the He-162, Ta-152



Storm_Bird
01-29-2004, 12:58 AM
Will He-162, Ta-152 become flyable sir?
I would like to fly them, especially He-162.

http://www.moxing.net/ww2/plant/german/he162-4.jpg

Storm_Bird
01-29-2004, 12:58 AM
Will He-162, Ta-152 become flyable sir?
I would like to fly them, especially He-162.

http://www.moxing.net/ww2/plant/german/he162-4.jpg

robban75
01-29-2004, 01:39 AM
Both will be flyable soon. Last time I saw a development update on the He 162 they were testing the pilot ejetion sequence. I haven't seen a Ta 152 update for a year.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

[This message was edited by robban75 on Thu January 29 2004 at 01:10 AM.]

robban75
01-29-2004, 02:09 AM
Here's the Ta 152. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.il2sturmovik.de/ss_fb_dev/02-12/Ta-152H_12.jpg

http://www.il2sturmovik.de/ss_fb_dev/02-12/Ta-152H_14.jpg

http://www.il2sturmovik.de/ss_fb_dev/02-12/Ta-152H_13.jpg

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

JG53Harti
01-29-2004, 03:07 AM
Hopefully the alt-model will be changed in the AddOn else we don‚¬īt need a Ta152 ! Ta152 Topspeed at 12k now the altmodel ends at 10k

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On the ohter hand I can`t wait to fly the Ta. its a very good plane

MfG Frank

<center><img src=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/harti.gif alt="III/JG53"> (http://www.jagdgeschwader53.de)</br></br><img src=http://harti.equitatura.de/53rdHeader.gif alt="53 TFW"></center></br>
</br></br></br>

kyrule2
01-29-2004, 03:07 AM
How can anyone say that isn't one of the best looking planes ever built? It looks fast even standing still.

I tried a few times to go back far enough in the development update archives to find pics of the Ta-152 but I can only go so far back and then it doesn't work. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Thanks for pics Robban.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

JG53Harti
01-29-2004, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
How can anyone say that isn't one of the best looking planes ever built? It looks fast even standing still.

Thanks for pics Robban.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


And a deadly plane too

MfG Frank

<center><img src=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/harti.gif alt="III/JG53"> (http://www.jagdgeschwader53.de)</br></br><img src=http://harti.equitatura.de/53rdHeader.gif alt="53 TFW"></center></br>
</br></br></br>

Oleg_Maddox
01-29-2004, 03:34 AM
Dear user,

FM is comlex thing... Aerodynamics behaviour of the plane changes with altitude very much. At high altitude the air dencity is way lower than on close to sea level altitudes. So the plane should be controlled very gentle comparing to low altitudes. Say turn times became much greater, maneuverability became much worse, etc... The stalls and spins will be more dangereous than on SL... Much more dangerous! And climb rate will be zero at maximal rated altitude for the given aircraft... You can ask it all real pilots, that will confirm that we model physics of that law very correct. There are more than 40 real pilots in our internal tests...

Really its not FM, its a laws of the physics.
Its why was better the prop planes with long wings at altitude - Ta-152, various of MiG's design aircraft(not serial), some of projected 109s modifications, etc for example

Some planes that were able to fly at 10 km and higher altitude duet to good superchargers were almost uncontrolable in terms of maneuverability on these altitudes. High speed of the plane doesn't means good maneuverability on high altitudes automatically. For good and situable maneuverability were designed very special aircraft (see above). From that point of view we model it very correct, simply becasue we model that physics of low air dencity at these altitudes.

Also in IL-2 and FB 3D world we model the changes of air dencity only till 10 km altitude. Higher it is constant due to limit of that engine. Its becaseu in original project were not planned any of coming later aircraft. But trust me there were not any real battles at altitudes higher than 10 km....
The new 3D physics world will be done only in the completely new sim. There will will not limit that world by 10 km altitude.

Speaking above, please try to read the descriptions of WWII pilots about where was beginning the dogfight(means Fighter vs Fighter) and where it was finished in terms of altitudes... Right, beginning on high and ended on low... Why do you think?
(you can read it with little attention in almost every recalls of German and Alies pilots for example.... Just apply for these recals the laws of physics)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Harti:
Hopefully the alt-model will be changed in the AddOn else we don‚¬īt need a Ta152 ! Ta152 Topspeed at 12k now the altmodel ends at 10k

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On the ohter hand I can`t wait to fly the Ta. its a very good plane

MfG Frank

<center><img src=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/harti.gif alt="III/JG53"> (http://www.jagdgeschwader53.de)</br></br><img src=http://harti.equitatura.de/53rdHeader.gif alt="53 TFW"></center></br>
</br></br></br><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-29-2004, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
How can anyone say that isn't one of the best looking planes ever built? It looks fast even standing still.

I tried a few times to go back far enough in the development update archives to find pics of the Ta-152 but I can only go so far back and then it doesn't work. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Thanks for pics Robban.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah, she's a beauty isn't she! I've had the same problem trying to locate these images in the dev update section, It just wont go far enough back to locate the Ta 152 updates. I looked for interesting articles on the Ta 152 on Google, and these showed up!
I think there's alot of people here that hasn't seen these pics. I just had to post them! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Here's a link to the page. It also features the cockpit for the He 162!

http://www.il2sturmovik.de/fb_development_03-01.php

Oh, and thanks for the swift reply Oleg! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Storm_Bird
01-29-2004, 05:47 AM
Thanks everyone. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I'm happy to hear the news.

http://www.moxing.net/ww2/plant/german/he162-4.jpg

JG53Harti
01-29-2004, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Dear user,

Speaking above, please try to read the descriptions of WWII pilots about where was beginning the dogfight(means Fighter vs Fighter) and where it was finished in terms of altitudes... Right, beginning on high and ended on low... Why do you think?
(you can read it with little attention in almost every recalls of German and Alies pilots for example.... Just apply for these recals the laws of physics)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


But Alt. is energy and if you have the higher energy-level you will have more possibilities to fight ! I think about a bomber-interception like B17 which will be covered by fighters ! So a Ta would be a better match than a FW A-Series . On this way you need the altitude.

MfG Frank

<center><img src=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/harti.gif alt="III/JG53"> (http://www.jagdgeschwader53.de)</br></br><img src=http://harti.equitatura.de/53rdHeader.gif alt="53 TFW"></center></br>
</br></br></br>

Boandlgramer
01-29-2004, 09:25 AM
wow, what a nice bird.
very well done, oleg.

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

blabla0001
01-29-2004, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Harti:
But Alt. is energy and if you have the higher energy-level you will have more possibilities to fight ! I think about a bomber-interception like B17 which will be covered by fighters ! So a Ta would be a better match than a FW A-Series . On this way you need the altitude.

MfG Frank<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He said that Ta is better, but he also said that the 3D engine is limited to 10km.

His entire post is clear so why did you choose to only take a small part of it and reply?

Eagle_361st
01-29-2004, 09:54 AM
Thanks Oleg for clearing that up, that should end the debate over the FM ending at 7.5K. I personally cant wait to see what the Ta-152 will do, even though I will be flying against it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

JG53Harti
01-29-2004, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:


He said that Ta is better, but he also said that the 3D engine is limited to 10km.

His entire post is clear so why did you choose to only take a small part of it and reply?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you understand my post ?

MfG Frank

Zen--
01-29-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
How can anyone say that isn't one of the best looking planes ever built? It looks fast even standing still.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen brother Kyrule, the TA to me is the most wickedly fast looking plane period. The P38 comes a close second as my fav though.

I hate threads like this, they get me too worked up over flying the TA. For some reason I woke up this morning with it on my brain and now after seeing this thread, I'm all in a fever over it.

Can't wait to skin it, can't wait to fly it, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait!!!!!

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

tagert
01-29-2004, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Harti:
But Alt. is energy and if you have the higher energy-level you will have more possibilities to fight!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Alt is energy that can be converted to speed... Speed does not nessarly mean you have more possibilites to fight... Espically if you jerk it around at high alt and go into a spin.. then you will end up fighting on the deck.. Assuming you get out of the spin. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

Willey
01-29-2004, 02:13 PM
High alt isn't the only point where the 152H is good. It's turn performance at SL matches the turn performance of a La-7. This will be really exciting. Think about a FW D-9, with less roll rate, a 108 instead of those 131s, and a much better turn rate. I'd say it's gonna be a real killer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

blabla0001
01-29-2004, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Harti:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:


He said that Ta is better, but he also said that the 3D engine is limited to 10km.

His entire post is clear so why did you choose to only take a small part of it and reply?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you understand my post ?

MfG Frank<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your post doesn't add anything, like Oleg said, up high planes have to watch what they are doing, energy or not because the air is really thin so the plane has less lift.

The current limit is 10 km and there is nothing that can be done about it, so what do you want that Oleg does?
Extend the alt in the 3D engine?

He already said it can't be done, besides your precious Ta will handle better above 7.5 km because it has big wings, oleg's post was pretty clear on that.

tagert
01-29-2004, 04:31 PM
just encase any of you ever make it so So. Cal

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Planes of Fame Chino
Heinkel He-162 A-2 "Red 1" (Salamander) - by Ken Keller

The museum's Heinkel He-162 A-2, werke nummer 120077, was built in February/March of 1945 at the Heinkel Aircraft Factory at Rostock/Marienehe. The He-162 was then assigned in April, 1945 to II/JG-1 "OESAU" at Leck Airfield in Holstein, Germany and was assigned the code number "Red 1". One of "Red 1's" known pilots was Gerhard Hanf.

In May 1945, "Red 1" was captured at Leck Airfield and subsequently went to Cherbourg, France to be shipped to the United States aboard the HMS Reaper in July 1945. Shortly after arriving in Newark, New Jersey, "Red 1" was transferred to Freeman Field in Indiana and assigned the captured aircraft code number FE-489 which was later changed to T-2-489 and the aircraft was extensively evaluated.

In 1946, "Red 1" was transferred to Murac Dry Lake test base, currently Edwards Air Force Base, and was flown only once, by Air Force pilot, then Lieutenant, Bob Hoover. At some point in history, "Red 1" received the name "Nervenklau" which translates to "Nerve Stealer" (or a literal translation of "Nervous Claw"); no doubt testimony to the unstable nature of the aircraft.

In 1947, after testing was completed by the Air Force, "Red 1" went to the University of Kansas, Lawrence where it stayed for a year before being acquired by Eddie Fischer of Kansas City, Kansas in 1948. In the 1950's, "Red 1" was obtained by Ed Maloney for The Air Museum Planes of Fame and was displayed in Claremont, Ontario and finally at the Museum's current home in Chino. "Red 1" is currently on display in the Tom Friedkin Hangar in the Planes of Fame facility in Chino, California.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.planesoffame.com/Special%20Features.htm

TAGERT

MiloMorai
01-29-2004, 04:39 PM
Tag, any info on the He162, coded 'yellow' 4, that is in the museum in Ottawa Can.?



Long live the Horse Clans.

tagert
01-29-2004, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Tag, any info on the He162, coded 'yellow' 4, that is in the museum in Ottawa Can.?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah.. I dindnt even know they had one! I was actually trying to find out just how many of them are left in the world? If you need some info on the 162.. or pictures, I could ask next time I go out to chino..

TAGERT

Keener
01-29-2004, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
High alt isn't the only point where the 152H is good. It's turn performance at SL matches the turn performance of a La-7. This will be really exciting. Think about a FW D-9, with less roll rate, a 108 instead of those 131s, and a much better turn rate. I'd say it's gonna be a real killer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly right, the Ta 152H should be able to sustain a turn at sea level as well if not better than almost any other plane in the sim. (Recall the story of stall-fighting a Tempest at sea level, with the Tempest unable to match teh Ta 152H and spinning in.)

(Shameless plug on) Oh yeah, you fellow Ta fans are welcome for me getting/begging my way into the Air & Space Museum's Garber storage facility, popping the canopy and snapping the pics of the cockpit of that beautiful machine, adn sending them to Mr. Maddox. She's the only one left in the world, and ironically, within ten feet of a He 162, in the same building as an immaculate Il-2, and most uniquely, a Bv 155 that I think was the only one made, and certainly is the only example in the world today. The Ta 152H is not on the NASM's list to be restored, but maybe we can change that some day. Right now, only the fuselage, vertical stabilizer, and engine are mounted, and the wing and horiz. stabilizers are in another building. The good news is that the world's only surviving He 219 is being/been restored for display at Dulles. Believe me, I've wanted to fly the Ta 152 in Il-2 for a while, and it's only taken about two years to get it! (Shameless plug off)

Best Regards,
Keener

Zen--
01-29-2004, 11:45 PM
Keener, no shameless plug disclaimer needed!

On behalf of the TA fanatics out there, I send my heartiest thanks. I would name my first child after you but since he's already named TA152, I'll leave it be, but make sure that he knows you as 'The Great Uncle Keener'.


I too have been dying to fly the plane since the Dora first appeared because it seemed then that perhaps someday it might be possible. In the old IL2 there really wasn't much hope (but I did anyway) because of the conspicuous absence of the Dora and the rather hateful FM's of the Antons at the time...but still I dreamed. With the advent of FB and the arrival of the Dora, it seemed like a whole new world had arrived and that wave of wishful thinking became a glimmer of hope that the TA would possibly make it into the game.

As the patches came out and the Dora's FM was tweaked to what felt more and more accurate, suddenly it began to seem as though the FW was being looked at in a new light....and then the dev update came of the TA152. My heart nearly skipped a beat.

Hallelluja!

Many thanks!!!!!!!!!

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Storm_Bird
01-30-2004, 01:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
just encase any of you ever make it so So. Cal

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Planes of Fame Chino
Heinkel He-162 A-2 "Red 1" (Salamander) - by Ken Keller

The museum's Heinkel He-162 A-2, werke nummer 120077, was built in February/March of 1945 at the Heinkel Aircraft Factory at Rostock/Marienehe. The He-162 was then assigned in April, 1945 to II/JG-1 "OESAU" at Leck Airfield in Holstein, Germany and was assigned the code number "Red 1". One of "Red 1's" known pilots was Gerhard Hanf.

In May 1945, "Red 1" was captured at Leck Airfield and subsequently went to Cherbourg, France to be shipped to the United States aboard the HMS Reaper in July 1945. Shortly after arriving in Newark, New Jersey, "Red 1" was transferred to Freeman Field in Indiana and assigned the captured aircraft code number FE-489 which was later changed to T-2-489 and the aircraft was extensively evaluated.

In 1946, "Red 1" was transferred to Murac Dry Lake test base, currently Edwards Air Force Base, and was flown only once, by Air Force pilot, then Lieutenant, Bob Hoover. At some point in history, "Red 1" received the name "Nervenklau" which translates to "Nerve Stealer" (or a literal translation of "Nervous Claw"); no doubt testimony to the unstable nature of the aircraft.

In 1947, after testing was completed by the Air Force, "Red 1" went to the University of Kansas, Lawrence where it stayed for a year before being acquired by Eddie Fischer of Kansas City, Kansas in 1948. In the 1950's, "Red 1" was obtained by Ed Maloney for The Air Museum Planes of Fame and was displayed in Claremont, Ontario and finally at the Museum's current home in Chino. "Red 1" is currently on display in the Tom Friedkin Hangar in the Planes of Fame facility in Chino, California.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.planesoffame.com/Special%20Features.htm

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


On, I'm study in California, perhaps I can go to visit the He-162.

http://www.moxing.net/ww2/plant/german/he162-4.jpg

blabla0001
01-30-2004, 02:57 AM
"Recall the story of stall-fighting a Tempest at sea level, with the Tempest unable to match teh Ta 152H and spinning in"

Tempest has a poor turn rate and is by no means a turn fighter.
It's a pure energy fighter so the Tempest is a bad example to compare the Ta's turn performance.

Huckebein_FW
01-30-2004, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
"Recall the story of stall-fighting a Tempest at sea level, with the Tempest unable to match teh Ta 152H and spinning in"

Tempest has a poor turn rate and is by no means a turn fighter.
It's a pure energy fighter so the Tempest is a bad example to compare the Ta's turn performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tempest was not bad in turns, had a slightly inferior turn rate to Bf-109. Problem was that it used laminar flow wings that deteriorates handling at high AoA.

Ta-152 turned significantly better than Dora because of the high aspect ratio wings that produced little induced drag at high AoA. Oleg says that will turn like a La7, which means 19 sec per 360 degrees sustained turn, compared to Dora that turned in 22 sec (loaded weight). Now only if Oleg would like to correct the exagerated turn performance for La7 and Yak3, now 16 sec instead of around 19 sec at loaded weight (different tests give different values from 18.5-19.5 to 20-21 sec left/right turn for La).

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

blabla0001
01-30-2004, 07:52 AM
In the Trails against the Spitfires the Tempest was out tured with ease, if it was slightly inferiour to the Bf109's should mean that the Bf109's are out tured with ease by the Spitfires as well, right?

Os did they used a damaged Tempest during those tests as well.

Zen--
01-30-2004, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

Oleg says that will turn like a La7

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Did he really say that? I'm not questioning you Huck, just want to know where you saw that at.

S~

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

JG26Red
01-30-2004, 09:52 AM
Yes, i remember seeing oleg say TA will tun like a LA, also the TA tempest fight, the TA was not having any troubles turning with the Tempest, meaning it will out turn it rather easy... TA will be fine... DO335 should be even better

Storm_Bird
01-30-2004, 10:06 AM
I think if Ta-183 is here, it will be the best.
F-86 and MIG-15 are copy from it.

http://www.moxing.net/ww2/plant/german/he162-4.jpg

Willey
01-30-2004, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

Oleg says that will turn like a La7

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Did he really say that? I'm not questioning you Huck, just want to know where you saw that at.

Oleg once said it's sustainded turn time on the deck is 17sec and 17,6sec at 1000m alt. Too bad the thread isn't here anymore due to the forum migration.

A.K.Davis
01-30-2004, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Storm_Bird:
I think if Ta-183 is here, it will be the best.
F-86 and MIG-15 are copy from it.

http://www.moxing.net/ww2/plant/german/he162-4.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, the Ta-183's only direct descendant was the Argentinian Pulqui fighters that Kurt Tank designed after the war. The Ta-183 itself could not really fly very well. Kinda a failed prototype for the Pulqui.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

MiloMorai
01-30-2004, 12:52 PM
Thw MiG15 was an evolution of the Ta183 design. The Soviets took the original Ta183 design and put it in a wind tunnel and modded it to get better flight characteristics.



Long live the Horse Clans.

A.K.Davis
01-30-2004, 12:56 PM
Look at a Ta-183 and Mig-15 side-by-side. That is some extreme "modification." I guess you could say in general configuration they were similar, but in some ways that configuration was an obvious choice.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

JG26Red
01-30-2004, 02:07 PM
although the russians wont admit it.. its quite obvious the mig15 was designed from the blueprints of the TA183, just modified to actually be flyable, but they did use the original design...

kinda like the B2 and GO229... although not direct copy they did use the basica design and adjust, more so than the american wing made at that time...

blabla0001
01-30-2004, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Storm_Bird:
I think if Ta-183 is here, it will be the best.
F-86 and MIG-15 are copy from it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ta-183 couldn't even fly well enough, so it was hardly in a condition to perform any kind of combat.

A.K.Davis
01-30-2004, 03:25 PM
and other than very general configuration, the G0229 and B2 have nothing to do with eachother.

tagert
01-30-2004, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by JG26Red:
kinda like the B2 and GO229... although not direct copy they did use the basica design and adjust, more so than the american wing made at that time...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NOT TRUE! NOT EVEN CLOSE!

TAGERT

JG26Red
01-30-2004, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by JG26Red:
kinda like the B2 and GO229... although not direct copy they did use the basica design and adjust, more so than the american wing made at that time...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NOT TRUE! NOT EVEN CLOSE!

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats what u think... muhahahahaha....

JG26Red
01-30-2004, 04:21 PM
HE-162 IN ACTION
* The first Luftwaffe unit to fly the He-162 was an evaluation unit named "Erprobungskommando 162", formed at the Luftwaffe test center at Rechlin under the command of Oberstleutnant Heinz Baer, a respected combat pilot who was credited with 200 kills.

46 He-162s were delivered to the Luftwaffe in February, allowing Baer's unit to acquire familiarity with the type. That month also saw deliveries of the He-162 to its first operational unit, the "Ist Gruppe / Jagdgeschwader 1 (I/JG-1)", which had previously flown the Focke-Wulf FW-190.

I/JG-1 was pulled back to Parchim, not far from the Heinkel factory at Marienhe, where the Luftwaffe pilots could pick up their new jets. They began intensive training on the type in March, but by that time the Third Reich was obviously on the threshold of collapse and transportation and fuel supply was grinding to a halt under the pressure of Allied air attacks.

On 7 April, the USAAF bombed the field at Parchim with 134 B-17 Flying Fortresses. Two days later, I/JG-1 left their demolished facilities to move to a nearby airfield at Ludwigslust. Less than a week later they moved again, flying north to an airfield at Leck, in Schleswig-Holstein, near the Danish border. In the meantime, II Gruppe of JG-1 had moved to the Heinkel airfield at Marienhe to begin trading their FW-190s for He-162s.

* The He-162 finally began to see combat in mid-April. On 19 April, the pilot of a British Royal Air Force (RAF) fighter who had been captured by the Germans informed his interrogators that he had been shot down by a jet fighter whose description was clearly that of a He-162. The Heinkel and its pilot were lost as well, shot down by an RAF Tempest fighter while returning to base.

On 20 April, a Luftwaffe pilot successfully ejected from a He-162, though the reason for the hasty exit from his aircraft was not recorded. One possibility is that he simply ran out of fuel. The He-162's half-hour endurance was simply not enough, and at least two of JG-1's pilots were killed making "dead-stick" landings after exhausting their fuel.

On 4 May, all of JG-1's surviving He-162s were formed into a special consolidated "Einsatzgruppen (Special Action Group)", but this action amounted to little more than "rearranging the deck chairs on the TITANIC". On 5 May, the Germans agreed to a cease-fire and the He-162s were all grounded.

From mid-April, I/JG-1 had scored a number of kills, but had also lost thirteen He-162s and ten pilots. Most of the losses were from flying accidents, due to problems such as engine flame-outs and occasional structural failures. The difficulties with the type seem to have been due to the fact that it was rushed into production, not that it was an inherently bad design. One experienced Luftwaffe pilot who flew it called it a "first-class combat aircraft".

Erprobungskommando 162 fighters, which had been passed on to an operational unit under Adolf Galland a few weeks earlier, were all destroyed by their crews to keep the jets from falling into Allied hands. However, JG-1 cooperatively turned their He-162s over to the Allies, and examples of the fighter were then flown in the US, Britain, France, and the USSR.

One British pilot who evaluated the He-162 also praised it, though a second British pilot was killed in November 1945 during an air display at Farnborough. One of the tailfins broke off, sending the fighter into the ground.

* The design had some clear weaknesses, of course, such as its short endurance and the fact that the position of the engine left the pilot almost completely blind to the vital rear "six" position. Some sources also state that the back-mounted engine made the aircraft logitudinally unstable, rendering any maneuvers that "threw the aircraft around" unsafe.

However, in one sense the He-162 was remarkable: it was designed and flown in three months, and in the five months following several hundred were built under the most difficult conditions. It was fortunate for the Allies that the He-162 was much too late to be anything more than a footnote to the history of the air war over Europe, but a certain curiosity remains over what it might have been able to do had events been more favorable to it.

A handful of Volksjaegers still exist as static displays in museums around the world. None remain flying. Given that the lack of hardened alloys meant that German jet engines sometimes had to be scrapped after as little as ten hours of flight operations, it is unlikely one of the original He-162s will ever fly again.

tagert
01-30-2004, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
thats what u think... muhahahahaha....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, that is what I know, and what you think! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

JG26Red
01-30-2004, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
thats what u think... muhahahahaha....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, that is what I know, and what you think! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

did you design the B2?

tagert
01-30-2004, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
did you design the B2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.. Did You? But seriosly.. if you *WANT* to belive that.. be my guest, I was just trying correct your error.. but feel free to belive what ever you want! I just hope you don't mind looking and sounding foolish! As for design the B2, nope had no part in it.. Almost went to pamdale to work on them.. but that is another story.. But, Gibb and I did get to talk to a real pilot that worked for Northrop and logged hundreds of hours on the B2 simulator and flew the 1940 Northrop N-9M out at Chino. After his speech Gibb and I walked up to him and asked him a few question about the N-9M and B2.. One question was "Did the Go229 have anything to do with the B2 development or design" After he got done chuckling he said no.. not at all. But hey, don't take my word for it! I hear ignorance is bliss! If that is the case WITH YOU than DONT goto the following link

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Northrop/northrop.html

TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Fri January 30 2004 at 03:43 PM.]

BBB_Hyperion
01-30-2004, 05:49 PM
Since when Pilots know what is involved in the construction process of a Plane except for test Pilots maybe and own constructions. When they are not Designers or Developer or Engineers they cant know what inspired the
Plane design.

For the Shape of the B2 it has nothing to do with the Go229 . The Design is a compromise for Radar Absorbing Triangles and a more bad flying plane part.

You can get a impression how the Wing Design is done when you use Tree of Pythagoras and play little around with Parameters. That can be used to generate Triangle shape constructions .

Thats for the design Part of the B2.

The Horton Brothers did design Gliders that are based on aerodynamic rules and their experience in the past on 1 wing gliders. Only point that maybe a connection is that a kind of radarabsorbing paint was used on go229 . If it was done on purpose or pure lucky mix i dont know.

Here some quotes.

In 1943, the construction of the twin-jet-powered flying wing prototype Horten Ho IX V2 began. It was build after the specifications of the 1000/1000/1000 fighter bomber project: A new aircraft that should be able to carry 1000 kilogram of bombs, fly 1000 kilometers per hour and have a penetration depth of about 1000 kilometers. The Ho 229 was made of wood, since wood was not a "strategic" material and this would decrease the weight of the plane. It was covered by a special radar absorbing paint, which gave this plane some of the stealth characteristics that were used on the U.S. B-2 bomber 50 years later.

In the realm of defense systems, it is often noted that for every weapon, a new counter to that weapon will soon follow. Such is the case with radar air defenses and stealthy, or low observable, aircraft. As radar emerged as a critical defense mechanism in the Battle of Britain, German engineers began working feverishly in an effort to obscure airplanes and ships from the prying eyes of Allied radar stations. The Germans succeeded in developing the first, primitive forms of radar-absorbent material (RAM). They found that certain carbon compounds could be utilized to absorb radar waves rather than reflecting them and began to use this method to conceal the snorkel tubes of their fleet of U-boats (Sweetman Lockheed Stealth 11).

German aircraft engineers Walter and Reimar Horten first envisioned the use of RAM on aircraft in the midst of World War II. They planned to use carbon-based RAM on the skin of their twin-engine, flying-wing Ho IX fighter/bomber to make it less susceptible to radar detection. The prototype first flew in 1944, but without the planned materials of the production model (Sweetman Lockheed Stealth 11). Perhaps fortunately for the Allies, the war ended before the Horten brothers were able to deliver any of the production models, known as the Gotha Go.229 (Richardson 59). Following the war, the United States and United Kingdom began to develop RAM. The UK focused primarily on using RAM in naval applications whereas the US, in the mid-1950s, quietly turned its attention toward using RAM on aircraft (Sweetman Lockheed Stealth 11).

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~gpollock/The%20Advent,%20Evolution,%20and%20New%20Horizons% 20of%20United%20States%20Stealth%20Aircraft.htm

Regards,
Hyperion

tagert
01-30-2004, 06:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Since when Pilots know what is involved in the construction process of a Plane except for test Pilots maybe and own constructions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think if you go back and read what I wrote you will note I ponted out he was a B2 simulator pilot.. ie the thing they do in modern times before test pilots.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
When they are not Designers or Developer or Engineers they cant know what inspired the
Plane design.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
For the Shape of the B2 it has nothing to do with the Go229.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
The Design is a compromise for Radar Absorbing Triangles and a more bad flying plane part. You can get a impression how the Wing Design is done when you use Tree of Pythagoras and play little around with Parameters. That can be used to generate Triangle shape constructions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually I think that statment is more true for the F117.. but it does apply to the B2 for some of the intakes and such.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Thats for the design Part of the B2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oversimplfied IMHO.. Keep in mind, espically in the following, that the low profile shape of a flying wing (B2, Go229, N-9M, etc..) has more to do with it's low radar signature than the radar absorbing paint. In that when they flew the N-9M out to Palmdale to takes some pictures of it next to it's *grandson* the B2, they noted that even IT had a very low radar signature.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
The Horton Brothers did design Gliders that are based on aerodynamic rules and their experience in the past on 1 wing gliders. Only point that maybe a connection is that a kind of radarabsorbing paint was used on go229. If it was done on purpose or pure lucky mix i dont know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>RAM was no big secret.. everyone was playing with the idea.. but the low profile shape of a flying wing plays into it more than the RAM.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Here some quotes.

In 1943, the construction of the twin-jet-powered flying wing prototype Horten Ho IX V2 began.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool.. and here some quotes too...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The N-9M was the next logical step from the N-1M to a design suitable for a large flying wing bomber. The N-9M was a roughly 1/3 scale model of the planned larger bomber, designed to test theories of stability, control, and maneuverability. To this end, four planes were built.
The first, the N-9 M-1, was first flown on the December 27, 1942. It was supposed to have a range of 3.2 hours, carrying 100 gallons of fuel up to 21,500 feet and weighing 7,000 pounds. The first N-9M was powered by two Menasco C6S-4 engines, which proved to be a source of considerable trouble<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
It was build after the specifications of the 1000/1000/1000 fighter bomber project: A new aircraft that should be able to carry 1000 kilogram of bombs, fly 1000 kilometers per hour and have a penetration depth of about 1000 kilometers. The Ho 229 was made of wood, since wood was not a "strategic" material and this would decrease the weight of the plane. It was covered by a special radar absorbing paint, which gave this plane some of the stealth characteristics that were used on the U.S. B-2 bomber 50 years later. In the realm of defense systems, it is often noted that for every weapon, a new counter to that weapon will soon follow. Such is the case with radar air defenses and stealthy, or low observable, aircraft. As radar emerged as a critical defense mechanism in the Battle of Britain, German engineers began working feverishly in an effort to obscure airplanes and ships from the prying eyes of Allied radar stations. The Germans succeeded in developing the first, primitive forms of radar-absorbent material (RAM).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First.. but not Last

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
They found that certain carbon compounds could be utilized to absorb radar waves rather than reflecting them and began to use this method to conceal the snorkel tubes of their fleet of U-boats (Sweetman Lockheed Stealth 11). German aircraft engineers Walter and Reimar Horten first envisioned the use of RAM on aircraft in the midst of World War II. They planned to use carbon-based RAM on the skin of their twin-engine, flying-wing Ho IX fighter/bomber to make it less susceptible to radar detection. The prototype first flew in 1944, but without the planned materials of the production model (Sweetman Lockheed Stealth 11). Perhaps fortunately for the Allies, the war ended before the Horten brothers were able to deliver any of the production models, known as the Gotha Go.229 (Richardson 59). Following the war, the United States and United Kingdom began to develop RAM. The UK focused primarily on using RAM in naval applications whereas the US, in the mid-1950s, quietly turned its attention toward using RAM on aircraft (Sweetman Lockheed Stealth 11).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>quietly.. they realised early on it would take more than paint! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Thus, as you noted, the trangler shapes use on the F117.. but not as much was needed on the B2, the low profile of a flying wing didnt need much... cept near the air intakes... the RAM paint is like icing on a cake.. But it can not make up for a bad tasting cake! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

Huckebein_FW
01-30-2004, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:

The Ta-183 couldn't even fly well enough, so it was hardly in a condition to perform any kind of combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

May I ask what's your source for this ineptitude? Your intuition?

Ta-183 was one of the easiest jet to balance. Jets had enourmous fuel tanks compared with piston fighters, and wing tanks were excluded, because of thin airfoil wings. That meant that engineers had to squeeze those tanks in fuselage. FW chose the easiest solution, they mounted the fuel tanks above the engine. They were also constrained to use very short intake and exhaust ducts because the engines available produced little thrust. Even He S 011 produced only 1500kg thrust. Therefore they settled for this stepped design, even if it meant a slight reduction in max speed and possible porpoising in near Mach 1 dives. But those were all the disadvantages of this configuration. A very similar fighter with Ta-183 was Saab J-29 Tunnan. It shared the same solution: high wings, short stepped fuselage - it had very good maneuvrability, it was considered one of the most successful early jet to reach service.

Generation 0 of jets does not really looks like the first real generation of operational jet fighters. That's because larger more powerful engines allowed the use of longer ducts (and fuselage) - keep in mind that even if it appears that those jets have the engines up to the end of fuselage, there is in fact only the tail pipe, the engine is still around the center of gravity of the plane. That also leaves unresolved the problem of finding a place for the fuel tanks, though it became less dramatic because the weight of the aircraft increased together with the more powerful engine and the added weight of the airframe surrounding it. Still they remained more difficult to balance than Ta-183.

All in all Ta-183 would have been a very capable jet if introduced in '45. Together with Me P.1101 would have rule the skies until '48, and maybe later, considering that the postwar jets were designed using the data collected in 5 years of intensive reasearch in high speed flight done in Germany, fundamental know-how without which such an early adoption of jets would have been very difficult.


Saab J-29 Tunnan
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2951L.jpg


http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Fri January 30 2004 at 06:31 PM.]

tagert
01-30-2004, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
All in all Ta-183 would have been a very capable jet if introduced in '45<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>May I ask what's your source for this ineptitude? Your intuition?

TAGERT

Huckebein_FW
01-30-2004, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
All in all Ta-183 would have been a very capable jet if introduced in '45<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>May I ask what's your source for this ineptitude? Your intuition?

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was in the schedule of the Emergency Fighter requirement, won by Ta-183 project in February '45. Prototype testing in May/June, production in October '45.

Do the minimal research before flaming.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

JG26Red
01-30-2004, 07:16 PM
oh boy, flame fest!! lol... iam going to watch history and tiger... later

btw target, you really think somebody in USA would say that something they built used technology from a nazi weapon????? i didnt think so... later, have a nice night

tagert
01-30-2004, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
It was in the schedule of the Emergency Fighter requirement, won by Ta-183 project in February '45. Prototype testing in May/June, production in October '45. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, cool, thanks.. so had the war lasted a few more months that thing might have flown.. I wonder how many A-bombs would have been aval by Oct?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Do the minimal research before flaming.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Flaming? If I was flaming, then you were too.. I simply asked the same question you asked. And might I note, you provided no more of a reference in your statment then he did.

TAGERT

tagert
01-30-2004, 07:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
oh boy, flame fest!! lol... iam going to watch history and tiger... later<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You hope! In that it would take the heat off of your inital error.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
btw target, you really think somebody in USA would say that something they built used technology from a nazi weapon????? i didnt think so... later, have a nice night<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed.. you didnt think.

TAGERT

JG26Red
01-30-2004, 07:23 PM
get a life, your the one posting errors.. your brainwashed...

Huckebein_FW
01-30-2004, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
It was in the schedule of the Emergency Fighter requirement, won by Ta-183 project in February '45. Prototype testing in May/June, production in October '45. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, cool, thanks.. so had the war lasted a few more months that thing might have flown..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it might.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

tagert
01-30-2004, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
get a life, your the one posting errors.. your brainwashed...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dang.. not a man of your word huh? You said later.. Oh well, sense your back, let me correct you some more.. The US gives alot of credit to German designs.. but only where it is due.. Alot of our post war ROCKETS were based off German designs.. The M-60 machine gun is based off of a German design.. but the B-2 wasnt... Sorry.

TAGERT

tagert
01-30-2004, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Yes, it might.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! But I think Bell Aerospace wouldnt! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

BBB_Hyperion
01-30-2004, 07:38 PM
Tagert when you drive a car do you know what inspired the builder to build the car like it is ? i doubt only when you did it all yourself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

The Training flights on Testsimulators are far behind the R&D process, thats far after the Plane Idea has already a form.

So what is common with the go229 and the b2 is that Stealth is in both cases is one of the Ideas behind it. And you can quote all day to deny it .). The similarities in Shape and Design are a direct result from the Ideas behind it. Speed,Ceiling, Payload, Available Engines, Operational Range etc. You can apply this to your N9 too. So its logical that on a new project all available and useable ideas are collected and are involved in building the new craft. So when you take the B2 you would collect all Data of Crafts already build in this area 1 Wing Design , Low Profile , Radar Absorbing, Propulsion system , Wheeltypes for this Weightclass Planned , Bombbays suitable for Payloads, Fueltypes, etc .

Ignoring available Data would not only cost time
but can lead to directions that can even stop a complete project.

And this kind of discussion has nothing to do in this FORUM and i am almost guilty that i replied to it cause it has nothing to do with Game Improvement , FM , DM , or Suggestion or anything else related
to the Game. I suggest locking this thread.

Regards,
Hyperion

tagert
01-30-2004, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Tagert when you drive a car do you know what inspired the builder to build the car like it is?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First off, never said I did, but what is your ponint?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
i doubt only when you did it all yourself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed.. As Northrop did it all themselfs... Granted, there were alot of things going on in parrele.. But that does not mean they were sharing ideas.. As a mater of fact during the war that was most likly not the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
The Training flights on Testsimulators are far behind the R&D process, thats far after the Plane Idea has already a form.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, I never said otherwise.. I was just AGREEING with you that TEST pilots tend to work very Very VERY closely with the people making the aircraft.. You know the inspired ones! They tend to talk.. And in doing so learn alot about what did or didnt inspire certain aspects.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
So what is common with the go229 and the b2 is that Stealth is in both cases is one of the Ideas behind it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just ONE of the ideas/goals of the Go229 and the main idea/goal of the B-2

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
And you can quote all day to deny it .).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If so than the reverse is true too

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
The similarities in Shape and Design are a direct result from the Ideas behind it. Speed, Ceiling, Payload, Available Engines, Operational Range etc. You can apply this to your N9 too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You hit on one aspect.. or should I say idea/goal of the Go229.. A flying wing has less drag.. Thus, your going to have better range, Thus a perfect bomber. The low profile playing into the low radar sig was more of a by product of the Go229... As it was for the N-9M. As you ponited out the Germans were trying out that RAM paint on everything! Not just the Go229.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
So its logical that on a new project all available and useable ideas are collected and are involved in building the new craft. So when you take the B2 you would collect all Data of Crafts already build in this area 1 Wing Design, Low Profile, Radar Absorbing, Propulsion system , Wheeltypes for this Weightclass Planned , Bombbays suitable for Payloads, Fueltypes, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed.. but Northrop had all that in advance of the Go229.. The TWO engine N-9M was out in 1940.. the TWO engine Go229 came out.. what.. 1944ish? And Northop didnt stop with flying wings after the war.. The cold war with it's need for high alt, long range, bombers caused Northrop to contine well into the late 50s with flying wing designs.. Not until the Cold War changed and the High Alt bomber were dead meat did they give up on the idea.. But years later when low alt and stealth came into play.. The low drag and low profile of the flying wing became pheasable again.. At which point you want me to belive that Northrop disregarded all the work they did PRIOR to the Go229, DURING the Go229, and AFTER the Go229 and tossed it out the window and went and used Go229 data? Well... you feel free to belive that if you want.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Ignoring available Data would not only cost time
but can lead to directions that can even stop a complete project.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Northrop had more data on two engine flying wings Before, During and After the Go229... Wasting time going through WWII data could also cost time and lead to directions that could stop a project.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
And this kind of discussion has nothing to do in this FORUM and i am almost guilty that i replied to it cause it has nothing to do with Game Improvement , FM , DM , or Suggestion or anything else related
to the Game. I suggest locking this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What? Nah, as you may have heard the Go229 is going to be in the addon, thus it is very intersting to talk about it.. But dont be fooled that the B-2 was based on or inspired by the Go229.. Northop had a two engine flying wing before the Go229.. And it was made with the idea of making a bomber.. The N-9M was a 1/3 scale of what they wanted to build.

TAGERT

tagert
01-30-2004, 09:05 PM
From the The thirty-fifth Wilbur Wright Memorial Lecture was delivered before the Society by Mr. John K. Northrop on Thursday, May 29, 1947

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>by John K. Northrop:
In choosing the title, "The Development of All-Wing Aircraft," as the subject of my lecture I run some risk of being accused of writing a company history rather than a paper of the broad scope ordinarily presented before this time-honored institution. This is far from my intent, but being sincerely convinced that the all wing airplane is a valuable step in the development of aeronautics, and desiring to contribute a maximum amount to the available data in the limited time at my disposal, my paper must be confined largely to experience gained by our company in its work on this subject.

Outside the efforts of the Horten Brothers in Germany there has, until a comparatively recent time, been little physical accomplishment in the development of the all-wing airplane except by our company. The contemporary Horten development has been fully described in technical reports emanating from Germany since the close of the European war. In many instances the Horten conclusions were surprisingly similar to our own. Their work was not carried so far, however, and I doubt that they had the sympathetic and responsible governmental backing and the resultant opportunities for development accorded us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So, are we to belive a company that considered the topic of All-Wing Aircraft to be a Company History who's efforts BEFORE, DURRING, and AFTER the Go229 development were tossed aside and used Go229 infomation to build the B-2.. Is that what we are asked to belive?

TAGERT

MiloMorai
01-30-2004, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Look at a Ta-183 and Mig-15 side-by-side. That is some extreme "modification." I guess you could say in general configuration they were similar, but in some ways that configuration was an obvious choice.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that tells just how bad was the initial design of the Ta-183. Even the Pulqui II was a long way from the Ta-183 design with Tank changing the initial Multhopp design. The a/c was a danger to fly and pilots declined to fly, which can't be said for the MiG15.



Long live the Horse Clans.

Huckebein_FW
01-30-2004, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Look at a Ta-183 and Mig-15 side-by-side. That is some extreme "modification." I guess you could say in general configuration they were similar, but in some ways that configuration was an obvious choice.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that tells just how bad was the initial design of the Ta-183. Even the Pulqui II was a long way from the Ta-183 design with Tank changing the initial Multhopp design. The a/c was a danger to fly and pilots declined to fly, which can't be said for the MiG15.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because MiG-15's profile was different from Ta-183 does not necessarely mean that Ta-183 was bad. Look at Saab J-29 Tunnan - it flew very well. What was common between Ta-183 and MiG-15 were the wings, that was the german contribution. Look from above and see how similar they are. As similar as Me P.1101 with Sabre. This is why they say MiG-15 and Sabre originated in Ta-183 respectively Me P.1101, they copied the aerodynamic configuration. Look from above, planes do not fly sideways.

Also Pulqui II was not handful to fly, just that the testers learnt the hard way the idiosyncrasy of early jet fighters. The "deficiencies" they found are common among all thin and swept wings aircraft. They had to learn how to fly this new type of machine, and they did - they logged a lot of aerobatic flight in Pulqui. Nobody would think today to let unaccusomed to jet planes pilots to fly the latest type of jet fighter around just because they flew piston aircrafts before - a thing that all early jet pilots had to do, though not all of them were happy to do it.

Pulqui II was truly an advanced aicraft. Only lack of funding prevented the introduction in service. The team finished the work on basic types and was working on long range variants, something you do not, unless you have a fully developed aircraft.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

MiloMorai
01-30-2004, 11:47 PM
The Soviets found that some anhedral were needed. They also found that the high swept wing of the Ta183 tended to produce critical stalling characteristics. To correct the problem fences were added. Same goes for the T-tail. If one can fly all day at high speed great but one has to land sometime.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Ta183 snaked badly at high speed.

The Pulqui II was also a bugger to land having "super stall" problems at low speeds. Otto Berhans told Tank that in all his years of flying he had never flown such a brute of an a/c as the Pulqui II. The chief test pilot for IAe asked Reimer Horton how to fly the a/c and Reimer said to fly the a/c level at all times, make no severe banks and to land at fairly high rate of speed. During a test flight Tank had a "super stall" and barely escaped. He reflected afterwards that for the first time I had built an a/c that could be deadly.



Long live the Horse Clans.

tagert
01-30-2004, 11:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
He reflected afterwards that for the first time I had built an a/c that could be deadly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! Well.. maybe *they* will consider it now.. now that Tank said it?

TAGERT

csThor
01-31-2004, 12:06 AM
Folks .. what was found of the Ta 183 when the war was over? Blue prints and a 1:1 wooden model for wind channel tests. In my book this is nowhere near a finished design and in my mind they'd have modified it with more time at their disposal.

And concerning the Horten brothers - I severely doubt the US aircraft manufacturers didn't welcome their research and knowledge with open arms. After all these two had been building those strange planes (including gliders) for more than ten years now. That is a wealth of data and knowledge.

______________________________

http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg
Declared Fw 190 nut ...

blabla0001
01-31-2004, 04:24 AM
Last time I read over here was that something looking like Ta-183 was taken to a wind tunnel and it was labeled "unable" to fly and it had to be modified in order to do so.

But now Huck comes along and says it was completely different.

Kind of like your turn rate debate between the Spitfire and the Bf109.

You said that there wasn't that much difference between a Bf109 and a Spitfire and that the tests that where done in the UK was with a bad Bf109, then you come here and say that the Tempest V was a good turned and that it was only slightly worse then a Bf109 but the trails in the UK with the Tempest and the Spitfire showed clearly that the Tempest couldn't even dream to compete with a Spitfire.

So with this logic I am really wondering where your info comes from.

The only thing I can come up with is that the Brits messed up their tests or sabotaged the Tempest to make the Spitfire look good.

That or your talking out of your neck.

[This message was edited by Cappadocian_317 on Sat January 31 2004 at 03:51 AM.]

tagert
01-31-2004, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
And concerning the Horten brothers - I severely doubt the US aircraft manufacturers didn't welcome their research and knowledge with open arms. After all these two had been building those strange planes (including gliders) for more than ten years now. That is a wealth of data and knowledge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Welcome.. sure, Wealth.. Not so much..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>by John K. Northrop:
In choosing the title, "The Development of All-Wing Aircraft," as the subject of my lecture I run some risk of being accused of writing a company history rather than a paper of the broad scope ordinarily presented before this time-honored institution. This is far from my intent, but being sincerely convinced that the all wing airplane is a valuable step in the development of aeronautics, and desiring to contribute a maximum amount to the available data in the limited time at my disposal, my paper must be confined largely to experience gained by our company in its work on this subject.

Outside the efforts of the Horten Brothers in Germany there has, until a comparatively recent time, been little physical accomplishment in the development of the all-wing airplane except by our company. The contemporary Horten development has been fully described in technical reports emanating from Germany since the close of the European war. In many instances the Horten conclusions were surprisingly similar to our own. Their work was not carried so far, however, and I doubt that they had the sympathetic and responsible governmental backing and the resultant opportunities for development accorded us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, A company (Northrop) that considered the topic of All-Wing Aircraft to be a Company History.. and who's efforts BEFORE, DURRING, and AFTER the Go229 development would toss aside all the work they did and use 60 year old Go229 infomation to build the B-2.. Is that what we are asked to belive?

TAGERT

tagert
01-31-2004, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
That or your talking out of your neck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was wondering the same thing back when he was arguing that the late Bf109s had a better rear view then a P51D with a bubble canopy.. At first I thought it was just the Lw bias.. But he never gave up.. So, I can only conclude that he truly believes what he says. Which can only mean he is misinterpreting the books he reads

TAGERT

Oblt.Emann
01-31-2004, 05:21 PM
In all fairness, the Ta-183 WAS A PROTOTYPE. Gathering all data from a wind-tunnel model captured DURING DEVELOPMENT of the aircraft is pretty inconclusive, as even the Me-262 was modified for production after initial flight testing. THATS THE WHOLE POINT TO WIND TUNNEL TESTING AND PROTOTYPE FLIGHTS. Keep in mind that there was also a secondary tail design for flight testing.

Ta183 Design III (http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-ii.html)

Der Oberleutnant

robban75
01-31-2004, 05:46 PM
Apart from the position of the cockpit the Ta 183III very much resembles the J29 Tunnan. It also showed the same snaking behavior at high speed in the beginning. Sweden has always stated they benefitted from German swept wing aerodynamical tests. How they received them is quite unclear though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The J29 also became a 2X worldspeed record holder.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

MiloMorai
01-31-2004, 06:08 PM
The a/c is the Fw 252, Entwurf 3. The Ra 3 did not look much different than the Ra 1 or the Ra 2 as it was only an engine change. The Fw252 was larger and heavier a/c than the Ta183.



Long live the Horse Clans.

blabla0001
02-01-2004, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
That or your talking out of your neck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was wondering the same thing back when he was arguing that the late Bf109s had a better rear view then a P51D with a bubble canopy.. At first I thought it was just the Lw bias.. But he never gave up.. So, I can only conclude that he truly believes what he says. Which can only mean he is misinterpreting the books he reads

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we are right, so far nothing from Huck to defend his claims.

tagert
02-01-2004, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
I think we are right,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
so far nothing from Huck to defend his claims.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Get use to it... Or get use to clinton style of info re-spins http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

tagert
02-03-2004, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
Folks .. what was found of the Ta 183 when the war was over? Blue prints and a 1:1 wooden model for wind channel tests. In my book this is nowhere near a finished design and in my mind they'd have modified it with more time at their disposal.

And concerning the Horten brothers - I severely doubt the US aircraft manufacturers didn't welcome their research and knowledge with open arms. After all these two had been building those strange planes (including gliders) for more than ten years now. That is a wealth of data and knowledge.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then it is official, Northrop's B-2 had nothing to do with the Go229

TAGERT

Aaron_GT
02-04-2004, 07:22 AM
Cappadocian wrote:
" posted 31-01-04 03:24
Last time I read over here was that something looking like Ta-183 was taken to a wind tunnel and it was labeled "unable" to fly and it had to be modified in order to do so.
"

I think that was the P.1101 which was wind
tunnel tested, modified, and then essentially
built as a new plane as (I think) the Bell X5.
The P.1101 basically had the outer wing sections
of the Me262 so presumably flyable 262s yielded
some aerodynamic research information.

The German designs do seem to have been
an influence on the F-86 and Mig (and the B47
according to Boeing). To not take on board
the research done would have been pretty silly.
This does not mean that they were copies.

Northrop reportedly also looked at the
Go-229 in a museum. Maybe just to see an
example of a design that was similar on the
surface.

It's also incorrect to suggest that only
the USA and Germany examined all-wing planes.
The British, French, and Russians also looked
at all wing designs in the 1920s and 30s. It
was a current design, or fashion at the time,
much like the similarity of some of the
more outlandish looking designs from the
USA or Japan in the 1940s with canards. Plane
designs change, but often designs from around
the world look similar.

JG26Red
02-04-2004, 09:21 AM
wow, this post is still alive? lol

tagert
02-06-2004, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
wow, this post is still alive? lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes! Oh, and thanks for the bump! Saved me from doing it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

WUAF_Badsight
02-06-2004, 12:09 PM
little knowen fact : the russians had their own jets under development BEFORE the end of the war


they DID NOT suddenly get a jet program because they seized some german stuff


gawd some people are arrogant about german tech , which was world class btw

one project (cant remember its name) looked like the Mig15 that finally arrived

the TA-183 is not related to the Mig15

what was found by the russians was NOT stable in the wind tunnel , just blueprints & a wooden model

but could the TA-183 have become a production serial plane &gt;? OF COURSE ........ as with any design you give the team time & money & out would have popped a twin Mk108 TA-183

would have been awesome for sure

MiloMorai
02-06-2004, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
little knowen fact : the russians had their own jets under development BEFORE the end of the war<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they were..........


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the TA-183 is not related to the Mig15<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, if you say so, Mig OKL will disagree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>what was found by the russians was NOT stable in the wind tunnel , just blueprints & a wooden model

but could the TA-183 have become a production serial plane &gt;? OF COURSE ........ as with any design you give the team time & money & out would have popped a twin Mk108 TA-183

would have been awesome for sure<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After much re-designing



Long live the Horse Clans.

robban75
02-06-2004, 02:28 PM
The Ta 183, the finished version! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/big/j29.jpg

Just kidding, no disrespect to Lars Brising and the boys but as I wrote earlier they made it no secret that the German test reports came well in hand!

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

WUAF_Badsight
02-06-2004, 09:17 PM
seriously Milo Morai look at thepic above

small changes can do BIG things when it comes to aerodynamics

look at the F86 F

MUCH better handeling thru (visibly) small changes

that the TA-183 could have flowen AND looked similer to the seized blueprints is totally possible

the model seized by the russians did not show good aerdynamics for flight AT ALL

apparently the TA-183 is coming to FB

Oblt.Emann
02-06-2004, 11:42 PM
I don't really know about the Huckebein coming to FB. There was a topic about it on Netwings about a month ago announcing it was being modelled, but they weren't so sure if it had a chance of being integrated into FB. Its been very controversial. People FREAKED OUT at the Gotha and P-80's inclusion in FB, imagine their response towards an aircraft that didn't even fly PERIOD! Scary to think about. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Der Oberleutnant

tagert
02-06-2004, 11:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oblt.Emann:
I don't really know about the Huckebein coming to FB. There was a topic about it on Netwings about a month ago announcing it was being modelled, but they weren't so sure if it had a chance of being integrated into FB. Its been very controversial. People FREAKED OUT at the Gotha and P-80's inclusion in FB, imagine their response towards an aircraft that didn't even fly PERIOD! Scary to think about. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Der Oberleutnant
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Like the 109Z? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Or did they build one? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

WUAF_Badsight
02-07-2004, 12:20 AM
never made

was a design only

tagert
02-07-2004, 01:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
never made

was a design only<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/thanksfortheinfo.jpg

TAGERT

MiloMorai
02-07-2004, 01:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
seriously Milo Morai look at thepic above

small changes can do BIG things when it comes to aerodynamics

look at the F86 F

MUCH better handeling thru (visibly) small changes

that the TA-183 could have flowen AND looked similer to the seized blueprints is totally possible

the model seized by the russians did not show good aerdynamics for flight AT ALL
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK how long did the Swedes take to design the Tunnan? It was more than small changes that were made to the Tunnan from the Ta.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Notice the stretched fuselage, no T-tail, LEX, and wing fences for starters. Some as the Russians did for the MiG15.

The Sabre design was already done when the Americans saw the Ta. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif The F was an improved A, the major change being to the outer wing's LEs. The Me P1101 had more influence on the swept wing 86 than the Ta ever did, in fact would say the Ta had nil.

If the Ta had flown, as is, it would have been a danger to its pilots. That is why the Russians made the changes that ended up as the MiG 15, and Tank designed the Pulqui.



Long live the Horse Clans.

WUAF_Badsight
02-07-2004, 02:48 AM
the point with the Sabre was that the F model handeled MUCH better compared to the first models

but visibly it was Very similer to earlier models of F86

i did not mean that the Saber was also related to the TA-183

that the TA-183 would have changed on its way to becoming a flyable A/C is with-out doubt

but given time it could have become a production plane

that its shape would have to have changed so much that it would have resembeled what the Mig-15 ended up like is CONJECTURE

i dont knowwhich virtual squad that the FB player RidgeRunner belongs to now but he is changing his CF2 (or 3 ?) TA-183 model into one that oleg can use

apparently according to what was posted at netwings oleg emailed back that if the model was of a high enough quality itwould be included into FB

that is 3rd party reporting as it was notposted by oleg himself so it might be all bull

the pics posted at netwings show a TA-183 that looks exactly as the one you can find in various CGI pics of the TA-183 on the web

i.e. a TA-183 as it appears on the drawings of the prototype

the unstable prototype model ....

StabIJG1CO
02-07-2004, 02:53 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG26Red:
HE-162 IN ACTION
* The first Luftwaffe unit to fly the He-162 was an evaluation unit named "Erprobungskommando 162", formed at the Luftwaffe test center at Rechlin under the command of Oberstleutnant Heinz Baer, a ...

First ima surprised that so many people interested into the "Salamander".
@JG26_Red
Great skills about He162 and their history.

More facts now.....

The project P211 starts first under the Name 2Spatz".
This "Kleinstj√¬§ger Programm" based on an technical request from "Amt der Technischen Luftr√ľstung from 08 September 1944.
The idea was to buildt a fighter who can used easy and buildt cheap.
This project are named also " "200 Tage Project".
From planing till test they have need 200 days.
Amazing speed.

This craft was buildt in wood.
And it should not a fighter again fighters, but again Bomber Pulks in great high.

Most test flights was made in Austria; Schwechat Haidfeld airfield.
The construction office was in Austria; Vienna, Fichtegasse.

Factories are named in code words like
Santa I and II and also Languste( Austria, M√¬∂dling)

Engine TL BMW 003 special for He162 rebuildt.

All this facts are right and based out of Books and historical research from museums.

Dr. Alfred Hiller
1060 Wien

Hopefully some information more for you.
Much more to tell you about this revolution in technical view.
But my weak english prefent that here, Sry Gents.

Oblt.Emann
02-07-2004, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oblt.Emann:
I don't really know about the Huckebein coming to FB. There was a topic about it on Netwings about a month ago announcing it was being modelled, but they weren't so sure if it had a chance of being integrated into FB. Its been very controversial. People FREAKED OUT at the Gotha and P-80's inclusion in FB, imagine their response towards an aircraft that didn't even fly PERIOD! Scary to think about. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Der Oberleutnant
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Like the 109Z? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Or did they build one? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoops! Forgot about the 109Z. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Der Oberleutnant

MiloMorai
02-07-2004, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the point with the Sabre was that the F model handeled MUCH better compared to the first models<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A more powerful engine and the wing's LE were all that changed on the F-86. The all-flying stab was added on the E.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>that the TA-183 would have changed on its way to becoming a flyable A/C is with-out doubt

but given time it could have become a production plane

that its shape would have to have changed so much that it would have resembeled what the Mig-15 ended up like is CONJECTURE<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but when '46 or '47? It was going to production in '45, as is.

Look how much the Tunnan changed.



Long live the Horse Clans.

CoFRBooBoo
02-07-2004, 03:44 AM
Going back to the Ta-152H, one of the best indicators of its potential was given by Kurt Tank himself. While testing an unarmed Ta, Tank was intercepted by a flight of P-51 Mustangs. Tank shoved the throttle home, switched on the boost system, and left the Mustangs behind. One VERY fast aircraft.

Read more about it here: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/focke_ta152.htm

SkyChimp
02-07-2004, 06:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:


May I ask what's your source for this ineptitude? Your intuition?

Ta-183 was one of the easiest jet to balance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy, Huck. You're speaking of the Ta-183 as if it really existed.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

blabla0001
02-08-2004, 02:37 AM
"Boy, Huck. You're speaking of the Ta-183 as if it really existed"

My thoughts as well.

He is really fast to lash out at others but he avoids threads if things are going wrong or when it shows he is just making stuff up.

Blottogg
02-08-2004, 06:04 AM
I had noticed this before reading stuff from another of Huck's threads, but hadn't mentioned it. From the site here:

http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-i.html

I saw this as part of the Ta-183's info:

...a fighter project known as "Huckebein" (a cartoon raven that traditionally makes trouble for others)

I think he's trying too hard to live up to his cartoon namesake (and unfortunately succeeding.)

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

tagert
02-08-2004, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
I had noticed this before reading stuff from another of Huck's threads, but hadn't mentioned it. From the site here:

http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-i.html

I saw this as part of the Ta-183's info:

...a fighter project known as "Huckebein" (a cartoon raven that traditionally makes trouble for others)

I think he's trying too hard to live up to his cartoon namesake (and unfortunately succeeding.)

Blotto<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL and WOW! I never noticed that either! You think he got his handle from that? Maybe that is why he is taking this thread so personal... Emmmmm Naaaaa he takes (and makes) them all personal!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

tagert
02-08-2004, 10:45 AM
LOL did a little search on the net.. Check this S out!

http://rivertext.com/hans.shtml

Like a glove!

Here is something else I found


What is a "Huckebein"?



Having read various descriptions by the experten crowd out there, I became skeptical and searched many German resources on what the term "Huckebein" meant. Alas, laddies and lassies, it comes from the child-poem "Hans Huckebein" by Wilhelm Busch. Hans Huckebein is a very curious young raven captured by Fritz and proves to be a complete disaster when brought home by Fritz. In the end, as with many German moral tales, our protagonist hero gets very drunk on liquor and hangs himself with the old aunt's yarn. For those interested in the entire story in German and English, visit http://rivertext.com/hans.shtml.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Sun February 08 2004 at 10:06 AM.]

robban75
02-08-2004, 10:46 AM
And the biggest bully on the block has spoken once more.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

tagert
02-08-2004, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
And the biggest bully on the block has spoken once more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now now now.. robban.. Dont be so hard on your self! I dont think you a bully at all!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

SkyChimp
02-08-2004, 01:50 PM
Huckebein has a master at home named Fritz?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

S77th-brooks
02-09-2004, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Huckebein has a master at home named Fritz?

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>http://www.spanishcastle.com/justplanefun/fastfritz.html http://www.spanishcastle.com/justplanefun/toons.html

JG26Red
02-09-2004, 11:51 AM
OMG... TA183 was a dream, get over it... we need real planes... TA is fine, could have replaced the 229 and 109z with say a DO335 and another german ground attack plane, HS129 or something... can complain much about the HE162 as it did fight and score a few victories... after all, this isnt SWOTL is it?

tagert
02-09-2004, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
OMG... TA183 was a dream, get over it... we need real planes... TA is fine, could have replaced the 229 and 109z with say a DO335 and another german ground attack plane, HS129 or something... can complain much about the HE162 as it did fight and score a few victories... after all, this isnt SWOTL is it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! As do most here.. Only one left.. Huckebein.. Maybe you can talk some sense into him?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JG26Red
02-09-2004, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
OMG... TA183 was a dream, get over it... we need real planes... TA is fine, could have replaced the 229 and 109z with say a DO335 and another german ground attack plane, HS129 or something... can complain much about the HE162 as it did fight and score a few victories... after all, this isnt SWOTL is it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! As do most here.. Only one left.. Huckebein.. Maybe you can talk some sense into him?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ummmmm is that possible? iam kinda hardheaded but i can be converted with some good sensable info... but it seems SOME are not.. lol, eventhou he likes NAZI planes too thou... but oh well, i dont care for too many of these fake unflown aircraft

hehehehhehe, here is something too think about.. we all know the ME163 had limited fuel... i wonder if somebody will make a DF server with unlimited fuel!! uhhh ??? lol

VW-IceFire
02-09-2004, 02:51 PM
Part of the fixation on the experimentals is apparently due to some events back in the early days of third party modeling for this game. Everyone reserved aircraft and only a few carried through to do them...eventually that fell by the wayside and people are now working on more conventional types. The P-38, the Spitfire's, and the attempts to peraps get a Pe-2 or a Tu-2 done are all examples of this shift. But its a good reason why we do have some very interesting experimental types and thats because the rest were taken...even so...the Ta 183 seems a bit too far off the mark for my tastes. I know its being converted but I wish we could throw some extra resources at other Axis aircraft like the Me 410 or the Dorniers. Even so..the Ta-152 and the He-162 are both excellent aircraft to include and they should add some extra excitement to the game.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

JG26Red
02-09-2004, 03:05 PM
if i knew how to make planes i would do the D017 - DO217, i like the german medium bombers.. rather fun..