PDA

View Full Version : Ta 183 is coming



Pages : [1] 2

3.JG51_BigBear
05-02-2006, 09:23 PM
http://rrgstudios.com/img/1946/5_full.jpg

Enforcer572005
05-02-2006, 09:24 PM
now thats interesting.....wonder how itll perform against a P80.

p1ngu666
05-02-2006, 09:24 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

isnt that the one that would have horrid handling if it actully flew?

3.JG51_BigBear
05-02-2006, 09:27 PM
http://rrgstudios.com/EN_02_07_1946.shtml

Also has shots of ar234 and the cockpit.

luthier1
05-02-2006, 09:40 PM
You guys are quick, I was just coming here to post this.

waffen-79
05-03-2006, 12:12 AM
WOW!!!

I'm glad RRStudios updated this, it will surely boost PE-2 Sales!!!

I can't wait to fly the Ar-234

Only thing remaining is: to educate Server admins to not be AFRAID of LW Jets anymore

with the inclusion of Tempest, YP-80, Spit25lbs, and VVS'46 it is no longer a problem including jets IMHO

well scratch that, it just that I can't afford my own server http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-03-2006, 12:31 AM
Be nice if they actully added some planes that actully stood a chance of flying in combat in 1946 instead of all these planes that never made it off the napkin they were scribled on let alone a blue pring let alone a prototype let alone production

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/experimental.html

civildog
05-03-2006, 01:22 AM
If we have a good assortment of X-planes then there would maybe be a good reason to set up a Luft 46 server to showcase them?

And since the VVS will get the formidable Yak and MiG jets (which were not the flights of fancy the Huckebein and 229 were)Blue jet jockeys will have to work for a living instead of just preying on harmless prop planes.

Badsight.
05-03-2006, 01:31 AM
i love Jets & What-if's in FB

but im no Ta-183 fan sorry

Originally posted by p1ngu666:
isnt that the one that would have horrid handling if it actully flew? all we know is what the Pulqui & Mig-15 ended up looking & flying like

Gwalker70
05-03-2006, 02:01 AM
god.. we need to fix the damn planes we have already in the game first .. ugggggg

NAFP_supah
05-03-2006, 02:41 AM
Lets hope this leads to the future inclusion of some british jet's too like the Meteor or the Vampire and perhaps more USAF metal like the F-84 Thunderjet and perhaps the sabre http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-03-2006, 03:06 AM
With a new landscape terrain engine suitable for high altitude supersonic flight, Oleg should not stop at 1946, but like Duracell Bunny, keep going and going...

Toten_Waffe
05-03-2006, 03:52 AM
If this and ar-234 make it into the 46' addon will they definitely be flyable or ai only?

Kocur_
05-03-2006, 04:05 AM
Two words:

SWEPT WINGS!!!

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
05-03-2006, 04:06 AM
Yeah I want my imperial star destroyer and a couple of Vipers, maybe we could have a battlestar or two http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Seriously though that 183 is a bizzare looking ride

whiteladder
05-03-2006, 04:13 AM
If this and ar-234 make it into the 46' addon will they definitely be flyable or ai only

Well there is a cockpit for the Ar-234 at least.

P.S.

I like your signature couldn`t have agreed more!

Feathered_IV
05-03-2006, 05:34 AM
I was kind of hoping that mystery second Luftie kite was going to be the Natter vertical take off rocket thing. Ah well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Edit: It was operational after all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Werg78
05-03-2006, 06:25 AM
wonderful! i hoped that the ta183 would be included since they anounced the flyable ar234.

sure it never flew but jusdt by looking at its appearance you are immediatly reminded of the mig15 and the f86 - cant be that horrible to pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tigertalon
05-03-2006, 07:09 AM
A father to virutally every fighter during 50s.

http://www.luft46.com/mrart/mr183-5.jpg

tigertalon
05-03-2006, 07:16 AM
BTW, WOOHOO, made it to 1000!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/k7trans.gif

mynameisroland
05-03-2006, 07:26 AM
Welcome to the club with other such exclusive members such as P1ngu, TAGERT, GiBBAGE, KUFURST, Me .... hey wait a minute I dont like this club !

Werg78
05-03-2006, 07:39 AM
where is that screenshot from TT? i even considered buying firepower for cfs3 just to fly the 183.

lets hope it gets the r4m as a lodout option http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
05-03-2006, 07:41 AM
I'm not a huge fan of the fantasy stuff myself but I really like the design of the ta-183. My guess is the flight model will be based off flight information for the Pulqui II that Tank built for Argentina.

Brain32
05-03-2006, 08:02 AM
My guess is the flight model will be based off flight information for the Pulqui II that Tank built for Argentina.
Well yes that sounds reasnoable:
"Kurt Tank, while in exile in Argentina, also continued the Ta 183 project, resulting in the IAe Pulqui II."

But there is also:
"This version was modified to place the wings at a shoulder-mounted position, for reasons which are unclear, which resulted in deep stall problems at high angles of attack."
So it seems the plane was not exactly the same but I guess it was closest to what Ta183 would be...

tigertalon
05-03-2006, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Werg78:
where is that screenshot from TT? i even considered buying firepower for cfs3 just to fly the 183.

lets hope it gets the r4m as a lodout option http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Or X-4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Unfortunately it's not a screenshot, it's a 3D render purely for art purposes. I linked it from www.luft46.com (http://www.luft46.com). Plenty more there.

http://www.luft46.com/mmart/mm183-8.jpg

Viper2005_
05-03-2006, 09:13 AM
I love the Ta-183. If it's flyable it just sold me an addon or two!

hotspace
05-03-2006, 09:20 AM
Can't wait for this Add-On - WOWWWWWWWWWWW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Vike
05-03-2006, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by HotSpace:
Can't wait for this Add-On - WOWWWWWWWWWWW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Me too!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://www.luft46.com/mmart/mm183-6.jpg

Capt.England
05-03-2006, 10:23 AM
What about the `Unnamed Stand-Alone Title` ?

That looks like a Soviet star with an USAF background. Could it be a `What if` Soviet invasion of the U.S.A sim?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Bremspropeller
05-03-2006, 10:25 AM
*cough* How can we have an "accurate" FM when the plane never flew ? *cough*

Werg78
05-03-2006, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Werg78:
where is that screenshot from TT? i even considered buying firepower for cfs3 just to fly the 183.

lets hope it gets the r4m as a lodout option http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Or X-4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Unfortunately it's not a screenshot, it's a 3D render purely for art purposes. I linked it from www.luft46.com (http://www.luft46.com). Plenty more there.

http://www.luft46.com/mmart/mm183-8.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


well its 1946 right? so the x-4 could have been available in sufficent numbers and the ta183 would be the perfect plane to use them. but that said i wouldnt mind seeing them as lodout options for the 262 and 229 too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

it was wire guided right?

A.K.Davis
05-03-2006, 10:50 AM
The X-4 (and the other guided systems) would not that difficult to implement, I would think. Simply have it function like pressing "C" to switch to a gunner position, but instead of switching from the cockpit, the mouse input simply switches to directional control for the guidance system (just as the mouse controls a gun turret). You retain full flight control and no extra keys or functions need to be added to the sim. I imagine the AI link between the player and the missile would be the really tricky part, but since a player can issue orders to an AI controlled object already, I don't see a huge barrier.

waffen-79
05-03-2006, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
*cough* How can we have an "accurate" FM when the plane never flew ? *cough*

er...just give it the FM of the Yak-3P or the Spit 25lbs and we should be ok

no seriously just make a research of its argentinian counterpart

waffen-79
05-03-2006, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Capt.England:
What about the `Unnamed Stand-Alone Title` ?

That looks like a Soviet star with an USAF background. Could it be a `What if` Soviet invasion of the U.S.A sim?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

It would be awesome if that title was made an addon too

Bremspropeller
05-03-2006, 11:09 AM
The Pulqui was a totally different plane.

darkhorizon11
05-03-2006, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The Pulqui was a totally different plane.

What? The Pulqui clearly based on the Ta-183, just modified. Its not a totally different plane if the Ta-183 never existed or was designed the Pulqui never would have existed along with the Mig 15.

As for having it in the game there were some problems with the initial design the Germans would have had to fix, mostly low speed handling qualities. One one the bad low speed handling due to the high horizontal stabilizer... Also when the Russians tested it they threw on leading edge fences to improve its stall characteristics.

I don't know if these problems can really be modeled in the game but I think they should be on the account of realism. I'm also curious as to them modeling the He S engined version or the Jumo 003 one...

Bremspropeller
05-03-2006, 11:52 AM
Well, the MiG-15 would never have existed without a MiG-3. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Wanna play the game that way ?

is a B747 flying like a B707 just because it's an evolution of the 'Oh Seven ?

Double 'Oh No' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

darkhorizon11
05-03-2006, 12:00 PM
What I'm saying that is that they are directly connected, built by the same designer for the same purpose. A lightweight high speed high subsonic fighter.

I would still rather see a Meteor or a Natter over this plane though. Were getting a little to what if now.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-03-2006, 12:02 PM
I'd rather see a flyable Su-2.

bhunter2112
05-03-2006, 12:07 PM
I am drooling for the ta 183. We basically have all the "wonder Weapon" planes that made it to production or were headed that way except the Natter (Or...can we hope).

Me-262
Me-163
Go-229
He-162
Do-335
V1 & V2 (sort of)
Add-on
Ar-234
Ta-183 (no actual production)

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-03-2006, 12:09 PM
Or an Arado 196.

Bremspropeller
05-03-2006, 12:39 PM
Hell, that would be nice - I'd join the Bush-Flyer's air force with that bird http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

waffen-79
05-03-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by bhunter2112:
I am drooling for the ta 183. We basically have all the "wonder Weapon" planes that made it to production or were headed that way except the Natter (Or...can we hope).

Me-262
Me-163
Go-229
He-162
Do-335
V1 & V2 (sort of)
Add-on
Ar-234
Ta-183 (no actual production)

I just hope a server is brave enough to include them in the plane set

MrMojok
05-03-2006, 01:05 PM
Let's see, how many currently allow the 262?

Bearcat99
05-03-2006, 01:15 PM
I woulds love to see any plane in this sim.... a Piper Cub woyuld be nice..... the more the merrier I say... and as far as "fixing" the planes that are here..... it's funny how so many people who are into the whole "Full Real" bit balk at doing what REAL pilots had to do when it comes to this sim.. which was basically fly the plane they have ... either learn it or die trying. Sure therre is a lot in this sim that I would like to see changed with certain planes.. but it is what it is..... just deal with it and be glad we still have new stuff coming down the pipeline.

JG5_UnKle
05-03-2006, 01:17 PM
+1 any new aircraft are nice

I would even fly a Storch if they put one in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

darkhorizon11
05-03-2006, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I woulds love to see any plane in this sim.... a Piper Cub woyuld be nice..... the more the merrier I say... and as far as "fixing" the planes that are here..... it's funny how so many people who are into the whole "Full Real" bit balk at doing what REAL pilots had to do when it comes to this sim.. which was basically fly the plane they have ... either learn it or die trying. Sure therre is a lot in this sim that I would like to see changed with certain planes.. but it is what it is..... just deal with it and be glad we still have new stuff coming down the pipeline.

Bearcat I'm with ya buddy! I'd love to see a Piper Cub!

I've got some Decathalon time which isn't to far from a Cub. Adding a baby like that flyable would really add a whole 'nother side to the game... Maybe someday when AI doesn't have hawkeye satellite through the clouds vision!

xTHRUDx
05-03-2006, 01:44 PM
how long will it take to skin that up as a mig-15 and start throwing mustangs and p-80s at it?

MrMojok
05-03-2006, 01:47 PM
Can you imagine what the current AI incarnation would do with some of these jets? It would be like dogfighting against a TIE fighter.

3.JG51_Stecher
05-03-2006, 02:01 PM
It will be interesting to see how they do the flight model. It was a little beyond just being a napkin airplane like many Luft '46 aircraft, but not too far. Small models were the only things completed. The first prototype was being built, but it was never finished.

As for the Pulqui II, it was NOT the Ta 183. Is there a link? Sure, Kurt Tank. But Kurt Tank did not design the Ta 183, Hans Multhopp did. Tank's Pulqui II had numerous differences, including a higher wing placement, longer wing span, wider vertical stabilizer, and a different engine, requiring a wider and significantly longer fuselage. However it flew cannot be transplanted onto the Ta 183 with any accuracy.

So without any actual flight testing of the Ta 183 I wonder how they'll get its flight model. Whatever they do, I hope it is modelled as the theoretical production version with the He S011 engine, not the prototype. This is the fantasy add-on afterall.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-03-2006, 02:04 PM
Or a U2 - I wanna be a nightwitch!...got the underwear and hair clips an' all ready for that total immersion experience http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

NagaSadow84
05-03-2006, 02:48 PM
What version of the Ta 183?

Ta 183 V1-V3 (with Jumo 004 B)
Ta 183 A-0 (V4-V14 with HeS 011)
Ta 183 Ra-1 (Development of the Focke-Wulf Fw 232 project with HeS 011R)
Ta 183 Ra-2 (Development of the Focke-Wulf Fw 232 project with Jumo 004 B?)

Aaron_GT
05-03-2006, 02:58 PM
*cough* How can we have an "accurate" FM when the plane never flew ? *cough*

The Ta 183 DID fly, though.

The Soviets captured the full blueprints and built 6 and flew the first in 1948. It turned out to need modifications before its handling was adequate, but I suppose for a 1946 fantasy scenario you can presume that such practical modifications would have been incorporated, but still have some residual negative behaviour.

The Pulqui for (Kurt Tank's version of the Ta 183 for Argentina) also flew, but again its handling left something to be desired.

waffen-79
05-03-2006, 02:59 PM
well since it's a "What if" addon and

Status: In Development

I hope they model the Ar-234 variant with 2 forward 151/20

Aaron_GT
05-03-2006, 03:02 PM
However it flew cannot be transplanted onto the Ta 183 with any accuracy.


The Pulqui and Soviet-completed prototypes suffered from some of the same instability problems, so you can possibly surmise that the same sort of issues would have plagued a German production fantasy 1946 Ta 183, even with suitable modifications to improve it a bit such as changes to the tail surfaces and wings.

GR142_Astro
05-03-2006, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
+1 any new aircraft are nice

I would even fly a Storch if they put one in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

A Storch would acutally be really cool. Be able to fly over enemy territory and click designate a point for an arty strike as in CoD. Then the fun would ensue with 5 enemy fighters trying to turn with you and shoot u down.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

waffen-79
05-03-2006, 03:19 PM
a Storch? HELL YEAH

and what about a C-47 or a Ju-52 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

now that's a PAY ADDON

xTHRUDx
05-03-2006, 03:59 PM
WHAT? i'm shocked. You mean you guys would rather fly planes that were actualy used in WW2 instead of (insert obvious plane that wasn't built in favor of a fantasy one, here)

Tooz_69GIAP
05-03-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
well since it's a "What if" addon and

Status: In Development

I hope they model the Ar-234 variant with 2 forward 151/20

I believe that was the Ar-234-C (whichever one was the nightfighter one) that had a pack of 2x20mm slapped onto it, and a radar guy stuffed into the back of the fuselage.

The B-2 variant (which is I think the one being modelled) was the dedicated bomber version, which had 2x20mm cannon in it's tail sighted via a periscope thing by the pilot, but it was largely ineffective if I remember what I read correctly.

And remember, this aircraft actually flew operationally from late 1944 to the end of the war, with the last of the operational aircraft surrendering at Stavanger in Norway(?). Around 220 were built I think before the war's end. So this is no fantasy aircraft.

But with the Ta-183, I'm really looking forward to strapping myself into one and seeing what it can do. I used to have a model of a MiG-15 as a kid, and I always thought it looked cool, so I'm excited to see what it's "daddy" is capable of!

Plus, it just looks cool - and with 4x30mm cannons, it's gonna do some damage! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Airmail109
05-03-2006, 04:50 PM
Monkeys!!!!!!!!!!!!!

96th_Nightshifter
05-03-2006, 05:23 PM
I'd trade them all in for a proper Mk.XIV Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

luftluuver
05-03-2006, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by waffen-79:
well since it's a "What if" addon and

Status: In Development

I hope they model the Ar-234 variant with 2 forward 151/20

I believe that was the Ar-234-C (whichever one was the nightfighter one) that had a pack of 2x20mm slapped onto it, and a radar guy stuffed into the back of the fuselage.

The B-2 variant (which is I think the one being modelled) was the dedicated bomber version, which had 2x20mm cannon in it's tail sighted via a periscope thing by the pilot, but it was largely ineffective if I remember what I read correctly.

And remember, this aircraft actually flew operationally from late 1944 to the end of the war, with the last of the operational aircraft surrendering at Stavanger in Norway(?). Around 220 were built I think before the war's end. So this is no fantasy aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Afaik there was ONLY one Ar234 armed with 2 forward firing 20mm cannons (Marbirusbombe gun pack). This was flown by Erich Sommer, coded T9+EH.

There was only a handful of rear firing a/c made at the most. This gun installation was to be on the 4 engined Ar234C.

Instead of speculating on the Ar234 why don't people go out and buy,

Arado 234 Blitz
Monogram-Monarch
Smith/Creek
ISBN 0-914144-51-0

Included are the Pilot Notes, WNr and KG76 operations.

Aero Detail also has a book, Vol 16,

Featuring the Ar234B-2 at the U.S. National Air & Space Museum, this is a highly detailed photo-essay covering every portion of the Ar234, nose to tail, inside and out. With hundreds of modern, close-up color photos, 3-view drawings highlighting variant differences, and cutaway detail diagrams, this is a complete guide to this early jet-powered Luftwaffe bomber. 82 pgs., 10"x 10"

Daiichidoku
05-03-2006, 06:23 PM
screw all the 46 stuff


gimme an He 280



so it can absolutley TERRORIZE 42 planesets http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

(first flight march/apr 1941!)


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/He280-V3-2.jpg

civildog
05-03-2006, 11:44 PM
I like Bearcat's idea: a Piper would be a lot of fun to hedgehop in as a nice break from the stresses of flying the heavy-weights. Maybe it could be used against a flyable Storch in a battle of the gnats! Marker rockets for both planes would be useful in bomber coops.

Badsight.
05-03-2006, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
*cough* How can we have an "accurate" FM when the plane never flew ? *cough*

no seriously just make a research of its argentinian counterpart </div></BLOCKQUOTE>please take note : the Ta-183 is nothing like the Pulqui-II

the wooden mock-ups the Soviets tested showed inherent instability in wind-tunnel testing


.


this plane , the Ta-183 should not be added

theres no proof that it in its drawen state would have been produced - or even flowen acceptably as a prototype . untill now every plane in FB is based on something real , FM debates aside even the Bf-Z was a prototype with at least some info from the Bf-109G being able to be used for FM speculation

on the other hand - the Ta-183 will be PURE speculation

i am a big time FB jet fan - always have been , & with 3 LW jets & 2 new VVS jets , an RAF Meteor Mk4 would have been the perfect counterpart to the US P-80

Badsight.
05-03-2006, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The Ta 183 DID fly, though.

The Soviets captured the full blueprints and built 6 and flew the first in 1948. It turned out to need modifications before its handling was adequate. your post is the first ive ever heard of this happening

i know the Mig-15 was inspired by the Ta-183 mock-up , but ive never heard of the Soviets trying to manufacture ANY Ta-183 shape replicating planes

3.JG51_Stecher
05-04-2006, 01:15 AM
There is a paragraph on the Luft '46 site that states this.

"After the war, the Ta 183 story continued. The Soviets found a complete set of plans for the Ta 183 in Berlin at the RLM offices, and began construction of six prototypes in March 1946 by the MIG design bureau. On July 2, 1947, the first Soviet-built Ta 183 took to the air powered by a British Rolls-Royce "Nene" turbojet. They discovered that the original Ta 183 design needed either automatic leading edge slots or wing boundry layer fences to alleviate low-speed stalling. Also, as a compromise between high-speed and low-speed flying, the horizontal stabilizer was moved approximately one-third down from the top of the vertical tail. The modified Ta 183 first flew on December 30, 1947 and in May 1948 was ordered into production as the MIG 15."

The more I read about this though, it seems to be false, or at least without any evidence at all. The "modified Ta 183" that they say first flew on December 30, 1947 is the real first flight of the I-310 project's S-01 prototype. This is what would be accepted and designated as the MiG-15.

I have little doubt that the MiG designers used German technology in their designs, but to suggest that it was nothing more than a tweaked copy doesn't hold up.

Aaron_GT
05-04-2006, 03:15 AM
I've never heard a suggestion that the Mig-15 was somehow a version of the Ta-183 and that seems to be false information from the Luft 46 site. I have heard that the USSR did build or complete a few aircraft left in partly completed or designed stages in Germany, for example that stubby rocket powered plane with the prone pilot position (can't remember the name). The USA did the same (Messerschmitt P.1101). I suppose which ones each nation built or flew depended on which plans/parts they managed to capture. The P.1101 version provided interesting information for the USA, but it also had a short body and lateral instability issues AFAIK, especially in the transonic range (changes of centre of lift, probably, which would probably have a more extreme effect on a plane with swept wings and its mass concentrated in a relatively short body).

The short body design was basically imposed by the problems with ducting to the engines. The design of longer ducts wasn't advanced in Germany in WW2 (the UK and USA with split intakes were leading in duct design at the time). For a single engined aircraft and minimum duct lengths the solution was a stubby body, and often a tail on a boom, either a single boom over the engine exhaust or a twin boom (the Vampire being a good example of this).

From what I have read the USSR only flew one Ta 183, and it had serious lateral instability problems, and that the Pulqui also had lateral instability problems, even despite it being longer than the original Ta 183 design, and with redesigned tail surfaces.

The Ta 183, as it existed on paper and wind tunnel models, would seem to have had even worse instability problems, especially with transonic snaking. In a 1946 fantasy situation you'd have to presume some redesign and even then for it to only approach the qualities of the Pulqui.

Badsight.
05-04-2006, 03:29 AM
the Bell X-5 isnt an exact copy of the Messerschmitt P.1101 either

MrMoonlight
05-04-2006, 03:47 AM
Ta-183...sheesh. Another "fantasy" plane. You'd think the resources could have been better spent on modeling something that actually flew.

I think the Ar-234 is a fantastic addition. It's a plane that was built, flown and put into service. And there are so many other historical aircraft that could have been modeled instead of the Ta-183.

Besides, we've got enough German fantasy stuff as it is. I mean, if "what-if" planes really have to be included, I would much rather have seen something from Japan represented...like the Kikka, J7W1, A7M, Ki-94, etc.

Sure, I'll buy the add-on just to get all the other goodies and also to support Oleg and his team. But I can't help but to think that there are literally dozens of planes that this sim could use before a plane that never even made it past the design stage. Oh well.

WOLFMondo
05-04-2006, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by 96th_Nightshifter:
I'd trade them all in for a proper Mk.XIV Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I would love to see that plane in this sim. As the last great production model of one of the greatest WW2 planes it wouldn't out of place in this sim. Although I remember a day when the thought of any Spitfires in this sim was nothing more than a dream.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-04-2006, 04:29 AM
Although I remember a day when the thought of any Spitfires in this sim was nothing more than a dream.

True.

Xiolablu3
05-04-2006, 04:47 AM
Isnt that where the Russians started with the Mig15?

I see the resembalance.

Aaron_GT
05-04-2006, 05:03 AM
There's a resemblance, but I suspect it is more of an inspiration. There were a number of 'themes' in aerodynamic design at the time, and many nations worked on things that looked similar although they were indepdently designed. Some of the German stuff was certainly an inspiration, though. For example Boeing reported that German swept wing test information was very important in the design of the B-47. And whilst the X-5 isn't an exact copy of the P.1101 it is very much influenced by it, down to variable sweep (although achieved in a way more useful for testing than the P.1101 prototype).

stathem
05-04-2006, 08:00 AM
Just googling around this plane and came up with the same text about the prototypes in Russia etc.

But can someone confirm/deny this from the same piece :-



A tapered main wing spar constructed of two duraluminum I-beams with steel flanges formed a torque box, with the attachment at the fuselage consisting of a single bolt. The wing structure was completed by adding bonded wooden ribs with a plywood covering. Each wing panel contained 6 fuel cells totaling 1565 liters (345 gallons).

So will it share the same Vne/DM/community perception fate of other wooden aircraft?

csThor
05-04-2006, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
this plane , the Ta-183 should not be added

theres no proof that it in its drawen state would have been produced - or even flowen acceptably as a prototype .

It amazes me to see people ignoring the little word "development" when it comes to such projects. Surely the initial examples of other - later highly successful - aircraft often bore little resemblance to later production planes? Is it that hard to take into consideration that the development team of the Ta 183 would actually look for solutions for the problems instead of abandoning the whole project after the first hurdles? If that was the case there wouldn't be any planes around as the plane pioneers would have aborted development early on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

GR142_Astro
05-04-2006, 08:30 AM
So does this mean we get the Bearcat?


http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/F8F.jpg

Marc-David
05-04-2006, 08:40 AM
What about throwing in the second TA 183 design?
http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-ii.html That looks very MiG-15!

http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183cut.jpg

Yours, MD

Brain32
05-04-2006, 08:59 AM
After the war, the Ta 183 story continued. The Soviets found a complete set of plans for the Ta 183 in Berlin at the RLM offices, and began construction of six prototypes in March 1946 by the MIG design bureau. On July 2, 1947, the first Soviet-built Ta 183 took to the air powered by a British Rolls-Royce "Nene" turbojet.
This really makes sense and I will speculate that Oleg has acsess to data of those projects and that this exactly IS the reason we are getting it...

Marc-David
05-04-2006, 09:02 AM
Did a liitle googeling:
http://p076.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffai...cID=45.topic&index=1 (http://p076.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm27.showMe ssage?topicID=45.topic&index=1)
Subject: History of the MiG-15
Posted By: Seer Stuart The Prince of Darkness
Posted At: 10/7/05 4:43
Reply
The Russians first started work on jets in the early 1920s. They set up a specialized gas turbine engine reserach group in 1926 and in 1930 the group was headed by V Oovarov. At that time, the primary focus was on turboprop engines and, in 1936, the group developed the 1,150 shp GTU-3 turboprop that was proposed as a powerplant for the TB-3 bomber. The prototypes of the GTU-3 were first test-flown in 1938. That year, the group split into two parts, one of which developed turboprops, the other of which started work on turbojets. That part was headed by Arkhip Mikhailovich Lyulka. By 1941, he had developed the RD-1 jet engine that delivered 1,100 pounds of thrust. Meanwhile, the Oovarov group were assembling a turboprop that could deliver 4,400 shp.

When the Germans invaded Russian all that work came to a halt. Development design continued but all actual production capacity was devoted to war production. When work restarted in 1944 Lyulka was responsible for the production of the TR-1 turbojet engine that delivered 2,866 pounds of thrust. The prototypes flew in 1946 and were installed in the Il-22 bomber in 1947.

In 1944, the USSR established two specifications. One was for their production jet fighter. There were three primary requirements for this aircraft, these requirements were called "whales" by the USSR because it was recognized they presented an enormous challenge. These whales were (a) the use of a turbojet rated at over 4,400 pounds thrust, (b) the use of swept wings and (c) the use of an ejector seat. In addition the aircraft had to be equipped with a heavy armament and be easy to both manufacture and maintain in the field.

Why swept wings and high power? In elementary terms (please remember I'm not an aviation engineer) there is a shockwave that stretches outwards from the nose. At slow speeds, this is a straight line but as the aircraft gets faster, that line starts to form a V with the nose at the front and the shockwave angled backwards. Eventually, the shockwave angle gets so acute that the shockwave itself touches the wingtips. that causes a dramatic increase in drag and it gets worse as more and more of the wing becomes immersed in the shockwave. If the wing is swept back, the tips are kept clear of the shockwave longer so the sudden increase in drag is delayed. The sharper the sweepback, the longer the delay. By the way, one can get the same effect by havinga long fuselage and short, razor-thin wings. Now you know why the F-104 looks like that.

The original work on swept wings was done by a German, Dr Alfred Busemann in around 1935. There was nothing secret about it, the work was published in open literature and everybody knew about it. It was of theoretical interest only since nobody could get up to speeds where the effect mattered. What wasn't in the open literature was that a Russian, V Stroominsky had carried on with research into swept wings in the early 1940s and made some discoveries that Busemann had missed completely. One was that if wings are swept, the airflow over the wings had two components, not one. The air flowed from the leading edge to the trailing edge as normal but also flowed spanwise along the wing causing the tips of the wings to stall. Another aspect of that was that the airflow along a swept wing significantly reduced the effects of the aircraft's controls. The other discovery was that the swept wing is much less efficient at generating lift than a straight wing.

So, unless the aircraft had a powerful enough engine to drive the aircraft up to the point where the drag reduction characteristics of a swept wing were significant, the advantages of a swept wing were much offset by its disadvantages. The critical speed turned out to be around 600mph; if a fighter could get up to 600mph, then the benefits of a swept wing kicked in and the aircraft got a lot faster (or, more precisely, it didn't show the dramatic increase in drag exhibited by straight-wing aircraft). If it couldn't get that speed, it didn't get the benefits and was a lot nastier to fly - and, by the way, since altitude performance is directly related to engine power and lift, underpowered swept-wing aircraft suffered severe altitude penalties.

By 1945, the basic layout of what would become the MiG-15 were already determined. A 35 degree swept wing, a single engine generating enough thrust to push the aircraft over 600 mph, a tail that was high enough to keep the tailplane out of the turbulence form the wings but not a T-tail (that suffered problems all of its own). This aircraft was known as the object I-310 and models of this configuration were test-dropped from Tu-2 aircraft in 1945 and 1946. Those test-drops validated the configuration of the I-310 (which became the MiG-15) and the La-160.

However, it was also apparent that the engines available didn't develop enough thrust to push the airframe fast enough to gain the advantages of a swept wing. So the Russians decided to build an intermediate generation of aircraft using whatever engines were available. At that time, these were the BMW-003 which the Russians built as the RD-20 (it generated 1,750 pounds of thrust) and the Jumo-004 which the Russians built as the RD-10 (it developed 1,950 pounds of thrust). They mated these with interim airframes, essentially converted piston-engined fighters and they were a stopgap until The Real Thing (TRT) arrived.

The Russians also captured a whole load of experimental aircraft, a lot of dirty paper that purported to be 'advanced designs" and some prototypes. They made an interesting discovery; the Germans had lots of swept wing fighter designs but no engines to power them. They had the BMW-003 and the Jumo-004 and that was it. 2,000 pounds of thrust, tops and that was nowhere near enough to push a plane fast enough so that it would benefit from the swept wings.

There were three "more" engines. They were the Heinkel-Hirth He-011 that was to be rated at 2,800 pounds of thrust, the Jumo-012 that was supposed to be rated at 6,600 pounds of thrust and the BMW-018 that was supposed to generate 7,700 pounds. None of these engine sactually existed; they were all nothing more than designs on paper. (Note, in Wikipedia it states that the Jumo-012 was test flown in 1944 and was "the most powerful jet engine in the world". This is untrue; only a few non-critical metal components of the 012 had been made and the engine was far from completion. Likewise claims that the BMW-018 whad been test flown were also false; the engine was even less advanced than the Jumo-012).

The Russians spent a lot of time trying to get those engines working and couldn't. There were fundamental design errors in them all that made it impossible that they could work. None of them were practical and the Germans (now the Russians) were stuck with the BMW-003 and the Jumo-004). The Rusisans decided to solve the problem by buying British Nene and Derwent engines which they built as the RD-45 and the RD-500 respectively. Important note that - the Russians were forced to buy British engines because German ones couldn't cut the mustard. Mikoyan selected the RD-45 to power the I-310 and he was in business.

The Russians also captured a semi-complete Ta-183 prototype. They looked at it, compared it with their I-310 and decided that the German aircraft was already obsolete. It was grossly underpowered - less than 2,000 pounds of thrus - and the Russians had already realized that 4,400 was inadequate - and it was structurally much inferior to the MiG being badly overweight and complex. In addition, the russians realized the germans had no idea of the problems caused by spanwise drift and the aircraft would have viciously bad flying characteristics. What was even worse, the Russians couldn't put their new RD-45 into it because the RD-45 was a centrifugal flow engine and had too great a frontal area for the Ta-183 that was deisgned around an axial flow engine.

It got worse, as the Russians experimented with swept-wing fighter models, they found something very interesting. Before the drag reduction benefits of a swept wing cut in, the aircraft would drop one wing, stall and spin out. A vicious flat spin that prevented the pilot getting out. the reason was that the complex airflow over a swept wing was such that both wings had to be exact mirror images. Even slight differences caused tip stalling and the loss of the aircraft. Swept wings couldn't be built the same way as conventional wings and a different manufacturing technique was needed. The Ta-183 had its wings built the older way and would have suffered from wing-drop.

The Russians concluded that the Ta-183 would be a slow, clumsy, treacherous dog and they rejected any possibility of proceeding with it. (By the way, the Argentines did build the Ta-183 and found the Russians were quite right; the aircraft was a flying death trap.)

The I-310 with a 5,000 pound thrust RD-45 was completed in mid-1947 as the S-1 prototype and was test-flown by the end of the year. It became the MiG-15. Later, it was re-engined with the 6,000 pound thrust VK-1.

Yefim Gordon wrote the definitive history of the MiG-15; its published by Aerofax. Worth getting - in fact all Yefim Gordon's books are.

Kocur_
05-04-2006, 09:18 AM
Guys, you need to slow down with MiG-15 "resembling" Ta-183. There is as much resemblence between them as between, say A6M and F8F or almost any planes of the same purpose and era. In cases of both paires of fighters there are lots of identical features, like form of wings, kind of engine (generally speaking), materials used etc. but actual design is different

MiG-15 was built in general arrangement quite common in all fighters of the era. If MiG-15 "resembles" Ta-183, than so do or do even more actually: SAAB J-29, F-86, Dassault Ouragan etc.

The main difference between Ta-183 and MiG-15 is that the former was designed for axial flow engine, while the latter centrifugial flow one. MiG-15s RD-45 (licensed lol Rolls Royce Nene) had diameter so great, that if filled entire crossection of part of fuselage, where it was located. That meant need to find different locations of all other components compared to, say Ta-183, as there was no place for fuel tanks above engine. Was MiG-15 influenced by Ta-183 or some other last generation Third Reich fighters? Sure did - like all other fighters of those days. But that is quite far from "copy" or "further design".
What MiG benefitted the most from Germans was not actual designing, but technology. MiG bureau didnt use all metal, semi-monocoque technology, until after WW2, when captured German engineers taught them that.

Kocur_
05-04-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
for example that stubby rocket powered plane with the prone pilot position (can't remember the name)

DFS 346

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFS_346

Xiolablu3
05-04-2006, 09:28 AM
Thanks for that Marc-David, very interesting reading. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
05-04-2006, 10:18 AM
Well, I've been doing some light reading on the Ta-183 and although the Germans never actually produced a full scale prototype of the aircraft, that was solely due to the war ending. The design schedule was to have a prototype ready for testing by, I think, August 1945, and as said above by various people, the Russians did actually build a couple and flew it. It had problems, but it did fly. But I am certainly interested to see what they do with it in game.

NagaSadow84
05-04-2006, 10:29 AM
The first test flight of Ta 183 V1 (or V2, V3) was scheduled for 15th august 1945. The first pre-series aircraft, Ta 183 V4 (A-0), should have followed in october.

waffen-79
05-04-2006, 10:50 AM
You know...Russians secured German Military Hardware for a reason...

Even if they built it (Ta-182) and find it was a piece o'c_r_a_p, you're telling me they didn't gathered the good stuff in it? come on!

remember what they did with the English Rolls Royce Jet Engine?

I'm not BASHING russian enginering in any way, I love modern Soviet Jets btw.

But I have a word for that "It was all my original idea, mine, mine" and it's not "BS" I call it PROPAGANDA.

ElAurens
05-04-2006, 11:15 AM
How about a P51H or a P/F 82 Twin Mustang instead?

Real aeroplanes with real, known, flight performance numbers.

The Ta should be banned from any server worth the title "historical".

Be sure.

waffen-79
05-04-2006, 11:22 AM
Fine, Ban the Ta

I wasn't expecting it anyway

but how about including the He-162 and Me-262?...


exactly

Brain32
05-04-2006, 11:32 AM
The Ta should be banned from any server worth the title "historical".
Duh, it should be banned from any non what-if 1946 scenario server. In the same time let me just remind you that Me262 as a completely valid and historical 1944 plane is banned from all servers as we speak...

Viper2005_
05-04-2006, 11:50 AM
I would have thought that the Ta-183 would be an ideal MiG-15 substitute.

We've already got the YP-80 and AI B-29s, so we could have something akin to Korea with a bit of imagination.

Until now the Luftwaffe has had a massive advantage in the jet stakes, with YP-80 being the only Allied jet, facing a few 262 varients, the 162 and the 229, not to mention various other rare late war types and the infamous 109Z.

However, once the Luft46 addon arrives it is to be hoped that there will be some more jets for the red team, meaning that there should be some balance and fair fights should be possible. As such I don't see any barrier to some interesting "high switch" or "full switch" jet vs jet action online.

As for "historical" I don't really think that you could fairly describe most servers as historical, so who cares?

It should be fun to fly. I'm looking forward to it. I like high performance aeroplanes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

A.K.Davis
05-04-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
How about a P51H or a P/F 82 Twin Mustang instead?

Real aeroplanes with real, known, flight performance numbers.

The Ta should be banned from any server worth the title "historical".

Be sure.

Well, I don't suppose we'll see many historical servers running WWII in 1946 scenarios. That would be inherently...umm...un-historical. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142_Astro
05-04-2006, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
Fine, Ban the Ta

I wasn't expecting it anyway

but how about including the He-162 and Me-262?...


exactly

Include away.

I luvs shooting those down with the Jug. Or for more fun, include the P80.

luftluuver
05-04-2006, 01:22 PM
There is always the 262 Aufklarer with the extra swept wing.

Heavy bombers such as the Me262 and Ta 400 can be added in for good measure.

mgoyat
05-04-2006, 03:45 PM
More planes = more goodness.
That said, they have to exhibit believable flying characteristics...
I think they should flight-test a model in X-Plane. Yes X-Plane has limitations like everything, but it's being used by real plane designers too. Anyway, the results of such testing couldn't be worse than "hearsay" FMs.

Now I like fancy fighters, but what LW actually needs ( and RAF too) is heavy bombers. Say, Me264 (prototype did fly), various Heinkels...

ElAurens
05-04-2006, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Well, I don't suppose we'll see many historical servers running WWII in 1946 scenarios. That would be inherently...umm...un-historical. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Of course you are correct AKD, but I think you get the meaning of my post. The Ta 183 was never built by Germany. Any FM for it will be speculative, at best, even if the VVS built something that was very similar.

Calling this vapour plane a good substitute for the Mig 15 has me rolling with laughter. The Mig 15 and 15bis were very good aircraft. All evidence points to Mr. Tank's poor grasp of the trans-sonic envelope. Oh well, it should be meat on the table for a P-80 in any event.

Be sure.

fordfan25
05-04-2006, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Be nice if they actully added some planes that actully stood a chance of flying in combat in 1946 instead of all these planes that never made it off the napkin they were scribled on let alone a blue pring let alone a prototype let alone production

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/experimental.html i agree. p51H,bearcat -4corsair,p47M/N,tigercat,skyraider....LOL AVENGER.....yea i know.

fordfan25
05-04-2006, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
So does this mean we get the Bearcat?


http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/F8F.jpg not over Luthers dead body http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. remember that statment.

Viper2005_
05-04-2006, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Calling this vapour plane a good substitute for the Mig 15 has me rolling with laughter. The Mig 15 and 15bis were very good aircraft. All evidence points to Mr. Tank's poor grasp of the trans-sonic envelope. Oh well, it should be meat on the table for a P-80 in any event.

Be sure.

That is actually rather unfair. The MiG-15 had some extremely concerning transonic "issues" in its time, and analysis of the Ta-183 doesn't suggest that it would be massively worse in this respect. In fact I would venture that the use of elevons and a trimming tail would probably make for better behaviour in many respects.

It is worth remembering that the Germans had access to arguably the best transonic and supersonic wind tunnel facilities in the world during WWII.

Since IL2 doesn't "do" Mach number effects, this is of course a moot point...

fordfan25
05-04-2006, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Calling this vapour plane a good substitute for the Mig 15 has me rolling with laughter. The Mig 15 and 15bis were very good aircraft. All evidence points to Mr. Tank's poor grasp of the trans-sonic envelope. Oh well, it should be meat on the table for a P-80 in any event.

Be sure.

That is actually rather unfair. The MiG-15 had some extremely concerning transonic "issues" in its time, and analysis of the Ta-183 doesn't suggest that it would be massively worse in this respect. In fact I would venture that the use of elevons and a trimming tail would probably make for better behaviour in many respects.

It is worth remembering that the Germans had access to arguably the best transonic and supersonic wind tunnel facilities in the world during WWII.

Since IL2 doesn't "do" Mach number effects, this is of course a moot point... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whats a moot?

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-04-2006, 07:05 PM
Whats a moot?
It's like a wee loch aroond yer hoose.

Scottish joke. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

fordfan25
05-04-2006, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Whats a moot?
It's like a wee loch aroond yer hoose.

Scottish joke. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>OOOooooo thats why it wasnt funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
05-04-2006, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Whats a moot?
It's like a wee loch aroond yer hoose.

Scottish joke. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>OOOooooo thats why it wasnt funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't funny coz it was an englishman who came up with it!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Heliopause
05-04-2006, 11:38 PM
Maybe russians captured this...

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a138/heliopause/Ta183tunnel.jpg

Badsight.
05-04-2006, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by csThor:

It amazes me to see people ignoring the little word "development" when it comes to such projects. Surely the initial examples of other - later highly successful - aircraft often bore little resemblance to later production planes? Is it that hard to take into consideration that the development team of the Ta 183 would actually look for solutions for the problems instead of abandoning the whole project after the first hurdles? If that was the case there wouldn't be any planes around as the plane pioneers would have aborted development early on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif how can you even stoop to trying to defend this plane making it into FB

is it because its German ?!?!

theres NO proof that the Ta-183 would have ever made it into production in the configuration of the captured drawings - no one knows anything about its possible RL flight performance other than the wooden mock-ups showed instability in the wind tunnel

you have rubbished other "what-if" planes in the past over with "most flowen only please" comments - why does the Huckbein suddenly reach Thor's approval ?!?

Badsight.
05-05-2006, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by mgoyat:
More planes = more goodness. this is true - but up to a point

all planes in FB so far are based on something real - even the Bf-Z

the Ta-183 , however good or bad it flys , will be pure speculation . the first real FB UFO

dont get me wrong i love the look of it & im probably one of FB's biggest Jet plane fans

but considering the RL happenings regarding the Ta-183 its not worthy of inclusion


.


"what if 1946"

DE = 5 jets + 1 rocket

RU = 2 jets + 3 rockets

GB+USA = 1 jet

even tho i dont like the Meteor - i can see the worth of a Mk4 over the Huckbein . its obvious

pip_pip_old_boy
05-05-2006, 02:34 AM
If it never left early design stage ie wind tunnel mock ups, basic design ect. Then where the hell would the modeler get the required info to build a cockpit? If there is a cockpit then it would be complete work of fiction and would make a mockery of the excuse that has been long used about lack of info about X planes cockpit for it to be made, but you could say this already about the bf-109Z.

stathem
05-05-2006, 02:37 AM
In effect, the development status of the Ta183 in Spring 1945 was at a similar stage to the Miles M52...

Aaron_GT
05-05-2006, 02:53 AM
In effect, the development status of the Ta183 in Spring 1945 was at a similar stage to the Miles M52...

In Spring 1945 this was true, although in the end the M.52 was two-thirds complete before the manned part of the project was abandoned and the research materials were turned over to Bell.

ElAurens
05-05-2006, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

is it because its German ?!?!



Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!!!!!

I'd better never hear another word about the Mig 3U if this bit of Swabian wishful thinking makes it into the game.

Be sure.

And if that total work of fantasy makes it why can't we have this...

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

This aircraft actually flew.

HellToupee
05-05-2006, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mgoyat:
More planes = more goodness. this is true - but up to a point

all planes in FB so far are based on something real - even the Bf-Z

the Ta-183 , however good or bad it flys , will be pure speculation . the first real FB UFO

dont get me wrong i love the look of it & im probably one of FB's biggest Jet plane fans

but considering the RL happenings regarding the Ta-183 its not worthy of inclusion


.


"what if 1946"

DE = 5 jets + 1 rocket

RU = 2 jets + 3 rockets

GB+USA = 1 jet

even tho i dont like the Meteor - i can see the worth of a Mk4 over the Huckbein . its obvious </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well if you dont like the meteor theres the vampire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
05-05-2006, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
the Ta-183 , however good or bad it flys , will be pure speculation . the first real FB UFO

You mean after the YP-80 with it's outright ridiculus FM. That plane doesn't stall neither looses E in turns, accelerates like the best piston engined fighters at any speed and basically feels like a rocket fighter.

Yeah, right.

MrMoonlight
05-05-2006, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:

And if that total work of fantasy makes it why can't we have this...

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

This aircraft actually flew.

Exactly what I said in my post earlier in this thread. If we're gonna go the "fantasy" route, why not include something from Japan as well...like the Shinden, Kikka, Ki-94, R2Y1, A7M2. Although they didn't see combat, these were planes that were actually built and flown.

And the Meteor wouldn't have been a bad choice either. Would have been good to have something from GB represented as well.

ElAurens
05-05-2006, 05:33 AM
Nice to see that Kurfy has never flown the YP-80 in game...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fox_3
05-05-2006, 05:33 AM
Flying around in your 109, P51, Spitfire whatever, is just as much fantasy as flying the Ta-183.

Reality check people this is a game.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-05-2006, 05:36 AM
A game which the makers of, to this point, have prided themselves on 'unparralelled historical accuracy'...

Brain32
05-05-2006, 05:44 AM
Nice to see that Kurfy has never flown the YP-80 in game...
Well he sure described it very well...

Why are you people so much against Ta183, is it because it's German? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


well if you dont like the meteor theres the vampire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Exactly Gloster Meteor is POS, if you wan't a British jet(I sure do) then the Vampire would be much better choice, besides it even looks better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Charos
05-05-2006, 06:07 AM
The Ta183 may not have flown directly but indirectly yes.

http://www.smb.nu/images/svenskavingar/86.jpg

Badsight.
05-05-2006, 06:08 AM
actually - the Meteor Mk4 was a sorted A/C . it was the first Meteor with Schwalb beating performance

One F.4 prototype had its guns removed and engines uprated to set a world speed record of 606 MPH on Nov 7th 1945

but your right - seeing as the Mk4 Meteor is a 1947 A/C , the Vampire Mk.1 is a much better choice

Kurfurst__
05-05-2006, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Exactly Gloster Meteor is POS, if you wan't a British jet(I sure do) then the Vampire would be much better choice, besides it even looks better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Vampire, droooool! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bremspropeller
05-05-2006, 06:24 AM
The Add-On is to be called "'46" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Therefore we don't need any "the plane has never flown in RL" discussions.

I mean - will we ever see the Ta 183 on a DF server ? I don't think so - just as we don't see the 262 on servers - even on "FR" ones.
At least not on "FR" servers without the YP-80.

Well, face it guys - don't bleme the german engineers (or even Oleg!) for the Yanks sucking at jet-devellopment http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


A nice one would be a Gloster Meteor, though it's gonna be shnizzelled out of the sky http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

stathem
05-05-2006, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Charos:
The Ta183 may not have flown directly but indirectly yes.

http://www.smb.nu/images/svenskavingar/86.jpg

Which has a low tail and wing fences, both of which the 3D model of the Ta lacks.

luftluuver
05-05-2006, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
A nice one would be a Gloster Meteor, though it's gonna be shnizzelled out of the sky http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif Why would the Meteor F4 be shnizzelled out of the sky?

WOLFMondo
05-05-2006, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Exactly Gloster Meteor is POS, if you wan't a British jet(I sure do) then the Vampire would be much better choice, besides it even looks better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Vampire, droooool! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you on meds? I didn't think you allowed yourself to like anything British :P

NagaSadow84
05-05-2006, 07:20 AM
The tail of the Ta 183 V1 was interchangeable. There was also a version with a low tail.

Kiku104
05-05-2006, 07:22 AM
As far as German '46 planes go, I would much rather the Messerschmitt P.1101 than the Ta 183. The V1 prototype was about 80% complete when captured. Unfortunately it was damaged in shipping, so plans to complete it in the US never can to fruition. However, it was the basis for the Bell X-5.

The X-5 is not an exact replica of the P.1101, but it's a hell of a lot closer than the Pulqui II or Tunnan are to the Ta 183.

CdtWeasel
05-05-2006, 07:35 AM
We need a P.11z (or was it a G model, memory is a little hazy this morning). Upengined and upgunned P.11 that would totally own anything else flying in 1939/40 maybe later too. No hard data but seems the prototype was built and flown with some success in '39 by one of the top Polish aces.

csThor
05-05-2006, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

how can you even stoop to trying to defend this plane making it into FB

is it because its German ?!?!

theres NO proof that the Ta-183 would have ever made it into production in the configuration of the captured drawings - no one knows anything about its possible RL flight performance other than the wooden mock-ups showed instability in the wind tunnel

you have rubbished other "what-if" planes in the past over with "most flowen only please" comments - why does the Huckbein suddenly reach Thor's approval ?!?

A) I stand by my words that real planes should be taken into consideration well before any "What if". The topic of "1946 - What-if" does pretty much rule out any history, though.
B) I am not defending the inclusion of the Ta 183 into FB nor am I defending the choice of the AddOn theme by Luthier's crew.
C) I would have prefered a solid roundout of the Eastern Front with a Il-4, Hs 123, Hs 129, later variants of He 111 and Ju 88 and maybe even a Fw 189 as something new (Yeah - I'd actually fly recon campaigns with the right types. Can you say artillery observation? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

What I was trying to say, BadSight, is my amusement in seeing people taking the Ta 183 at its project status at the end of WW2 as something of an "unchangeable thing". I mean what was ready? A 1:1 wooden model for wind channel tests? This ting was months away from its maiden flight.
I have no idea about the aerodynamical characteristics of this plane nor do I particularly care if it could have flown this way or not. I just simply refuse to believe that Kurt Tank's team would have been too blind to see the problems and look for solutions. This could result in the cancellation of the whole project or a total redesign or some "simple" changes. I have no idea which way Tank would have gone, but fact is he didn't go any way besides to Argentina. Simply because WW2 ended on May 8 1945 in Europe.

My 0,02 " ...

HellToupee
05-05-2006, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
the Ta-183 , however good or bad it flys , will be pure speculation . the first real FB UFO

You mean after the YP-80 with it's outright ridiculus FM. That plane doesn't stall neither looses E in turns, accelerates like the best piston engined fighters at any speed and basically feels like a rocket fighter.

Yeah, right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sif quote me for for someone elses quoted post, however the me262 fm is also pretty generious in its turn and ease of handling.

WOLFMondo
05-05-2006, 09:38 AM
Why are things always tit for tat around here? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Bremspropeller
05-05-2006, 10:10 AM
The Ta 183 has never flown.
Wind-tunnel tests showed thatthe planes was very unsatble in several flight-regiemes.

BUT: the Fw 190 also went through serious teething-problems (the whole project was almos trashed; only the test-pilots' efforts to save the plane kept the project alive).
Just imagine that Tank and his devellopment team also got over these problems (I know this is very hypothetical, but not much more than Go-229s in front-line service).

By the way: do you frequently fly the current "what if" planes ? I can only speak for myself, but I almost never fly those planes - not offline and also not online.
I think the Ta 183 won't change much with my attitude towards those planes.
It'll be just another "hangar queen" since most servers (maybe with the exception of jet-servers ..) are gonna ban it.

BTW: what about a USAF+RAF+Lw vs. VVS scenario ?

Keep in mind: you don't have to fly it - it was not really requested, but once we have it, we'll get along with it - just like the Go-229 or the 109Z.

One13
05-05-2006, 11:12 AM
For those interested-

De Havilland Vampire
First flight September 20th 1943.
F Mk.1 first flight April 20th 1945.
First aircraft to 247 Squadron from March 1946 (though I have seen references to them flying some in September 1945).

F Mk.1 had de Havilland goblin engine of 2,700lb thrust. From 40th aircraft this was changed to goblin 2 of 3,100lb thrust.

Maximum speed 531mph/854kph at 17,500ft/5.330m.
Wing loading 32lb per square ft.
Inital climb rate 4,200 ft per minute.
Ceiling 42,800ft/13,045m.
Take off weight 8,800lb/3,992Kg.
Span 40ft/12.2m.
Length 30ft 8in/9.4m
Height 8ft 1in/2.4m.
Wing area 266sq ft/24.7sq m.
Armament 4x20mm hispano Mk.V cannon with 150 rounds each.

It could out manouvere a Spitfre Mk.XIV except for inital acceleration at low speed and rolling.

So slightly slower than the Me262 but more manouverable.

It would make a perfect addition to the 46 addon as it was a 1946 aircraft.
Saddly we will never see it ingame.

Viper2005_
05-05-2006, 11:40 AM
In the WWII context it's a Spider-Crab, not a Vampire!

I would suggest that in the final analysis we'll take whatever aeroplanes we can get. Certainly there are aeroplanes I would place higher on the "to do" list than the Ta-183 if it were my sim. But it's not.

Anyway, I think that the Ta will be a fun aeroplane to fly.

NagaSadow84
05-05-2006, 11:49 AM
Might be of interest to some.

Focke-Wulf Entwurf V (January 1944)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/NagaSadow/Ta183/FwEntwurfVb.jpg

Focke-Wulf Entwurf V Alternative (January 1944)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/NagaSadow/Ta183/FwEntwurfVAlternative.jpg

Focke-Wulf Ta 183 A-1 (January 1945)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/NagaSadow/Ta183/FwTa183A-1b.jpg

Focke-Wulf Ta 183 Entwurf III-1 (February 1945)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/NagaSadow/Ta183/FwTa183EntwurfIIIb.jpg

Focke-Wulf Ta 183 Entwurf III-2 (February 1945)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/NagaSadow/Ta183/FwTa183EntwurfIII2b.jpg

Focke-Wulf Fw 232 (February 1945)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/NagaSadow/Ta183/fw232a.jpg

Focke-Wulf Fw 252.1 (February 1945)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/NagaSadow/Ta183/Fw252.jpg

Focke-Wulf Fw 252.2 (February 1945)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/NagaSadow/Ta183/Fw2522b.jpg

Focke-Wulf Ta 183 Ra-1 (1945)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/NagaSadow/Ta183/FwTa183Ra1b.jpg

Focke-Wulf Ta 183 Ra-2 (1945)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/NagaSadow/Ta183/FwTa183Ra2b.jpg

Taken from:
€œDie Luftwaffe €" Projekte der deutschen Luftrüstung I€ by Ingolf Meyer

One13
05-05-2006, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
In the WWII context it's a Spider-Crab, not a Vampire!



Vampire name was chosen in April 1944 before production started.

Badsight.
05-05-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by One13:
It would make a perfect addition to the 46 addon as it was a 1946 aircraft.
Saddly we will never see it ingame. this website :
http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/vampire/vampire.htm
has the Mk.1 Vampire with the 2,700Lbs thrust Goblin doing 540 Mph , ive seen figures as low as 540 Mph for the Schwalb top speed bit ive also seen a lot higher , in any case the Vampire would have been the perfect addition

ploughman
05-05-2006, 04:55 PM
Most successfull aircraft look 'right.' There's just something about them, some symetry, some aspect, something that resonates that's correct. The Ta-183 looks like an extra from a Batman film: it doesn't look 'right.'

I'd love a go on a Mig-15/17 though.

BfHeFwMe
05-05-2006, 06:55 PM
What about the Luft 45 add on? Seems we have a huge gap, since the Luft had the pants knocked off them ending 44, how can you have 46 without a 45? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The dismal reception of a booty box laced, one plane type, download only add on, and now gambling on Crimson Skies 46, the final fantasy. Question, will there be any customer base left besides a few delusional forum fans when we get to CS 46? Be nice to polish up and get nearer to a finish on at least one theatre.

But sadly not about to happen. No matter how you spruce it up with thousands of objects and planes, playability's going to remain the same. Life cycle is over.

waffen-79
05-05-2006, 07:19 PM
hey guys if you already knew Oleg commissioned Luthier's crew or RRG Studios then why didn't you ask for your ('46-allied-plane-that-we-built-and-actually-flew-because-we-won-teh-war) and write to them or something.

I've been reading some posts here and I would gladly TRADE (if I were in charge) the Ta-183 for a Meteor, after all '46 is still in development. and it's labeled as "The final add-on in the Il-2 series" so you're running out of time.

Real question here is: why they tend to include exotic german planes?

another polemic planes that come to mind in the IL-2 history are:

Go-229
He-162

were they german?



...exactly

all I wanted in Il-2 was the Ar-234 I could care less about the other '46 content

A.K.Davis
05-05-2006, 07:41 PM
I think an all out effort to include at least one flyable 1946 aircraft for the Western Allies would be a very wise marketing choice for the add-on. I also think the Vampire makes the most sense (along with uping the YP-80 to P-80A status). Too bad the B-29 died, as that would fit very well, too.

AKA_TAGERT
05-05-2006, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Nice to see that Kurfy has never flown the YP-80 in game...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ROTFL

AKA_TAGERT
05-05-2006, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Charos:
The Ta183 may not have flown directly but indirectly yes.

http://www.smb.nu/images/svenskavingar/86.jpg Your Right! Look, they both have wings! Nuff said

HellToupee
05-05-2006, 10:07 PM
well with additional allied jets you can cover all fronts, americans already have the yp80 maybee just change to a p80A, brits could use the meteor and the vampire because as a what if of germany 1946 vs allies theres also the what if of a 1946 russia vs brits and US.

JG54_Lukas
05-06-2006, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
another polemic planes that come to mind in the IL-2 history are:

Go-229
He-162

were they german?



...exactly

The He 162 has been in the game since the original release of IL2, not because "it's German and it's exotic." Not to mention, the cockpit for it was made by a third-party team, namely me and NN_Avirex. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CUJO_1970
05-06-2006, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

how can you even stoop to trying to defend this plane making it into FB




http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Everyone RUN! The purity of FB is about to be tainted!

Boo-freakin-hoo.

Sergio_101
05-06-2006, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well, face it guys - don't bleme the german engineers (or even Oleg!) for the Yanks sucking at jet-devellopment http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Yanks sucking at jet development?
P-80 was the top jet in 1945 through 1947.
Though a short reign it was still the archetype
for all future jet fighter designs.
Yes, powered by a British engine.

Seems to me that the "Yanks sucking" produced
the F-86 (P-86) for 1946, and the B-47 for 1947.

As to the Ta-183, it could not be built to
the original plans, it was to unstable.
Note that planes that did fly have larger
tail surfaces located closer to the wing CL.

But Germany was desperate and defeated by 1943
they put some weird stuff into combat that
no other combatant would havd declared airworthy.

Notably the Me-163.... More dangerous to
it's pilots than to any fighter or bomber.

Notable myths.
Germany was first in jets/gas turbines.
Germany was first in swept wings.
German tech was stolen to develop US swept wing fighters and bombers. (99% BS)
Germany developed the first liquid fueled rockets.

Gas turbines were a Norwegian invention 1903
Swept wings were used from 1903 onwards, and everyone was testing them.
German tech and testing was certainly studied. But the first US planes
to use swept wings were already under construction.
Dr. Robert Goddard, an American, was first to fly a liquid fueled rocket,
and the designs were quite advanced by the outbreak of war.

Sergio

CUJO_1970
05-06-2006, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
but considering the RL happenings regarding the Ta-183 its not worthy of inclusion




Apparenty, Oleg Maddox - the developer and owner of your favorite video game - disagrees with you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Looks like you'll have to learn to deal with it.

Charos
05-06-2006, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Your Right! Look, they both have wings! Nuff said

I agree with this 100%

luftluuver
05-06-2006, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Notably the Me-163.... More dangerous to
it's pilots than to any fighter or bomber.
Sergio Lets hear more about this dangerous a/c.

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_1.asp

HotelBushranger
05-06-2006, 04:02 AM
pip_pip_old_boy, good to see another It Aint Half Hot Mum fan around here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

I, like Badsight and Moonlight, would rather a Japanese plane that was actually built, tested and flown, not these unstable pipe dreams.

bazzaah2
05-06-2006, 04:54 AM
What we'll get is a speculative version of how the Ta 183 might have flown, if it had..errr..flown. Pure speculation, informed maybe, though speculation nonetheless, just like the 109Z. Mind you it'll be part of a fictional add on so might be fun to play with it once or twice, just like the Go229. I'd love it if we got a real dog that had been rushed into service, rather than the generously modelled Mig15(alleged) precursor superplane I suspect we'll end up with.

I can fully understand why we should have the Ta 183 and not the Spit XIV.

I've made a couple of other balsawood models for my home wind tunnel and maybe we can have those in the game too.

ploughman
05-06-2006, 05:03 AM
I've made a couple of other balsawood models for my home wind tunnel and maybe we can have those in the game too.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

I've been dying for one of these to get in the game but I've always been affraid to ask...now it's a possibility.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/balsaxwing.jpg

Aaron_GT
05-06-2006, 06:44 AM
Though a short reign it was still the archetype
for all future jet fighter designs.

You could reasonably argue that the F-86 was an archetype (along with the Mig-15) but the P-80 was an evolutionary dead end as it lacked swept wings. It was not an archetype, but was the pinnacle of the first generation of jet fighters (e.g. Me 262, Meteor, Vampire, P59, P80).

Aaron_GT
05-06-2006, 06:46 AM
What we'll get is a speculative version of how the Ta 183 might have flown, if it had..errr..flown. Pure speculation, informed maybe, though speculation nonetheless, just like the 109Z.

In theory it would be possible to model the aerodynamics of the aircraft. X-Plane allows you do this to a certain extent, although not sufficiently to get any sort of answer. But in theory if someone has a spare large beowulf machiine lying around and some licences for some fluid dynamics packages we could model it.

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Yanks sucking at jet development?
P-80 was the top jet in 1945 through 1947.
Though a short reign it was still the archetype
for all future jet fighter designs.
Yes, powered by a British engine.

Seems to me that the "Yanks sucking" produced
the F-86 (P-86) for 1946, and the B-47 for 1947.

As to the Ta-183, it could not be built to
the original plans, it was to unstable.
Note that planes that did fly have larger
tail surfaces located closer to the wing CL.

But Germany was desperate and defeated by 1943
they put some weird stuff into combat that
no other combatant would havd declared airworthy.

Notably the Me-163.... More dangerous to
it's pilots than to any fighter or bomber.

Notable myths.
Germany was first in jets/gas turbines.
Germany was first in swept wings.
German tech was stolen to develop US swept wing fighters and bombers. (99% BS)
Germany developed the first liquid fueled rockets.

Gas turbines were a Norwegian invention 1903
Swept wings were used from 1903 onwards, and everyone was testing them.
German tech and testing was certainly studied. But the first US planes to use swept wings were already under construction.
Dr. Robert Goddard, an American, was first to fly a liquid fueled rocket, and the designs were quite advanced by the outbreak of war.

Sergio Agreed 100%

Heliopause
05-06-2006, 09:09 AM
The first P-86 design had straight wings...after german testresults were captured it received swept wings. ( and wing leading-edge slots)

ElAurens
05-06-2006, 09:59 AM
Here we go again...

The Germans invented everything...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Enjoy your thread Luftwhiner fanbois...

ploughman
05-06-2006, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Heliopause:
blah, blah, blah...( and wing leading-edge slots)

I thought those things were a Handley-Page development from the 1920s or something. Hardly top line Nazi technology recovered from the ruins of the Reich.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-06-2006, 10:25 AM
Allow me, Ploughman, old chum...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/handley20page20hp5020heyford.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/general20aircraft20gal205620back.jpg

waffen-79
05-06-2006, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Here we go again...

The Germans invented everything...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



ok here we go again...

Then WHY did allies secured German Military hardware, especially aircraft?? eh?

"well we did it because someone could find them first and hurt themselves" LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LOL so much whine for a plane that won't even be online, geez

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
Then WHY did allies secured German Military hardware, especially aircraft?? eh? We were putting togther a book of "what not to do" and needed a few examples, in that none of ours fit the bill

Aaron_GT
05-06-2006, 11:04 AM
If it was what not to do, why did the USA adopt the V1 as the Loon?

Some of the German technology was valid, even if some was a development of existing technology of the sort also being developed by the Allies. Some of it was bogus, and it was useful to know what was bogus. However what was the real prize, it seems, were the scientists working on the projects as it was recognised that they could, with access to Allied data too, and with better resources, be useful. The class example being von Braun. Thankfully some German scientists defected before the war (notably Einstein).

Charos
05-06-2006, 11:05 AM
1872 Gas turbine with axial-flow compressor and multistage reaction turbine patented: built 1902-04. (F Stolze, Germany)

ploughman
05-06-2006, 11:06 AM
Yeah. And why'd they call it the Loon?

Heliopause
05-06-2006, 11:14 AM
I was merely saying what happened to the P-86 design and how it was influenced, I didn't say that germans invented everything....

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Yeah. And why'd they call it the Loon? ROTFL

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
If it was what not to do, why did the USA adopt the V1 as the Loon? I see you never heard of the BATT


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Some of the German technology was valid, even if some was a development of existing technology of the sort also being developed by the Allies. Some of it was bogus, and it was useful to know what was bogus. However what was the real prize, it seems, were the scientists working on the projects as it was recognised that they could, with access to Allied data too, and with better resources, be useful. The class example being von Braun. Thankfully some German scientists defected before the war (notably Einstein). Well, einstein was more jewish that German.. that whole country without a country thing.. As for Braun, he did come in handy in that Goddard died right after the war. Had Goddard lived, Braun would have been Goddard's gopher. On that note, if Braun was ALL THAT.. How did the Russians manage to beat us into space?

Brain32
05-06-2006, 11:41 AM
Geeeeeeeez Tagert it's OK, no it's very cool to be a patriot, but keep it real please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

VW-IceFire
05-06-2006, 11:47 AM
Seems like the Ta-183 won't be the greatest of jet fighters. I mean, its going to likely be very fast, but its bound to be unstable or unpleasant to fly. And the armament suggests its a bomber killer like the Me-262 with its 4 MK108 cannons. Not the greatest for hitting a fast mover like a P-80 or a MIG-9.

anarchy52
05-06-2006, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
On that note, if Braun was ALL THAT.. How did the Russians manage to beat us into space?

Prepared to risk more lives to be there first. They got there first, but it cost lives.

As for the Americans, few people know that project Manhattan brought us something other then fission weapons - it was the birth of modern project management (many of the core concepts, tools etc.).
That was perhaps the most signifficant technological breakthrough achieved by the Allies, although the implications weren't immediatelly obvious. Bad PM is what made Soviets lose the race to the moon.

I don't believe in any nation's intellectual superiority. Flag waving is stupid, unfortunatelly it's still popular all over the world.

anarchy52
05-06-2006, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Seems like the Ta-183 won't be the greatest of jet fighters. I mean, its going to likely be very fast, but its bound to be unstable or unpleasant to fly. And the armament suggests its a bomber killer like the Me-262 with its 4 MK108 cannons. Not the greatest for hitting a fast mover like a P-80 or a MIG-9.

Ta-183 FM will be pure speculation. Low quality FM just like YP-80. I have no doubt it will be modelled as inferior to the MiG of course.

Those russians sure knew how to bend the laws of physics (MiG-3, LaGG-3...)

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Geeeeeeeez Tagert it's OK, no it's very cool to be a patriot, but keep it real please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Ah, Ok, so let me see if I understand this logic of yours.. Someone posts some german flag waving thing, I counter with a flag waving thing, and I am the only one to get accused of flag waving? Is that how it works? Or was the sore spot pointing out that Braus V2 used some 20 of Goddards patents from the 20s and 30s?

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Seems like the Ta-183 won't be the greatest of jet fighters. I mean, its going to likely be very fast, but its bound to be unstable or unpleasant to fly. And the armament suggests its a bomber killer like the Me-262 with its 4 MK108 cannons. Not the greatest for hitting a fast mover like a P-80 or a MIG-9. Bingo! You just described the evolution of all German designs. Started out on the O and needed fighters, as time went by they were on the D and needed buff chasiers.. No need to be nimbal to chace a B17, just climb fast to meet em and have big guns.

VW-IceFire
05-06-2006, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Seems like the Ta-183 won't be the greatest of jet fighters. I mean, its going to likely be very fast, but its bound to be unstable or unpleasant to fly. And the armament suggests its a bomber killer like the Me-262 with its 4 MK108 cannons. Not the greatest for hitting a fast mover like a P-80 or a MIG-9.

Ta-183 FM will be pure speculation. Low quality FM just like YP-80. I have no doubt it will be modelled as inferior to the MiG of course.

Those russians sure knew how to bend the laws of physics (MiG-3, LaGG-3...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where do you come up with this stuff? Low quality P-80 FM?

anarchy52
05-06-2006, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Where do you come up with this stuff? Low quality P-80 FM?

P-80 pilot's comment on the in game YP-80.

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
P-80 pilot's comment on the in game YP-80. Got Track?

goshikisen
05-06-2006, 12:52 PM
These add-ons were originally intended for the Russian market, weren't they? I can see why a MiG-9 would be a bigger draw than say a Typhoon if we were to take into account the intended market. At this point it's a big bonus to see a classic, but admittedly, long in the tooth sim getting any attention at all.

I still don't quite understand the desire for planes like the Lancaster, He-219 and the Black Widow. Not only is the sim not set up for these types of aircraft but also... the missions would be fairly unattractive to anyone but the most enthusiastic of simmers. That is, if we were going to use the planes in their intended role.

VW-IceFire
05-06-2006, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Where do you come up with this stuff? Low quality P-80 FM?

P-80 pilot's comment on the in game YP-80. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok....support that...

Who...where...what did he say.

Sergio_101
05-06-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Heliopause:
The first P-86 design had straight wings...after german testresults were captured it received swept wings. ( and wing leading-edge slots)

To argue this point is like pissin into the wind.
BAD popular press has posted this nonsense
and Luftlovers gloat over the misinformation.

The US Navy version of the F-86, the FJ-1
was straight wing.
http://f-86.tripod.com/fj1.html
The USAF version was NEVER to be anything
but swept wing.
And the design period was such that the German
data was likely not used.

Was there a German influence?
Sure. Everyone knew of the Me-262.

Remember, the NACA was working on the idea
of swept wings in the 1930's.
This orginization also developed the idea of
laminar flow, and "area ruling". Most if not
all successful radial engined figters of WWII
had a cowl designed along the NACA cowl ideas.

NACA is now NASA.

NO F-86/P-86 EVER had a straight wing.

Sergio

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
To argue this point is like pissin into the wind.
BAD popular press has posted this nonsense
and Luftlovers gloat over the misinformation.

The US Navy version of the F-86, the FJ-1
was straight wing.
http://f-86.tripod.com/fj1.html
The USAF version was NEVER to be anything
but swept wing.
And the design period was such that the German
data was likely not used.

Was there a German influence?
Sure. Everyone knew of the Me-262.

Remember, the NACA was working on the idea
of swept wings in the 1930's.
This orginization also developed the idea of
laminar flow, and "area ruling". Most if not
all successful radial engined figters of WWII
had a cowl designed along the NACA cowl ideas.

NACA is now NASA.

NO F-86/P-86 EVER had a straight wing.

Sergio Agreed 100%!

Badsight.
05-06-2006, 02:16 PM
look up FJ-2 , & why the FJ-1 was immediatly thought of as needing replacement

too bad the FJ-2 wasnt in Korea - id take the 20mm's anyday with the slight carrier-equipment weight penalty over the F-86

CUJO - im for all the famous what-if planes - the more the merrier , but up to a point . considering what we know about the Ta-183 in the form it was captured , its one plane that despite being really interesting should be passed over . like the J7W2 if they ever decided to model Shindens . the J7W2 never became a prototype - all it was is a drawing . the Ta-183 isnt like the Bf-Z <~~ im glad that thing is in FB & there is at least some credible info that its FM can be based on

incidently , the Mig-9 was a straight wing plane with its own problems - from the small amount of info available on it , it doesnt seem like the Schwalb beating fantasy that is the FB P-80

NagaSadow84
05-06-2006, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Charos:
The Ta183 may not have flown directly but indirectly yes.

http://www.smb.nu/images/svenskavingar/86.jpg

Actually the SAAB J-29 was a copy of the Messerschmitt P. 1101 €" just like the Bell X-5. The Ta 183 played no roll in the development.

ElAurens
05-06-2006, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Here we go again...

The Germans invented everything...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



ok here we go again...

Then WHY did allies secured German Military hardware, especially aircraft?? eh?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Allies also took representative examples of most Japanese types as well. It's called Technical Intelligence, and it has nothing to do with the kind of Germanic p3n1s envy you seem to think is is.

You always look at what your enemy is using, good, bad, or indifferent. Every side in the war did it. And every nation that can do it still does it.

Stolly
05-06-2006, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Whats a moot?
It's like a wee loch aroond yer hoose.

Scottish joke. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol thats funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
The Allies also took representative examples of most Japanese types as well. It's called Technical Intelligence, and it has nothing to do with the kind of Germanic p3n1s envy you seem to think is is.

You always look at what your enemy is using, good, bad, or indifferent. Every side in the war did it. And every nation that can do it still does it. Exactally!

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by NagaSadow84:
Actually the SAAB J-29 was a copy of the Messerschmitt P. 1101 €" just like the Bell X-5. The Ta 183 played no roll in the development. Your Right! Look, they both have wings! Nuff said

Aaron_GT
05-06-2006, 03:22 PM
I see you never heard of the BATT

1. I have.
2. How is that relevant? You have bizzare logic.

Aaron_GT
05-06-2006, 03:24 PM
I see you never heard of the BATT

Well, einstein was more jewish that German..

Judaism is a religion, Jewishness is an ethnicity, being German is a nationality. There were plenty of Jews who considered themselves German, and even won decorations fighting for the Imperial German Army in WW1. Hence the terrible injustice they felt when Hitler's regime treated them as if they were no longer German.

Kocur_
05-06-2006, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Heliopause:
The first P-86 design had straight wings...after german testresults were captured it received swept wings. ( and wing leading-edge slots)

The US Navy version of the F-86, the FJ-1
was straight wing.
http://f-86.tripod.com/fj1.html
The USAF version was NEVER to be anything
but swept wing.
And the design period was such that the German
data was likely not used.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



In second half of 1944 USN accepted North American first jet fighter design and on 1st january 1945 a contract was signed to produce XFJ-1 Fury with J35-C. The plane was new fuselage plus wings and tail surfaces of P-51.
USAAF got interested in the plane and ordered in rush a similar one, i.e. longer, redesigned fuselage with the same wings, designated XP-86. WW2 ended, need for a new jet fighter was less urgent and everything was slowed down. XP-86 problem was that calculated top speed was to be merely 925kmh, when USAAF demanded 1000kmh. And then...

In August 1944, Ed Horkey, North American Chief Aerodynamicist, went to NACA at Langley Field to study the effects of a very thin wing operating at high Mach numbers. He was informed that no data existed for such a design. In 1945, Allied forces overran German test facilities, including one conducting research into the effects of wing sweep. The Me-262 jet fighter had a mild (150) sweep to the leading edge of its wing. It was also discovered that Messerschmitthad been working on a radically swept (350) version of the Me-262, called the Pfeilflugelor 'arrow wing'.
(...)
Green, Walter Koch (who spoke fluent German), Dale Meyers, and Harrison Storms set up four Recordaks, and began translating the material being funneled to North American by Wright Field. Within the captured material were considerable data concerning the use of wing leading edge movable surfaces, commonly called 'slats' as a possible solution to the instability problems.
(...)
Slowly but surely, North American's engineers brought the design to its final shape. But the slat design remained a problem. Finally, an entire Me-262 wing was flown in from Wright Field. North American's engineers disassembled the slats and modified the slat track mechanism to fit the XP-86 wing, using the Me-262 slat lock and control switch. Although not perfect, it was a start and the slat worked. In fact, the first seven aircraft used Me-262 slat locks and tracks.


Entire story is here: http://sabre-pilots.org/classics/v53sabre.htm . Naa, Germans didnt invent everything. But denying, that LOTS of German data on technologies developed there before and during WW2 were used in many fields of warfare technologies in many countries, among which US surely was neither last nor least to do so, is just plain stupid.

waffen-79
05-06-2006, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Entire story is here: http://sabre-pilots.org/classics/v53sabre.htm . Naa, Germans didnt invent everything. But denying, that LOTS of German data on technologies developed there before and during WW2 were used in many fields of warfare technologies in many countries, among which US surely was neither last nor least to do so, is just plain stupid.

Agree 110%

You know.. germans also captured a B-17, Mosquito Mk??? and other stuff, they even wanted to produce their own version: the Moskito Ta-154, now that's the Ta- I want in '46 addon.

Sergio_101
05-06-2006, 05:33 PM
Kocur_

As I said, the facts don't bear out bad popular press.

Sergio

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Judaism is a religion, Jewishness is an ethnicity, being German is a nationality. There were plenty of Jews who considered themselves German, and even won decorations fighting for the Imperial German Army in WW1. Hence the terrible injustice they felt when Hitler's regime treated them as if they were no longer German. So, does not change the fact that Jews were for the most part countryless, and lived among others within thier countries, and many did NOT consider themselfs German.

BfHeFwMe
05-06-2006, 07:32 PM
Me and my Fantasy Plane, .... .....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/StreetlightPeople.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

PraetorHonoris
05-06-2006, 08:04 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 Aaron_GT:
Judaism is a religion, Jewishness is an ethnicity, being German is a nationality. There were plenty of Jews who considered themselves German, and even won decorations fighting for the Imperial German Army in WW1. Hence the terrible injustice they felt when Hitler's regime treated them as if they were no longer German. So, does not change the fact that Jews were for the most part countryless, and lived among others within thier countries, and many did NOT consider themselfs German. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may share that wisdom with Frederick William III., King of Prussia, who granted citizenship to all Jews in 1812 (Emanzipationsedikt).
In 1871, after the unification of Germany, at latest the Jews in all German states were granted fully citizenship with all privilegs and duties following the Prussian example. So they were hardly countryless...

Hitler denationalized them in 1935.

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
You may share that wisdom with Frederick William III., King of Prussia, who granted citizenship to all Jews in 1812 (Emanzipationsedikt). Sure, dig him up and Ill set him straight


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
In 1871, after the unification of Germany, at latest the Jews in all German states were granted fully citizenship with all privilegs and duties following the Prussian example. So they were hardly countryless... Didnt mean to imply they did not have citizenship in the countrys that they live in. The point I was making, and you missed, is no mater what country they lived in most considered themselfs Jewish first, <insert country name> second. So when Eninstine came to the US from Germany, it was not like he gave up one country for another, Jewish wise. Not until after the war, when they were given back thier homeland did they really have a country they could call home and feel like they are at home.


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Hitler denationalized them in 1935. Guess he didnt think much of Frederick the III either, and they wonder why most Jews back then considered themselfs Jewish first.. S like that, was not the first time they were run out of a country.

PraetorHonoris
05-06-2006, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Sure, dig him up and Ill set him straight

About what? That you just told everybody the Jews were countryless in his country, although he gave them citizenship? Ok then, visit him at his grave.
By the way, have you ever thought about why the jews were granted citizenship? Think about...


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Didnt mean to imply they did not have citizenship in the countrys that they live in. The point I was making, and you missed, is no mater what country they lived in most considered themselfs Jewish first, <insert country name> second. So when Eninstine came to the US from Germany, it was not like he gave up one country for another, Jewish wise. Not until after the war, when they were given back thier homeland did they really have a country they could call home and feel like they are at home.

Agreed. However: The point I make, is the "fact that Jews were for the most part countryless" (your words concerning Germany) is no fact, but just your false statement.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Guess he didnt think much of Frederick the III

Guess you mean Fredrick William III, not his Grandson Frederick III... anyway, just another proof for Hitler's misjudgement.

AKA_TAGERT
05-06-2006, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Sure, dig him up and Ill set him straight

About what? That you just told everybody the Jews were countryless in his country, although he gave them citizenship? Ok then, visit him at his grave.
By the way, have you ever thought about why the jews were granted citizenship? Think about...


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Didnt mean to imply they did not have citizenship in the countrys that they live in. The point I was making, and you missed, is no mater what country they lived in most considered themselfs Jewish first, <insert country name> second. So when Eninstine came to the US from Germany, it was not like he gave up one country for another, Jewish wise. Not until after the war, when they were given back thier homeland did they really have a country they could call home and feel like they are at home.

Agreed. However: The point I make, is the "fact that Jews were for the most part countryless" (your words concerning Germany) is no fact, but just your false statement.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Guess he didnt think much of Frederick the III

Guess you mean Fredrick William III, not his Grandson Frederick III... anyway, just another proof for Hitler's misjudgement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If beliving that helps you get thruogh you day, more power to you, but no sale here.

ElAurens
05-06-2006, 09:38 PM
Um, guys. this is a thread about aeroplanes.

OK?

HotelBushranger
05-06-2006, 11:16 PM
Exactly, it'll get locked soon for political/religious reasons.

Now guys, the bottom line is if you wanna fly fantasy jet planes go off and buy LOMAC. Otherwise, stick with the prop planes that should be/about to be implemented. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

jasonbirder
05-07-2006, 02:03 AM
Now guys, the bottom line is if you wanna fly fantasy jet planes go off and buy LOMAC. Otherwise, stick with the prop planes that should be/about to be implemented

Surely the whole point of having something like 200 flyable planes is choice no one is expecting everyone to fly them all and enjoy them all equally...if there are some in (or about to be in) the game that you don't like...don't fly them...it seems pretty straight forward to me...
No-ne is going to frogmarch you to the PC and make you fly a Mig9 or whatever at gunpoint...if its not to your taste...merely use your mouse to select another plane...
There are planes i'd rather see implemented in the sim than some that are upcoming...but thats my personal preference i'll be more than happy to take what comes and enjoy them when they arrive!

HotelBushranger
05-07-2006, 02:35 AM
No-ne is going to frogmarch you to the PC and make you fly a Mig9 or whatever at gunpoint

You never know with these mods... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

My point is that it is a WW2 prominently prop sim. People are letting their lust for speed and jets overwhelm them, there are already heaps of jet sims; why make Il2 a jet sim too when there are so many prop planes still needed?

luftluuver
05-07-2006, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
My point is that it is a WW2 prominently prop sim. People are letting their lust for speed and jets overwhelm them, there are already heaps of jet sims; why make Il2 a jet sim too when there are so many prop planes still needed? Wasn't this game supposed to be only a ground pounding Eastern Front game?

Brain32
05-07-2006, 05:26 AM
I really don't understand all this hassle about '46 add-on. As far as we know it's still in developement we don't know what else they might include, we don't know what else they might be even considering and we will not know until some of those boys comes here and writes a list. Also we don't know where are they getting their data, is anybody 100% sure Russians did not built TA183 by original design? The reason why I'm quite pleased with inclusion of Ta183 is that I see it as a certain tribute to Kurt Tank as a scientist and engineer. Not to mention that this add-on will contain some really interesting Russian projects and an actual plane that flew and fight in WW2 - Ar234. Seriously I don't see how could anbody that's enthusiastic about aviation be dissapointed about it, we're looking at the dawn of jet-fighter era here, a very important part of aviation history(IMO).

HotelBushranger
05-07-2006, 06:02 AM
What I dislike most, is all the people constantly asking for last-minute uber types of their preferred mounts with the only purpose of kicking a$$ in the DF servers. That's not simming at all.

DuxCorvan just posted that in ORR and I fully support it 100%, I think he has summed it up perfectly.

DmdSeeker
05-07-2006, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:

Surely the whole point of having something like 200 flyable planes is choice no one is expecting everyone to fly them all and enjoy them all equally...if there are some in (or about to be in) the game that you don't like...don't fly them...it seems pretty straight forward to me...
No-ne is going to frogmarch you to the PC and make you fly a Mig9 or whatever at gunpoint...if its not to your taste...merely use your mouse to select another plane...
There are planes i'd rather see implemented in the sim than some that are upcoming...but thats my personal preference i'll be more than happy to take what comes and enjoy them when they arrive!

They may not make me fly them; but they're more than capable of making me buy them; as they've done with the present patch which MUST be bought if one whishes to add later; more relevant upgrades.

Now; I've no particular beef with the Pe-2 (but then again no real interest either); and I may have bought it anyway; but considering the current **** up of a distribution policy; I'm annoyed that I'll probably have to not only download the IL-2 "crimson skies edition" patch but probably also some other horror on to my machine to stay current with the majority of online servers.

waffen-79
05-07-2006, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I dislike most, is all the people constantly asking for last-minute uber types of their preferred mounts with the only purpose of kicking a$$ in the DF servers. That's not simming at all.

DuxCorvan just posted that in ORR and I fully support it 100%, I think he has summed it up perfectly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and who asked for the Ta-183?

for me it was a total surprise, I was ONLY hoping they include the Blitz...

Face it guys, we luftbois don't call the shots, RRG Studios and Oleg are.

You should talk to them

Bremspropeller
05-07-2006, 11:36 AM
I have absolutely nothing useful to add.

Von_Rat
05-07-2006, 02:05 PM
not everybody is a strictly historical flying nut. some people like what if planes.

i see alot of people here complaining that their vision of this sim is not being followed.

well its not just your sim, its everybodys, and everybody doesn't share your vision of what this sim should be.

VW-IceFire
05-07-2006, 02:17 PM
Of my campaigns most downloaded....one of them is the historical what if scenario that I presented in The Shooting Stars. You fly the P-80 against Go-229s, and Me-262s, and Ta-152s and its alot of fun.

http://mission4today.com/uploads/downloads/images/2_theshootingstars.jpg

I did this one for fun, mostly because I didn't want to do a more serious historical campaign till I had worked out the details of making campaigns for this game but it went well and its a lot of fun to play. I would almost suggest that some of you try it just to see what sort of fun can be had within a what-if scenario.

I suspect that I may go back and so something like this again sometime.

AKA_TAGERT
05-07-2006, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Where do you come up with this stuff? Low quality P-80 FM?

P-80 pilot's comment on the in game YP-80. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok....support that...

Who...where...what did he say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks IceFire! Looks like that did the trick, simply call him on it and he leaves the topic! Nice Work! I knew he was full of it

actionhank1786
05-08-2006, 03:07 PM
I have never seen so much back and forth whining in one thread.
Come on people, it's titled a 46 add on for a damn reason.
It's all ficticious!
Yes, so the plane may have never flown, and yes there may have been teething problems at the mock up stage, but it's tough to believe that it wouldn't have been remidied in some way. To rule out an interesting plane that someone's putting a hell of a lot of hard time into is so stupid.
We don't even know what all else we're getting, and you're all jumping on the thing like it's a piece of cake on survivor island!
The planes are all fantasy planes for the most part, and to rule out an interesting add on because the FM is based on speculation is just trying to get rid of something interesting.
It's all planned out already anyways, i'm sure a bunch of people burning their underwear in protest on the forum isn't going to convince them to just drop the plane all together.
If you don't like it, don't fly it.
There are hardly any jets available on servers as it is, so i don't see what the problem is.
The time's been spent to make it, they're not going to drop it and switch to something else, why not just accept the damn thing and move on?
I for one think it's an interesting idea, real or not.

MrOblongo
05-08-2006, 03:17 PM
Well... an Ar 234 should be in a 44` addon and not a 46´ ...

Just a thought.

anarchy52
05-08-2006, 04:50 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 VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Where do you come up with this stuff? Low quality P-80 FM?

P-80 pilot's comment on the in game YP-80. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok....support that...

Who...where...what did he say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks IceFire! Looks like that did the trick, simply call him on it and he leaves the topic! Nice Work! I knew he was full of it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interview was posted on this forum.

LStarosta
05-08-2006, 05:31 PM
historical what if scenario


Oxymoron?

AKA_TAGERT
05-08-2006, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Thanks IceFire! Looks like that did the trick, simply call him on it and he leaves the topic! Nice Work! I knew he was full of it

Interview was posted on this forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So!

Without the original, it will be hard to tell just how badly you misrepresented what was actually said.

Nice try though, big gold star for effort!

VW-IceFire
05-08-2006, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<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 VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Where do you come up with this stuff? Low quality P-80 FM?

P-80 pilot's comment on the in game YP-80. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok....support that...

Who...where...what did he say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks IceFire! Looks like that did the trick, simply call him on it and he leaves the topic! Nice Work! I knew he was full of it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interview was posted on this forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok...thats a good first sentence. Now finish that sentence with a complete paragraph and we'll call it progress. Where is this supposed interview?

ElAurens
05-08-2006, 10:09 PM
So, now pilot accounts are OK? As long as they are negative about Allied aircraft?

God forbid we could believe a negative pilot account about a German aircraft, or a postive one about an Allied one.

Nice double standard.

Brain32
05-09-2006, 03:58 AM
God forbid we could believe a negative pilot account about a German aircraft, or a postive one about an Allied one.
Heavy elevators on 109's in the game were not based on data, but on pilot accounts.

Xiolablu3
05-09-2006, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> God forbid we could believe a negative pilot account about a German aircraft, or a postive one about an Allied one.
Heavy elevators on 109's in the game were not based on data, but on pilot accounts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this has been said so many time Brain, even MArk Hanna who flew the 109 recently commented on the stiff elevators as it gets faster.

When all pilot accounts say the same thing, it would be stupid to ignore them. Its a well known fact that the 109 was great at slow speed manouvres but controls were heavy at high speeds. There are even accounts of Spitfire pilots intentionally pulling out late to let the 109 crash into the ground.

'The Messerschmitt's elevator control was very heavy at high speed and there are reports that Spitfire pilots would escape from 109s by diving towards the ground and pulling up at the last moment knowing that the German would find it much harder to pull back on the stick to escape destruction. '

'Elevator:- The BF 109E flight handbook states: "Die H¶henruderkr¤fte und
Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr groß." 83 (The elevator forces
and fin loads become very large during high speed). The RAE also found the
109's elevators to be heavy: "Throughout the speed range the elevator is
heavier than that of the Hurricane or Spitfire, but up to 250 m.p.h. this is
not objected to, since it is very responsive. Above 250 m.p.h. the elevator
becomes definitely too heavy for comfort, and between 300 m.p.h. and 400
m.p.h. is so heavy that manoeurvability in the looping plane is seriously
restricted; when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength,
cannot put on enough "g" to black himself out if trimmed in the dive." 84 It
was found that the Spitfire pilots were able to evade Me 109's by "doing a
flick roll and then quickly pulling out of the subsequent dive", and "if a
Me.109 pilot can be tempted to do this at low altitude a crash is almost
inevitable". 85 F/Sgt. Tew, of No 54 Squadron, put this tactic to good use,
being credited with 1 Me. 109 destroyed without firing a shot:
During Patrol at approximately 1300 hours on 18/8/40 I was attacked by one
Me 109 when I was at 2,000 feet. I turned towards enemy aircraft in a diving
turn. Enemy aircraft half-rolled and followed me. I pulled out of dive at
low altitude but enemy aircraft continued his dive and struck the ground
bursting into flames. 86'

But you cant base a flight model on what one or two pilots said. Espercially if others contradict him. 'A P80 pilot somewhere said this...' just doesnt hold water.

AKA_TAGERT
05-09-2006, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Heavy elevators on 109's in the game were not based on data, but on pilot accounts. Not true, it was even noted by the Lw top test pilot during high speed dive testing, just because we dont have the data does not mean it does not exist.

Brain32
05-09-2006, 09:25 AM
I merely gave the example where pilot accounts were used to determine in game FM on the Axis plane, if the above BS rant was about Allied planes I would use P38's example in the same manner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
As for the 109's elevator stiffness, well... stiffness was there no doubt about it, but at what speeds and alts and with which models(E,F,G,K...) that's something debatable...

darkhorizon11
05-09-2006, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I really don't understand all this hassle about '46 add-on. As far as we know it's still in developement we don't know what else they might include, we don't know what else they might be even considering and we will not know until some of those boys comes here and writes a list. Also we don't know where are they getting their data, is anybody 100% sure Russians did not built TA183 by original design? The reason why I'm quite pleased with inclusion of Ta183 is that I see it as a certain tribute to Kurt Tank as a scientist and engineer. Not to mention that this add-on will contain some really interesting Russian projects and an actual plane that flew and fight in WW2 - Ar234. Seriously I don't see how could anbody that's enthusiastic about aviation be dissapointed about it, we're looking at the dawn of jet-fighter era here, a very important part of aviation history(IMO).

Honestly I'm not complaining that we are getting it, but in hindsight I'd rather they have spent the time to fix the halo bug for terrain (so we can see further), allow ground objects to fade into view, and fix the stall problems etc.

Keep in mind most of the uber aircraft that flew or almost flew before the end of the war are in the game... yet even the 262 saw very limited combat compared to other aircraft, both Allied and Axis.

Thats were the whine is rooted. Someone who never read the history and just played this game would think these aircraft were all over the place when they weren't even close. Just look at the 162... it shot down one plane 2 days before the war ended...

VW-IceFire
05-09-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I really don't understand all this hassle about '46 add-on. As far as we know it's still in developement we don't know what else they might include, we don't know what else they might be even considering and we will not know until some of those boys comes here and writes a list. Also we don't know where are they getting their data, is anybody 100% sure Russians did not built TA183 by original design? The reason why I'm quite pleased with inclusion of Ta183 is that I see it as a certain tribute to Kurt Tank as a scientist and engineer. Not to mention that this add-on will contain some really interesting Russian projects and an actual plane that flew and fight in WW2 - Ar234. Seriously I don't see how could anbody that's enthusiastic about aviation be dissapointed about it, we're looking at the dawn of jet-fighter era here, a very important part of aviation history(IMO).

Honestly I'm not complaining that we are getting it, but in hindsight I'd rather they have spent the time to fix the halo bug for terrain (so we can see further), allow ground objects to fade into view, and fix the stall problems etc.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As I understand it, those sorts of fixes generally require a full re-write of parts of the code to make them work. The time and effort invested in doing that sort of thing would essentially end up being a new engine...so why not write the engine that way from the start? Thats what BoB is about. These addons are a last hurrah...they are content addons. I don't see any major new features coming and I don't think we can expect them.

I'm very interested to see if BoB encompasses much of what you've just said. I think and hope it will.

Xiolablu3
05-09-2006, 05:34 PM
HI Ice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think you will be presently surprised with BOB as Oleg will have a much better idea of what he is trying to create this time around.

Rather than write an engine for the present like he did for Forgotten BAttles, I think he will write an engine which is coded for the future. I would hope it would be a bit like Doom3 when it was released, with people complaing that they can only get 20fps at 800x600 res on their spaking new Athlon 6000+, and enails complaoing that the game overheats their comp! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

This will be because BOB will be written with future computers in mind rather than current, and the engine will be a true next gen engine.

He would also be wise to make it simple to tweak flight models and add new planes.

I suspect FB/PF has 'bodges' in the flight models, real world effects (like gravity,wind) and characteristics of planes, where an effect is used to simulate something rather than actual data. Such as ATA dial on the cockpit which doesnt realy mean anything but tries to pretend it does, or overheating where its obvious a 'bodge' has been used to try and create the effect, but you can see plainly that it doesnt work how it should. Or Damage models which dont actually corresspond to where the bullets actually hit, but try to pretend they do. (I think you get the idea)

BOB should have a lot less of these 'bodges', and use more proper calculations to work these things out. (hopefully holes appearing where the bullets actually hit and so on)

ALso we should have more hit boxes enabling the 303's and 50's to actually hit magazines and other vital components.

I think you will find the result of this 'next generation' engine is that when it comes out it will run like a dog, but this should mean that the engine will do us proud for another 5 or 6 of amazing simming http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

By the way Ice, I rediscovered the joys of Ukded1 last night, hope to see you on there soon. That server is just pure FUN http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I had a fantastic game last night and remembered just why I love this game so much. (I got a bit serious recently, only flying on full real servers , they are still great, but theres nothing like a good old battle on UK1 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

Sergio_101
05-10-2006, 03:26 PM
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap38.jpg

On the other hand, some really weird stuff did fly
for others than the Luftwaffe.

This is as weird as it gets.

XF-85 Goblin. Test pilots say it flew acceptably well.
Popular press would have you believe otherwise.
All agree the idea was deadly to the pilots
as docking with the B-36 in flight was
very dangerous. (No B-36 was ever used for the test
a B-29 was used for tests).
Up to three of these beauties could be carried IN
the bomb bay of a B-36!!!!!

Sergio

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f85-4.jpg

SkyChimp
05-10-2006, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap38.jpg

On the other hand, some really weird stuff did fly
for others than the Luftwaffe.

This is as weird as it gets.

XF-85 Goblin. Test pilots say it flew acceptably well.
Popular press would have you believe otherwise.
All agree the idea was deadly to the pilots
as docking with the B-36 in flight was
very dangerous. (No B-36 was ever used for the test
a B-29 was used for tests).
Up to three of these beauties could be carried IN
the bomb bay of a B-36!!!!!

Sergio

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f85-4.jpg

One of the neat things about the XF-85 is that it was designed with a swept wing before German engineering data was available to the Americans. The benefits of swept wings were known to some American manufacturers, and not to others.

luftluuver
05-10-2006, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp: One of the neat things about the XF-85 is that it was designed with a swept wing before German engineering data was available to the Americans. The benefits of swept wings were known to some American manufacturers, and not to others.

On March 19, 1945, McDonnell submitted a revised proposal--a plan for a tiny aircraft with an egg-shaped fuselage, a triple vertical tail, a tailplane with pronounced anhedral, and vertically-folding swept-back wings. The engine was to be a 3000 lb.st. Westinghouse J34-WE-7 axial-flow turbojet with a nose intake and a straight-through exhaust. The aircraft was to be fitted with a pressurized cockpit and an ejector seat. Armament was to be four 0.50-cal machine guns in the forward fuselage sides.

By 1944, Westinghouse was working on three derivatives of its first axial engine, the 19A. The largest of this family, the 24C (24 inch diameter), became the J34.

Notice that the engine is an <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">axial-flow</span>.

NonWonderDog
05-10-2006, 10:36 PM
Huh? Did the first jets use centrifugal compressors? I must have completely missed that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Kocur_
05-11-2006, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Huh? Did the first jets use centrifugal compressors? I must have completely missed that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Frank Whittle first engines had centrifugial compressors. Check the pic here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle

Sergio_101
05-11-2006, 02:54 AM
Axial flow is not a German thing.
Lockheed was developing an axial flow
jet on it's own in the late 30's.
It never got past the prototype stage.

You luftlovers can never let go of the idea
that all things technical and or advanced
are of German origin.

Note the XF-85 had a feature no German jet had.
High ratio chord wings.
very thin, about 16:1 looking at that picture.

The 262 had fat 1930's style teardrops for airfoils.

Fact, Germany and Japan flew into war on pirated
Wright, P&W, Hamilton Standard, and Curtiss
based engines and propellers.

WWII could not have been fought without these
and one other American invention, Tetraethyl lead.

Yes, TEL, no boosted/supercharged engines without TEL.

RADAR, another American invention.

Germany was faster in getting jets into combat.
Gas turbines (jets) were around long before
Frank Whittle first ran his engine.

I belive the date for the first self sustaining
gas turbine is 1903, in Norway.

Sergio

luftluuver
05-11-2006, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Huh? Did the first jets use centrifugal compressors? I must have completely missed that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Some people think the Americans were behind in jet engine development, especially the axial type. Seems they are not well informed. The contract for the 19A is dated Dec 8 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">1941</span> and first ran on Mar 19 1943.

luftluuver
05-11-2006, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

RADAR, another American invention.

Sergio BS

Christian Hülsmeyer, from Lower Saxony, Germany, was the inventer of radar. He recieved a patent on Nov 11 1904.

You might find this thread educational, re B-17 bombload, http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=98364

WOLFMondo
05-11-2006, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
RADAR, another American invention.


Wrong. Americans invented the term RADAR, nothing more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A591545

The first radar patent was by a German. The US were not exactly leading the field in Radar over any other nation.

Sergio_101
05-11-2006, 06:00 PM
Ok, I'll admit I was wrong on RADAR.
But correct on all other counts!
Germany stole American tech for it's
prop fighters and bombers.

Sergio

luftluuver
05-11-2006, 06:15 PM
As early as 1871, a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Frenchman</span> named J. Croce-Spinelli suggested that a variable-pitch propeller could improve overall efficiency. He also suggested varying the pitch using hydraulic pressure, and that the ability to change pitch would be most important on takeoff.

W.R. Turnbull, a Canadian, first proposed using an electric motor to vary the pitch of the propeller. He designed his first system in 1925 and tested it in 1927. The tests were successful and the American company Curtiss-Wright licensed the design and began to modify it. German and French firms also developed electrically driven variable-pitch propellers during the 1930s and most German airplanes during World War II flew with automatically adjusting propellers produced by the firm VDM. The British had been the first to start work on hydraulically driven variable-pitch propellers, but took the longest to develop them.

darkhorizon11
05-11-2006, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Ok, I'll admit I was wrong on RADAR.
But correct on all other counts!
Germany stole American tech for it's
prop fighters and bombers.

Sergio

Your actually guessing on a lot of those things.

The Germans improved on axial flow jets and rockets. Althougth the Lockheed prototype was pretty weak, thats why it was ONLY a prototype. The axial flow Jumos and BMWs the Germans built were far more advanced and capable of much higher compression ratios which was the basic problem that the American designers faced.

Centrifugal flow compressors are still used today though, many helos use this type of jet engine. There definitely not obsolete their just not efficient in highspeed flight regimes and thats why we don't see them on high performance jets anymore.

The Germans did experiment with thin airfoils. The 262 had a thinner airfoil actually than most of the other Clark Ys out there. North American admitted that the captured airfoil research from the Germans probably got then F-86 into air about a year earlier. Although the 262 was far from a supersonic fighter the Germans did recognize the many advantages of a sweptback wing like higher Mcrit speed.

The American deficiences in this area were only due to stubborness however. Pre-war politics in America were much more isolationist and so funding for new weapons programs and research was weak here. In Germany however it was abundant and designers like Messerschmitt and Von Braun were basically given blank check...

Aaron_GT
05-12-2006, 01:58 AM
Germany stole American tech for it's
prop fighters and bombers.

There was lots of trading back and forth of ideas between many nations in the history aviation. Some ideas used in German aircraft were originally used in US aircraft, and vice versa. It's hardly anything unusual.

Frank_Thring
05-17-2006, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I've never heard a suggestion that the Mig-15 was somehow a version of the Ta-183 and that seems to be false information from the Luft 46 site. I have heard that the USSR did build or complete a few aircraft left in partly completed or designed stages in Germany, for example that stubby rocket powered plane with the prone pilot position (can't remember the name). The USA did the same (Messerschmitt P.1101). I suppose which ones each nation built or flew depended on which plans/parts they managed to capture. The P.1101 version provided interesting information for the USA, but it also had a short body and lateral instability issues AFAIK, especially in the transonic range (changes of centre of lift, probably, which would probably have a more extreme effect on a plane with swept wings and its mass concentrated in a relatively short body).

The Bell X-5 and would be P.1101 spin-stall recovery issue was caused by a misalignment of the principle axist of thrust and drag that caused a 14% upward pitch change as thrust was increased. As thrust is often increased to prevent a stall that can be a problem. The misalignment was driven by a desire to reduce intake duct length. Diagrams of P.1101 in october 1944 show a much longer Saab J-29 Tunan style engine exhaust exiting closer to the tail before the duct was shortened.

The Messerchmitt P.1101 was both a prototype for a planed fighter plane as well as a test bed for advanced swept wing concepts. It was to test two wings: one wing was based on the Me 262 series of symetrical profiles which followed the conventional pattern of a thick root and thin tip (this was the wing fitted to the captured unit and mimicked in the X-5) the other profile known as the "A wing" was in preparation and the one slated for production had a thicker profile at the tips (12%) than the roots 8%: this was to prevent premature tip stall which is a byproduct of the spanwise flow of swept wings. This pattern was tested in the Douglas Skystreak.

In addition Both wings also had full span slats (provision for testing 12% of chord and 20% of chord slats) also to help prevent premature tip stall due to spanwise flow issues. Not only the sweep angle but the dihedral could be ground adjusted.

P.1101 pioneered and pointed to many of the wing leading edge devices and techniques needed to realise swept wing technology and overcome issues such as spanwise flow that would make the wings impossible to use.

The short body design was basically imposed by the problems with ducting to the engines.

Agreed

The design of longer ducts wasn't advanced in Germany in WW2 (the UK and USA with split intakes were leading in duct design at the time).

I don't think the UK was that advanced at all though the P80 had split ducts it initially had a boundary layer problem. The Germans had many split duct designes one being the Junkers EF 128. The axial jets the Germans used are somewhat more sensitive to turbulent inflows but I believe by far the main problem with a split duct is that the Junkers Jumo 004B-4 or BMW 003 simply doesn't have enough thrust for a practicable single jet fighter design nor can they tollerate the thrust losses associated with either a split duct or a long single duct. A jumo 004 with a 10ft duct extension was tested on an Me 262 for the P.1101 and it was found to produce a 3% pressure and thrust loss which equates to at least a 6% speed loss.
Also foreign object injestion fears figured heavily in reviews of intake types due to the poor nature of German airfields. The He 162 engine location was rated positively for this thoug it also produced troublesome pitch changes as thrust was increased (downward this time)


For a single engined aircraft and minimum duct lengths the solution was a stubby body, and often a tail on a boom, either a single boom over the engine exhaust or a twin boom (the Vampire being a good example of this).

Junkers EF-128 used a split duct with a boundary layer spliter actively driven by a fan that exhausted the turbulent air aft of the cokbit canopy. The Heinker HeS 011 engine that was to form the basis of the next generation of german aircraft had a diagonal compressor. This was a hybrid compressor that looks somewhat like a centrifugal compressor but exist the air axialy along the shaft direction rather than radialy. Becuase of this axial egress air can be further compressed by three more axial stages. As a result HeS 011 was expected to be far more tollerant of inlet turbulence.

From what I have read the USSR only flew one Ta 183, and it had serious lateral instability problems, and that the Pulqui also had lateral instability problems, even despite it being longer than the original Ta 183 design, and with redesigned tail surfaces.

Ta 183 was actually a 'tailess' design with the tailplane there only for trimming: the elevons provided both pitch and roll control.

Pulqui II had a superstall problem caused by the T tail that was solved by rebalasting.
F-104 star fighter also had this solved by electronic warning. Pulqui seems to have died due to budget problems more than anything else but did end up with wing fences in latter versions.

The Ta 183, as it existed on paper and wind tunnel models, would seem to have had even worse instability problems, especially with transonic snaking. In a 1946 fantasy situation you'd have to presume some redesign and even then for it to only approach the qualities of the Pulqui. .

What has always puzzled me was that the other German desinges P.1101, Blohm Voss BV.210 and Junkers EF.128 all had leading edge devices to help with spanwise flow induced tip stall and the stabillity problems it cuases. Why not Ta 183? Was Focke-Wulf so far behined all the other German companies? The Junkers EF 128 had tailfins that doubled as wing fences as well as leading edge flaps. Arado 234 also had crescent wing designes that used reduce sweep and thinner profiles at the tips to deal with this issue. As a Dr Wolfgan Liebe of the DVL research instute had already suggested wing fences (fillets) it seems likely that Ta 183 would have ended up with wing fences. The designer of the Ta 183 was Hans Multhope not Kurt Tank. Mukhop who designed the Martin XB-57 as well as the X-24 series of lifting bodies.

Schick and Radinger in "Secret Messescmitt Projects" state that the P.1101 was never rejected and despite the Ta 183 receiving an RLM designation when it was awarded a prototype contract they other designes were still in the running and that P.1101 was never rejected by the Reichs Luftfahrts Ministerium.

NagaSadow84
05-17-2006, 09:38 AM
Blohm & Voss (P. 212.03 or 212.04) and Henschel (P. 135) were also awarded contracts for prototypes.

Fox_3
05-17-2006, 09:42 AM
If she is made flyable. What will the cockpit be based on?

Viper2005_
05-17-2006, 10:24 AM
The Martin B-57 was a re-engineered English Electric Canberra, and as such was designed by Teddy Petter (of Whirlwind, Lightning and Gnat fame).

ElAurens
05-17-2006, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Fox_3:
If she is made flyable. What will the cockpit be based on?

The single most important question.

darkhorizon11
05-17-2006, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Frank_Thring:

What has always puzzled me was that the other German desinges P.1101, Blohm Voss BV.210 and Junkers EF.128 all had leading edge devices to help with spanwise flow induced tip stall and the stabillity problems it cuases. Why not Ta 183? Was Focke-Wulf so far behined all the other German companies?

Honestly, it was probably because the aircraft was so small. Wing fences allow for the aircraft to fly at higher angles of attack, which specifically lets it land at slower speeds. However the 183 is a small and relatively light. Its landing weight less than half of the other aircraft you mentioned which probably outweighed (no pun intended) the need for these fences.

When calculating aerodynamics, even on todays computers are often in a perfect world scenario and assume a lot of other things constant. So to answer your question. Kurt Tank probably left them out, to save time and vital materials like aluminum. Which he didn't think were necessary in his calculations when designing the aircraft. A real world analysis on the Pulqui however, revealed that they probably were necessary...

FW was definetely no behind or ahead of any other aircraft company in German since all information was shared for the "greater cause" once the war started just like in America, GB, and every other company.

I've studied WWII aviation aerodynamics and all this stuff for years now. One thing I've learned is that there isn't a always deep seeded aerodynamic reason for every innovation on an aircraft that requires a Master's Degree to understand.

Some examples

The Corsair and Stuka uses the inverted gull wing design of anhedral and dehedral in their wings. At first glance most would think there is some advanced mathamatical reason for this... well actually there is but its not to advanced. Chance Vought put a massive effin engine on the airplane and needed a massive effin 11 foot four bladed prop to take advantage of it. They needed dehral for stability like every other low wing fighter, but the anhedral is to stand her a little higher for proper prop clearance. The downside is landing is much more fun and the left turning tendencies are VERY STRONG (which isn't fully modeled correctly in the game.) Which then explains why the rudder looks like it belongs on boat... but were getting OT...

Another would be the engine location on most modern day transport category aircraft a la Boeings and Airbus? You know why the engines are slung below the wing and not embedded in them like older 50 and 60s era Russian and British jets? Well mostly for maintenence, the weight slung below the fuselage on each side also gives some extra positive stability, but more importantly it probably saves thousands of dollars an engine overhaul or routine maintenence. Instead of using a crane to drop the engine out of the wing and then working on it, mechanics simply pull panels off of it. Worst case, they need to replace an engine they slide a cart under it, un-bolt and slide up a new one...

Its funny the way the seemingly most complex questions can have basic answers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Fork-N-spoon
05-18-2006, 02:21 AM
I suspect that the Ta-183 will be nothing more than another "hanger queen." The usual tred when new aircraft like this are released is to have everybody using it for about a week, then all the servers on Hyper Lobby will pull it.

JG53Frankyboy
05-18-2006, 05:12 AM
at least there can be Jet maps createt......

lot of Gemans ones
4 versions of Me262
3 versions of He162
Go-229
Ta-183 (perhaps)
Ar234
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
vs
MiG-9, Yak-15 and YP-80

the allies realy missing jets http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
as already said here on the forums, Meteor III and Vampire I would be cool. but it seems no russian 3D designer is interested in them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

WOLFMondo
05-18-2006, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
I suspect that the Ta-183 will be nothing more than another "hanger queen." The usual tred when new aircraft like this are released is to have everybody using it for about a week, then all the servers on Hyper Lobby will pull it.

I can't say I've ever seen half the planes complained about on these forums online apart from in the occasional co-op. I don't ever recall seeing a 109Z or a go229 on a server. It makes you wonder what all the complaining is about.

Frank_Thring
05-18-2006, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Heliopause:
The first P-86 design had straight wings...after german testresults were captured it received swept wings. ( and wing leading-edge slots)

To argue this point is like pissin into the wind.
BAD popular press has posted this nonsense
and Luftlovers gloat over the misinformation.

"There is no misinformation. The Americans and British were years behined the Germans in this area and the F-86 was based on German know how. Robert Jones of the NACA published technical note 1032 in late March 1945 which was concerned with wing sweep so the US had discovered wing sweep then years after Adolf Busmanns paper at Volta. It is still available on the NACA technical server (released in 1947) and the UK Cranfield mirror site. It is not much of a document to look at. There are only 20 pages of notes on experiments conducted on 1 inch wide arrow heads in supersonic winhd tunnels and some drop tests. This is basically where Adolf Busmann was in 1935. What was missing is the decades of pain staking wind tunnel research the Germans conducted that solved the stabillity issues of swept wings. Leading edge devices such as slats, krugger flaps, crescent wings, droop snoots are all required to overcome the premature tip stall issues of swept wings. It was this that the US and NACA lacked knowledge of. It was this know how that enabled the B-47 to be built with confidence and it was this that allowed the straight winged Fury derived XP-86 to become the swept wing F-86 which actually used Me 262 slat hardware for the first seven prototypes.

The US abondoned swept wing research when the preamture tip stall issues of the Curtiss XP-55 Ascender(*** Ender) could not be solved in 1942. Even then the swept wing of the XP-55 was there to create a tailess designe.



The US Navy version of the F-86, the FJ-1
was straight wing.
http://f-86.tripod.com/fj1.html
The USAF version was NEVER to be anything
but swept wing.

"Nope. XP-86 was to be straight winged.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4406/chap3.html

'At North American, a conventional jet fighter with straight wings, the XP-86, 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.'


And the design period was such that the German
data was likely not used.

"No, the German data and aerodynamacists not only confirmed Jones's theory but pointed to both the problems and the solutions for the various pitch stabillity and low speed handling issues that were caused by spanwise flow.

Was there a German influence?
Sure. Everyone knew of the Me-262.

Remember, the NACA was working on the idea
of swept wings in the 1930's.

"No one remembers becuase it didn't happen. Any NACA reasearch on swept wings if at all was focused on tailess designes. The NACA ended up under sharp criticism for missing the boat.


This orginization also developed the idea of
laminar flow, and "area ruling".

"Area ruling was also known by the Germans. Whitcombe simply put it into a formulae."

Most if not
all successful radial engined figters of WWII
had a cowl designed along the NACA cowl ideas.

"It was also the NAA not just NACA"

NACA is now NASA.

NO F-86/P-86 EVER had a straight wing.

"Yes it did"

The first seven F-86 prototypes actually used Me 262 slat hardware. F-86 definetly owes much of its progress to German discoveries;

http://sabre-pilots.org/classics/v41develop.htm

On 20 June 1945, the mockup of the XP-86 was unveiled at the North American plant in Inglewood, California. Very sleek in its gloss Pearl Grey paint, the XP-86 mockup was quickly approved by Army Air Force officials. Photos of the mockup show that the aft section of the fuselage had its engine break about midway through the wing root chord. The fuselage was much sleeker than the rotund XFJ-1.

But North American officials knew that the lack of speed would eventually kill the XP-86 program unless something drastic took place, such as a much more powerful gas turbine or some way to reduce the drag encountered at speeds over 500 mph. It did! For many years, the advantages of sweeping the leading edge of the wing to reduce drag rise had been known. But the disadvantages of the swept wing were many, not the least of which was the loss of stability, especially at low speeds. The Germans had encountered this with the Me-262, which had a slight sweep to the outer wing leading edge. They found that by using a movable leading edge surface, commonly referred to as a 'slat', that many of the low speed stability problems could be overcome.

http://sabre-pilots.org/classics/v41develop.htm
On 14 August 1945, North American Aviation received a research and development grant to develop a swept wing for the XP-86. Two weeks later a .23 scale model of a swept wing XP-86 was built. On 18 September 1945, the XP-86 model was wind tunnel tested. The results were exactly what North American and Army Air Force had been looking for. The swept wing lowered the drag rise and compressibility enough that it brought the XP-86 into the 600+ mph range, even using available gas turbine technology. And the leading edge slats appeared to solve any low speed stability problems encountered with the use of a swept wing. On 1 November 1945, Army Air Force approved the 'new' swept wing version of the XP-86. And the rest is, as they say, HISTORY!



http://sabre-pilots.org/classics/v41develop.htm
"North American's engineers saw the future was in the alljet powered
aircraft. On 24 August 1944, Ed Horkey talked with Ira Abbott about
airfoil selection for a new jet-propelled, high-speed fighter design.
They concurred that very thin wings would be required to avoid
compressibility shock. Mr. Horkey was concerned about the lift and drag
characteristics of such thin wings, and was informed that no recent
data existed for any type of wing section with such small thickness
ratios."

Frank_Thring
05-18-2006, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The Martin B-57 was a re-engineered English Electric Canberra, and as such was designed by Teddy Petter (of Whirlwind, Lightning and Gnat fame).

I actually meant the Martin XB-51 not the XB-57. The XB-51 was Hans Multhope's design. It was apparently a delight to fly.

Multhope appart from the Ta 183, XB-51 was also responsible for the NASA/Martin lifting bodies.

Frank_Thring
05-18-2006, 07:52 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 NagaSadow84:
Actually the SAAB J-29 was a copy of the Messerschmitt P. 1101 €" just like the Bell X-5. The Ta 183 played no roll in the development. Your Right! Look, they both have wings! Nuff said </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot of germans were looking to neutrals such as switzerland and sweden for a future and they naturlly cooperated in providing any information that they had. Kurt Tank ended up in Sweden just before he left for Argentina and then India to continue his carear.

Heliopause
05-18-2006, 09:06 AM
Lockheed L-133
The plane was developed by no other than Clarence 'Kelly' Johnson. The engine however was developed by Nathan C. Price. Nathan worked for the Lockheed company and had experience in the development of turbo superchargers. He worked out his idea of a jet engine, designating it: L-1000. It featured an integrated auxiliary power unit, a boundary layer control system, an annular combustion chamber and afterburner. In theorie the engine was to have 5,500lbst of thrust. Hall L. Hibbard, then chief engineer of Lockheed was convinced that no engine manufacturer would agree to get involved in such an ambitious project. Consequently he decided to patent Price's design and to go on with this project as a private venture.

L-1000 jet engine under development at Lockheed
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a138/heliopause/XJ-37.jpg

The L-1000 (XJ-37) jet engine had been moved to the Menasco Manufacturing Corporation, at Los Angeles in oct '45 wich was due to undertake licence manufacture. Several engine protoypes were build and groundtested. Lockheed then sold its patents to Curtiss-Wright, wich cancelled the programme in 1952.

mortoma1958
05-18-2006, 09:27 AM
Hmmmmmmm.......I wonder why the AR-234 is being presented as a "46" aircraft when it was in service in '44 and flew far more operationally than the D-335 ever did?????? Used mostly for recon, but it did fly more than the Anteater, According to what few records exist.