PDA

View Full Version : Ta 183 "Huckebein"



Bellator_1
10-13-2006, 10:03 AM
Just heard about the Luft' 46 addon, so I went to see which a/c where to be added and was thrilled to see the Ta 183 on the list ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

This will be one kick *** fighter, be sure ! With a max speed of 596 mph and a climb rate of 6000 fpm (According to the RLM specs), this bird is going to set a new standard ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

ploughman
10-13-2006, 10:13 AM
Apparrently the real gem is the He-162C.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

PraetorHonoris
10-13-2006, 12:09 PM
I also love the agressive looking design of the Ta183, although I wished it would have more modelled like that:
http://modelscale.free.fr/photoscopes/Ta183/Ta183_DM_face.JPG

The actual look in game is a bit less slender...
http://rrgstudios.com/EN_02_07_1946.shtml

Anyway, Luthier already said, the Ta183 won't be 'the killer' we were expecting... which seems strange since it should be the fasted jet out there at least, not to mention climb. The possibility of loading X-4 will make it the ultimative bomber hunter, fast, heavy armed and able to attack out of defense gunner range.

For Dogfight, we were advised to use the He162C. I desperately hope it gets a better engine than the A2, otherwise it will be to slow compared to the Russians.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6061/untitled1copymd8.jpg

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute

II_JG1Adler
10-13-2006, 01:02 PM
Im aslo thrilled that they will include the ta-183.
The fact that i read in a usa airforce book, that if the ta-183 were ever build it could dogfight 1vs1 against the later build American Sabre and Russian Mig-15.

This would have been the weapon the nazis needed to stop the allies not the me-262. Equiped with 4 x-4 AA missles, this would have ben the ultimate bomber killer.

ElAurens
10-13-2006, 04:01 PM
Luft Dreamers.

A new class of Fanboi is born...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

Capt.LoneRanger
10-13-2006, 04:03 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/Arcadiac/Lone1copy.png

VW-IceFire
10-13-2006, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by II_JG1Adler:
Im aslo thrilled that they will include the ta-183.
The fact that i read in a usa airforce book, that if the ta-183 were ever build it could dogfight 1vs1 against the later build American Sabre and Russian Mig-15.

This would have been the weapon the nazis needed to stop the allies not the me-262. Equiped with 4 x-4 AA missles, this would have ben the ultimate bomber killer.
Not sure about that...everything I've read said the Ta-183 was a great study for such an aircraft but it would have required significant work prior to being put into service.

Still interested to see its inclusion and give it a try.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

ElAurens
10-13-2006, 04:19 PM
Mr. Tank was out of his depth in the transonic region.

Be sure.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

HuninMunin
10-13-2006, 04:53 PM
Keep the trolling in GD ya morons.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
....I understand that you understand almost nothing in computer technology(regarding how to get all features working well in one great code and how to get it fully optimized for all aspects of the game and where developers must go for compromisses), because you are speaking bla-bla-bla about things that you don't know. Sorry I don't like to offend you. But it looks like it looks. - Oleg Maddox
------------------------------------------------------------

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/633/sigvp0.jpg

Simon "Hunin" Phoenix
Servant of Wotan and Tyr
True knight of the Endlich-Thread

zbw_109
10-14-2006, 04:18 AM
As I said in one previous post "I want to fly the Ta-183 porked or not"
It seems I predicted something, also am glad to see Ta-183 will be a loved addition to the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Deutsche Zentralbibliothek fur Wirtschaftswissenschaften

Philipscdrw
10-14-2006, 06:35 AM
My 0.02...

Lets play '46 for fun, and X-plane for in-depth analysis of flight dynamics.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
PhilipsCDRw

PF_Tini's Simple Guide to Switching 4.04m, 4.05m, and 4.07m. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7351046415)
Flying on Hyperlobby as EAF_T_Dozer

Antoninus
10-14-2006, 07:05 AM
Why are all people so fascinated by Ta-183?

The very similar Messerschmitt P.1101 at least reached the prototype stadium before the end of the war. For me it seems to be a more reasonable choice for 46 addon than the drawing board Ta-183.

http://www.luft46.com/mess/p1100-4.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________________
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3734/il2sig26hf.jpg

Actually everybody talks about aerial combat. I maintain that hitting ground targets, and especially ships is more dangerous than aerial combat. - Joe Foss

JG52Karaya-X
10-14-2006, 08:28 AM
Yup, would have been the better and more realistic choice IMHO...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/Karaya/Black_Devil.gif (http://www.geocities.com/jg52thebutcherbirds/index1.html)
The tiger leaves no smell and doesn't make a sound, but you know he is there.
There is something in the shadows - it's the tiger waiting for you.

Bellator_1
10-14-2006, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Mr. Tank was out of his depth in the transonic region.

Be sure.

That is a myth ElAurens, and the only thing you have to support that theory is Tank's completely different Pulqui II fighter design which didn't do too well at transonic speeds. The Ta 183 was a completely different design aerodynamically, and it didn't feature the "design flaw" of a high mounted wing like the Pulqui II which is what caused the transonic instability.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Bellator_1
10-14-2006, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
I also love the agressive looking design of the Ta183, although I wished it would have more modelled like that:
http://modelscale.free.fr/photoscopes/Ta183/Ta183_DM_face.JPG

The actual look in game is a bit less slender...
http://rrgstudios.com/EN_02_07_1946.shtml



Well I think they were right to use the design they did for Il2 46 cause it was going to be the final one:
http://modelscale.free.fr/photoscopes/Ta183/Ta183_cutaway_A0.JPG
http://modelscale.free.fr/photoscopes/Ta183/Ta183_cutaway_A1.JPG
http://modelscale.free.fr/photoscopes/Ta183/Ta1833VD.JPG
http://modelscale.free.fr/photoscopes/Ta183/Ta183_VA_cote.JPG


Anyway, Luthier already said, the Ta183 won't be 'the killer' we were expecting... which seems strange since it should be the fasted jet out there at least, not to mention climb.

Not just the fastest, also the most maneuverable. I'd be terribly disappointed if doesn't prove the most maneuverable of the fighters in 46, cause obviously at the power to weight ratio and wing loading it would be..


The possibility of loading X-4 will make it the ultimative bomber hunter, fast, heavy armed and able to attack out of defense gunner range.

Agreed.


For Dogfight, we were advised to use the He162C. I desperately hope it gets a better engine than the A2, otherwise it will be to slow compared to the Russians.

I certainly don't understand that, the He-162C shouldn't be any more maneuverable at all and the MIG-9 isn't even close..<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

PraetorHonoris
10-14-2006, 09:19 AM
I am afraid you will be disappointed, but let's not whine so much before we got hands on it.

Here is what was stated on the 162C on the devs' site:
The He-162C has shaped up to be quite a surprise. It never gained much attention before we modeled it in 46; and making it into a flesh-and-bones, flying fighter, has unexpectedly revealed the ingenuity of its design. The wing shape and the V-tail give it agility, and the overall simple, clean design makes it fast and deadly. Dogfighting with it is immensely satisfying. Once 46 is finally released, I'm looking forward to stealthily joining random dogfight servers, and putting my expertise in my favorite Luftwaffe fighter to good use.

Here on the Ta183 vs MiG9 by Luthier:
Last night I led a squadron of AI Ta-183s against AI MiG-9s, and I haven't enjoyed flying against AI so much since the olden days of the IL-2 pre-beta (ca. 2000). In one missions I easily fought for 40 minutes non-stop, and I was literally soaked in the end. Again - this was against AI. And not only did I not shoot anyone down, I didn't even score a single hit.

That's because I was still fighting using prop fighter tactics. You could maybe get away with it against lesser jets like the Yak-15, but against the awesome MiG, you have to learn to fly all over again. Most of the fighting is extending away, doing a veeeery slow chandelle back towards the enemy, and hoping to score some hits head-on, converging at a combined 1,000+ kph. Getting on their tail, staying there, and closing to firing distance is nigh impossible, especially so with 11 of their squadmates roaming about.

BTW don't take this post as "the Ta is weaker than the MiG". The situation was pretty much the same flying for the MiGs. The planes are quite evenly matched.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6061/untitled1copymd8.jpg

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute

Bellator_1
10-14-2006, 09:31 AM
Hey thanks for that preview PraetorHonoris ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

However I don't understand how they were to be close ? I mean the MIG-9 has a wing-loading of 272 kg/m2 and can only reach 911 km/h while the Ta 183 has a wing loading of 191 kg/m2 and should reach 955 km/h.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

PraetorHonoris
10-14-2006, 10:06 AM
Well... that is something you may ask Luthier himself, he is sometimes on the Forum or at SimHQ.

Anyway, here is the pit:
http://games.1c.ru/il_46/gallery/il_46_17.jpg?1CSESSID=...104d074e4139a3a8d62f (http://games.1c.ru/il_46/gallery/il_46_17.jpg?1CSESSID=52be4c8f9988104d074e4139a3a8 d62f)

No, the EZ42 unfortunatly does not work...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6061/untitled1copymd8.jpg

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute

Bellator_1
10-14-2006, 10:13 AM
Ok will do, and thanks for the pic, looks good ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Arm_slinger
10-14-2006, 10:57 AM
The 190 people arn't going to be happy with the visibility there.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Causing Havoc online as 242Sqn_Kye
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/IL-2sig.jpg
www.242sqn.com (http://www.242sqn.com)

Bellator_1
10-17-2006, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In late 1942, Focke-Wulf engineer Hans Multhopp headed up a design team that started aerodynamic studies for a new turbojet fighter. This culminated in 1945 as a fighter project known as "Huckebein" (a cartoon raven that traditionally makes trouble for others), also known as Project V (Project VI in some references) or Design II at Focke-Wulf and later
to be given the designation Ta 183. The Ta 183 had a short, squat fuselage with the air intake passing under the cockpit and proceeding to the rear where the single He S 011 turbojet was located, although the first three prototypes were to be powered by Jumo 004B jet engines. A provision was made in the early studies for the aircraft to be equipped with a 1000 kg (2205 lbs) thrust rocket engine to assist interception duties, with the fuel for a 200 second rocket burn being located in underwing drop tanks. The wings were very thin, swept back at 40 degrees and were mounted in the mid-fuselage position. 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 six fuel cells totaling 1565 liters (345 gallons). The huge fin was swept back at 60 degrees, with the tailplane mounted on the top of the fin. The tailplane also exhibited considerable dihedral. Wing elevons and the rudder provided control, the tailplane control surfaces only being used for trimming. The flaps and landing gear were operated hydraulically. The pilot sat in a pressurized cockpit with a bubble canopy which provided excellent all-around vision. Four MK 108 30mm cannon was envisioned for the production Ta 183 armament, also a bomb load of 500 kg (1100 lbs) could be carried. This could include one SD or SC 500 bomb, one BT 200 bomb, five SD or SC bombs and even a Rb 20/30 camera. The weapons load would be carried in the equipment space in the bottom of the fuselage and thus partially protrude about halfway from the fuselage.
On Febuary 27 and 28, 1945, the Emergency Fighter Competition conference was held by the OKL (High Command of the Luftwaffe), and the Ta 183 was chosen to be developed and produced. There were to be sixteen Versuchs (experimental test series) aircraft: the Ta 183 V1-V3 to be powered by the Jumo 004B turbojet, pending delivery of the He S 011 jet engine, the Ta 183 V4-V14 as 0-series preproduction aircraft and V15-V16 as static test aircraft. The maiden flight of the first aircraft was planned for May/June of 1945, and was to test both the Design II and Design III tail configuration. The first production aircraft were scheduled to be completed by October 1945, but no examples of the Ta 183 were completed because on April 8, 1945 British troops captured the Focke-Wulf facilities.
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.
Meanwhile, Kurt Tank (head of the Focke-Wulf design department) had left Germany to go to Argentina in 1947 at the invitation of President Juan Pern. There Tank was to build a tubojet powered fighter for the Argentine Air Force, and he decided to build the Ta 183. Tank made several changes to Multhopp's original design, mainly the wing being changed to a shoulder mounted position. The first flight of the "Pulqui II" was made on June 27, 1950. Although the flight was without mishap, test pilot Captain Edmundo Weiss did not like it's flight characteristics. Changing the wing location disturbed the wing-lift aerodynamics, and after six aircraft were completed, the Pulqui II program was canceled in 1954.

http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183bp1.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/fw/mig15.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183wt3.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-i.html

MiG-15 and Ta-183-II are similar in many respects.

Ta-183-II would have had issues as drawn but its control system was very clever because it used elevons for primary flight control, which would neatly prevent tipstall by shifting the lift distribution inboard when the pilot pulled back on the stick. This leaves the tail to act as a trimming surface. The chances are that this arrangement would have avoided several of the traditional pitfalls of transonic flight.

However, lowspeed pitch authority would have been limited, and elevons obviously really hurt Clmax. Hence the need for a low wing loading and high ground angle (using bags of trim on takeoff wouldn't have been a good idea because the authority of the tail would exceed the pitch authority of elevons and excessive nose-up trim would be fatal, especially since pushing forward on the stick would increase the Cl of wing tips. Cue tipstall into incipient spin...). At altitude however, careful use of trim might allow quite a decent CL to be obtained for a high ceiling, though care would have to be taken when pushing the limits since tipstall might well result from application of forward stick. Some quite unusual vital actions would be required for stall and spin recovery under most circumstances, which would probably have resulted in a high accident rate.

The lack of anhedral would have resulted in powerful aerodynamic coupling between yaw and roll.

Inertia coupling might well be an issue due to the tall tail.

I'd be slightly worried about the guns being so close to the inlet since compressor stall might result from the injestion of hot gas, especially at altitude.

It's going to be an interesting aeroplane to fly, though I suspect that most of its potential quirks will not be modelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting Viper ! Glad you chose to participate in this discussion ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

SkyChimp
10-17-2006, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

Before you talk down about Russian aircraft remember that the F-86 had slats http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Some did, some didn't. The best F-86, the F-86F, as well as F-86Hs had wide chord wings without slats.




One thing is for sure though, the Ta-183 was going to have one of the two in the end, wing fences or slats. (Most likely wing fences since Tank didn't like slats)


We'll never know, because it was never designed with either.




Well then he is a very bad aeronautical engineer, cause the airplane can clearly and very efficiently fly - Direct R/C copies of the plane have been flying for years and are praised for their maneuverability (esp. with wing fences) and easy landing characteristics.


Direct "R/C" copies hardly have the same properites of the real thing. Hell, there are R/C flying lawn mowers with good manueverability. Means squat.




Rubbish, even modern aerodynamicists comment on how agile and efficient this fighter deign is, and with a few minor modifications it was fully comparable to the F-86 Sabre.

The americans tested the design after the war as-well and found no obvious flaws on it.


Again, got a credible source on that? A wooden wind-tunnel model is a far cry from the real thing. And one can't fully test manueverability in a wind tunnel, and there was never even a prototype Ta-183 built. There were lots of planes wioth good properties in the wind tunnel that turned out to be failures.





Vastly different ?! The only cause for the difference is that the Pulqui design used a wider centrifugal jet engine instead of the Ta-183's narrower axial compressor type engine. Besides that Tank for unknown reasons had moved the wing up higher on the fuselage, creating problems in the transonic region of flight. The tail design concept was still the same however...


How high the wing is placed has nothing to do with it. It has much more to do with the angle the wing is attached to the fuselage. There were plenty of "high wing" jets designs that performed well at high mach speeds, among them the La-167 and La-168. Both had high wings and performed well at high mach speeds. The difference between them and the Ta-183 (and Pulqui) is that the La's wing roots were properly faired and their wasn't a small angle formed by the underside of the wing and fuselage. both the ta-183 and the Pulqui had these smallish angles - the net effect of which is instability caused by airflow displacement at high speed.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

SkyChimp
10-17-2006, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

What on earth are you talking about, the one we are to have in the game is design (II), and at that point anyone previously not convinced the design would've flown had changed their mind as it was proven it could infront of their very eyes with windtunnel research as-well as with test-flights of scale models.

I wouldn't expect you to understand - since you already have your mind made up. But your considerable emphasis on R/C models should be seens as silly even by you:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/32109/Sn40566.jpg

I think I've even seen a flying toilet.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

p-11.cAce
10-17-2006, 05:33 PM
However, lowspeed pitch authority would have been limited, and elevons obviously really hurt Clmax. Hence the need for a low wing loading and high ground angle (using bags of trim on takeoff wouldn't have been a good idea because the authority of the tail would exceed the pitch authority of elevons and excessive nose-up trim would be fatal, especially since pushing forward on the stick would increase the Cl of wing tips.
I give you the Genesis II sailplane http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/gen2_3.jpg
I have a problem with the asertion that elevons hurt lowspeed pitch authority as the Genesis II uses elevons as primary pitch controls and the tail only as a pitch trim device - just like the TA. Sailplanes spend a great amount of their flight time in the low-speed flight regime..often just above MCA. If tipstall or other lowspeed aerodynamic issues were inherent in this design I question why the Genesis II (which happens to be an excellent sailplane) would have been attempted.

SkyChimp
10-17-2006, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
It's going to be an interesting aeroplane to fly, though I suspect that most of its potential quirks will not be modelled.

Well, it certainly wouldn't have a fanbase if they were. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

Bellator_1
10-17-2006, 05:53 PM
Skychimp take a look at the Ta-183's wing joint, its vastly different from the Pulqui II !

And about your flying lawn mower, well it looks allot more like a flying wing with a disc on the middle of it and a large horizontal stabilizor - and again, its power-loading is obviously very low, and a very low power-loading can make up for allot of serious aerodynamic mistakes.

You obviously don't have any clue how beneficial scale models can be in determining the aerodynamics of an airplane.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Bellator_1
10-17-2006, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, lowspeed pitch authority would have been limited, and elevons obviously really hurt Clmax. Hence the need for a low wing loading and high ground angle (using bags of trim on takeoff wouldn't have been a good idea because the authority of the tail would exceed the pitch authority of elevons and excessive nose-up trim would be fatal, especially since pushing forward on the stick would increase the Cl of wing tips.
I give you the Genesis II sailplane http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/gen2_3.jpg
I have a problem with the asertion that elevons hurt lowspeed pitch authority as the Genesis II uses elevons as primary pitch controls and the tail only as a pitch trim device - just like the TA. Sailplanes spend a great amount of their flight time in the low-speed flight regime..often just above MCA. If tipstall or other lowspeed aerodynamic issues were inherent in this design I question why the Genesis II (which happens to be an excellent sailplane) would have been attempted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed 100 %.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

heywooood
10-17-2006, 06:08 PM
Ja, Amerika is best, be sure.


Seriously - in 1944-45, Germany was miles ahead in aerodynamics and other scientific fields as well. You know that, but pride and ego will not let you admit it even to yourselves.

It's all so well documented that you must bury your head in the sand to deny it.

It makes you look funny with your arses in the air.

Denial is a bigger problem in this country than anyone will admit...get it?

Now go drive your SUV down to the gun club and practice the Cheney manoever...don't forget to vote republican, I've got way more personal freedom and constitutional rights to give away - but watch out, the evil pages are plotting more tricks.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/afewofTheFew-1.jpg

A few of The Few

luftluuver
10-17-2006, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
I don't see the Multhope name mentioned. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Firstly its "Multhopp", and why was it necessary to mention him in that sentance ??

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Pardon me</span> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">If you don't know then I can't help you.</span>


Tested means they flew the a/c.

Haha ! No it doesnt ! To test a design you place it in a windtunnel, you don't just build a plane and then go test the real thing hoping it will fly !

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Russians did design evaluations/studies which is NOT the same as test. Better tell those airplane constructors that didn't that they did it all wrong.</span> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tooz_69GIAP
10-17-2006, 06:32 PM
Howz about this......why don't we wait and see how the Ta-183 is modelled in game before we decide whether it's uber or porked, shall we??<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)
Commanding Officer, 69th GIAP
Za Rodinu!
http://www.f19vs.se/fokker_now.jpg
????????? ?? ????? ????????? ??? ? ??????? ????????......????????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ? ????, ??????? ??? ? ?????? ? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ?????!

p-11.cAce
10-17-2006, 06:34 PM
Geeze heywood its like you WANT this thread to be locked...just when it is getting interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SkyChimp
10-17-2006, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Skychimp take a look at the Ta-183's wing joint, its vastly different from the Pulqui II !

You obviously don't have any clue how beneficial scale models can be in determining the aerodynamics of an airplane.

Man, you are not getting it. It doesn't matter that the Ta-183 and Pulqui were not exactly alike. It only matters that they share characteristics that contribute to poor high speed performance.

It's also quite clear that Kurt Tank did not have confidence that the Ta-183 design was the answer, or he would not have designed the Pulqui the way he did - he would have started out with the Ta-183 and worked forward from there.

You've repeatedly stated that the Germans tested the Ta-183 and found no problems. On the contrary, they did find problems. In Bad Eilsen the Ta-183 design team tested wooden models using fireworks rockets. The Ta-183 had a tendency to tumble (Dutch Roll). Evaluation reports on the handling characterisitcs were not favorable.

The Pulqui II was designed, in large part, based on the knowledge gained in designing the Ta-183. In order to achieve good airflow, the air intake had to be better blended, the wings had to be swept more to more easily achieve higher mach speeds, and the fuselage had to be lengthened. The high tail plane caused problems. In short, the Ta-183 had major shortcomings that Kurt Tank himself realized and had to correct in order to produce an acceptable aircraft. And "acceptable" may be an overstatement. Even Kurt himself characterized the Pulqui as "deadly" due to the superstall characteristics of the tail. Several crashed due to this effect. (And we know now that the high tailplane is an ejecting pilot's nightmare - as evidence by comments by MiG-15 pilots.)

There is no way around it. Anything we get in the way of performance in this game is guess work. And as Viper said, it's doubtful the shortcomings of the design, which we now know were significant, will probably not be modeled. Your statement that, "Ta 183 = Highly maneuverable at all speeds, 600 mph top speed, 6000 fpm climb rate !" may very well be modeled in this game, but its fanciful wishful thinking in real life.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

Viper2005_
10-17-2006, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, lowspeed pitch authority would have been limited, and elevons obviously really hurt Clmax. Hence the need for a low wing loading and high ground angle (using bags of trim on takeoff wouldn't have been a good idea because the authority of the tail would exceed the pitch authority of elevons and excessive nose-up trim would be fatal, especially since pushing forward on the stick would increase the Cl of wing tips.
I give you the Genesis II sailplane http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/gen2_3.jpg
I have a problem with the asertion that elevons hurt lowspeed pitch authority as the Genesis II uses elevons as primary pitch controls and the tail only as a pitch trim device - just like the TA. Sailplanes spend a great amount of their flight time in the low-speed flight regime..often just above MCA. If tipstall or other lowspeed aerodynamic issues were inherent in this design I question why the Genesis II (which happens to be an excellent sailplane) would have been attempted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gliders are rather different from fighter aeroplanes.

Genesis is a short-coupled, light weight aeroplane with a low wing loading and very little wing sweep.

Ta-183 has loads of aft sweep (which promotes tipstall), and is a heavy jet fighter. So you're really into apples and oranges here.

As a glider pilot I don't generally need to haul back on the stick to rotate on takeoff. In fact, stick neutral, unless I'm flying something heavy like the DG505 (which sometimes needs pulling off the ground) the glider will generally be flying before the tug. In the case of the K8, long before the tug! When I'm feeling rich and decide to fly powered aeroplanes OTOH I need to haul back on the stick or yoke to get most tricycle gear aeroplanes flying. Taildraggers are of course an entirely different ballgame - and more fun for it IMO.

Elevons hurt CLmax because they produce negative lift at the wing tips. Obviously this means that the wing produces a lower overall CL.

Since the TA is not a short-coupled light aeroplane considerable download on the wingtips would be required to produce a decent pitch rate.

BTW, as a glider pilot I try to spend as much time flying fast as possible. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

heywooood
10-17-2006, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Geeze heywood its like you WANT this thread to be locked...just when it is getting interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

nah - just demonstrating another extreme point of view...

But to deny the advanced state of German aeronautical designs and capability is just weak.

Their accomplishments are undeniable and extraordinary - well ahead of allied research and capability at that time.

So Ta-183 was not entirely stable - it was an excellent planform and as a testbed was on the verge of producing several variations of 'offspring' which proved their prowess in that decade.

Face it - we were still stuffing jet engines into prop job adaptations and calling it good for another 4 or 5 years after these German inspired machines were in the air.

Its ok to admit when someone else is better at something when they ARE..the task for us is not to deny it - but rather to retake the lead and work to hold the advantage. Thats what we did.

We cheated a little by simply spiriting their engineers back to America and squeezing...so did the Russians - but thats beside the point now.

The truth is - there was a moment in time when these German designers and engineers had the tiger by the tail - thank providence that their leadership was so poor.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/afewofTheFew-1.jpg

A few of The Few

Blutarski2004
10-17-2006, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Ofcourse there's a difference, as an object get smaller the air surrounding it will act thicker. However the large R/C models confirm that the aircraft WILL and CAN fly.


..... I'm not disagreeing on that point. But proving a design is flightworthy and predicting its full flight behavior from a model are two very diferent things. The first is possible; the second is not.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

p-11.cAce
10-17-2006, 07:34 PM
BTW, as a glider pilot I try to spend as much time flying fast as possible. Wink
Huh - The majority of my rl flying time is in gliders as well - though no Orion time - almost all of mine is in L-23 and PW-5. I hardly ever fly as fast as possible, it tends to hurt my chances at coreing the lift that is available....though the house thermal at my club is pretty predictable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I started out in hang gliders, which have a great deal of leading edge sweep and never tip stall - I guess it is the light wing loading and generous wash out which prevents this. How much wash out did the TA have? Could this have prevented tip stalls?

Bellator_1
10-17-2006, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Man, you are not getting it. It doesn't matter that the Ta-183 and Pulqui were not exactly alike. It only matters that they share characteristics that contribute to poor high speed performance.

It's also quite clear that Kurt Tank did not have confidence that the Ta-183 design was the answer, or he would not have designed the Pulqui the way he did - he would have started out with the Ta-183 and worked forward from there.

No you're the one doesn't get it my friend, Tank DID go make a fighter based on valuable experience gained with the Ta-183 design - The reason the look is different is due to engine differences, the Roll Royce engine would never fit inside the Ta-183 design.


You've repeatedly stated that the Germans tested the Ta-183 and found no problems. On the contrary, they did find problems. In Bad Eilsen the Ta-183 design team tested wooden models using fireworks rockets. The Ta-183 had a tendency to tumble (Dutch Roll). Evaluation reports on the handling characterisitcs were not favorable.

That was in the beginning Skychimp ! The design was later refined and Ulrich Stampa convinced the previously few skeptical FW aerodynamicists that it could and would fly. This was also later proven with windtunnel tests of Design II.


The Pulqui II was designed, in large part, based on the knowledge gained in designing the Ta-183. In order to achieve good airflow, the air intake had to be better blended, the wings had to be swept more to more easily achieve higher mach speeds, and the fuselage had to be lengthened.

I'm sorry but thats a load of rubbish. How the heck did the airintake need to be more blended ?? The wing sweep was already considerable and would be of no concern in high speed flight ! And no, the fuselage need not be lengthened, that would make no sense.


The high tail plane caused problems.

Problems such as ??


In short, the Ta-183 had major shortcomings that Kurt Tank himself realized and had to correct in order to produce an acceptable aircraft. And "acceptable" may be an overstatement.

So very untrue.


Even Kurt himself characterized the Pulqui as "deadly" due to the superstall characteristics of the tail. Several crashed due to this effect. (And we know now that the high tailplane is an ejecting pilot's nightmare - as evidence by comments by MiG-15 pilots.)

One crashed Skychimp, and Tank never made that comment. The stall occured because of the shoulder mounted wing and because it lacked slats and wing fences.


There is no way around it. Anything we get in the way of performance in this game is guess work. And as Viper said, it's doubtful the shortcomings of the design, which we now know were significant, will probably not be modeled. Your statement that, "Ta 183 = Highly maneuverable at all speeds, 600 mph top speed, 6000 fpm climb rate !" may very well be modeled in this game, but its fanciful wishful thinking in real life.

Not true Skychimp, there were very little shortcomings, and the Ta-183 would've proven a splendid performer. The only shortcoming would be the absense of wing fences or slats, but that would've no doubt been added.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Viper2005_
10-17-2006, 07:53 PM
As a cross country pilot I try to spend as much time as possible flying in fast straight lines. I'll only stop for strong thermals. When I take a thermal I'll try to zoom climb into the centre and then take the maximum rate of climb available so that I can get back into the cruise as quickly as possible. I'm still very much a learner - I only just got my silver this summer. I fly an Astir at my club now, which allows me to cruise at 70 knots or so between thermals quite comfortably, and on my last flight the final glide was about 100 knots.

I don't know how much washout the 183 had. But in effect its elevons would act to provide built-in washout when you pull back on the stick, which is a very clever feature.

Hangliders tend to have bags of washout for stability - in effect their wingtips act to replace the tailplane of a conventional aeroplane.

Phas3e
10-17-2006, 07:54 PM
I dont care how accurate it is too fly, I just want to make kewl skins for it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WereSnowleopard
10-17-2006, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by WereSnowleopard:
Will Ta-183 only gun armed to four MK 108? Even He-162C to two MK 108 too? We may wish we will able to know what weapons used by 46s' planes. Is any way someone can provide list of 46s' weapons to us? thank you.

Is anyone can answer that question? Is FB 46's Ta-183 only carry four MK 108s or will we able select 20mm cannons?

Viper2005_
10-18-2006, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by bazzaah2:
maybe someone could build a Ta183 in X-plane and see how it flies.

That'll settle it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Alright back in V7, though pitch authority was somewhat lacking, resulting in a rather high Vr and Vref.

But it wouldn't really settle things since XP's transonic modelling is limited in certain respects - it uses generic corrections.

Anyway, I'd need aerofoil data and control deflections. Weight & balance information would also help. Building from a 3-view often results in an aeroplane which looks right and flies wrong. Sometimes it also results in substantial dimensional errors.

X-Plane is a useful tool, but GIGO applies. Feed me good data and if I have time I might build one sometime in the next 6 months or so (uni workload is high at the moment, and aeroplanes take a lot longer to build in v8.50 than they did when I started back in v5.66!)...

bazzaah2
10-18-2006, 11:54 AM
It wasn't an entirely serious comment.

But it is an interesting thought.

Since the Ta 183 didn't make it past windtunnel tests I would imagine that the data you need simply don't exist.

As you say though it's GIGO and that's really the trouble; too many assumptions will render any attempt to model the Ta183 meaningless (and that's not a swipe at Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ), at least as far as attempting to determine whether it would have been great, indifferent or a dog is concerned.

I don't know what data exist on the Ta183 but I would imagine that they're scarce, to say the least.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about
twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be
anything up to eight hundred yards long.

Bellator_1
10-18-2006, 12:02 PM
I'll find as much data on the Ta-183 as I can Viper, and I believe I can acquire the airfoil data rather quickly.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Gibbage1
10-18-2006, 12:13 PM
I still find it funny that a man with no aerodynamics education is making such braud statements about an aircraft that never flew.

It it was such a good design, why was it not copied 100%? Why is it that any aircraft even remotly based on its design had such vast and sweeping modifications? You, Bellator yourself said that the Ta-183 would be a match for ever the F-86, but you have nothing but your asumptions to back up such a statement. What is your referances other then your lofty emagination?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Bellator_1
10-18-2006, 12:15 PM
In the mean time here's some interesting reading: http://www.crowncoast.com/nest/weird_02.htm<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Philipscdrw
10-18-2006, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> BTW, any wing that needs fences is a poor design to start with.
Early Spitfires had fences http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did they now? That's something I've never heard of before.

They certainly flew into fences. Douglas Bader drove his Spit Va over a low stone wall after overrunning on landing. He smashed the shins of his tin legs - if he'd still got his real legs he'd have lost them that night...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
PhilipsCDRw

PF_Tini's Simple Guide to Switching 4.04m, 4.05m, and 4.07m. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7351046415)
Flying on Hyperlobby as EAF_T_Dozer

stathem
10-18-2006, 03:04 PM
No, Brain's just on the wind-up again. They were strenghening strakes.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

WereSnowleopard
10-18-2006, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by bazzaah2:
maybe someone could build a Ta183 in X-plane and see how it flies.

That'll settle it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Oooooohhhhh Ha Ha Ha...very good idea, let get someone who are very good with x-plane software to create exact one. If no one then I may will try myself after buy it. I never though of it! Thank you for bring it up as I remember I said something about x-plane in my recent post.

Cheer
Snowleopard

VW-IceFire
10-18-2006, 04:13 PM
Wow this thread has gone off the rails. I'm sorry Bellator, but you haven't proved much of anything. The Ta 183 from all the sources posted by everyone else seems to indicate it required a serious redesign. It seems even Kurt Tank himself realized there were serious problems.

Where are the wind tunnel tests that you've been talking about that went well? I haven't seen the source on them. I'm curious to see the comments from those tests. Are they about anywhere?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

Brain32
10-18-2006, 06:40 PM
No, Brain's just on the wind-up again. They were strenghening strakes.
You may call them as you like but those are still fences and yes it's true they were there to strenghten the wing and yes the problem was later completely solved, however, had EL Aurens saw SpitMkI he would obviously put it out of service as it's a "poor design" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HayateAce
10-18-2006, 07:07 PM
Kool, I look forward to ignoring it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://aerofiles.com/lock-p38j.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,Luftwhiners,black,white.png (http://www.sloganizer.net/en/)

SkyChimp
10-18-2006, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Welcome to the small, but elite, club of USAAF fanboys who simply think the USA was the only country which could build good aircraft, despite extensive proof to the very contrary.


Not me, I give credit where credit is due, and take exception where it deserves to be taken. You are of the opinion that the Ta-183 had no flaws. It may surprise you to know the Ta-183 never got past the wooden model stage, and not even a full size mock up was ever even begun. Based on this, you?ve drawn the conclusion that the Ta-183 was the perfect plane. That doesn?t sound quite rational to me.




It looked different because of the centrifugal flow engine, period ! Now stop making stuff up !


It was for that, but also for good damping.

?For the Pulqui II Tank relied on the better performing Multhropp version of the Ta-183. However, the wings were set higher on the fuselage, turning the Pulqui II into a shoulder wing design? ?The aircraft also had a higher sweepback angle than the Ta-183 in order to more easily broach the sound barrier. The fuselage had to lengthened to accommodate the larger engine and achieve good damping.?
(Source: The Histroy of German Aviation: Kurt tank: FW's Designers and Test Pilot, page 250)

You know what damping is? It?s the effort to cure oscillation or instability.

If the Ta-183 was the answer for a jet fighter, Kurt Tank would have built it. He didn?t. He redesigned it and made it workable.





God you're ignorant !

Where there is a beginning there is an end ! Get it ?


For Focke Wulf, that little wooden model you pictured was the end. For Kurt Tank in Argentina in the 1950s, it was an impetus to a workable aircraft.





The "Dutch roll" was addressed, to think otherwise is simply being over skeptical because it doesn't suit you that could've and would've flown.


How do you adequately address anything in a small scale wooden model? A wooden model is nothing more than an impetus to a larger model, then a mockup, then a prototype. The Ta-183 never got past the embryo stage. And if it was so perfect, why didn?t anyone copy it? Why didn?t Tank build it for the Argentineans instead of the Pulqui? The short of it is that the design had shortcomings and Tank himself realized it. He had NEVER built anything like it in the past.

You not only think he got it right, but got it perfect, on his first try, when even his later jet, the Pulqui, had serious flaws. And the Pulqui was built when he had far greater knowledge than he did in 1945.





How much sweep does the MIG-15 and Sabre have ?? Also I can think of jets more compact than the Ta-183, so can forget about your longitudnal stability theory.


Name one that has the same layout or proportions as the Ta-183.

The simple fact is that the tail plane on the Ta-183 sticks way the hell out on that vertical stabilizer because the fuselage is too short. Tank recognized this and built the Pulqui with an (almost) adequately long fuselage.





Could have ??!! You're making allot of skeptical assumptions !


The same ?skeptical assumptions? led Tank himself to the same conclusions. The Ta-183 was a flawed design. Notice Tank?s first jet wasn?t a Ta-183?





"Tank himself flew the Pulqui in October. Testing was hampered by "superstall" problems, which were later rectified. Also, the V1 was lost due to iadequate welding in the wing, and another prototype crashed in front of Peron during an airshow. "

ONE crahsed due to stalling !


Yeah, you keep believing that.

V1, piloted by Manneval, lost wing due to the pilot loosing control of the aircraft during aerobatic maneuvers. Behrens was killed when he lost control of his aircraft, went into an inverted spin, tried to dive, couldn?t pull out and struck the ground.





And here's what you wrote: "Even Kurt himself characterized the Pulqui as "deadly" due to the superstall characteristics of the tail. Several crashed due to this effect."

Tank's explanation is quite different !


What?s different about it? He characterized the plane as deadly due to his personal experiences with the superstall.





I wasn't talking about the crash Skychimp, I was talking about the Pulqui II's low speed handling problems which could only be improved by the use of either slats or wing fences - and YES one of the two WOULD have been added to the Ta-183, just like they were later on the Pulqui, its only a very obvious decision Skychimp.


Like they were on the later Pulqui? It got fences, but not for that reason.

The dangerous handling characteristics near stall were due to complete airflow separation at an AoA of as little as 15 degrees. Not only did airflow completely separate, Tank found it actually flowed forward against the direction of flight. During superstall, the plane dropped straight down while maintaining a normal flight attitude. The problem with the Pulqui II was that there was absolutely no stall warning at all ? just a sudden and total loss of all control.

?On the Pulqui II the tendency to rear up during landings led to a sharp-profiled leading edge to the wing near the fuselage in order to permit the airflow to separate sooner. Wind tunnel testing, however, revealed that this profiled edge did not fully rectify the problem. So, in addition, for the same reason ballast was used in the nose to shift the center of gravity forward. Combined, both measures corrected the problem and eliminated the dangerous tendencies of the plane during a stall. Tank was thus able to retain the T-tail design.?
(Source: The Histroy of German Aviation: Kurt tank: FW's Designers and Test Pilot, page 253)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

luftluuver
10-18-2006, 07:43 PM
SC, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink if it doesn't want to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ElAurens
10-18-2006, 07:51 PM
The Luftwaffe Kool Aide is a terribly mind altering drug....

Be sure.


Thanks SkyChimp for your well researched and well reasoned posts.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

ElAurens
10-18-2006, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:

You may call them as you like but those are still fences and yes it's true they were there to strenghten the wing and yes the problem was later completely solved, however, had EL Aurens saw SpitMkI he would obviously put it out of service as it's a "poor design" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brain, the strakes on the early Spit are clearly not fences.

These are fences.

http://www.warbirdsinscale.com/images/realstuff/Mig17/Mig%2017.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

VW-IceFire
10-18-2006, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:

You may call them as you like but those are still fences and yes it's true they were there to strenghten the wing and yes the problem was later completely solved, however, had EL Aurens saw SpitMkI he would obviously put it out of service as it's a "poor design" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brain, the strakes on the early Spit are clearly not fences.

These are fences.

http://www.warbirdsinscale.com/images/realstuff/Mig17/Mig%2017.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good lord...that's liable to keep all sorts of unsavoury bits of air out!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

Badsight-
10-18-2006, 11:04 PM
denial is a powerfull state of mind

Dont
Even
Noe
I
Am
Lying<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

Bellator_1
10-19-2006, 10:43 AM
The book by Wolfgang Wagner is full of mistakes, some so serious it can't be taken serious at all.

And before you guys accuse me of being in denial, I'll let you know that the Wolfgang's book is from 1999, a good 16 years after Kurt Tank passed away.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

anarchy52
10-19-2006, 10:59 AM
Who cares how Ta will fly?
Russian '46 wonders will pwn it anyway, so why worry?

Arm_slinger
10-19-2006, 11:15 AM
Yawn

Deary me, the trolls are proving tiresom recently.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Causing Havoc online as 242Sqn_Kye
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/IL-2sig.jpg
www.242sqn.com (http://www.242sqn.com)

Gibbage1
10-19-2006, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The book by Wolfgang Wagner is full of mistakes, some so serious it can't be taken serious at all.

And before you guys accuse me of being in denial, I'll let you know that the Wolfgang's book is from 1999, a good 16 years after Kurt Tank passed away.

Like what errors? List a few. Also, you still have not stated your "proof" that all other referances too the Ta-183 design being unstable are wrong. What is your referance?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Aaron_GT
10-19-2006, 12:18 PM
I doubt there is enough information on what the Ta183 would have been like in terms of control, internal structure, etc. to properly model it in enough detail to do an aerodynamic assessment of it in a virtual wind tunnel, even if the computing power was available. (There have been some advances in the fundamental mathematics of fluid dynamics recently, but we are talking years before it has any knock on effect for aerodynamic modelling I expect). Some people have built and flown scale models of some of the Luft 46 designs, but then these will have such different balances, Reynolds numbers, etc, that you can only tentatively say anything about what the real thing would be like.

The nearest to the Ta 183 is the Pulqui, which should be more longitudinally stable due to a longer fuselage. The question is what other changes from Ta 183 to Pulqui might have made it worse or better. But it's a reasonable starting point for what the initial Ta 183s might have been before any tweaking in development to remove problems such as the Pulqui had.

Bellator_1
10-19-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Like what errors? List a few.

Ok, pretty much all the performance figures in the book are wrong. And then there's countless other mistakes such as fuel loads, designations and introduction periods etc etc..


Also, you still have not stated your "proof" that all other referances too the Ta-183 design being unstable are wrong. What is your referance?

Its pretty much a flying wing with a horizontal stabilizer - what'ever error's the design might have could've been quickly solved. Take the He-162 for example, in theory it shouldn't have flown as well as it did, and it also suffered from dutch roll but it was rectified emmidiately.

PS: I never claimed the design was "Perfect", just that it was an ingenius design, cause it really was.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Gibbage1
10-19-2006, 02:11 PM
Aaron. Almost all aircraft firms have programs and machines to see how an aircraft will fly before its ever built. Its reality today. The F-22 was flying virtually before it was finished in reality based off of the output from these machines, and the pilots say the real F-22 fly's EXACTLY like the virtual one extrapulated from those machines for the simulation. The F-22 is a very advanced and complex aircraft to simulate, and something like the Ta-183 would be very simple.

People who know a good bit about aerodynamics have general rules of thumb they go by to get a general idea. Like I said, 2 area's of the Ta-183's design point too very poor stability. Its very short body and its very tall T-tail. Thats not even taking into account any other bad aspects. Its quite simple. If it was as good of a design as Bellator_1 plays it out too be, someone would of copied it. Look at how many country's had the chance! Kurt Tank himself did not even make it, nor did the US or Russia. So far I have not seen a single big of proof that it was a valid design AT ALL.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

F6_Ace
10-19-2006, 02:13 PM
A 7 page thread arguing about imaginary aircraft....?

Whatever next?

If the 'waffle' energy from this forum were somehow channelled into a turbine, there would be no need to worry about fossil fuels running out.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

Gibbage1
10-19-2006, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Ok, pretty much all the performance figures in the book are wrong. And then there's countless other mistakes such as fuel loads, designations and introduction periods etc etc..


Performance figures based on what flight test's? How can anyone even speculate on performance figures if the thing never flew? Yes, some aerodynamic engineers can get a general idea with a lot of math and tons of work, but you simply dont qualify to make any such statement. Back in WWII, performance figures for an aircraft that has not flown yet were nothing more then educated guesses at best, and the real life aircraft tended to varry greatly from them, and only rarely matched them.




Its pretty much a flying wing with a horizontal stabilizer


This is the most rediculess statement I have EVER heard. Its nothing even CLOSE too a flying wing!!! That fusilodge acts on aerodynamics itself! A flying wing does not have a fusilodge at all! Also, flying wings were very unstable without a tail and used airbrakes on the tip of there wings to act as a rudder. Your Ta-183 has none of these qualities, other then the instability I guess.



- what'ever error's the design might have could've been quickly solved. Take the He-162 for example, in theory it shouldn't have flown as well as it did, and it also suffered from dutch roll but it was rectified emmidiately.


And your figuring out this from your degree in aerodynamics? Development of an aircraft takes years and in many incarnations. Look at the Ta-183's closes relitive, the Pulqui II. It was in development for 5 years!!!!! And thats with Kurt Tank leading the team. The man that would of been responsable for fixing in problems with the Ta-183. 5 years!!! 5 differant prototypes! You call this "quickly solved"? What makes you think Kurt Tank could of quickly solved an aircraft problems 5 years earlier? Remember, the Pulqui II was a much more refined design since 5 years passed since the original Ta-183 was concepted. 5 years in a time on jet revolution and an era of aerodynamic renascence due to the jet age. In that 5 years, a lot was learned, and Kurt Tank applied those 5 years of knolege too the Pulqui, and still it took him 5 years to flesh it out. But somehow, you came too the conclusion that in the middle of a war in 1945 with bombs falling on his factory, he could of quickly solved any problem. Your truly dilusional.



PS: I never claimed the design was "Perfect", just that it was an ingenius design, cause it really was.

No, but you have made many many outlandish claims based on no proof about an aircraft that was never built or flew. An ingenius design would have been a good flight worthy design at least, and so far there is no proof that it was even flight worthy at all. Just a bunch of speculation from an un-educated fanboy.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Bellator_1
10-19-2006, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Performance figures based on what flight test's? How can anyone even speculate on performance figures if the thing never flew? Yes, some aerodynamic engineers can get a general idea with a lot of math and tons of work, but you simply dont qualify to make any such statement. Back in WWII, performance figures for an aircraft that has not flown yet were nothing more then educated guesses at best, and the real life aircraft tended to varry greatly from them, and only rarely matched them.

Read the book, its about ALL of Kurt Tank's designs plus some others, and the author pretty much screwed up all the performance data, big time.


This is the most rediculess statement I have EVER heard. Its nothing even CLOSE too a flying wing!!! That fusilodge acts on aerodynamics itself! A flying wing does not have a fusilodge at all! Also, flying wings were very unstable without a tail and used airbrakes on the tip of there wings to act as a rudder. Your Ta-183 has none of these qualities, other then the instability I guess.

The Ta-183 has a tail, wake up man !! The Ta-183 used a short body because the wing tips needed to be well behind the CG, it used Elevons for control remember !


And your figuring out this from your degree in aerodynamics? Development of an aircraft takes years and in many incarnations. Look at the Ta-183's closes relitive, the Pulqui II. It was in development for 5 years!!!!! And thats with Kurt Tank leading the team. The man that would of been responsable for fixing in problems with the Ta-183. 5 years!!! 5 differant prototypes! You call this "quickly solved"? What makes you think Kurt Tank could of quickly solved an aircraft problems 5 years earlier? Remember, the Pulqui II was a much more refined design since 5 years passed since the original Ta-183 was concepted. 5 years in a time on jet revolution and an era of aerodynamic renascence due to the jet age. In that 5 years, a lot was learned, and Kurt Tank applied those 5 years of knolege too the Pulqui, and still it took him 5 years to flesh it out. But somehow, you came too the conclusion that in the middle of a war in 1945 with bombs falling on his factory, he could of quickly solved any problem. Your truly dilusional.

No, you're delusional if you think Tank could just move to Argentina and emmidiately require all the resources he needed for the pulqui design - he didn't even speak Argentinian ! And the nation he moved to had almost no experience building airplanes.

How long did it take Tank to build FW-190 ?? How long did it take Heinkel to build the He-162 ??

Also I NEVER claimed that Tank could've built the Ta-183 during WWII ! So stop putting words into my mouth !


No, but you have made many many outlandish claims based on no proof about an aircraft that was never built or flew. An ingenius design would have been a good flight worthy design at least, and so far there is no proof that it was even flight worthy at all. Just a bunch of speculation from an un-educated fanboy.

Says the guy who can't even spell properly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Gibbage1
10-19-2006, 03:15 PM
Again, you still not have shown us your referance that shows that the Ta-183 was such a "ingenius design". Unless thats your own conclusion. If its your own conclusion, what education do you have to base it off of?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Gibbage1
10-19-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:


Also, Bellator. Let me direct you too Olegs own openion on the Ta-183's design. Remember, he IS an aerodynamics engineer.

"Sample with Ta-183 test in the aerodynamic tunnel of TsZAGI tell it at all: This plane would have more problems than advantages. And these that say that MiG-15 or F-80 are sons or even copy of Ta-183 - are wrong totally."<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

F6_Ace
10-19-2006, 03:25 PM
Oleg modelled the 190 view as it is.

'nuff said.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

robban75
10-19-2006, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Is there a test report to substantiate that? I've never heard that. The Tunnan was too slow to be a real competitor of the F-86. Given its other factors (wing loading, thrust to weight, etc), it doesn't appear to have been all that special.

AFAIK there are no official reports. For many years I was a guide at the Gotland airplane museum, and a couple of times I had the pleasure of guiding former J29 drivers. They told me that on occasion they met up with Norweigan F-86 fighters at the border, and of course dogfights(of the friendly kind) sometimes occured. When the J29 was equipped with external fueltanks, they had troubles keeping up with the F-86 in vertical manouvers, but in the horizontal plane the J29(with or without external tanks) had no problem outturning the F-86. In fact, the J29 outturned pretty much everything in the Swedish arsenal that had a jet engine and a swept wing design. Not even the J34 Hawker Hunter could beat the J29 in dogfights. Most of the time Hunter pilots had to attack the J29's at full speed and then dive away. All that changed once the Sidewinder was introduced. Top speed of the J29 was 1060km/h. Some pilots claimed they broke the soundbarrier. But the J29 was not very comfortable or safe at such high speeds.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/JG26-4.jpg

"The Dora 9 was one of the finest piston-engine fighters I have ever flown; it ranks among my top five with the Spitfire XIV, the Grumman Bearcat, the Hawker Sea Fury and the North American P-51D Mustang IV." Captain Eric Brown, WW2 FAA fighter pilot and test pilot.

http://www.bellum.nu/

Bellator_1
10-19-2006, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:


Also, Bellator. Let me direct you too Olegs own openion on the Ta-183's design. Remember, he IS an aerodynamics engineer.

"Sample with Ta-183 test in the aerodynamic tunnel of TsZAGI tell it at all: This plane would have more problems than advantages. And these that say that MiG-15 or F-80 are sons or even copy of Ta-183 - are wrong totally." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you actually believe that ??!! LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Gibbage1
10-19-2006, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

And you actually believe that ??!! LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Im more inclined to believe Oleg over you. Give me a reason I should not.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Gibbage1
10-19-2006, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Oleg modelled the 190 view as it is.

'nuff said.

Wrong. He did not. He does not model himself. One of his employees modeled the 190 and its correct according too the blueprints. I dont think the FW-190 view is a 3d modeling problem, but a pilots eyesight problem. The game cant do a good job simulating human eyes. But thats another thread. My point is that Oleg is not wrong.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

faustnik
10-19-2006, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Oleg is not wrong.

Hold on, I'm taking a screenshot.



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Gibbage1
10-19-2006, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Oleg is not wrong.

Hold on, I'm taking a screenshot.



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

EDIT: in this reguard.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

faustnik
10-19-2006, 03:59 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

WereSnowleopard
10-19-2006, 04:57 PM
Do you remember what Oleg do before be create IL2? he is an aircraft designer, and at the age of 16 he entered Moscow Aviation Institute ? the most prestigious Soviet school for aviation engineers. By the time he graduated with top honors in his class, his passion for WWII aviation grew even stronger. While still in institute he was hired by one of USSR?s top aerospace technology research design bureaus. He was promoted time and again over everybody else in his department until he became one of the youngest department managers in the bureau?s history. (copy from "THE MAN BEHIND THE LEGEND" from il2 news) He is so expert that he can reject Ta-183 from IL2 if he find it that it can not be flyable in real life. So Don't need to flame on how it can be do. WAIT until we get 46 and we will find answers in from play with it. Please have faith in Oleg and have fun play with new his addon. If you don't like 46s' planes then wait for his whole new level game "BOB" to play with very basic 39s' Spitfire I and Bf-109E-3. Have a good day.

Cheer
Snowleopard

SkyChimp
10-19-2006, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The book by Wolfgang Wagner is full of mistakes, some so serious it can't be taken serious at all.

And before you guys accuse me of being in denial, I'll let you know that the Wolfgang's book is from 1999, a good 16 years after Kurt Tank passed away.

Another stunning display.

The book, dated 1998, is an English translation of the orginal German work entitled Kurt Tank - Konstrukteur und Testpilot bei Focke-Wulf by Bernard and Graefe published in 1980.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/colorchimp.jpg

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

luftluuver
10-19-2006, 08:45 PM
Not only that SC but in the Preface by Wolfgang Wagner (dated March 1980) he states:

"No less a person than Tank himself was the proof reader of the technical details of the book. He carefully checked both text and tables so that these, dispite all too human minor error, would withstand the test of history." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-24-2006, 08:11 PM
Ah, that would be the Lifting Wing.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

AKA_TAGERT
10-24-2006, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Charos:
Does this then mean, ultimately, the question of "Wing" or "Lifting Body" merely derives its classification by semblance of its orientation to the direction of flight.?
I have not seen any definition that addresses that, that happens sometimes with new things. Basically, the shape of the plane changes from wing like to lifting like. As for the transition I don't know what you would call it.


Originally posted by Charos:
Would a Lenticular planiform be regarded as a Wing or a body as it has no general orientation and could potentially move in any number of flight paths.?
I think it is classified as a lawn dart! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
10-24-2006, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
One of my greatest internet pleasures is reading Tagert's responses http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. Porn and Tagert's responses. Makes the internet worth having. What can I say.. it's a gift! I just hope you get wood with one and not the other! <G><div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

WWMaxGunz
10-24-2006, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Getting a little shirty because you can't counter the point, Max? Ad homnium, too - just for good measure? Your usual performance, I should add, and entirely expected.

For your information, I was never banned - the mods can support that. But please do continue your incorrect analysis.

Fine, so that's your first sig and you still push a view very like some who have been banned.


I dare say that someone looking at the original P39 design may well have thought that the mid-engined arrangement wasn't a terribly good idea and that problems would ensue. However, until you've actually built it and flown it, particularly in the 1940s where CAD-CAM/simulation wasn't exactly so widespread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif then you wouldn't really know for sure. But, in actual fact, you've just said what I was saying in the first place and that is that, upon first inspection, designs will have flaws that need correcting and the Ta could have fitted neatly into this category and gone on to be a classic. You, or I, will never know, though.

Except that's NOT what I stated at all. P-39 is not a flawed design in itself and many men
flew it well with no problem. It was the ones who could not adapt who had the problems.


Anyway, no matter what flannel you try to package your cobblers in, the point stands - you are simply not going to make one iota of difference to the Ta that we're given - and that's a fact, pal.

Well duuuuuuu-uuuuhhh there's not gonna be any difference! What's that got to do with what
I've posted? Flannel? If it ain't some flip misdirectional BS then I guess it's flannel
and hot air to you.

The Ta-183 we get will be what we get however Team Maddox did change it to make it work.
I highly expect it won't be a super plane "highly maneuverable at ALL speeds" whatsoever
not because of where it was drawn but simply because with 40's technology even the "super
science" of the "ubermensch" was not up to that task. It's got ONE shape, it's not gonna
be ultra in all conditions simple as that.

We will get what we get. Users should not complain about the code they get. They are LUCKY
to get anything at all.

Gibbage1
10-24-2006, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
When aspect ratios become small, planform effects dominate and there is a considerable similarity between the performance of the Shuttle and the various NASA lifting bodies.


Smoke and mirrors. Now your just confusing the point. The point that I made is no flying wing can or even has broken the sound barrier. Every example YOU gave simply is not a flying wing by pure definition of the term "flying wing". You point out Delta wings and flying body's. Two very differant flight concepts. The Shuttle is not a flying wing. Its a combo of a lifting body and a delta configureation. It still has a large fusilodge.



The air doesn't care whether you call it a lifting body or a flying wing, or indeed a lifting wing or a flying fuselage.


Considering the air is a non-sectiant being, I doubt it cares about anything. The sound barrier does indeed care about who gets through. So far its denied entry too all flying wings. That you have yet to disprove.

You seem to be having trouble with the definition of a flying wing. Let me help you.

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

Read up. You may learn something! Then again your still getting a flying wing confused with Delta wings and flying body's. Or its just your too stubbern to admit fault and will try anything to keep from saying you were wrong.



Therefore I put it to you that the debate over the semantics clouds the issue and is best avoided.


Its not a debate over semantics, but definitions. Get a dictionary or look it up. Im tired of having to repeat myself.



Afterall, as I have attempted to point out already, whilst it is a simple matter to invent abstract concepts such as the flying wing, or the lifting body (derived originally from the volumes of revolution used for re-entry vehicles) it is altogether more difficult to decide into which conceptual box to insert many real aeroplanes.


It may be difficult for you, but not for the rest of us. This is just a cop-out for saying you were wrong.



For example, the YB-49 has a vestigal fuselage. It is therefore not a true flying wing. Of course it's pretty close to the ideal, so most people file it under "Flying wings".


Wrong. If you look at the shape of the tail, it still contenues the wing profile. It never brakes the wing profile at any point. Its still pure wing.



Fine.

Now let's examine the Avro Vulcan. It's a delta, and it was originally drawn as a pure flying wing. When a practical aeroplane emerged, it had a vestigal fuselage (rather less vestigal than YB-49's however). It also has a delta wing. So, is it a conventional delta, or a flying wing?


If you cant tell, then why should I bother telling you. READ THE FREAKING DEFINITION!!!!! It has a very big fusilodge. Clearly its out of the realm of flying wing. It may fall under the catagory of BWB though if the cockpit blended in better. But lets not confuse you with even more definitions. Your having problem with the 1 at it is.



This could run and run...

The original point made by Gibbage was the supersonic flying wings were impossible due to pitch-up.


One that you have yet to counter. I said as speed increases, the wings produce more lift. Flying wings are very THICK wings, unlike that of a delta. So delta's produce less lift at high speeds. There are also many other problems with flying wings at speed, but I wanted to simplify it for you, and you still cant get it. Simply put, flying wings and tailess aircraft are unstable at high speeds.



If we return to that point, an simple argument may be developed.


I will try and keep it as simple as possible for you.



i)YB-49A was still a flying wing, despite the addition of podded engines. Ergo, engine nacelles are allowed.

ii) MiG-21I may reasonably be considered to be a flying wing with a central engine nacelle. It was supersonic. QED.
Here's a pretty picture for you:
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/afwing/intro/mig21/mig21i_3.jpg

Are you high or just stupid? Its not a central engine necelle. BY ITS VERY DEFINITION, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "CENTRA" ENGINE NECELLE. you REALLY need to look up some definitions before posting. I keep thinking "He cant look any more STUPID" and you keep proving me wrong every post. Use Wikipedia for god sakes!!!!! Let me help you.

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

In case you cant click on a link.

"The term is commonly used in the worlds of aviation, nautical and spacecraft design, in order to refer to a covered housing, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">separate from the fuselage</span>, which usually holds engines, fuel, or equipment."

Im sure you will reply with more smoke and mirrors to cover up just how unbelievable stupid you are, but the fact remains is you simply dont know what the hell your talking about.

Before you reply, I highly suggest using Wikipedia to do some research first.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

WWMaxGunz
10-24-2006, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Luftluuver, thats the RLM specs. The airplane had to be highly maneuverable at all speeds, have atleast a maximum speed of 600mph and a 600 fpm climb rate.

And this is where the problem with your initial surmise comes in. The difference between what
was desired and what never got built does not equal that the design would fit the bill. And
that is true whenever the desires get over-optimistic which fits the Nazi regime over and over.
It fits many times likewise in just about every other country too but those Germans were just
a tiny bit more in a spot back when the 183 spec was laid down. Better be smiling when The
Leader heard you out and you'd better have not just good but really good news, like yeah we
have the answer kind of news.

But of course a nice RC model is all it takes to prove the design... uh huh.

Why don't you just settle for good maneuverability considering the speed and see what the
physics engine does with the MODIFIED TO WORK model that Maddox Games produces?

Also note that way back in the discussion it was posted how the Soviets DID have a copy of
the plans (and not on a napkin, actual prints) and did mount a project and did find flaws
that resulted in some fundamental differences and I do believe that you replied to that post
in a positive fashion?

IE, I ain't aiming at you just taking exception to your tag line which IMO is a setup for
much whining in a month or so. Whatcha gonna say if the 183 is not "highly maneuverable"
at all speeds or only achieves 590 mph and climbs 1%-5% less fast than that RLM spec?

WWMaxGunz
10-24-2006, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The original point made by Gibbage was the supersonic flying wings were impossible due to pitch-up.

I'm not debating your aero knowledge but rather you keep restating Gibs points incorrectly.
That is not what he wrote. Perhaps it is what you see as a result of what he wrote, I dunno.
With too much lift the pilot has to keep trimming nose down to stay level and I can see that
at some point a very small difference in pitch will make a large difference in flight path
which will result in loss of control. Up or down, the design has a maximum practical speed
that isn't due to drag or power if I have it even nearly right.

I look at lifting bodies and I note that they don't have much width which results in a need
for vertical or semi-vertical surfaces in order to steer. Whereas the flying wing in pure
state doesn't -- it torques the lift vector over by varying lift along the wing only. Is
that right?

Viper2005_
10-24-2006, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
For example, the YB-49 has a vestigal fuselage. It is therefore not a true flying wing. Of course it's pretty close to the ideal, so most people file it under "Flying wings".


Wrong. If you look at the shape of the tail, it still contenues the wing profile. It never brakes the wing profile at any point. Its still pure wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the fuselage is clearly body of revolution which is not based upon the aerofoil section of the mainplane. If it were, there would be a nose as well as a tail. Then of course there's that pesky aft transparency.

Now, perhaps you would care to re-examine the vulcan. When it entered service, the Vulcan B1 looked like this:
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2989.jpg
http://www.rafmuseum.co.uk/milestones-of-flight/aircraft/images/1957/1957-pc75-2-3646-A-Vul-B1.jpg

It's got about as much nose as your YB-49 has tail...

If you go back to 1947, you can see the original flying wing concept:

http://www.captain-vulcan.freeuk.com/avrodraw.jpg

From which perhaps one might conclude that the Vulcan is a flying wing which has grown bit of fuselage in response to the pressures of the real world...



Im sure you will reply with more smoke and mirrors to cover up just how unbelievable stupid you are, but the fact remains is you simply dont know what the hell your talking about.

Before you reply, I highly suggest using Wikipedia to do some research first.

Perhaps you might look at yourself in a mirror before throwing insults around with such gay abandon.

BTW for your edification, nacelle translates from the French as "gondola" and was originally used interchangably with fuselage.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=14668&dict=F&lang=F

It was used interchangably with fuselage. For example:


When you stood up to shoot [in the F.E.2b], all of you from the knees up was exposed to the elements. There was no belt to hold you. Only your grip on the gun and the sides of the <span class="ev_code_red">nacelle</span> stood between you and eternity. Toward the front of the nacelle was a hollow steel rod with a swivel mount to which the gun was anchored. This gun covered a huge field of fire forward. Between the observer and the pilot a second gun was mounted, for firing over the F.E.2b's upper wing to protect the aircraft from rear attack ... Adjusting and shooting this gun required that you stand right up out of the <span class="ev_code_red">nacelle</span> with your feet on the <span class="ev_code_red">nacelle</span> coaming [sic]. You had nothing to worry about except being blown out of the aircraft by the blast of air or tossed out bodily if the pilot made a wrong move. There were no parachutes and no belts. No wonder they needed observers. Frederick Libby, first American ace of WWI, writing about one of these:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/images/aircraft/gbritain/raf_fe2.jpg

Gibbage1
10-24-2006, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Now, perhaps you would care to re-examine the vulcan. When it entered service, the Vulcan B1 looked like this:

It's got about as much nose as your YB-49 has tail...


OK. Now I get it. You think your smarter then the rest of the world. I understand now. Put everything into perspective. So Wikipedia is wrong when they say "The Avro Vulcan was a British delta-wing subsonic bomber" since in REALITY (YOUR reality) its a flying wing? Well. The world now needs to change there definition of a flying wing too suit you I guess.



If you go back to 1947, you can see the original flying wing concept:

http://www.captain-vulcan.freeuk.com/avrodraw.jpg


That is a nice example of a flying wing. No fusilodge. I thought you were getting it, then I remembered the nimrodery posted above. Your disputing NASA, DARPA and the worlds definition of Flying Wing. Good luck with that.



From which perhaps one might conclude that the Vulcan is a flying wing which has grown bit of fuselage in response to the pressures of the real world...


Well you may. But the moment it grew a fuselage and changed its wing design, it also changed designation to a delta wing. The drawing you posted and the Vulcan prototype dont share many similarities if any at all other then the fact the wings are swept.



BTW for your edification, nacelle translates from the French as "gondola" and was originally used interchangably with fuselage.


We are not talking french here, but english, and I gave you the english definition.



When you stood up to shoot [in the F.E.2b], all of you from the knees up was exposed to the elements. There was no belt to hold you. Only your grip on the gun and the sides of the <span class="ev_code_red">nacelle</span> stood between you and eternity. Toward the front of the nacelle was a hollow steel rod with a swivel mount to which the gun was anchored. This gun covered a huge field of fire forward. Between the observer and the pilot a second gun was mounted, for firing over the F.E.2b's upper wing to protect the aircraft from rear attack ... Adjusting and shooting this gun required that you stand right up out of the <span class="ev_code_red">nacelle</span> with your feet on the <span class="ev_code_red">nacelle</span> coaming [sic]. You had nothing to worry about except being blown out of the aircraft by the blast of air or tossed out bodily if the pilot made a wrong move. There were no parachutes and no belts. No wonder they needed observers. Frederick Libby, first American ace of WWI, writing about one of these:
[/QUOTE]

So now your taking your definitions and english lessons from a WWI gunner? The proper term for that aircraft would of been Gondola, not nacelle. Like the P-38's gondola, with its engines in nacelle's.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Viper2005_
10-24-2006, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The original point made by Gibbage was the supersonic flying wings were impossible due to pitch-up.

I'm not debating your aero knowledge but rather you keep restating Gibs points incorrectly.
That is not what he wrote. Perhaps it is what you see as a result of what he wrote, I dunno.
With too much lift the pilot has to keep trimming nose down to stay level and I can see that
at some point a very small difference in pitch will make a large difference in flight path
which will result in loss of control. Up or down, the design has a maximum practical speed
that isn't due to drag or power if I have it even nearly right.

I look at lifting bodies and I note that they don't have much width which results in a need
for vertical or semi-vertical surfaces in order to steer. Whereas the flying wing in pure
state doesn't -- it torques the lift vector over by varying lift along the wing only. Is
that right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am being generous in assuming that Gibbage is referring to pitch-up obliquely in his original post. This is at least plausible for a 1940s design if shock development leads to tipstall.

If in fact he simply means that lift is excessive then he is displaying a total lack of understanding of the lift equation.

L = Cl*Q*S

L = Lift
Cl = Lift Coefficient
Q = Dynamic pressure
S = Wing area

Q = *roh*v²

roh = air density
v = velocity

Now, it follows that if you want to fly fast you have three options:

i) reduce Cl
ii) reduce roh
iii) reduce wing area

Option (iii) isn't that practical, though to an extent it may be achieved with Fowler flaps.

So, let's look at those other options. Reducing roh is easy - climb!

As for reducing Cl, you need to reduce the angle of attack of your wing.

Under normal circumstances (ie a long way from the stall), the Cl produced by most aerofoil sections varies linearly with angle of attack.

So, you'll end up with alpha ~ 1/Q

As Q becomes large, so the importance of fine control of alpha becomes ever more important, which is one of the many reasons for the unpopularity of high aspect ratios in high speed flight (lower aspect ratios give a shallower lift curve slope).

Thankfully, if you've made a reasonable effort to design your control system properly the stick force associated with any given control deflection will vary with Q, such that fine control isn't as difficult to achieve as you might at first expect.

Anyway, if you're going to fly fast, it's generally a good idea to fly high, since this is both aerodynamically and thermodynamically beneficial. Which is why Concorde cruised well above FL500.

So, excess lift really shouldn't be a problem, because there are two mechanisms for accurate lift control which may be used in concert.

Hence my assumption that Gibbage was talking about pitch-up.

As for your question regarding vertical surfaces, lifting bodies need lots of vertical tail in order to avoid inertia coupling, a phenomenon to which they are especially vulnerable due to their mass distribution and high design speed. They are generally controlled conventionally (aileron/elevator or elevon). Most subsequent configurations were informed by the tragic experience gained flying the F-100 and the X-2.

See the following reports:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87611main_RM-H55G26.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88484main_H-2106.pdf

Flying wings by common useage are of higher aspect ratio than lifting bodies. Generally they need verticals to achieve directional stability, though the Hortens managed by using a clever lift distribution, and today you can do wonders with artifical stability. Inertial coupling in roll tends to be less of a problem due to the spanwise distribution of mass, though if you want to fly fast it always pays to have a reserve of directional stability to guard against inertial coupling.

Gibbage1
10-24-2006, 10:50 PM
Viper2005_

I must admit one thing too you Viper. The Vulcan DOES have 1 big thing in common with all flying wings. Its sub-sonic.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Charos
10-24-2006, 11:32 PM
The Development of All-Wing Aircraft by John K. Northrop (http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Northrop/Northrop_address/body_northrop_address.html)


I did not read the entire article - Im just adding it to the knowledge base.

But did note the following:

"Still more recently a third possible advantage has appeared, this being the (as yet unproved) probability that problems of stability in the transonic and supersonic ranges may be somewhat more simple of solution in the tailless type than in the older and more conventional arrangements.

At transonic or comparatively low supersonic speeds, a plain swept-back wing appears to be one of the best possible configurations, provided that sufficient is available within the wing. Since the flow normal to the leading edge is subsonic over almost the entire wing surface, subsonic airfoils with reasonably good subsonic flight characteristics can be used at these speeds. The all-wing design eliminates wing-fuselage interference as well as adverse interference between the tail surfaces and wing or body.

Save for one compensating factor, this problem of volume and size might well rule out the all-wing airplane for supersonic use, and certainly does limit its usefulness for low altitude flight. However, an attractive field of operation exists at very high altitude where air densities are low and therefore wing areas must be comparably great if suitable lift coefficients are to be maintained. If we design a frankly supersonic airplane to fly at, say, a Mach number of 1.6, with supersonic diamond-section airfoils, the maximum cruising lift coefficient will probably be no greater than .15, and the corresponding loading must be held to 40 lb. per sq. ft.

If a sufficiently high altitude is chosen it seems quite possible that adequate volume can be secured in the wing, in spite of its small thickness ratio, by using low aspect ratio planforms approaching the triangular.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~trentelliott/FW190/190IL2_View.jpg

Gibbage1
10-24-2006, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Charos:
I did not read the entire article - Im just adding it to the knowledge base.


Do you know when that study was done? The test I refer to that showed tailess aircraft are not suitable for super-sonic flight was between 1950-1953 using the X-4. I think this was published before that time frame.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

Charos
10-24-2006, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Charos:
I did not read the entire article - Im just adding it to the knowledge base.


Do you know when that study was done? The test I refer to that showed tailess aircraft are not suitable for super-sonic flight was between 1950-1953 using the X-4. I think this was published before that time frame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


According to the article it was a speech dated "Thursday, May 29, 1947" so yes it was before.

Gibbage I cant find a link to the Bantam X4 article you mention - Could you point me in the right direction?.

I know if suffered much the same Mach tuck as the ME163 though.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~trentelliott/FW190/190IL2_View.jpg

Gibbage1
10-25-2006, 12:26 AM
It was on one of my books called "The Northrop Flying Wings" or something. Do some research on the X-4 itself and you will see it was designed too test tailess aircraft at high speeds, and the conclusion.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

F6_Ace
10-25-2006, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Getting a little shirty because you can't counter the point, Max? Ad homnium, too - just for good measure? Your usual performance, I should add, and entirely expected.

For your information, I was never banned - the mods can support that. But please do continue your incorrect analysis.

Fine, so that's your first sig and you still push a view very like some who have been banned.


I dare say that someone looking at the original P39 design may well have thought that the mid-engined arrangement wasn't a terribly good idea and that problems would ensue. However, until you've actually built it and flown it, particularly in the 1940s where CAD-CAM/simulation wasn't exactly so widespread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif then you wouldn't really know for sure. But, in actual fact, you've just said what I was saying in the first place and that is that, upon first inspection, designs will have flaws that need correcting and the Ta could have fitted neatly into this category and gone on to be a classic. You, or I, will never know, though.

Except that's NOT what I stated at all. P-39 is not a flawed design in itself and many men
flew it well with no problem. It was the ones who could not adapt who had the problems.


Anyway, no matter what flannel you try to package your cobblers in, the point stands - you are simply not going to make one iota of difference to the Ta that we're given - and that's a fact, pal.

Well duuuuuuu-uuuuhhh there's not gonna be any difference! What's that got to do with what
I've posted? Flannel? If it ain't some flip misdirectional BS then I guess it's flannel
and hot air to you.

The Ta-183 we get will be what we get however Team Maddox did change it to make it work.
I highly expect it won't be a super plane "highly maneuverable at ALL speeds" whatsoever
not because of where it was drawn but simply because with 40's technology even the "super
science" of the "ubermensch" was not up to that task. It's got ONE shape, it's not gonna
be ultra in all conditions simple as that.

We will get what we get. Users should not complain about the code they get. They are LUCKY
to get anything at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Your tactic of trying to undermine your opponent's position by trying to insinuate they had been banned failed, Max. Sorry and all that. I know it's a reasonable tactic for one clutching at straws but it didn't work. Like I said, I've never been banned - God knows I've tried. You can leave off the playground responses, too. I've seen it all before http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

2. It was not your point - you're right for once. It was my point; that the Ta may have appeared flawed on paper but that it could well have been adapted into something special. As I said to Blutarski in another thread, engineers often have very different ways of tackling problems and just because something doesn't look right to one engineer upon first inspection, it doesn't mean it won't work when tested or cannot be made to work.

3. You are repeating what I said again. Fact is, I couldn't care less about whether the Ta meets the RLM specs or not because this is just a game, but one with many other important deficiencies which would need addressing before tackling some aircraft that never flew in a scenario that never existed. This discussion is about expectation and that's fine but there is going to be a bout of whining that may well be picked up on the seismographs placed on the moon if the Ta actually performs to those RLM specs and people will want it changed...but to what?
The idea that planes rarely match specs is not the best argument because that means that some do and that means it could be entirely possible that the Ta would have.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

WOLFMondo
10-25-2006, 03:02 AM
My head hurts after reading this thread.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

F6_Ace
10-25-2006, 03:12 AM
Mine, too; I've made my point (again) and I'm out of here.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

Blutarski2004
10-25-2006, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
My head hurts after reading this thread.


..... I pretty much agree. I'm waiting for this to debate to wind up so that we can get to a really interesting example of American technological ingenuity: the trans-sonic "Mach Truck".<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Viper2005_
10-25-2006, 10:09 AM
Basing your assumption that flying wings are capable of supersonic flight upon test data gathered from the X-4 Bantam, which has rather a lot of fuselage, and then ruling out my refutation on the basis that the aeroplanes used were not pure flying wings is somewhat hypocritical don't you think?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Northrop_X-4_onground_colour.jpg/770px-Northrop_X-4_onground_colour.jpg

X-4 was basically a later American take on the DH-108, and suffered from similar issues, though thankfully without the same tragic results.

http://www.airventure.de/historypics/dh108.jpg

Both aeroplanes suffered from Mach tuck, and both aeroplanes were claimed by test pilots to have attained supersonic flight in uncontrolled dives.

That's what you get for using moderate sweep with subsonic aerofoils at high Mach numbers.

Increased sweep and reduced t/c allowed subsequent deltas to attain supersonic flight without particularly vicious stability & control issues (once lessons had been learned from the F-102's rather nasty coupling issues). There is no reason to assume that such an approach would not apply equally to aeroplanes without fuselages, especially if efforts were made to trim the CoG as a function of Mach number.