PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Rammjaeger
01-18-2008, 07:21 PM
There was a documentary on air yesterday and I was watching a segment about the Me-262 it occurred to me that the type is routinely mentioned as a revolutionary design ahead of its time - and yet few major post-WW2 aircraft types had the same basic design (shark-like fuselage, one engine under each wing).

Loco-S
01-18-2008, 07:27 PM
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/middle/9/1/3/1318319.jpg

Bremspropeller
01-18-2008, 07:43 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

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

BoCfuss
01-18-2008, 09:28 PM
As a war fighter you are correct. Pod mount engines are much easier and thus cheaper to maintain. It was a simple design, but for WWII era aircraft it was ahead of its time. The engine design was also superior, just lacked better alloys in the fans and compression chamber.

DrHerb
01-18-2008, 09:38 PM
Yep Whittle's engine was a centrifugal flow while the Jumo was an axial flow. Centrifugal flow engines weigh more and are less aerodynamic than axial flow gas turbines

GreyFox5
01-18-2008, 09:44 PM
I thought I read or saw a show that stated that the Russians had jet technology about the same time as the British and the Germans. And I think there was a hint that the Russians broke the sound barrier around the same time as America did.

Loco-S
01-18-2008, 09:52 PM
In Russia, you dont fly plane, plane flies YOU.

Waldo.Pepper
01-18-2008, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
In Russia, you dont fly plane, plane flies YOU.

Yakov, you kill me.

Early Soviet jet engines were knock off of the German engines. Kind of like early American jet engines were knockoffs of the ___________.

woofiedog
01-18-2008, 11:08 PM
The McDonnell Moonbat was a radical design for it's time with the engines and wing blending into the fuseluge. First submitted to the Army Air Corp in 1941.

http://www.air-boyne.com/Moonbat%20P-67.jpg
McDonnell XP-67 "Moonbat"

zardozid
01-18-2008, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
In Russia, you dont fly plane, plane flies YOU.

Yakov, you kill me.

Early Soviet jet engines were knock off of the German engines. Kind of like early American jet engines were knockoffs of the ___________. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought early Russian jet engines where developed from the "British Rolls Royce Nene"... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

tools4foolsA
01-19-2008, 01:34 AM
Swept wings..swept wings...

Pointing those wings 'backwards' was revolutionary...

*****

Waldo.Pepper
01-19-2008, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by zardozid:
I thought early Russian jet engines where developed from the "British

Rolls Royce Nene"... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Early Russian jet engines ...


"It was however decided to start Soviet production of German jet engines which were considered superior to the comparable Soviet projects. The Junkers Jumo 004 was thus produced as the RD-10 (to be used in the Yak-15) and the BMW 003 as the RD-20 (used in the MiG-9)."

From Under the Red Star - Luftwaffe Aircraft in the Soviet Airforce
Carl-Fredrik Geust page 109.

Also I think this is even mentioned in the 1946 aircraft guide.

There was nothing wrong with the basic design of the German Jets engines used during the war. The cause of all the trouble was the lack of critical materials. Consider the following passage from "WW2 Fighter Combat" by Alfred Price. pages 75-77 (Bold text is of course mine.)

"The results of the differing design philosophies in Britain and Germany can be seen from a comparison of the first turbo-jet engines to enter production: the Rolls-Royce Welland and the Junkers Jumo 004B. The Welland developed a thrust of 1,700 pounds for a diameter of 43 inches and a weight of about 850 pounds. The Jumo 004B developed 1,850 pounds of thrust for a diameter of 31.5 inches and a weight of about 1,590 pounds (the weight of some 004Bs could be greater by as much as 120 pounds, because to speed production the rough castings were machined only where absolutely necessary and there was a considerable variation in the sand moulds used). The eight-stage axial flow compressor of the 004B and the single-stage back-to-back centrifugal compressor of the Welland both gave compression ratios of about 3:1; but to achieve this the Welland had to run at a speed of 17,500 rpm, or about twice as fast as the 004B.

In terms of running life, the British and American turbo-jet engines were considerably better than those of the Germans. The latter were greatly handicapped by the shortages of chromium and nickel, which prevented the large scale use of high temperature alloys in Germany. In the absence of proper materials the combustion chambers of the 004B, for example, were made out of ordinary steel with a spray coating of aluminium baked on in an oven. It was a poor substitute and the theoretical 'life' of the combustion chambers was 25 running hours; in practice, it was frequently less. In contrast, the running life of similar components in British and American engines was about seven times as long; when it was declared suitable for service use in mid-1944, the Welland was cleared for 180 hours between overhauls."

In Soviet service their copies of the German engines, when made properly without scrimping on materials, ran far far more reliably.

colter_236
01-19-2008, 09:12 PM
if the germans had developed the me 262 earlier and in larger numbers they would had a chance of winning the war

Rjel
01-19-2008, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by colter_236:
if the germans had developed the me 262 earlier and in larger numbers they would had a chance of winning the war

Wow! There's some speculation that's never been made before. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Haigotron
01-20-2008, 09:56 AM
Nice pic loco!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

My house is lined up with the final approach of planes for Dorval Intl and I've seen thousands (no joke - one passes every 5 minutes) of planes coming in to land. Some time ago, I was surprised at how much an airliner has the silhouette of an me-262 from the rear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pretty cool IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
01-20-2008, 10:16 AM
Loco beat me to it - modern jet liners are awfully similiar to the Me 262 layout (full span leading edge slats, moderate wing sweep, underwing nacelles).

The reason are the same, jet liners operate at about the same speed regime as the 262 did, and easy maintaince of the powerplant units is needed, too. Although in the case of early jets, having two, in an underwing pod config was dictated by the facts that a, early jet engines were not very powerful b, underwing installations have of better thrust effiency than those inside the airframe.

Klemm.co
01-20-2008, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
b, underwing installations have of better thrust effiency than those inside the airframe.
But they have more drag, which offsetts the better thrust efficiency, at least thats what i read.

Kurfurst__
01-20-2008, 12:26 PM
But of course! Though, I guess the reasonning was somewhere along the lines, that they had only jets with low thrust outputs, so either you`d could have, say, 3 jet units in the fuselage providing sufficient thrust with lower effiency but also lower drag, or 2 units in the nacelles with higher drag. Secondary effects, like fuel effiency (extra fuel carried etc.) should also be considered.

I am sure designers had they played with all these possibilities and for early jets, and found underwing nacelles were better for low powered engines. The P-80 is another matter, its a powerful jet units, but in that case one should consider its also a rather sizable one, and probably it wouldnt make sense to place it in an outside nacelle in that particular case and jet unit.

Xiolablu3
01-20-2008, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by colter_236:
if the germans had developed the me 262 earlier and in larger numbers they would had a chance of winning the war

Yes, it was a great plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We can take it further by asking why they were unable to build more?

R_Target
01-20-2008, 05:23 PM
There's a reason airliners have engines on the wings, but it has little to do with the 262.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1345/757231929_0c8bc4b9c0.jpg

Bremspropeller
01-20-2008, 05:25 PM
Railway-cars? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

R_Target
01-20-2008, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Railway-cars?

Yup. Railway cars with wings.

Metatron_123
01-20-2008, 07:45 PM
Let's not pretend the Me-262 wasn't influential.
This bears a striking similarity.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x286/metatron_123/0914663.jpg
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x286/metatron_123/0912804.jpg
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x286/metatron_123/Me262_bw_01.jpg

Is the grand daddy of them all. Be sure.

Gibbage1
01-20-2008, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by DrHerb:
Yep Whittle's engine was a centrifugal flow while the Jumo was an axial flow. Centrifugal flow engines weigh more and are less aerodynamic than axial flow gas turbines

So that explains why the P-80 had only 1 engine, yet was faster then the Me-262 with its "superior" engine. Huh. Wait....

Gibbage1
01-20-2008, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by colter_236:
if the germans had developed the me 262 earlier and in larger numbers they would had a chance of winning the war

You also need fuel and pilots to pit into those jets.

From what I recall, the Germans had quite a few Me-262's laying around at the end of the war that never got a chance to fly due to lack of fuel and/or pilots.

VW-IceFire
01-20-2008, 09:56 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 DrHerb:
Yep Whittle's engine was a centrifugal flow while the Jumo was an axial flow. Centrifugal flow engines weigh more and are less aerodynamic than axial flow gas turbines

So that explains why the P-80 had only 1 engine, yet was faster then the Me-262 with its "superior" engine. Huh. Wait.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought both the P-80 and the Me-262 had axial flow engines?

Axial flow IS the better design that more or less used today but at the time Whittle had the right idea for making a practical jet engine that wasn't so demanding as the German one.

Bremspropeller
01-20-2008, 09:58 PM
So that explains why the P-80 had only 1 engine, yet was faster then the Me-262 with its "superior" engine. Huh. Wait....

Well, axial-flow enines are indeed way better than radial-flow ones.
Back then, radial engines had an edge because they were way simple to build and could be made more powerfull with less sophisticated materials.

That edge doesn't exist anymore. Radials were outclassed by axials from the early Fifties on.

BoCfuss
01-20-2008, 10:22 PM
Agreed, at the time the radial flow design was better. Which is what really counted then. The 262 was really ahead of its time, at the Germans cost. It wasn't the right plane at the right time, the P-51 was.

I agree with Gibbage, if the 262 came earlier, it would have made no difference in the long run, unless it was around in strong numbers in 36. Just like Vietnam would have been different if they had the F-15 and F-16.

Bremspropeller
01-20-2008, 10:30 PM
Just like Vietnam would have been different if they had the F-15 and F-16.

Disagree.
Neither conflict could have been "won" that way.

F-15s won't get you any advantage, when the limiting factor is ROE.
Just as no 262 won't do you any good whan you're losing a war on the ground.
Like that A-10-driver once said:
"The ultimate air-superriority weapon is a tank on your runway."


The 262 was really ahead of its time, at the Germans cost. It wasn't the right plane at the right time, as was the P-51.

Couldn't agree more. Exactly my thought.

Gibbage1
01-20-2008, 10:46 PM
The P-80, Mig-15 and F-86 used Radial flow jets based off of the Whittle and Nene engines. Yes, Axial engines ARE far superior, but they were not during WWII, or for some time after till technology could make them. 10 hours of flight time, and lower power output is not as revolutionary as people make the Jumo out to be.

There is a saying. When your dealing with bleeding edge technology, bring a lot of band-aids. The Jumo's design bled the German war machine dry. I think the Germans would of been better off fielding more tried and tested technology then depending on super-weapons like the Me-262, Me-163 and He-162. All 3 of those sucked up a lot of time, money, and resources and played VERY little role in the war.

Gibbage1
01-20-2008, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by BoCfuss:
I agree with Gibbage, if the 262 came earlier, it would have made no difference in the long run, unless it was around in strong numbers in 36. Just like Vietnam would have been different if they had the F-15 and F-16.

If the ME-262 was earlier, it would of bled the Germany war machine just faster. IT was too much of a liability then benifit. Its fuel consumption, need for trained pilots and long runways, and, most importantly, its 10 hours of flight time on each engine!

That was one of its biggest flaws. Each engine had to be overhauled after every 10 hours! Thats about 4-5 flights. Also, its limited range let far "inferior" aircraft like the P-51 pick it off when it was out of gas and trying to land, exposing its air bases and killing its pilots.

If the Me-262 had better engines, and had more range (at LEAST enough to get away from the escorts) it would of been a GREAT weapon. It would of given bomber crews a LOT of trouble with its amazing armament!!! But its flaws made it a 2nd rate desperation weapon that was obsolete before the war ended.

Bremspropeller
01-20-2008, 10:59 PM
I agree with what you put in Gib.

Except for the 262's range, which actually wasn't all that bad.
The problem was that at high speeds, the range translates into a low loiter time.
The result is the same.

Waldo.Pepper
01-20-2008, 11:53 PM
V2 or Swallow or nothing. Unless the Allies lost their nerve, they (the Axis powers) weren't going to win.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/stratec%20atlas/Strategicatlas.jpg

Kurfurst__
01-21-2008, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrHerb:
Yep Whittle's engine was a centrifugal flow while the Jumo was an axial flow. Centrifugal flow engines weigh more and are less aerodynamic than axial flow gas turbines

So that explains why the P-80 had only 1 engine, yet was faster then the Me-262 with its "superior" engine. Huh. Wait.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought both the P-80 and the Me-262 had axial flow engines?

Axial flow IS the better design that more or less used today but at the time Whittle had the right idea for making a practical jet engine that wasn't so demanding as the German one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just compare the size and weight of the engines fitted to the P80/Me262 and you`ll see the failing of '1 engine vs 2 engines' arguements.

The advantage offered by axial flow engines is that they have
a, much more potential for development (ie. more compressor blades can be added)
b, their cross section and drag is generally smaller.

To give you some idea :

http://www.vectorsite.net/Ye004_1m.jpg
http://www.vectorsite.net/Yej33_1m.jpg

It doesn`t take much brain to figure out as to why they put this thing into the fuselage, even accepting lower thrust effiency from the installation...

Metatron_123
01-21-2008, 04:39 AM
I think the Germans would of been better off fielding more tried and tested technology then depending on super-weapons like the Me-262, Me-163 and He-162. All 3 of those sucked up a lot of time, money, and resources and played VERY little role in the war.

I think you are missing the point here. With the entry of the US into the conflict, the channel front open (thus giving a stepping stone to the Allies for an invasion of Europe), and the eastern front on the other side of the map, the war is not winnable for Germany.

If The Battle of Britain was won by the Germans, and Britain was invaded, then the whole thing changes. But this did not happen. So bearing in mind that the war was not going to be won, and allied air superiority in 1944-1945, the Me-262 at least gave some German pilots the chance to survive.

Check out the accounts in ''An ordinary day in 1945'' by mushroom books, and you will see what a difference the speed of the Me-262 made in running away.

This is completely ignoring that it was one of the few effective ways left to shoot down bombers in 1944/1945.

So my point is: the Me-262 was indeed the right plane at the right time for the German pilots.

Was it the right plane at the right time for Germany? This is irrelevant if we take into account the unrealistic ambitions and bad handling of the German High Command.

luftluuver
01-21-2008, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Just compare the size and weight of the engines fitted to the P80/Me262 and you`ll see the failing of '1 engine vs 2 engines' arguements.

The advantage offered by axial flow engines is that they have
a, much more potential for development (ie. more compressor blades can be added)
b, their cross section and drag is generally smaller.


It doesn`t take much brain to figure out as to why they put this thing into the fuselage, even accepting lower thrust effiency from the installation...
Now that is really some logic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

a. The potential was still some years away.
b, Sure, the cross sectional area of two axial flow engines is less than the cross sectional area of one centrifugal engine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Never mind that a cockpit still has to be added for an a/c hanging engines off the wings while the fuselage is already there with the centrifugal engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Nice link to British jet engines, to dispel some of the myths some keep telling
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/EnginesUK.htm

Bewolf
01-21-2008, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think the Germans would of been better off fielding more tried and tested technology then depending on super-weapons like the Me-262, Me-163 and He-162. All 3 of those sucked up a lot of time, money, and resources and played VERY little role in the war.

I think you are missing the point here. With the entry of the US into the conflict, the channel front open (thus giving a stepping stone to the Allies for an invasion of Europe), and the eastern front on the other side of the map, the war is not winnable for Germany.

If The Battle of Britain was won by the Germans, and Britain was invaded, then the whole thing changes. But this did not happen. So bearing in mind that the war was not going to be won, and allied air superiority in 1944-1945, the Me-262 at least gave some German pilots the chance to survive.

Check out the accounts in ''An ordinary day in 1945'' by mushroom books, and you will see what a difference the speed of the Me-262 made in running away.

This is completely ignoring that it was one of the few effective ways left to shoot down bombers in 1944/1945.

So my point is: the Me-262 was indeed the right plane at the right time for the German pilots.

Was it the right plane at the right time for Germany? This is irrelevant if we take into account the unrealistic ambitions and bad handling of the German High Command. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QUOTE]

Agreed. There was not much sense for Germany going on with proven technologies when the allies could produce hundretfold that proven technology. I always wonder how much knowledge those ppl suggesting germany should have stayed with proven designs actually have. There was no way Germany could have won with designs that did not possess a meaningful qualitative advantage over its adversaries.

HuninMunin
01-21-2008, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I agree with what you put in Gib.

Except for the 262's range, which actually wasn't all that bad.
The problem was that at high speeds, the range translates into a low loiter time.
The result is the same.

Agreed.
Exept for loiter time beeing of secondary interest for an interceptor in the given context.

AKA_TAGERT
01-21-2008, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
There was a documentary on air yesterday and I was watching a segment about the Me-262 it occurred to me that the type is routinely mentioned as a revolutionary design ahead of its time - and yet few major post-WW2 aircraft types had the same basic design (shark-like fuselage, one engine under each wing).
Truth be told..

The Me262 was not that revolutionary..

Airframe wise..

Take the swepped wings for example..

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

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

They swepped the wings to maintain the CG of the plane!

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

All in all the 262 was a flop..

The good early jets like the P80, F86, and MiG had nothing in commin with the Me262 other than they were jets..

The 262 design was a dead end for fighters..

As some have noted..

It's airframe was not a bad design for transport and airliners..

But..

Asfor a figher airframe it was a dead end

JZG_Thiem
01-21-2008, 12:13 PM
Gibbage, you are repeatedly referring to the short lifetime of the Jumo engine, even when discussing *what if the 262 was built pre-war* and such.
Please bear in mind that the short lifetime was caused by a shortage of high quality alloys based on their raw material. It was not a faulty design or manufacturing process in general. Just shortage of material.

Kurfurst__
01-21-2008, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
Gibbage, you are repeatedly referring to the short lifetime of the Jumo engine, even when discussing *what if the 262 was built pre-war* and such.
Please bear in mind that the short lifetime was caused by a shortage of high quality alloys based on their raw material. It was not a faulty design or manufacturing process in general. Just shortage of material.

Yup, also the fact his claims for 10 hours life time is, like the rest of his statements, just bogus.

Now the Jumo 004B had indeed a short time between checks, about 25 hours between for the earliest examples, 40-50 hours for the later production ones with improvements, it was neither particularly short for a late war engine (in fact quite compareable with the ca. 40 hour TBO times for DB 605Ds/R-R Griffon 65s in the 2000 HP class, or the Soviet VK 107 with only 20-25 hours or so TBO), neither a particular problem given the engines could swapped from the nacelles in just 15 mins.

Heliopause
01-21-2008, 01:13 PM
When the jumo engine was taken into production (1944) it had 10 flighthours before overhaul. At the end of the war the number of flighthours between overhaul where 25.

Bremspropeller
01-21-2008, 01:26 PM
Take the swepped wings for example..

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

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

They swepped the wings to maintain the CG of the plane!

Yeah, but they recognized that backswept wings did enable higher Mach numbers.
That was done by flight-testing and also by wind-tunnel tests.

Thatswhy the 262HG (for Hochgeschwindigkeit = high speed) had further back swept wings.

luftluuver
01-21-2008, 02:23 PM
Hans Fay, an operational pilot with JG53 til 1940, a test pilot and then an acceptance pilot for Erla in 1941. In 1944, he became an acceptance pilot for the Me262.

Fay said the normal life span of the Jumo 004 was 25hr but rarely reached 15hrs in his experience. Can't get a much better source. He also considered the Me262 to be easier to fly than the latest piston engine fighters, the Fw190 and Me109.

leitmotiv
01-21-2008, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
The McDonnell Moonbat was a radical design for it's time with the engines and wing blending into the fuseluge. First submitted to the Army Air Corp in 1941.

http://www.air-boyne.com/Moonbat%20P-67.jpg
McDonnell XP-67 "Moonbat"

Yep, half a century ahead of its time. If we had had jets built like this in Vietnam, they would have been stealthy.

Gibbage1
01-21-2008, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Now the Jumo 004B had indeed a short time between checks, about 25 hours between for the earliest examples, 40-50 hours for the later production ones with improvements, it was neither particularly short for a late war engine


Whats your source? Every source I have ever seen on the web states 10 hours, not 25. Even at 25, thats still very short. As for your your 40-50 not being short for late-war engines, guess again. Some F-80's are still flying with there original compressor blades.



(in fact quite compareable with the ca. 40 hour TBO times for DB 605Ds/R-R Griffon 65s in the 2000 HP class, or the Soviet VK 107 with only 20-25 hours or so TBO), neither a particular problem given the engines could swapped from the nacelles in just 15 mins.

Those engines had a MASSIVE amount of moving parts (DB engine had more moving parts in its fuel injector system then the entire Merlin engine) and were also WAY over boosted beyond there original design spec (DB started out at 1475HP?), its no wonder they need to be overhauled often, just like race car engines. The problem is, the Jumo had VERY few moving parts (mainly, 1) and was NOT over boosted.

Yes, its because of there lack of materials, but if they went with a centrifugal engine, they would not need such exotic metals for the main compressor blades, and more Me-262's would be on hand instead of sitting on the ground with its engines at the local car shop getting overhauled.

Also, the Jumo was a very touchy engine, and was prone to malfunction. Having two means there was twice as many chances of something going wrong. Centrifugal engines of the day were much more reliable due to there simplicity of design and construction.

It was just overall a VERY poor engine. Thats why NO 2nd gen gets used it at all! The Russians copied it, and the US had plenty of them, PLUS the exotic metals needed, yet they both still dumped it for the Nene copy on the Mig-15 and F-86. Tells you something. No post-war fighter used the ME-262 design, and no successful post war fighter used its engine.

As for the BS about Germans "inventing" the swept wing, and the US copying it, the US had experimented with many swept wing fighters during the war.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/images/northrop_xp56.t.jpg

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/photos/xp-55_2.jpg

The problem is, North American did NOT experiment with swept wings yet, and had no data on them. Northrop and Curtiss, being competitors, were not willing to give them there research. In order to quicken NA's development, and not spend years and tons of money researching swept wing design, they borrowed it from the ME-262. Its hard to trace down the very roots of swept wings, but it was in no way invented by the Germans on the Me-262. So they "borrowed" the concept, just like NA did.

JZG_Thiem
01-21-2008, 04:41 PM
from what i have read on this topic the whittle engine had ca. 2xrpms than the Jumo. Now if i understand jet turbine tech correct, then u need better materials just because of those excessive rpms. So id put the advantage to the one with less stress dur to less rpms.

Gibbage1
01-21-2008, 05:00 PM
The benifit of centrefugal engine turbines is its milled out of 1 solid peace of metal. The Jumo's main issue was the high heat and small blades. The Whittle had a very solid turbine, allowing the heat to spread over a much larger surface.

This is what a centrefugal turbine looks like.

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/10996750/Rotors_Superchargers_Turbine_Engines.jpg

Centrafugal still had blades in the aft section after the cumbustion chamber, but there was a LOT less, and they were rather big.

http://musee.1wing.free.fr/moteurs/_00016.jpg

The J-33 in the P-80 produced more then twice the HP then the Jumo, and was fit into an aircraft that was more aerodynamic then the Me-262.

DIRTY-MAC
01-21-2008, 05:19 PM
Heinkel He-280
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF2WsyKOZOE

luftluuver
01-21-2008, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Now the Jumo 004B had indeed a short time between checks, about 25 hours between for the earliest examples, 40-50 hours for the later production ones with improvements, it was neither particularly short for a late war engine (in fact quite compareable with the ca. 40 hour TBO times for DB 605Ds/R-R Griffon 65s in the 2000 HP class, or the Soviet VK 107 with only 20-25 hours or so TBO), neither a particular problem given the engines could swapped from the nacelles in just 15 mins.
Here we go again with Kurfurst. Now it is down to 15 min from the 20-25min. What he fails to say is a crew of 8-9 was required. A normal crew of 2-3 took a full day to swap out the engine.

Skoshi Tiger
01-21-2008, 05:52 PM
Every time I think of the Me262 I remember a piture that I saw in a book many years ago. It was of a 262 being dragged onto the runway by 2 ox!

Here you had the most 'advanced' fighter plane in the world and they didn't have the fuel to put into their tractors.

It was like in Japan where they were stripping forrests to make turpentine to use as fuel by the end of the war.

Fortunately the Nazis did not have the resources and materials to turn these designs into effective weapons and that they were being led by A.H. who was completely off his rocker by the end of the war and kept on interfering with these projects. (Didn't the Germans waste a year or so of development time because AH insisted that they turn the 262 into the next 'Stuka' attack plane - compeletly loopy)

JSG72
01-21-2008, 05:56 PM
OK!

Keep it simple?

It would not have mattered a jot if the ME-262 had been available in '43/'44.(They would still have been exotic and within limited numbers.)

The Allies would have been able to counter it by being able to develop their own exotic concepts.
within as many numbers as they could churn out.

The Luftwaffe tried everything that was available.

The allies new that what they had, was enough to Win a War.

And they did!

As much as I like the 262. With its Sharklike fuselage, sweptwings and formidable armmament. Bedecked with a multitude of colourschemes.

Fact is. You cannot introduce a supposed "War winner" If your infrastructure cannot back it up.

There are Sooo.. many "What If" scenarios. Surrounding the 262. It can almost be include in a Parallel. World War Conflict.

Gibbage1
01-21-2008, 06:04 PM
Just a little info.

The P-80's aft section comes off with 3 bolts. Leaving the engine 100% serviceable The section just aft of the wings trailing edge just slides back after you remove 3 bolts (12oc, 3oc and 6oc position)and un-do a few control rods. In my estimation, you can remove the tail with 2 people in 5 minutes. I dont know how long after that it takes to remove the engine itself, but not long. The good thing is, you really dont need to overhaul the engine much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ITs nice to have that access though. I saw this at Chino Planes of Fame. I was quite surprised there was so little holding the tail on!

AKA_TAGERT
01-21-2008, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Yeah, but they recognized that backswept wings did enable higher Mach numbers.
That was done by flight-testing and also by wind-tunnel tests.

Thatswhy the 262HG (for Hochgeschwindigkeit = high speed) had further back swept wings. Dumb luck yes..

But that is a far cry from intentional design

PraetorHonoris
01-21-2008, 09:17 PM
The first known idea of swept wings to increase aircraft performance in supersonic flight was presented by Adolf Busemann (Germany) in Rome in 1935. In 1943 most German engineers were aware of his works, which had been further developed to transsonic flights. The Me262 however is a design of 1941 (want to see US jet designs of that time? ;-). And while the decision to change the wings due to cg-problems, the solution how to do that was intentionally.

It is no coincedence that Robert Jones, the first American to come up with swept wings for supersonic flight ten years after Busemann did in Rome, took Busemann to the NACA, who is still the father of the swept wings.

The combat record of the Me262 is not exactly a point against it: 735 victories in the air against a hundred combat losses, mostly during February, March and April, when the Luftwaffe was outnumbered more 20:1, or 40:1 if we believe Alfred Price, despite the fact that most Me262 served as fighter bombers, piloted not by fighter pilots, but bomber pilots.

AKA_TAGERT
01-21-2008, 09:57 PM
Disagree 100%

R_Target
01-21-2008, 10:26 PM
Can someone tell me how many Me-262 combat sorties were flown in 1944?

HuninMunin
01-21-2008, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Disagree 100%

On what?

@ Gibbage
"Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb, the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."
Sounds familiar?
I'm shure it does.
I'll be thrilled to hear why the above testing does not depict reality.

Gibbage1
01-21-2008, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
The Me262 however is a design of 1941 (want to see US jet designs of that time? ;-).

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/LockheedL-133Main.jpg

Here is a 1939 US design. Unfortunately, people who didnt know squat about aircraft said that jets would never surpass piston engines. Just think if Lockheed got the OK to progress further with the L-133. Also, the P-55 was a 1939 design.

Think of it. The US starting the war with a viable jet fighter in the work's. It took what, 4 years to develop the ME-262? And 142 days for Lockheed to develop the P-80? Hummmm.

HuninMunin
01-21-2008, 11:05 PM
It took one and a half years from first scetch to airworthy airframe for the Me 262.
In an underfunded und absurd political situation.

OFF Topic Sarcasm / ON
If Lockheed is really that great a company, why don't they finaly start to deliver combat ready F-22s? Or F-35s?
Oh wait.
I'm shure its Boeing and Northrop spoiling the deadlines.
OFF Topic Sarcasm / OFF

Gibbage1
01-21-2008, 11:35 PM
One in a half years to get a FRIGGEN GLIDER!! Ow, then they slapped a PROP ENGINE from a Ju-87 onto the front!!! Whooo! REAL friggen revolutionary! They should of just slapped the dive siren to it and replaced the Stuka with the Jumo powered Me-262 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The 1st POWERED flight was July 42. Well over 3 years, and with the weak and un-reliable BMW 003's. It finally entered serial production in 1944. Compaired to the P-80, the ME-262 was Germany's V-22!

luftluuver
01-21-2008, 11:56 PM
Following preliminary studies, work began on the P1065 on Apr 1 1939.

The Me262V2 did not fly with jet power until Oct 1 1942.

That is 3 1/2 years.

Johnson and a team of designers began work on a prototype, designated the XP-80, on June 21, 1943.

On January 8, 1944, at the Muroc Flight Test Base, the Lockheed chief test pilot, Milo Burcham, took "Lulu-Belle" into the sky for the first time.

tools4foolsA
01-22-2008, 12:35 AM
Hey Gibbage, if they Americans were soooo ahead with swept wing design why it took them until so long to produce their first swept wing fighter for real use?...when did the F-86 get into service...??? Design contracted in 44, first flight 47 and service delivery 49?

Did they produce all those swept wing prototypes but overlooked the advantages? Why did all those companies who did those swept wing prototypes (and not sharing with NA, who started off based upon captured german data) not follow up the swept wing and produce a swept wing jet?

For the XP55 you pictured: contract to Curtiss in 1940, first test flight in 1943...and you are trying to ridicule the lenght of german Me 262 development?
Cutiss '45 proposal of F15c piston/jet combo was back to straight wing.

Northrop's XP-56 similar got green light in 1940 and had first flight in 1943 again...
Northrop's F-89 jet of 48 was back to straight wings. Despites all his beautifull flying wings.

As for who had idea of swept wings first a bit form wiki (not the most reliable source, but anyway):

"The idea of using swept wings to reduce high-speed drag was first developed in Germany in the 1930s. At a Volta Conference meeting in 1935 in Italy, Dr. Adolf Busemann suggested the use of swept wings for supersonic flight. He noted that the airspeed over the wing was dominated by the normal component of the airflow, not the freestream velocity, so by setting the wing at an angle the forward velocity at which the shock waves would form would be higher (the same had been noted by Max Munk in 1924, although not in the context of high-speed flight).[4] Albert Betz immediately suggested the same effect would be equally useful in the transonic.[5] After the presentation the host of the meeting, Arturo Crocco, jokingly sketched "Busemann's airplane of the future" on the back of a menu while they all dined. Crocco's sketched showed a classic 1950's fighter design, with swept wings and tail surfaces, although he also sketched a swept propeller powering it.[4]"

Bottom line is that in the 262 the swept wing was intentionally used for high speed performance after reaserach done PLUS put into a plane that saw actual service. 4 years before any other fighter plane (Mig 15 production model first flight in 48 IIRC).

*****

Ugly_Kid
01-22-2008, 12:54 AM
Did not intend to participate your oh so typical mud-slinging but you should give the credit where it's bloody well due. For a sake of an open minded reader I try to contribute my 2 cents. It is an insult to any aircraft engineer to belittle the influence of Prantl and his scholars and colleagues (Busemann, von Karman, Ackeret, Betz, Nikuradze, Glauert) on what we know of aerodynamics today - they were incredibly far ahead and considering the means and methods they ha, they were nothing short of geniuses - the whole lot.

Swept wings, particularly in respect to increasing critical Mach number and also for supersonic speeds the credit goes to A.Busemann who introduced his theory in 5th Volta Congress 1935. Eh?

Since the Germans allegedly first found out about benefits of swept wing accidentally with 262 it is of course very perplexing trying to explain why Busemann and Betz patented the swept wing for transonic flight 18.06.42 (patent number 732/42), or wing with extreme sweep 11.09.42 (Betz, patent number 790/42) or even the variable sweep 11.09.42 (Betz, patent number 799/42)???

That Messerschmitt was not aware of swept wing concept surprises me, while Busemann was in contact with both Heinkel and Messerschmitt around 1939, who had been greatly interested in his later writings in Deutsche Luftforschung LuFo Bd.12. Betz performed first measurements in wind tunnel for subsonic flow at M=0.7 and M=0.9 , and informed Messerschmitt as well. As the included small bit of a letter from uncle Willy shows he was not only informed - he was quite enthusiastic already pondering the technical problems of variable sweep wing...

http://freenet-homepage.de/majamaki/willy.jpg

Funnily, Ludwig Bölkow (yeah the guy from the 262 project team) worked on the topic at this time. So surely they had no glue later when working on 262...

Then just couple of small side notes on c.g theory, which seems to be oh so popular. Sweeping mere wings does not influence the c-g very much, because the wings have quite a small relative structural weight. Given, moving the engines will have an influence - but, then why an earth did they then place the engines in a distinctively forward position in relation to the wing? Eh?

Sweeping wings also shifts the aerodynamic centre of the aircraft backwards, so if one wanted to shift c.g the only interest is coming closer to the aerodynamic centre so if this moves backwards simultaneously it is clearly not the most optimal solution, is it.

If one wanted to build a straight wing, then one would build a straight wing and move it altogether. Additional problems from swept wing, which BTW the Germans also knew about: reducing stability on yaw-axis (dutch roll), tip stall tendency. From the strength point of view with engine placement as in 262 you get torsional reactions to wing as a result to any loading: change in throttle or g-loading - not very optimal for solving a mere c.g problem, now is it?

Also another small tidbit (although not mentioned - yet), the tricycle landing gear was also foreseen even in the first description that went to RLM, it was not just introduced to first protos since they did not want to bring all novelties into the prototype platform at the same time. Also, the wing sweep in 262 was done with moderation - in HG they were already much more encouraged by the experience, just as well as in other Mtt projects.

I had a chance of hearing a presentation of Horst Philipp couple of years ago - extremely experienced former test pilot of Luftwaffe, who currently flies the replica 262 for Mtt foundation. During his presentation there was a question about the same c.g theory. He answered the question merely by laughing at it..."They knew exactly what they were doing" - his words, not mine. Also worth mentioning, he flunked the Mutke's supersonic flight story on the next question. I'll take his word in both cases.

The c.g theory seems to tell more about the knowledge of people promoting it than the knowledge about Bölkow and 262 project team...

tools4foolsA
01-22-2008, 01:09 AM
And yes, Bell had build the the P-59 first, so they had some experience to look back upon when doing the XP-80.

XP-80 was ready to fly after 143 days but did not fly, btw. Re-engineering for the Goblin engine took about a month or so.
You count the days if you like:
June 21 43 to January 8th 44 first flight.

And about development later in the war and 39/40: the Volksjaeger He 162 had been desinged on a spec of Sepptmenber 10 '44. Prototypes flew (and crashed) before X-mas.
46 delivered to test unit 162 in January 45...

Now the 162 was rushed into production and needed lot of changes to its design.

But so did the P-80; 137 changes were made and it was not Septmeber 12 '44 until the first types were ready for service testing.

******

Gibbage1
01-22-2008, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
Hey Gibbage, if they Americans were soooo ahead with swept wing design why it took them until so long to produce their first swept wing fighter for real use?...when did the F-86 get into service...??? Design contracted in 44, first flight 47 and service delivery 49?


I never said they were ahead. Im just saying some companies were not completely ignorant of swept wings, and the US did fly prototypes that did have swept wings. The problem is, US aircraft industry is divided into companies. Companies that dont tend to share. So Northrop and Curtis did have experience in swept wing, North American did not, and the other two were not willing to share. Now, where in that do I say they were ahead? Dont put words into my mouth. Its easy to disprove by looking at the previous pages.



Did they produce all those swept wing prototypes but overlooked the advantages? Why did all those companies who did those swept wing prototypes (and not sharing with NA, who started off based upon captured german data) not follow up the swept wing and produce a swept wing jet?


Because the US government never gave them money to persue it. Curtis proposed a jet powered P-55. The US Government denied it. That would of been a US developed swept wing jet fighter without any knowledge of German swept wing fighters. The problem is short sighted politicians, not a lack of engineering.



For the XP55 you pictured: contract to Curtiss in 1940, first test flight in 1943...and you are trying to ridicule the lenght of german Me 262 development?
Cutiss '45 proposal of F15c piston/jet combo was back to straight wing.


It was a radicly new design. Swept wings were new, and canard was also not very well known. Plus it was a pusher, using an un-tested engine that was never fully developed (Pratt & Whitney X-1800 engine). It was a revolutionary design, and they took it slow. Unfortunatly, the P&W X-1800 never made it, so they had to put in an under-powered Allison into it, further delaying development. If you did an ounce of research, you would know this. To bad you didnt.



Northrop's XP-56 similar got green light in 1940 and had first flight in 1943 again...
Northrop's F-89 jet of 48 was back to straight wings. Despites all his beautifull flying wings.


The military has a proven track record of NOT buying non-standard aircraft. Also the military and government put out proposals to be filled, and decide who fills them, not the companies. There are many many examples of this. Northrop went way out of the box with some of its all-wing designs, and the US military was very shy in funding something so revolutionary. The B-35 is a great example of something so far ahead of its days, it took 50+ years for technology to catch up in the B-2. The last time the US govenment ask for "radical designs", they picked NONE of them. The designs from that proposals was the XP-55, XP-56 and XP-54. The military didnt buy any of them. Another good example of the government/military dumping a WORKING revolutionary design is the F5U flying pancake design. It worked, very well! Yet it was ordered scrapped for no reason.



Bottom line is that in the 262 the swept wing was intentionally used for high speed performance after reaserach done PLUS put into a plane that saw actual service. 4 years before any other fighter plane (Mig 15 production model first flight in 48 IIRC).

*****

Really? Then why did the 1st Me-262 prototypes have straight wings? Well till they had to put the engines on, then they had a bad COG problem, solved by sweeping the wings. If the Me-262 WAS designed to use swept wings for fast speed, then why was its originally designed with straight wings? Also, even though the Me-262 had swept wings, the straight wing P-80 had faster top speeds. Outch.

Also, the Me-262's wings only had an 18 degree of sweep. Not enough for any aerodynamic speed properties. The B-36 bomber had about a 15.5 degree of sweep. You think that bombers sweep was copied from the Me-262 for speed? Nope.

Here is the kicker. The B-35 flying wing bomber had a 27 degree of sweep. Wow! Must be such a fast mover!!! N1M prototype's were flying with this degree of sweep in July of 1940. Much greater sweep then the Me-262, and before its 1st flight. It was designed in 1939.

Hell, even the Dc3 wings had a sweep in it!

tools4foolsA
01-22-2008, 01:29 AM
Gibbage1,

It's funny to see how you bash the 262 for its slow development and find a thousand reasons to defend the slow development of some American prototype...

No need to discuss anything any further, useless, waste of time.

Your bottom line is obvious:

All American was better, first, faster.

Enjoy.
*****

Gibbage1
01-22-2008, 01:37 AM
There was nothing revolutionary about the Me-262's design. IT was, for the most part, other then its engines, a very standard design. If they went with the centrifugal jet powered He-280, the development would of been a lot less.

I never said that all American was better, first, faster. Im just trying to show that the ME-262 was desperation, not innovation. Considering how fast the design died shows. How many top jet fighters after WWII slung its engines under the wings? ISent it kinda showing that only bombers and jet air liners use the ME-262's design concept? Dosent bode well for a "fighter", does it?

Metatron_123
01-22-2008, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
I had a chance of hearing a presentation of Horst Philipp couple of years ago - extremely experienced former test pilot of Luftwaffe, who currently flies the replica 262 for Mtt foundation. During his presentation there was a question about the same c.g theory. He answered the question merely by laughing at it..."They knew exactly what they were doing" - his words, not mine. Also worth mentioning, he flunked the Mutke's supersonic flight story on the next question. I'll take his word in both cases.

The c.g theory seems to tell more about the knowledge of people promoting it than the knowledge about Bölkow and 262 project team...

The above is evidence that indeed the swept back wings were no ''accident''.

As this topic is about the question of the Me-262 being an influential design:
It was, for the simple fact that it had both swept wings, and jet engines.
Both are present in modern day transports, airliners, bombers and fighters.

Take a look at the pictures of the supersonic Yak-28 I posted earlier on, that has a very similar engine pod design to the Me-262.

Also, these diversions like the XP-55 are irrelevant, because they incorporate a single novel feature, in this case swept wings.
World war one fighters had pusher propellers. Let's not pretend this was revolutionary. It was just not the norm for that time period.

I don't see any modern aircraft with a piston engine in the tail driving a contra-rotating propeller.

The concept of the Me-262 not being influential is simply absurd, and the fact that certain straight winged aircraft were faster does not distract from this one little bit.

Bewolf
01-22-2008, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
There was nothing revolutionary about the Me-262's design. IT was, for the most part, other then its engines, a very standard design. If they went with the centrifugal jet powered He-280, the development would of been a lot less.

I never said that all American was better, first, faster. Im just trying to show that the ME-262 was desperation, not innovation. Considering how fast the design died shows. How many top jet fighters after WWII slung its engines under the wings? ISent it kinda showing that only bombers and jet air liners use the ME-262's design concept? Dosent bode well for a "fighter", does it?

Me 262 desperation? *lol*

Ok, In gibbagian:
Development start, April, 01, 1939
March into Poland, September, 01, 1939

....desperation, yeeeaaah right.

Xiolablu3
01-22-2008, 02:32 AM
I think what Gibbage means is that both the Brits and USA could have had jet powered planes fighting hard at the ned of WW2, but chose not to, as they simply werent needed. (The Meteor was kept close to home so the technology didnt fall into German hands, the war was being won with converntional aircraft, no need to rush these jets into service)

However the Me262 was badly needed, and used even when quite a big danger to its pilots. It was desperatly needed for Germany to have even a chance of winning WW2. The Meteor F3 of late 1944, had pretty amazing speed at the time, and was far superior to the F1 model, but it simply wasnt needed. Same with the De Havilland Vampire which could have been in service in late '44 but the sole remaining engine was given to the US to help with the P80. Also the Mosquito was seen as the priority for De Havilland.

The war was already being won. It was seen as more important not to give the Germans any hints to improve their jets.

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

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


As for the Me262 :-

Didnt the Me262 have its engines slung under its wings for ease of maintanance?

Jet engines were not as reliable as they are today, and both the Meteor and Me262 needed to be able to change their engines quickly and easily, the best way to do this is surely to make them easily removable.

Not saying this is definitely correct, but it seems common sense to me.

I am pretty sure the airliners of today use the same design to make changing the engines quick and simple?

Somebody please put me right if I am incorrect...

Bewolf
01-22-2008, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Didnt the Me262 have its engines slung under its wings for ease of maintanance?

Jet engines were not as reliable as they are today, and both the Meteor and Me262 needed to be able to change their engines quickly and easily, the best way to do this is surely to make them easily removable.

Not saying this is definitely correct, but it seems common sense to me.

I am pretty sure the airliners of today use the same design to make changing the engines quick and simple?

Somebody please put me right if I am incorrect...

AFAIK the gondola design was indeed intended for ease of maintanance.

Kurfurst__
01-22-2008, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

The J-33 in the P-80 produced more then twice the HP then the Jumo, and was fit into an aircraft that was more aerodynamic then the Me-262.

1, How much thrust the J 33 actually produced in it`s installation?
2, What was the presribed TBO of the J 33 in 1945 ?
3, What were the weight and dimensions of a J 33 and a Jumo 004, bare jet unit and installed, again ?

Kurfurst__
01-22-2008, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Really? Then why did the 1st Me-262 prototypes have straight wings? Well till they had to put the engines on, then they had a bad COG problem, solved by sweeping the wings. If the Me-262 WAS designed to use swept wings for fast speed, then why was its originally designed with straight wings? Also, even though the Me-262 had swept wings, the straight wing P-80 had faster top speeds. Outch.

1, Can I see a photograph of that 'straight winged Me 262 prototype' ?
2, Do you have speed curves for the P 80 to illustrate your point ?


Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Also, the Me-262's wings only had an 18 degree of sweep. Not enough for any aerodynamic speed properties.

I would be interesting seeing the source for this. Wing sweep is usually proportional to designed operational speeds. See also variable wing sweep on fighters like the Tomcat, Tornado etc.

Kurfurst__
01-22-2008, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
Gibbage1,

It's funny to see how you bash the 262 for its slow development and find a thousand reasons to defend the slow development of some American prototype...

No need to discuss anything any further, useless, waste of time.

Good summary IMHO. Indeed, no need to waste any more time on this.

It all reminds me of those Japanese Army soldiers who kept fighthing WW2 decades after it ended, being all alone on a remote, deserted island.

luftluuver
01-22-2008, 04:13 AM
The 2cd P1065 had its outer wings swept back to solve the problem that heavier engine weight estimates were causing with the positioning of a/c's CG. Btw the engines were mounted in the wings.

luftluuver
01-22-2008, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It all reminds me of those Japanese Army soldiers who kept fighthing WW2 decades after it ended, being all alone on a remote, deserted island.
Hello kettle. Have you met pot yet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Ugly_Kid
01-22-2008, 04:19 AM
First flying 262 proto had piston engines on it - must have been originally intended to be a conventional piston-engine powered fighter. For c.g problems they later had to hang turbines on it... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Somewhere I have picture of a bi-plane with swept wings, so indeed it was not such a novelty - the idea to counter transonic dragrise, however, was...

luftluuver
01-22-2008, 04:30 AM
J33 starting at 4,000 lbf (18 kN) and ending at 4,600 lbf (20,000 N) with an additional low-altitude boost to 5,400 lbf (24,000 N) with water-alcohol injection.

Dry weight: 1,795 lb (815 kg)

Diameter: 41.5 in (1,055 mm)

Area: 1352 sqin

Jumo 004
Dry weight: 719 kg (1,585 lb) x 2 = 1438kg (3170lb)

Thrust: 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) at 8,700 rpm x 2 = 17.5kN (3960lb)

Diameter: 810 mm (32 in)

Area: 803sqin x 2 = 1606sqin

tools4foolsA
01-22-2008, 05:06 AM
Xia, agree that the allieds didn't need jets.

But to me that does not make the 262 less innovative. Yes, it was rushed, but it was the
- first front line jet fighter used in combat against other warplanes.
- it was first front line jet fighter in combat to use swept wing design.

Both were a 'first'.
And both of those attributes are still used in many jet fighters as of today.

It did not have its jets inside the fuselage, indeed, under the wing was rather standard for the time, plenty of planes with engines in nacelles under wing at the time...but with props...
And as you pointed out there was a reason for putting them under wings for the time being.

One could actually point out that even in-fuselage jet engines were already old stuff by the time 262 hit the skies.
He 178 and Gloster E28/39 had them in the fuselage.

So what? Does it make it less significant just because of that? Because it just incoporated only two out of three things of a modern jet fighter?
No, to me it still is first combat jet with swept wing and for that it was revolutionary.

Yes, all had been there on prototypes, drawing boards, etc, but one has to put it into use too.

In the same grasp it would be saying that the flight to the moon with a few dudes aboard was not revolutionary because there were rockets there way before...
So flight to the moon nothing special, revolutionary?
Not to me...

Just because the Zulus did not need rifles to overrun British rifle men does not need that the rifle is not revolutionary compared to a spear...
+++++

Kurfurst__
01-22-2008, 05:52 AM
Instead of arguing endlessly about who was first, and who`s stuff was superior, some people should actually begin wondering about the why instead. Why a design would look like as it would. Why it`s operational introduction was delayed, and slow because of techcial, development and production bottlenecks and difficulties.

Would be far more interesting would it be not..

Bremspropeller
01-22-2008, 07:05 AM
The combat record of the Me262 is not exactly a point against it: 735 victories in the air against a hundred combat losses, mostly during February, March and April, when the Luftwaffe was outnumbered more 20:1, or 40:1 if we believe Alfred Price, despite the fact that most Me262 served as fighter bombers, piloted not by fighter pilots, but bomber pilots.

Okay, gotta rethink some of what I said about the 262.
Appearantly it had a decent combat record.

What I had in my mind was more of 1:1 comparing losses to victories.
That puts the 262 in a totally different corner.


One thing I remember is that it needed concrete runways, whereas normal hardened Luftwaffe-runways consisted of asphalt.

So any 262 ops-field stuck out like a purple cow saying "here I am".
Quite a bad thing if you have an allied fighter-cover above almost all of Germany, just waiting to strike fighters that are in the traffic-pattern.

Is there any more info on the runway-issue?

Bremspropeller
01-22-2008, 07:09 AM
Also, the Me-262's wings only had an 18 degree of sweep. Not enough for any aerodynamic speed properties. The B-36 bomber had about a 15.5 degree of sweep. You think that bombers sweep was copied from the Me-262 for speed? Nope.

There we go, the master of aerodynamics raises his voice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Swept wings not only increse your critical Mach, they also reduce drag. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The CD-3 ha a high taper, but not a backswept wing. The TE is not swept back.

Metatron_123
01-22-2008, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
Just because the Zulus did not need rifles to overrun British rifle men does not mean that the rifle is not revolutionary compared to a spear...

Nice one.


And concerning the placement of the engines in the wings,
(and I don't like talking about 'what ifs' )
The Me-262 HG-III would have had them faired in to the sides of the fuselage, together with the more swept back wings.

Anyway, apart from this, I believe everything has been said.

Pluto8742
01-22-2008, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
The combat record of the Me262 is not exactly a point against it: 735 victories in the air against a hundred combat losses, mostly during February, March and April, when the Luftwaffe was outnumbered more 20:1, or 40:1 if we believe Alfred Price, despite the fact that most Me262 served as fighter bombers, piloted not by fighter pilots, but bomber pilots.

Is that number of victories accurate? Claimed or confirmed? I'm not saying it's wrong, but it sounds a bit high, especially if only ~ 100 or so were lost in combat opeations.

Cheers,

P8.

PraetorHonoris
01-22-2008, 11:55 AM
Claims. However, having at least 4 MK108 the chances of scoring a fatal hit once a hit is scored at all can be considered high.

Very detailed lists can be found in Fleischer/Rys: Me262 Schwalbe, unfortunatly it is Polish...

Anyway be aware that most, if not ALL kill numbers you find are to be seen as claims only.

R_Target
01-22-2008, 11:57 AM
USAAF Statistical Digest lists a total of 446 bombers and fighters lost to enemy aircraft in the ETO for 1945.

AKA_TAGERT
01-22-2008, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Disagree 100%

On what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>On 100% of it

PraetorHonoris
01-22-2008, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
USAAF Statistical Digest lists a total of 446 bombers and fighters lost to enemy aircraft in the ETO for 1945.

Although English (especially Mosquito!) and Soviet planes make up a notable part of the Me262 claims, it fits the general picture of overclaiming during WWII (just like the 1598 "destroyed" Luftwaffe fighters from Jan to March in that digest do: the Luftwaffe lost 1438 fighters to all causes, including non-combat losses, on all fronts during that period, according to Groehler).

Point being, only the jets could operate with at least a fighting chance in late 1944/1945 and having in mind their excellent as well as numerous opposition, they did very well.

thefruitbat
01-22-2008, 12:34 PM
Me 262, P80 and the Meteor, you're all wrong, at least in terms of development http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

My vote goes for the Ar 234. Capable of delivering substantial ordanace at speed, flew operationaly in 44 as well, and completed actual bombing missions on a bridge that i cant remember at the moment. Didnt the A 10 wharthog have the same config as well!

Seriously though, these days how many missions are about air combat as opposed to supporting ground operations.

Ultimately, air war is all about how you can influence the ground war, and not directly by the number of fighters you shoot down.

cheers fruitbat

Xiolablu3
01-22-2008, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
Xia, agree that the allieds didn't need jets.

But to me that does not make the 262 less innovative. Yes, it was rushed, but it was the
- first front line jet fighter used in combat against other warplanes.
- it was first front line jet fighter in combat to use swept wing design.

Both were a 'first'.
And both of those attributes are still used in many jet fighters as of today.

It did not have its jets inside the fuselage, indeed, under the wing was rather standard for the time, plenty of planes with engines in nacelles under wing at the time...but with props...
And as you pointed out there was a reason for putting them under wings for the time being.

One could actually point out that even in-fuselage jet engines were already old stuff by the time 262 hit the skies.
He 178 and Gloster E28/39 had them in the fuselage.

So what? Does it make it less significant just because of that? Because it just incoporated only two out of three things of a modern jet fighter?
No, to me it still is first combat jet with swept wing and for that it was revolutionary.

Yes, all had been there on prototypes, drawing boards, etc, but one has to put it into use too.

In the same grasp it would be saying that the flight to the moon with a few dudes aboard was not revolutionary because there were rockets there way before...
So flight to the moon nothing special, revolutionary?
Not to me...

Just because the Zulus did not need rifles to overrun British rifle men does not need that the rifle is not revolutionary compared to a spear...
+++++

I agree that the Me262 was a great plane, and IMO exactly what Germany needed at the time. It had no chance of winning the war with conventional aircraft, as sheer weight of numbers were against her.

Revolutionary aircraft which could take down bombers quickly, in large numbers and be fast enough to be immune to fighters, was just what was needed.

There were just not enough of them, also Hitlers interference by sending them to Jabo/Bomber squadrons instead of fighter squadrons didnt help. The Fighter boys should have got them. However Hitler was really grasping at straws. What was on his mind was not the Allied bombing campaign, but the Hoards of T34's which were coming in from the East.

I look at it like this:- The Me262 as a fighter could NEVER stop the Russians advancing on Berlin. The Me262 as a bomber had a 0.0000001% chance of stoppping the Red army. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
01-22-2008, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
USAAF Statistical Digest lists a total of 446 bombers and fighters lost to enemy aircraft in the ETO for 1945.

Although English (especially Mosquito!) and Soviet planes make up a notable part of the Me262 claims, it fits the general picture of overclaiming during WWII (just like the 1598 "destroyed" Luftwaffe fighters from Jan to March in that digest do: the Luftwaffe lost 1438 fighters to all causes, including non-combat losses, on all fronts during that period, according to Groehler).

Point being, only the jets could operate with at least a fighting chance in late 1944/1945 and having in mind their excellent as well as numerous opposition, they did very well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont forget the RAF losses. The Me262 was the perfect plane to catch Mosquito high speed bombers. Many were employed to do exactly this. If Goebbels diary is accurate then in late 44 early '45 the daily Mosquito raids were proving to be extrememly damaging, especially for enemy morale/propaganda. Now the Germans had a plane which had a real chance of catching them and taking them out, so you would think that RAF planes would be a substantial amount of the Me262 claims.


Dont forget the Me262 was fighting the Russians too wasnt it? (Not 100% sure about this)

Top_Gun_1_0_1
01-22-2008, 01:22 PM
if the nazix go Kamikaze crazy on those bomber formations ETC. its gonna devestate the allies and may have extended the war till 1946, but then Abombs will be dropped on Germany http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DIRTY-MAC
01-22-2008, 03:10 PM
Did you know there were 40 Me262 Aces
here you go:
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/dusen.html

HuninMunin
01-22-2008, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Following preliminary studies, work began on the P1065 on Apr 1 1939.

The Me262V2 did not fly with jet power until Oct 1 1942.

That is 3 1/2 years.

Johnson and a team of designers began work on a prototype, designated the XP-80, on June 21, 1943.

On January 8, 1944, at the Muroc Flight Test Base, the Lockheed chief test pilot, Milo Burcham, took "Lulu-Belle" into the sky for the first time.

Did I write airframe or did I not?

HuninMunin
01-22-2008, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Disagree 100%

On what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>On 100% of it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's inspiring to see the herold of facts to make such solid argumentation.

luftluuver
01-22-2008, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Did I write airframe or did I not?
What are you babbling on about?

Copperhead311th
01-22-2008, 04:04 PM
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/LockheedL-133HighRear.jpg

I'm sorry but this thing would have smoked the 262 like a 4th of july bbq. The L-133 was a more advanced design. With ZERO engine drag, unlike the 262 with it's exposed engines.
PPL Swept wings ain't the end all be all of aircraft design. period. And this is a far more advanced design at the time than any thing the germans had on the books durring the same period.


History:

The Lockheed company was the first in the USA to start work on a jet powered aircraft, the L-133 design started in 1939 as a number of "Paper Project" by engineers Clarence R "Kelly" Johnson and Hall J Hibbard. By 1940 preliminary work on a company financed jet fighter had been started, which progressed to several different versions on the drawing board. In the mean time Lockheed were working on a axial-flow turbojet of there own design L-1000, which was intended to power the culmination of the fighter project the Model L-133-02-01, this was a single seat, cannard design powered by two L-1000 engines. The design was noticed by the USAAF, but at the time they showed no great interested in the idea of a jet powered fighter and missed the opportunity of giving the USA a lead in this new technology. With out the support (and money) of the USAAF work on the L-133 fighter and it's engine the L-1000 came to a halt.

How ever when the USAAF suddenly began to show interest in the idea of a jet powered combat aircraft in 1942, spurred on by intelligence reports of the advances in jet propulsion by the Germans and British, the USAAF would turn the Lockheed for it's fist jet powered fighter the Lockheed P-80 "Shooting Star"

Bremspropeller
01-22-2008, 04:11 PM
I'm sorry but this thing would have smoked the 262 like a 4th of july bbq. The L-133 was a more advanced design. With ZERO engine drag, unlike the 262 with it's exposed engines.

On the base of what?

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

PraetorHonoris
01-22-2008, 04:15 PM
... paper project - now that hits the nail on the head!

luftluuver
01-22-2008, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
... paper project - now that hits the nail on the head!
Would that be like the German 'napkin projects'? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HuninMunin
01-22-2008, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Did I write airframe or did I not?
What are you babbling on about? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You.

Gibbage1
01-22-2008, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
... paper project - now that hits the nail on the head!

We have the Ta-183, why not the L-133? Also, what makes the LERCHE any less of a paper project then the L-133?

HuninMunin
01-22-2008, 05:42 PM
Nothing.
Who said anything into that direction?

Gibbage1
01-22-2008, 05:53 PM
They are making fun of the L-133 being a paper airplane, but I dont remember them making fun of the Ta-183 or Lerche. Hypocrisy. Look it up.

Bremspropeller
01-22-2008, 07:16 PM
but I dont remember them making fun of the Ta-183 or Lerche.

ORLY? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-22-2008, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
It's inspiring to see the herold of facts to make such solid argumentation. Poor Nancy

HuninMunin
01-22-2008, 07:38 PM
I'm really proud of you for even understanding sarcasm.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HuninMunin
01-22-2008, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
They are making fun of the L-133 being a paper airplane, but I dont remember them making fun of the Ta-183 or Lerche. Hypocrisy. Look it up.

Who is "they"?

R_Target
01-22-2008, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Although English (especially Mosquito!) and Soviet planes make up a notable part of the Me262 claims, it fits the general picture of overclaiming during WWII (just like the 1598 "destroyed" Luftwaffe fighters from Jan to March in that digest do: the Luftwaffe lost 1438 fighters to all causes, including non-combat losses, on all fronts during that period, according to Groehler).

Well, it's pretty hefty overclaiming. Even if the 262 downed all 446 of the USAAF planes shot down air-to-air in the ETO in 1945, that would still be only ~60% of what was claimed. How many claims were submitted in 1944?


Point being, only the jets could operate with at least a fighting chance in late 1944/1945 and having in mind their excellent as well as numerous opposition, they did very well.

Under the circumstances, I think they did well.

luftluuver
01-23-2008, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
They are making fun of the L-133 being a paper airplane, but I dont remember them making fun of the Ta-183 or Lerche. Hypocrisy. Look it up.
The Ta 183 got further than a napkin. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bewolf
01-23-2008, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
They are making fun of the L-133 being a paper airplane, but I dont remember them making fun of the Ta-183 or Lerche. Hypocrisy. Look it up.

LOL!

gods be good, please go on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 03:37 AM
So that explains why the P-80 had only 1 engine, yet was faster then the Me-262 with its "superior" engine. Huh. Wait....

What Dr. Herb was correct, all other things being equal, which they weren't!

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 03:40 AM
So that explains why the P-80 had only 1 engine, yet was faster then the Me-262 with its "superior" engine. Huh. Wait....

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

They swepped the wings to maintain the CG of the plane!

Tagert, this is utter bollocks!

The Germans had the ONLY high speed wind tunnel (the US and France fought over it post war, ultimately it was taken apart and moved to France) and the swept wing on the 262 was specifically to improve high speed performance, based on wind tunnel tests. Note that the He280 had a similar design but Heinkel did not have the same access to the wind tunnel (the continual political issues Heinkel had, despite flying the first jets) and the Heinkel had straight wings, even with podded engines.

The USA, France, USSR and the UK made extensive use of the results of the German high speed flight results, and in many cases the engineers (some worked on Concorde, some in France, the chief test engineer from Messerschmitt became the chief test engineer for Vought, etc).

For example the Handley Page Victor was heavily influenced by a German design (I've forgotten the number) and the XB-51 with its three engine layout was also taken from a German design. Western engineers would have been fools not to have made use of the results, and they did, and quickly built on it.

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 03:45 AM
As for the BS about Germans "inventing" the swept wing, and the US copying it, the US had experimented with many swept wing fighters during the war.

Indeed, but then Lillenthal and Pilcher tried them.

The cruicial difference was that the Germans used them specifically for high Mach number flight first, based on having relevant wind tunnel results. Note how important that wind tunnel became post war, and the results from WW2. This was the cruicial difference. If the USA had built such a wind tunnel earlier then the positions would have been reversed, no doubt.

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 03:55 AM
Jet engines were not as reliable as they are today, and both the Meteor and Me262 needed to be able to change their engines quickly and easily,

With the Meteor the issue wasn't really the need for maintenance but the fact that there was no installation for a single engine which had sufficient power. The first designs for a Gloster jet fighter were based on E.39/41 with split intakes (similar in general shape to the P.80, but smaller) but to fit in enough fuel for a decent range meant a bigger aircraft, which meant more fuel. The options were to use two engines in the fuselage (which became the Ace/Rocket range, although one of those had only one engine again, and only flew post war) and completely fill the wings with fuel, put the engines in the wing roots (more complex construction) or just sling them under the wings. So the last option was picked.

The Meteor was seen by Gloster as more of a technology demonstrator with some combat potential pending the Ace and Rocket line, to ensure that they had a foot in the door for future contracts. In the end the Ace and Rocket were dissapointing and it wasn't until the Javelin that things were back on track.

Interesting Gloster, in 1941, proposed a jet bomber which was the spitting image of the Ar 234.

luftluuver
01-23-2008, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
For example the Handley Page Victor was heavily influenced by a German design (I've forgotten the number) ....
That would be the Ar234 Aaron. The crescent wing of the Victor owed much to pioneering work of Rudiger Kosin and Walter Lehmann.

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 04:09 AM
There was one desgin (wind tunnel tests of models only) that shared the wing shape, root engines, and the multi-paned crew cabin, but it wasn't the Ar. 234. I'll look it up in my books later. It might have been one of the wing planforms from Arado/Heinkel '334', though as you suggest. I can picture it in my mind, just not remember the exact details!

luftluuver
01-23-2008, 04:13 AM
Yes Aaron. See the Monogram Monarch book by Smith and Creek on the Ar234, Chap 7.

PraetorHonoris
01-23-2008, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:

Well, it's pretty hefty overclaiming. Even if the 262 downed all 446 of the USAAF planes shot down air-to-air in the ETO in 1945, that would still be only ~60% of what was claimed. How many claims were submitted in 1944?

Again, compare it to the USAAF claims in 1945 Jan, Feb, March: 1598 fighters claimed, yet the Luftwaffe lost 1438. Does not sound so bad at first, but of these at least 40% are operational/ non-combat losses (a very low figure considering the training of most pilots and comparing it to the USAAF operational losses; cf.Tab100 and cf.Tab159 of the digest).
And again, do not forget the Soviets and RAF (and AdA and others) shooting down Lw-planes. Consequently I can't see how that should be any better than the Me262 claims.

PraetorHonoris
01-23-2008, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
They are making fun of the L-133 being a paper airplane, but I dont remember them making fun of the Ta-183 or Lerche. Hypocrisy. Look it up.

http://forums-de.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/388104122/m...511037374#9511037374 (http://forums-de.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/388104122/m/7811084374?r=9511037374#9511037374)

Here you can see me making fun of the Lerche.

Whenever a German project comes up it is ridiculed by the very same persons who present a paper project as a world beater and example of great engineering here. Talking about hyprocisy.

OD_
01-23-2008, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jet engines were not as reliable as they are today, and both the Meteor and Me262 needed to be able to change their engines quickly and easily,

With the Meteor the issue wasn't really the need for maintenance but the fact that there was no installation for a single engine which had sufficient power. The first designs for a Gloster jet fighter were based on E.39/41 with split intakes (similar in general shape to the P.80, but smaller) but to fit in enough fuel for a decent range meant a bigger aircraft, which meant more fuel. The options were to use two engines in the fuselage (which became the Ace/Rocket range, although one of those had only one engine again, and only flew post war) and completely fill the wings with fuel, put the engines in the wing roots (more complex construction) or just sling them under the wings. So the last option was picked.

The Meteor was seen by Gloster as more of a technology demonstrator with some combat potential pending the Ace and Rocket line, to ensure that they had a foot in the door for future contracts. In the end the Ace and Rocket were dissapointing and it wasn't until the Javelin that things were back on track.

Interesting Gloster, in 1941, proposed a jet bomber which was the spitting image of the Ar 234. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone mentioned the Dehaviland Vampire? single engined, was flying by 1944, not operationally I know, just seems conviniently forgotten. Was faster than the early Meteors.

Also, with reference to an earlier point, I have read about the Me262s wings having nothing to do with high speed flight but more CoG, but that wouldn't definitely explain the Me163...swept wings, faster aircraft, though the tailess design may be an influencing factor there.

Also I'm pretty sure they had a high speed wind tunnel at Franborough. There were also some designs on paper from Sydney Camm which are supposed to look remarkably like the Tornado, VG wings and all - they were pre-war!

M_Gunz
01-23-2008, 07:24 AM
So one guy says the Lockheed design would have smoked the 262 and that that "would have"
somehow proves that swept wings mean nothing despite real work showing that swept wings do
raise compression speeds, but wth a neat, futuristic looking model beats everything....

Then someone comes back with aha, you guys talk about paper planes,

To which the hissy catfight turns another corner and it's handbags at 3 paces, girls.

Geez, can't you guys remember anything more than 3 posts ago?

Kudos to Ugly Kid, the guy that knows more than collected pieces of opinions from books!

Anyone who would argue that the 262 was not revolutionary for the time is either ******ed
or obsessive in a nationalistic sense. Or perhaps a bit of both since there is no logic
that says that OTHER planes and projects ahead of their time makes the 262 any LESS ahead.

It's like two girls showing up at a dance in too close the same dress then screaming and
fighting over their ruined hopes. Fingernails and handbags at dawn I tell ya!

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 07:25 AM
The irony of the Vampire is that it part of the delay was that the working engine was sent to the USA to be in the P-80.

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 07:27 AM
Also I'm pretty sure they had a high speed wind tunnel at Franborough. There were also some designs on paper from Sydney Camm which are supposed to look remarkably like the Tornado, VG wings and all - they were pre-war!

AFAIK the Farnborough high speed wind tunnel was post war, based on the German one, two of the engineers in residence at the time being, er, German. Camm did a lot of work on VG, but in the mid 1950s. If he did work prior to WW2 that's interesting. The earliest British VG work I know of was from Barnes Wallis, late 1940s/early 1950s - aka 'Swallow' wing (to make a slight linguistic reference back to the 262). Wallis's work looks futuristic even now.

In the late 1940s/early 1950s it is interesting to see how many machines looked similar. Some was due to data changing hands explicitly. E.g. Bell X1/Miles M52, then the P.1101 / F-86 / Mig-15 / Bristol 176 group. In the 1950s there are a group of designs from Avro, Fairchild etc for Mach 2+ that have many similarities.

OD_
01-23-2008, 08:28 AM
Wasn't sure about Farnborough, you're probably right.

If you look at the Vampire it wasn't a bad aircraft, especially not if you look at how it was developed post war ultimately into the Sea Vixen. Admittedly it went through quite a process to get there but it is the same basic layout and design principle.

I don't think people can argue that the Me262 was not ahead of it's time. But when you look at protoypes and early production models with a tail wheel...futuristic is not a word that springs to mind. Captured German research was clearly important Post War, again that is not disputed.

As for nationalistic viewpoints I think Britain has a lot to look back at and be proud of with it's research, such as the information given to the Bell X-1 program with the deal being for reciprocal information sharing...which never took place, Bell X-1 goes supersonic because of British work...no swept wings on that.

I do have a question with regards to the development of the engines though. Did Whittle design an Axial flow turbojet? I was under the impression that both existed in Britain but the Centrifugal flow jets were more reliable, cheaper and easier to maintain which therefore makes them a more logical step to use for the initial development of a jet aircraft program until Axial flow jets were more user friendly.

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 09:55 AM
Did Whittle design an Axial flow turbojet?

Research work on axial flow engines was certainly done in the UK in WW2, but I am not sure if Whittle was involved. I'd ask my great grandfather, were he still alive.

M_Gunz
01-23-2008, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
In the late 1940s/early 1950s it is interesting to see how many machines looked similar. Some was due to data changing hands explicitly. E.g. Bell X1/Miles M52, then the P.1101 / F-86 / Mig-15 / Bristol 176 group. In the 1950s there are a group of designs from Avro, Fairchild etc for Mach 2+ that have many similarities.

Has more to do with form following current understanding and desired function than direct
derivatives, as has been shown here before.

Aaron_GT
01-23-2008, 11:57 AM
There's a lot to that. There was some direct borrowing, but a lot is to do with the current knowledge of the state of the art, and, dare I say it, possibly fashion.

Heliopause
01-23-2008, 12:57 PM
Metropolitan-Vickers F2 axial-flow engines, used on the meteor DG204. (underslung nacelles)

luftluuver
01-23-2008, 01:09 PM
jets engines

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Jets45-Engines.htm

M_Gunz
01-23-2008, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
There's a lot to that. There was some direct borrowing, but a lot is to do with the current knowledge of the state of the art, and, dare I say it, possibly fashion.

I'd leave the fashion part to 50's US cars with the big fins. Some (heh some!) were ridiculous.
I had a buddy with a 56 Bel Aire for example....

AKA_TAGERT
01-23-2008, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Tagert, this is utter bollocks!
Hardly


http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/Messerschmit/page4.html:
The characteristic swept design was the result of <span class="ev_code_yellow">a need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate for heavier then expected engines. It was only later that the benefits of swept wings were realized.</span>


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


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200304/ai_n9230356:
Development of the aircraft that became the Me 262 started way back,in 1939. It goes without saying that the design would stretch all aviation boundaries. Not only was the jet engine barely a working <span class="ev_code_yellow">idea but the advantages (and disadvantages) of the swept wing simply were not known.</span> Oddly, the performance benefits of the swept wing were not completely realized in the initial design concepts - rather, that type of wing was utilized when it became obvious that the engines were going to be much heavier than initially planned and the center of gravity would drastically change without sweeping the wings. It was only later that the benefits were discovered!


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


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


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

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/BESTOFWINGS_Me262_Sweeped_wings_for_cg_purpose.JPG

And last..

But not least..


http://www.planet-aerospace.com/pas/content/OF000002000...7/1/13/200004131.pdf (http://www.planet-aerospace.com/pas/content/OF00000200000057/1/13/200004131.pdf):
The choice of swept wings was, incidentally, motivated by the need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate for the increasing weight of the engines in the course of the development work. <span class="ev_code_yellow">No-one in the team had any idea yet of the importance of delta wings for supersonic flight in general.</span>

Now..

Care to try again Nancy?

Same goes for any other blind tardo that think my statements are obsessive in a nationalistic sense.

PraetorHonoris
01-23-2008, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Did not intend to participate your oh so typical mud-slinging but you should give the credit where it's bloody well due. For a sake of an open minded reader I try to contribute my 2 cents. It is an insult to any aircraft engineer to belittle the influence of Prantl and his scholars and colleagues (Busemann, von Karman, Ackeret, Betz, Nikuradze, Glauert) on what we know of aerodynamics today - they were incredibly far ahead and considering the means and methods they ha, they were nothing short of geniuses - the whole lot.

Swept wings, particularly in respect to increasing critical Mach number and also for supersonic speeds the credit goes to A.Busemann who introduced his theory in 5th Volta Congress 1935. Eh?

Since the Germans allegedly first found out about benefits of swept wing accidentally with 262 it is of course very perplexing trying to explain why Busemann and Betz patented the swept wing for transonic flight 18.06.42 (patent number 732/42), or wing with extreme sweep 11.09.42 (Betz, patent number 790/42) or even the variable sweep 11.09.42 (Betz, patent number 799/42)???

That Messerschmitt was not aware of swept wing concept surprises me, while Busemann was in contact with both Heinkel and Messerschmitt around 1939, who had been greatly interested in his later writings in Deutsche Luftforschung LuFo Bd.12. Betz performed first measurements in wind tunnel for subsonic flow at M=0.7 and M=0.9 , and informed Messerschmitt as well. As the included small bit of a letter from uncle Willy shows he was not only informed - he was quite enthusiastic already pondering the technical problems of variable sweep wing...

http://freenet-homepage.de/majamaki/willy.jpg

Funnily, Ludwig Bölkow (yeah the guy from the 262 project team) worked on the topic at this time. So surely they had no glue later when working on 262...

Then just couple of small side notes on c.g theory, which seems to be oh so popular. Sweeping mere wings does not influence the c-g very much, because the wings have quite a small relative structural weight. Given, moving the engines will have an influence - but, then why an earth did they then place the engines in a distinctively forward position in relation to the wing? Eh?

Sweeping wings also shifts the aerodynamic centre of the aircraft backwards, so if one wanted to shift c.g the only interest is coming closer to the aerodynamic centre so if this moves backwards simultaneously it is clearly not the most optimal solution, is it.

If one wanted to build a straight wing, then one would build a straight wing and move it altogether. Additional problems from swept wing, which BTW the Germans also knew about: reducing stability on yaw-axis (dutch roll), tip stall tendency. From the strength point of view with engine placement as in 262 you get torsional reactions to wing as a result to any loading: change in throttle or g-loading - not very optimal for solving a mere c.g problem, now is it?

Also another small tidbit (although not mentioned - yet), the tricycle landing gear was also foreseen even in the first description that went to RLM, it was not just introduced to first protos since they did not want to bring all novelties into the prototype platform at the same time. Also, the wing sweep in 262 was done with moderation - in HG they were already much more encouraged by the experience, just as well as in other Mtt projects.

I had a chance of hearing a presentation of Horst Philipp couple of years ago - extremely experienced former test pilot of Luftwaffe, who currently flies the replica 262 for Mtt foundation. During his presentation there was a question about the same c.g theory. He answered the question merely by laughing at it..."They knew exactly what they were doing" - his words, not mine. Also worth mentioning, he flunked the Mutke's supersonic flight story on the next question. I'll take his word in both cases.

The c.g theory seems to tell more about the knowledge of people promoting it than the knowledge about Bölkow and 262 project team...


Willy Messerschmitt himself is saying that he will incoperate swept wings to increase performance in January 1940 as can be seen in this document - and the rest of the post is also well worth reading.
Of course Tagert is ignoring this, which probably leads us to Corum's true statement (my sig).

AKA_TAGERT
01-23-2008, 07:13 PM
Poor Nancy..

Try attacking the quotes instead of me and you might actully get someone to buy into your dream

PraetorHonoris
01-23-2008, 07:19 PM
Again, Messerschmitt saying he incorporates swept wings to increase performance. It does not exclude an incorporation for cg reasons.
Nonetheless, it does destroy your opinion, it would have been done for that reason only.

Oh, and I would not even dream of getting into a contest who can better attack ad personam, everyone knows you are the king.

AKA_TAGERT
01-23-2008, 07:29 PM
Hardly

M_Gunz
01-23-2008, 08:03 PM
"Proof" on the Web:

Find a load of references to a secondary 'source' of information and that makes it true.

I.E. Quote a load of derived opinions, whoever has 'more' must be right.

AKA_TAGERT
01-23-2008, 09:08 PM
Poor Nancy..

When he has no quotes/links to support his blind theories..

He trys to discredit folks that do provide quotes/links..

Just further proof of how smacktards who got NOTHING to support their statements have to resort to attacking the person in the hopes that no one will notice they got NOTHING...

Not surprising..

The good news is I am sure that most folks here do NOT agree with this smacktard when he says WINGS & AIR POWER MAGAZINE are nothing more than a web quote and/or secondary source..

Nor would they consider the following a secondary web link source..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/BESTOFWINGS_Me262_Sweeped_wings_for_cg_purpose2.JP G

I wonder how that one will be ignored?

But I digress..

But the best..

What did the smacktard call it?

Web Source?

Thus far is this..


While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft

Where did that quote come from?

Here --> http://www.stormbirds.com (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)

You know..

The guys who love the Nazi Me262 so much they decided to build new ones from scratch!

I predict that the smacktards will NOT try and discredit them..

No!

I'm sure they will come back with something about me and totally avoid that and the rest of the links I provided!

It would be comical..

If it were not so transparent http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

R_Target
01-23-2008, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Again, compare it to the USAAF claims in 1945 Jan, Feb, March: 1598 fighters claimed, yet the Luftwaffe lost 1438. Does not sound so bad at first, but of these at least 40% are operational/ non-combat losses (a very low figure considering the training of most pilots and comparing it to the USAAF operational losses; cf.Tab100 and cf.Tab159 of the digest).
And again, do not forget the Soviets and RAF (and AdA and others) shooting down Lw-planes. Consequently I can't see how that should be any better than the Me262 claims.

That may well be, but I didn't make any claims, and didn't draw any comparisons. The 700+ "victories" sounded a little excessive to me, and a quick glance at the figures shows that.

Waldo.Pepper
01-23-2008, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Of course Tagert is ignoring this, which probably leads us to Corum's true statement (my sig).

Since you brought up your sig ... here is how you present it. I think that it represents a telling piece of misquoting/editing)

"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 believe they can write books about the German air force without knowing German"

The true quote follows, and is put in context. The bolding - to point out his qualifying statements are mine not his.

===

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe and the Luftwaffe's concepts of warfare 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 and air force without knowing German."

In Corum's mind this covers those who do not have access to proper translations. Note his use of 'some and many'. Some sources that do not rely on primary sources are still acceptable in his mind.

You know that many are acceptable as you have used them in other friendly debates in the past. You know what Corum means, what he intends to be his meaning, but still seek to misuse his words, to make an assertion of your own.

You want to have a debating weapon in your quiver that will instantly counter any book or opinion that you don't like. Here is how you want the debating weapon to work.

"Author doesn't know German = source is worthless."

You have attempted to do just that in this very thread. When at other times, you are perfectly happy to use sources from authors who do not know German.

The words of his are intended to put the reader on alert to the possibility. Not to be used as a debating A-bomb for the mass exclusion of entire libraries of work without consideration of their merit. (Again, like you like to do when it suits you.)

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 06:26 AM
It is very simple, there are questions that can only be answered by reading source material - we are talking about sources from the development not some later authors' opinion. This is a very typical case, since modern literature on Me262 is often far away from being academic lacking proper footnotes or other proofs, we have to take a look into the sources, unless your desire is blind believe in such books.
If you have a proper translation of the Messerschmitt files concerning the Me262 development, I do not have a problem. But if you have not, and if your education, or the lack of it, does not allow you to read them, you are in a hell of a bad to position to argue and your opinion is nothing but baseless.

And that is exactly what Corum said, no matter how you want to spin it.

OD_
01-24-2008, 06:48 AM
So are you saying that not one of the sources listed has used a German version of the notes? Or that not one of them has done any research? Can you back this up?

We can go round in circles like this all day, but it would be quite boring. If you can not use books as a source but only primary sources then you've just undermined the whole academic world! Ok so some will have an agenda and some will be biased, but so are going to objective and useful. Numerous sources have been presented to the discussion and therefore what it your problem with debating it? That it does not fit in with your understanding. Not a way to learn new things.

You might be right you might be wrong fact is you're dismissing evidence without knowing anything about how the author came to the conclusion they did.

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:

That may well be, but I didn't make any claims, and didn't draw any comparisons. The 700+ "victories" sounded a little excessive to me, and a quick glance at the figures shows that.[/QUOTE]

Well you seemed to present the Me262 claimes as somewhat extraordinary in terms of overclaiming, which they are not at all as the comparision was intended to show. If I misread you, I am sorry.

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 06:54 AM
Oh Jesus, OD, don't fall for WP's spin. I never dismissed all literature as a whole.
I dismiss them if they state an opinion, don't back it up with German sources (as we are on a German plane) and if German sources (here a word of Willy Messerschmitt himself) directly contradict the opinion, which was not backed up. Here Willy Messerschmitt has authority.

Waldo.Pepper
01-24-2008, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
...there are questions that can only be answered by reading source material.

Indeed. There are SOME, though you prefer to see this as MOST, or ALL rather than debate the issue on their merit whenever you get in a jam.


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
If you have a proper translation ... I do not have a problem. But if you have not, and if your education, or the lack of it, does not allow you to read them, you are in a hell of a bad to position to argue and your opinion is nothing but baseless. And that is exactly what Corum said, no matter how you want to spin it.

Correct again! But it is you who brings up your sig as though it were an absolute fact that occurs in all cases.

You did exactly that when I first quoted you mentioning your sig.

You invoke the Corum quote using it to ARBITRALILY dismiss whatever source they have. Without producing opposing evidence to refute it.

I can see why you like Corum. He takes the words of other out of context and missquotes them to suite his purposes also. You are the one who is spinning and misusing the words of your Hero to suit your pusposes, not I.

I am pointing out how you are twising his words.

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 07:10 AM
I invoked Corum as his words perfectly described what Tagert did, ignoring Messerschmitt. And even if you deliberatly delete my words about the files concerning Me262 development, we are on a question that demands sources. If you cannot read the developement files, which are the evidence and which are or should be the very basis of all literature, you will have to trust the literature, it's authors and their opinions blindly - I for one (obviously only one) don't want that.

Waldo.Pepper
01-24-2008, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by OD_:
So are you saying that not one of the sources listed has used a German version of the notes? Or that not one of them has done any research? Can you back this up?

No he cannot. For if he tries to he has failed ot accomplish his purpose, and will be forced to debate sources WHICH ARE NOT GERMAN. (Remember this is what he is trying to avoid - for his own internal predjudices.)



Originally posted by OD_:
If you can not use books as a source but only primary sources then you've just undermined the whole academic world!

Correct. But he hopes you will not notice.


Originally posted by OD_:
Ok so some will have an agenda and some will be biased, but so are going to objective and useful. Numerous sources have been presented to the discussion and therefore what it your problem with debating it?

See my comments above.



Originally posted by OD_:
That it does not fit in with your understanding. Not a way to learn new things.

Correct.


Originally posted by OD_:
You might be right you might be wrong fact is you're dismissing evidence without knowing anything about how the author came to the conclusion they did.

He does not want to do anything except forstall debate. Hence his use of the Corum quote.


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
I invoked Corum as his words perfectly described what Tagert did, ignoring Messerschmitt.

He didn't ignore Messerschmitt. He brought up contradictory evidence, that you sought to discredic - arbitrarily - out of hand by saying it is not German - and therefore worthless (rather than of potentially reduced relevance).


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
And even if you deliberatly delete my words about the files concerning Me262 development, ..."

I did not "deliberately delete" your words. I used ... to be honest and up front about the fact that I altered your words. To show that I have changed a quote. Something I have already pointed out that you consistantly fail to do in your very sig where you have redacted Corum's words - "especially, Americans" without putting in the necessary academic convention.

You in this instant are the very embodiment of calling the kettle black.

Why have you edited the Corum quote without adding what is academically proper?


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
If you cannot read the developement files, which are the evidence and which are or should be the very basis of all literature, you will have to trust the literature, it's authors and their opinions blindly - I for one (obviously only one) don't want that.

You make at least two academic mistakes with this passage. Firstly, you assert that the only literature fit for discussion are the developmental files.

These files may be INCOMPLETE. These files may include DELIBERATE FALSIFICATIONS. These files are written by FALLIBLE HUMANS and may need fleshing out with OTHER SOURCES.

They need an intelligent going through. Not the dogmatic reading of an unimaginative and untrained mind.

Using only the sources you advocate, ignores others who were on scene. American, British, French, Russians who were there. Who interviewed engineers, scientists, pilots etc. Diplomats and journalists who are not German were also there. Witnessing events and talking to Germans who were there. All these people have valuable contributions to make. But you (falsely - FALSELY even to Corum) wish to discredit them as very nearly valueless - arbitrarily - all by yourself - thus seeking to forestall debate.

And secondly you assert that you are the only who is interested in original source material. This is false. However, I think it is true that you are the only one who has a very uneducated, and unacademic built in bias toward original source material - to the exclusion of even considering as valuable any other evidence.

Original material is valuable to be sure. But it is not so disproportionately valuable as to exclude the value of other sources.

And finally when you earlier presented the 700+ kills of the Me-262 without taking pains, without going the extra mile, without being UP FRONT that these were claims - and assuming that the community as a whole would of course think as you do. That all kill boards are of course claims you do tremendous damage to your reputation - and call into question exactly what you mean. You are a parser, as I have stated before. You would have been happy to leave your readers with any false impression - if it suits your debating purposes. Corum does this too. Would you care to know where in his book he has done this? (Or would you rather remain blindly ignorant of his all to human failings?)

OD_
01-24-2008, 10:09 AM
I wouldn't say I have fallen for any spin. I would say that I have been reading your posts and find that your arguments for not looking at the alternative viewpoint presented are flawed. As has been pointed out, you can not rely entirely on the original notes just because it was a German aircraft.

The fact that people in Nazi Germany invented information to back themselves up for propaganda purposes and to please their political masters is well known. Why should the Me262 be any different? Cosequently the fact that it was a German aircraft will have had some impact on some peoples views from the 'victor' nations. But if an objective study shows that had the wings been unswept and the CoG was too far forward for it to be a straight winged aircraft would this not back up the point of view put across? It would potentially have not needed to have used notes from Messerschmitt.

Really I have no interest in taking sides, like I said at the end of my post you might be right, you might be wrong. I know from sources I have read, which are reliable, state about the centre of gravity, I just wish I knew where it was at the moment as I have a feeling it is in the attic at my parents house 125 miles away!

I think we've lost sight of the original point of the post anyway by, as usual, getting into pointless academic technicalities.

As an OT just looking at the Blenheim in W.P's sig...isn't it missing a prop blade on the left hand engine!?!

Bewolf
01-24-2008, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by OD_:

The fact that people in Nazi Germany invented information to back themselves up for propaganda purposes and to please their political masters is well known. Why should the Me262 be any different? Cosequently the fact that it was a German aircraft will have had some impact on some peoples views from the 'victor' nations. But if an objective study shows that had the wings been unswept and the CoG was too far forward for it to be a straight winged aircraft would this not back up the point of view put across? It would potentially have not needed to have used notes from Messerschmitt.


The germans made up aircraft data ment for internal evaluation and communication for propaganda efforts? That is well known? I would like to have sources for that.

I suppose we have a late victim of war and postwar propaganda and conclusive prejudices here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 10:50 AM
Let me get a few things strait looking past all this hateful verbiage.

Sure, sources need to be seen in context, need to be analysed and interpreted, I know the game. The very starting point are the sources, and in case of the developement of the Me262, it's developers, their minds, their ideas, their plans, their actions have to be taken into account. In this particular case, German is imperative, unless you find a translation. Then we can start contextualizing etc. (Others on the scene of development with relevant info for our question? Prove it! Deliberate falsifications? Prove it! You have to read them first anyway)

I for one want a discussion about the swept wings of Me262 and we have a wonderful source, but neither Tagert nor any of his googled opinions cite it or have any clear reference to it, nor to any other source. There is also no trace of any discussion of sources, just opinion.

Lastly it tells enough about WP's motivation that he has not entered discussion on topic Me262 at all. Or that I have never seen him jumping on someone who presented the 5000 Mustang kills in ETO as kills not as claims. Or any other claims presented as definete kills.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 11:15 AM
Looks like the truth has got in the way of some peoples dreams..

Poor Milton and the folks from Bluevill

I knew that quote from http://www.stormbirds.com would hit home hard..

Tiz why I saved it for last! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

csThor
01-24-2008, 11:21 AM
Interesting to see how it's always the same people propagating double standards. I certainly know why I stay away from FM discussions ... too many self-declared experts here, especially on german designs. Too bad that, as Praetor said, few (if any) of these seem to be able to read german. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Yes, Tagert, that means you (among others).

Irish_Rogues
01-24-2008, 11:52 AM
The whole quote:


While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft, it is also true that the Germans were aware of the advantages of the swept wing since the 30s! It is also true that design aesthetics by the design team, irrespective of any initial misgivings about practicality, influenced the wing shape of the 262.

Loco-S
01-24-2008, 12:03 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/Kurbalaganda/giveadamn.gif

anarchy52
01-24-2008, 12:32 PM
Shut up ubi-zoo animals, and enjoy
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/skins/screenshots/n3.jpg

Atzebrueck
01-24-2008, 12:51 PM
Why redesign the wings and risk unforseen changes to the flying attitude of the whole plane, if you only want to move the engines a bit backwards.
Changing the engine nacelles would be much more simple and wouldn't create as many side-effects.

As long as the "CG-theory" is "proven" by books lacking proper footnotes (as Praetor said) it should be considered a myth.

Or do you think all those quotes about bouncing .50 cal bullets killing tiger tanks proves that theory to be true?

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
Yes, Tagert, that means you (among others). Hardly..

Nice try though..

But the FACT remains I have no double standard..

I presented links and quotes to suport my statments..

Where as the others like you have nothing..

But the weak attempt to try and make it about me instead of addressing those links

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Irish_Rogues:
The whole quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft, it is also true that the Germans were aware of the advantages of the swept wing since the 30s! It is also true that design aesthetics by the design team, irrespective of any initial misgivings about practicality, influenced the wing shape of the 262. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Poor Nancy..

Being aware of it does not mean it was intended..

SAVVY?

Now..

The quote you have yet to address..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/BESTOFWINGS_Me262_Sweeped_wings_for_cg_purpose2.JP G

Not suprised at all that you avoid that quote..

In that it shows that though the Germans knew of it, it was not intended

SAVVY?

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 01:28 PM
Proof Messerschmitt himself wrong tard.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
Why redesign the wings and risk unforseen changes to the flying attitude of the whole plane, if you only want to move the engines a bit backwards.
Changing the engine nacelles would be much more simple and wouldn't create as many side-effects.

As long as the "CG-theory" is "proven" by books lacking proper footnotes (as Praetor said) it should be considered a myth.

Or do you think all those quotes about bouncing .50 cal bullets killing tiger tanks proves that theory to be true?
So what your sayin is this..

http://www.samstein.ch/SamStein/BWS/Unglaublich/Aliens/Hitler+Alien.jpg

http://www.proplay.ru/images/users/gallery/45254/154923_l.jpg

But logic and truth won't allow me

All in all I find it commical that you and yours consider Aero Engineering books to not be a good enough source.. let alone magazies like AIR POWER and the like..

But..

I understand..

It is hard for some to come to grips with the truth..

Espically one that they have held so long and dear to thier harts..

Im sorry to be the one to tell you..

But..

The NAZI's were not supper men..

And there is not easter bunny

Loco-S
01-24-2008, 01:38 PM
Tagert, you need to have some medication..you are not infallible, you are not owner of the truth....have you ever considered that other people may know more than you on what you think you are "the best"...think about it, and please step down that soap box.

Bewolf
01-24-2008, 01:48 PM
I begin to understand why Kurfürst is so loathed on the red side. He still gives good data, though.

BaronUnderpants
01-24-2008, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
Tagert, you need to have some medication..you are not infallible, you are not owner of the truth....have you ever considered that other people may know more than you on what you think you are "the best"...think about it, and please step down that soap box.



His reply to that will be..."Poor Nancy", or is it the way cooler "Poor Milton"?..i forget.


First time iv heard that the 262 wasnt "all that"....hardly suprising that claim originates from this forum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Aaron_GT
01-24-2008, 01:50 PM
If the data from German high speed aeronautical tests was based on nothing more than CofG why were the Allies so keen to get their hands on it?

Some of the paper planes from the last days of the Reich were, in many instances, fanciful, but there was also research (e.g. Victor wing shape) that turned out to be useful and worked in practice. The allies had great engineers too, and I think it is the lack of a high speed wind tunnel that made the difference, plus necessity being the mother of invention to some extent in Germany.

The Allies, after the USA entered the war, had the luxury of relying on excellent organisation of US industrial production and logistics and not needing to push planes (e.g. P-80) into action before they were ready AND still win the war.

Aaron_GT
01-24-2008, 01:55 PM
His reply to that will be..."Poor Nancy", or is it the way cooler "Poor Milton"?..i forget.

Or Poor Nimes, or Poor Orleans?

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 01:56 PM
Or why was the P.1011 build with wingswep capabilities?

Aaron_GT
01-24-2008, 02:08 PM
Or why was the P.1011 build with wingswep capabilities?

Centre of gravity? Because it made it look pretty?

Kurfurst__
01-24-2008, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The Allies, after the USA entered the war, had the luxury of relying on excellent organisation of US industrial production and logistics and not needing to push planes (e.g. P-80) into action before they were ready AND still win the war.

The P 80 itself is a pretty poor example for such - wasn`t it developed in record time, something like 180-odd days, rushed into production before all the quirks were worked out as a response to German jets appearing in operational service, killing experienced pilots in rather stupid and unneccesary accidents - ie. something pitiful as an overlooked fuel cap caused the type to be grounded was it not ...?

Come to thing about it, it is the ultimate irony in all 'desperation' arguements.
A plane developed for some 5+ years is 'an act of desperation', another plane that developed, produced, and rushed into operational trials, subsequently grounded due to technical problems, all that in about half a year is being presented as a 'luxury of having no need to rush and push'. The logic is certainly difficult to follow, or perhaps, just too easy.

PS : That`s some very nice skin there Anarchy! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 02:12 PM
Exactly.
They figured that an ashtray was desperatly needed
for the plane.
Because the instrument panel in the front was feared to get dirty very soon, they put the ashtray behind the pilot.
Now the problem was that after a few flights, the ashtray would get heavier and heavier.
So for the probability of a pilot to lazy to empty the ashtray occasionaly, they made swepable wings to compensate the addtitional weight overtime.

Kurfurst__
01-24-2008, 02:46 PM
To quote Dipl. Ing. Ludovicus Fitzlgruber, one of the key brains behind the Me 262 :

'... When we presented the Me 262 first to Adolph Galland, General der Jagdflieger, he took it for a test flight. Upon landing, his face was shining, and he comented that it flies like as if pushed by angels. But then, the expression on his face become clouded, and he kicked us in the groin with his next statement :

- Why doesn`t it have an ashtray?

We immidiately felt the gravity of the situation, despite Prof. Messerschmitt`s numerous notes about the extravagant smoking habits of the GdJflg., we completely ignored this crucial point. The prospect of getting any contract from the RLM now seemed slim. We knew that Ersnt Heinkel was months ahead of us, and perfidly employed an Italian designer to create the perfect ashtray. We had no choice left. We had to employ commercially available ashtrays from the market. Dipl. Ing. Karl Baur suggested we initiate some whispering propaganda in the RLM about wheter Italian-designed ashtrays are proper or not for Aryan applications. This worked out. The Teutonic ashtrays, made by Krupp however bore the mark of their manufacturer and were designed to double as battering rams against the Maginot line fort cupolas, if needed. As these were yet untested by Rechlin, it soon turned out after their installation that they negatively effect the centre of gravity of the aircraft. Subsequently, we had to completely re-design the entire wing structure to accomodate their bulk into the design and compensate for the change in CoG. Further wing sweep had to be added retrospecively to accomodate for the ducting, that used 18% of available compressor power to flush out cigar fumes from the cocpit that could reach dangerous levels in flight. In my professional estimate, Galland`s request delayed the production of the Me 262 by at least two years, an opionion shared by engineers at Junkers A.G., responsible for developing the Jumo 004.'

Irish_Rogues
01-24-2008, 02:56 PM
Poor Nancy..

Being aware of it does not mean it was intended..

SAVVY?

Disagree 100% (That should be the proper reply I think)

It also doesn't mean it wasn't, one fact does not cancel the other. The better question is why did you leave out then? Oh that's right it "sounds" like it could support the opposite.

I don't really care as it's just another silly UBI slap fight in the end, "my proofs better then your proofs".

Either way it doesn't prove anything except this is your newest bone to gnaw on....yawn....You'll wave that old bone around until it derails the whole conversation....yawn. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif At any rate I guess you'll be amused.

I personally get much more amusement out of the hypocrisy part, name calling, cherry picking and taking quotes out of context.....the pot once again just as guilty as the kettle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Just another day at the zoo.

Atzebrueck
01-24-2008, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
So what your sayin is this..


No need to post those big forum pictures http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. A "disagree 100%" would have been sufficient :P.

After reading some posts again, I would also take the possibilty into consideration that they might have redesigned the wings to move the center of lift to keep the plane stable which might have been necessary after the center of gravity turned out to be too close to the center of lift.

Redesigning the wing because of stability problems makes much more sense to me than just to move mass backwards.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
Tagert, you need to have some medication..you are not infallible, you are not owner of the truth....have you ever considered that other people may know more than you on what you think you are "the best"...think about it, and please step down that soap box.

and


Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
His reply to that will be..."Poor Nancy", or is it the way cooler "Poor Milton"?..i forget.


First time iv heard that the 262 wasnt "all that"....hardly suprising that claim originates from this forum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Notice once again folks..

That 'they' attack me instead of addressing the quotes and links I provided..

Speaks volumens!

The best one being how silent AronGT got after I pwned his statment with multiple links/quotes that support what it is I said..

Bremspropeller
01-24-2008, 03:03 PM
Need a tissue?

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Irish_Rogues:
It also doesn't mean it wasn't,
True..

But I have provided several links/quotes that sugest that it was in this case..

Where as the others have preented nothing but hurt feelings and the need to attack me instead of addressing those quotes/links

See the difference?

Bremspropeller
01-24-2008, 03:07 PM
They would probably be less personal if you stopped with that "savvy" and "poor nancy" shiat.

luftluuver
01-24-2008, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
I begin to understand why Kurfürst is so loathed on the red side. He still gives good data, though.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Maybe, but not always, when it comes to nazi German stuff but he is as clueless as is claimed by the blues of the reds are of nazi German stuff when it comes to Allied stuff.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
They would probably be less personal if you stopped with that "savvy" and "poor nancy" shiat. Need a tissue?

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
Redesigning the wing because of stability problems makes much more sense to me than just to move mass backwards.
That is a neat FEELING to have..

But do you have any quotes/links to support that FEELING of yours?

You know..

Like the links/quotes I provided that support exactally what I said

Atzebrueck
01-24-2008, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
That 'they' attack me instead of addressing the quotes and links I provided..

Speaks volumens!

Still you ridiculed my post with those pictures. And mine was all but "anti-Tagert".

I actually read through some of the sources quoted by you. Most of them seem to be "copy and paste"-sources or meant to be interesting to read instead of being correct in every single sentence.
You don't really expect us to take them seriously, do you?
The only one I would tend to believe is the book, but only because it's a book. And books aren't flawless either. Quite the opposite actually. A lot of them contain errors.
What about those telling us that the 109E during BoB carried an engine cannon. Even a former LW pilot wrote that. Still it turned out to be wrong.

--> Everything is to be taken with a grain of salt, if it's lacking notes to primary sources.

In that case one has to think about the statement making sense or not. And sweeping the leading edge to move the CoG backwards is anything but logical.

And don't forget, that your sources are contradicting a copy of a primary source:
http://freenet-homepage.de/majamaki/willy.jpg as posted by Ugly_Kid. Better reread his (very good) post.

luftluuver
01-24-2008, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The P 80 itself is a pretty poor example for such - wasn`t it developed in record time, something like 180-odd days, rushed into production before all the quirks were worked out as a response to German jets appearing in operational service, killing experienced pilots in rather stupid and unneccesary accidents - ie. something pitiful as an overlooked fuel cap caused the type to be grounded was it not ...?

Come to thing about it, it is the ultimate irony in all 'desperation' arguements.
A plane developed for some 5+ years is 'an act of desperation', another plane that developed, produced, and rushed into operational trials, subsequently grounded due to technical problems, all that in about half a year is being presented as a 'luxury of having no need to rush and push'. The logic is certainly difficult to follow, or perhaps, just too easy.
See Beowulf, he is clueless about Allied stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Even after 5 years or so the Me262 was still not ready for operational service. The V2 crashed and killed its pilot Ofw. Ostertag. The V3, besides having trouble taking off, V4, V5 and V7 also crashed and were badly damaged. The V6 crashed and was totally destroyed killing its pilot Schmidt.

Bewolf
01-24-2008, 03:54 PM
Eh, this thread comes down to a private playground again.

Bewolf
01-24-2008, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The P 80 itself is a pretty poor example for such - wasn`t it developed in record time, something like 180-odd days, rushed into production before all the quirks were worked out as a response to German jets appearing in operational service, killing experienced pilots in rather stupid and unneccesary accidents - ie. something pitiful as an overlooked fuel cap caused the type to be grounded was it not ...?

Come to thing about it, it is the ultimate irony in all 'desperation' arguements.
A plane developed for some 5+ years is 'an act of desperation', another plane that developed, produced, and rushed into operational trials, subsequently grounded due to technical problems, all that in about half a year is being presented as a 'luxury of having no need to rush and push'. The logic is certainly difficult to follow, or perhaps, just too easy.
See Beowulf, he is clueless about Allied stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Even after 5 years or so the Me262 was still not ready for operational service. The V2 crashed and killed its pilot Ofw. Ostertag. The V3, besides having trouble taking off, V4, V5 and V7 also crashed and were badly damaged. The V6 crashed and was totally destroyed killing its pilot Schmidt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is not completly off in his basic message, though. The Me262 was beeing developed from before the wars start. And called "desperate" by the reds. When it went into serial production it was a very sound and proof airframe, plagued only by its engines, which in return were good designs but short of important materials.

The P-80 or the Mustang, both developed much faster much later, are praised as engeneering feats. There is some hypocrisis right there.

Not going into the technical stuff, though, I know the P-80 was plagued with problems, but I am not the one to judge that.

Bremspropeller
01-24-2008, 04:12 PM
Even after 5 years or so the Me262 was still not ready for operational service. The V2 crashed and killed its pilot Ofw. Ostertag. The V3, besides having trouble taking off, V4, V5 and V7 also crashed and were badly damaged. The V6 crashed and was totally destroyed killing its pilot Schmidt.

Yeah, because it was a low priority programme that didn't get enough enineering attention, when the Lw was still calling for bombers and other unneeded designs.
The 262 was an unwanted child for much of it's devellopment phase.

Kurfurst__
01-24-2008, 04:19 PM
Don`t feed the troll. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Waldo.Pepper
01-24-2008, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Lastly it tells enough about WP's motivation that he has not entered discussion on topic Me262 at all. Or that I have never seen him jumping on someone who presented the 5000 Mustang kills in ETO as kills not as claims. Or any other claims presented as definete kills.

Two points.

Claims first ok? Specifically -


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Or that I have never seen him jumping on someone who presented the 5000 Mustang kills in ETO as kills not as claims. Or any other claims presented as definete kills.

If I had said in the past something like this in this forum -

"There is no truth in wartime, or perfectly accurate claim system operated by any side in any war." and that "all sides over claim when it suits them" -

Would that satisfy you and do anything to restore my objectivity - in your mind? (Didn't think so.) - You should do a search first next time I think. Or do I need to specifically address the 5000 P-51 kills that you have sprung on me/us out of left field?

Now onto the meat.


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Lastly it tells enough about WP's motivation that he has not entered discussion on topic Me262 at all.

Please read this carefully.

As soon as you abandon your intellectually dishonest debating tactic of appointing youself as the sole arbiter of what is an acceptable source - then you will cease to be a waste of time to talk to.

No one here has the right to arbitrarily exclude a source. Without giving it due consideration. Corum asserts this, yet you persist in perverting and missusing the meaning of his words. By reserving for yourself the right to arbitrarily remove sources of information you do not like from the debate. Misusing his words as justification to do so. As though you yourself have the right to do so.

When you recognize this practise, as wrong and renounce the behaviour I shall gladly participate in the topic at hand. S!

Copperhead311th
01-24-2008, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Shut up ubi-zoo animals, and enjoy


add a few flames around the engines and i will happily enjoy.

Copperhead311th
01-24-2008, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
I begin to understand why Kurfürst is so loathed on the red side. He still gives good data, though.

Probly for the same damn reason i despise you blue basterds. Cause ya'll suck.

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 04:48 PM
Yeah, you are a true hero, WP – a hero who has failed responding to the core point:


Sure, sources need to be seen in context, need to be analysed and interpreted, I know the game. The very starting point are the sources, and in case of the developement of the Me262, it's developers, their minds, their ideas, their plans, their actions have to be taken into account. In this particular case, German is imperative, unless you find a translation. Then we can start contextualizing etc. (Others on the scene of development with relevant info for our question? Prove it! Deliberate falsifications? Prove it! You have to read them first anyway)

I for one want a discussion about the swept wings of Me262 and we have a wonderful source, but neither Tagert nor any of his googled opinions cite it or have any clear reference to it, nor to any other source. There is also no trace of any discussion of sources, just opinion.

Since I never "appointed myself as the sole arbiter of what is an acceptable source" - you decided that - I consequently never have dismissed any source. I dismissed literature that does not even have the slightest trace of sources, analyses or discussion of it, because as such they are opinions, nothing more. They are opinions which are contradicted by sources we have at hand (Willy Messerschmitt himself, not a bad source at all). That leads us to the need of sources and the discussion of it. You as well as tagert repeatedly demonstrated the unwillingness of doing so and persist on opinions without any sources.

Atzebrueck
01-24-2008, 04:49 PM
Tagert quotes one source, which states, that:

the engines were going to be much heavier than initially planned and the center of gravity would drastically change without sweeping the wings.

A very (!) rough assumption:

Let's say the engine weighs 745 kg.
They are installed at ~2 m aside the center line.
Only the leading edge is swept at 18?. The c/4 line less than that ... ~15?.

So the CoG moves approximately
2 * 745 kg * 2 m * sin 15? / 6000 kg = 0,13 m

Enough to justify a new wing design?

joeap
01-24-2008, 04:59 PM
*Peeks in thread, shakes head, leaves*

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
Tagert quotes one source, which states, that:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the engines were going to be much heavier than initially planned and the center of gravity would drastically change without sweeping the wings.

A very (!) rough assumption:

Let's say the engine weighs 745 kg.
They are installed at ~2 m aside the center line.
only the is swept at 18?. The c/4 line less than that ... ~12?.

So the CoG moves approximately
2 * 745 kg * 2 m * sin 12? / 6000 kg = 0,1 m

Enough to justify a new wing design? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a neat FEELINGto have..

But do you have anything to suport that FEELING?

You know..

Like the dozen or so links/quotes I provided that support my statment and debunk yours..

Take this quote for example


<span class="ev_code_yellow">While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft</span>

What part of that quote do you FEEL is inaccurate?

Keep in mind..

Th guys who said that are Me262 experts and probally know more about the Me262 than anyone else today..

In that they are currently building copies of the Me262

Now..

I know you will not address that quote and proceed as you and yours have up to now and try and change the topic by attacking me instead..

I don't really expect you to address it..

I simply keep bring it up to highlight the lengths you and yours will go to keep the dream alive..

PS there is no santa class either

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 05:08 PM
Mental *****neid for teh win!

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 05:10 PM
Poor Nancy..

That stormbirds link/quote is really hittinng home hard isnt it?

Here it is again for anyone that missed it

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

Waldo.Pepper
01-24-2008, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
I dismissed literature that does not even have the slightest trace of sources, analyses or discussion of it, because as such they are opinions, nothing more.

I am afraid that this is not what you said earlier.

Your words follow - when you responded to OD


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
"I dismiss them if they state an opinion, don't back it up with German sources ..."

You have just done what I have been asserting. Dismissed entire libraries of valuable scholarly works. Which is actually kind of sad because FWIW I agree with your opinion written here about wing sweep


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Messerschmitt saying he incorporates swept wings to increase performance. It does not exclude an incorporation for cg reasons. Nonetheless, it does destroy your opinion, it would have been done for that reason only.

I think it entirely reasonable for both positions to have some merit. CG and aerodynamics.

However the following passage seems to rule out 'much' (perhaps even most) of the benefits of swept wings on aerodynamics, critical mach.

"Provided there was no aerodynamic weakness in the design which brought on the effects of compressibility at a lower figure, it was the shape and thickness of the wing which usually decided the limiting Mach number. Before the end of the war the Germans had discovered that the compressibility threshold could be delayed considerably by the use of sharply swept-back wings; and several of their projected fighters at the end of the war featured such wings. However, to get any major improvement in this way it is necessary to sweep back the wing by 35 to 40 degrees. So it can be seen that the 18 degree leading edge sweep back on the Me 262, or the 27 degrees on the Me 163 was not sufficient to delay the onset of compressibility by any great amount; the two German fighters were good in this respect because they were clean aircraft, not because their wings were bent back a little."

I have deliberately eliminated the source for this quote UNTIL you render your opinion. To avoid any of your earlier bias.

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Poor Nancy..

That stormbirds link/quote is really hittinng home hard isnt it?

Here it is again for anyone that missed it

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

I love you pal. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
You've saved my day so often by now.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
But I feel you spend too much time here typing furiously; you gotta put more efford into finding a girl for your life. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 05:16 PM
no comment on the stormbirds link/quote?

just more attacks on me?

Gee didn't see that commin..

not

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 05:18 PM
Messerschmitt himself stated something contrary.
No debate mate.

Atzebrueck
01-24-2008, 05:19 PM
I don't say who is wrong or who is right.
My last post was meant to lead this discussion to think about the sense of the CoG-statement, which is IMO necessary, because your "quotes" don't list their source to back them up, which doesn't make them more than a "feeling", either. Without sources they are to be questioned (in a neutral way).

Please read my post at the top of page 10 of this thread. And while you are at it ... read that of Ugly_Kid, too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
I don't say who is wrong or who is right.
My last post was meant to lead this discussion to think about the sense of the CoG-statement, which is IMO necessary, because your "quotes" don't list their source to back them up, which doesn't make them more than a "feeling", either. Without sources they are to be questioned (in a neutral way).

Please read my post at the top of page 10 of this thread. And while you are at it ... read that of Ugly_Kid, too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
You poor thing..

No comment on the stombrids link/quote?

Gee didn't see that commin..

not

Well..

Looks like it is decision time..

Do I belive you and your FEELINGS

Or..

Do I belive the folks over at stormbirds..

You know the guys who researched the Me262 enough to be able to build new ones from scratch..

Hmmmm..

Decisions..

Decisions..

Decisions..

Welp..

Sorry mate..

But Ill have to side with the folks over at stormbrids..

Don't take it personal! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 05:24 PM
Grab a beer and chill yer ole redneck.
By now even you must have realised that nonones impressed.

Atzebrueck
01-24-2008, 05:25 PM
Ok, didn't see the stormird-link. My last post was adressed to the "wikipedia"-style sources.

I'll read it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 05:25 PM
Please do..

And read the other non-wikipedia quotes..

Pay close att to the ones with pictures from Aero Engineering Text books and magazines like AIR POWER

The one's that Milton incorrectly allowed his but hurt feelings kick in with a knee jerk responce stating those sources were nothing but web quotes

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 05:26 PM
Noooooooooo.
Just chill.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 05:27 PM
Poor Nancy..

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

It only highlights your pain! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 05:29 PM
I eat the stormbirds quote for breakfast, mylady.
But you're cute and therefor I'll stay and rejoice .

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 05:29 PM
You nice?

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 05:30 PM
Absolutely, dear.

Atzebrueck
01-24-2008, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Please do..

And read the other non-wikipedia quotes..

Pay close att to the ones with pictures from Aero Engineering Text books and magazines like AIR POWER

The one's that Milton incorrectly allowed his but hurt feelings kick in with a knee jerk responce stating those sources were nothing but web quotes

We don't know who the author is or what sources he has to back that part of the text up. So those parts of my initial posts still count.
But I feel I'm really starting to nit-pick on that one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
Let's assume it's written or authorised by a stormbirds-engineer or somebody who has knowledge of the original 262 design process.
What about a consensus then?:

- First designs of the 262 had straight wings because that simplified the design (backed up by the source of Ugly_Kid http://freenet-homepage.de/majamaki/willy.jpg and you http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
- Germans engineers and Messerschmitt knew about the benefits of swept wings (backed up by the source of Ugly_Kid and you).
- The CoG was too much forward (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm).
- They took the chance redesigning thus incorporating a slightly swept wing into the 262 (http://freenet-homepage.de/majamaki/willy.jpg).

If you are interested, I'll translate the text from Ugly_Kids source to English.

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
I dismissed literature that does not even have the slightest trace of sources, analyses or discussion of it, because as such they are opinions, nothing more.

I am afraid that this is not what you said earlier.

Your words follow - when you responded to OD


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
"I dismiss them if they state an opinion, don't back it up with German sources ..."

You have just done what I have been asserting. Dismissed entire libraries of valuable scholarly works. Which is actually kind of sad because FWIW I agree with your opinion written here about wing sweep </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Negative, I was speaking about the Me262 developement all the time, in which the sources are German because the developement team, their thoughts, their plans, their action and the documentation of it, short all documentation about the developement is/are German. (Again: if you can show me falsifications, if you can show me non-German developers or plans etc. - do so.)
And again I do not see any traceable reference whatsoever to these neccessary sources in the aforementioned opinions.

I don't exclude the option of the wing redesign as a result of cg-problems. But until I do have a source, I do not trust that anyway. And if it was from a French developer, bring it on in French. Or a translation. But all I have seen is opinion without sources.
What I do know from first hand and first class source material is that Willy Messerschmitt wanted to redesign the wing for performance increase. In the context of Busemann's and other's works done in Germany since the mid-thirties that makes even more sense.
That does not mean the Me262 wings was the high-end of all swept wings. Siegfried Günther working for Heinkel critized the low sweep of the Me262 in his first projection of P1073 (p.2, 11.07.44, not to be confused with the later Kleinstjägerprojekt from September = SOURCE btw) and rightly so. However, the intention to improve high speed characteristics can be seen from the sources.

Loco-S
01-24-2008, 05:57 PM
let the fish slapping continue!!!!

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

Bremspropeller
01-24-2008, 06:01 PM
Atze, hast du noch die "Bundesadler" von der K-4 und der D-9?
Hab aus Versehen meinen Skinordner gekillt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Was hältst du von einem Hai-Skin für die 262?
Dachte da so an einen schwarzen Hintergrund mit bläulichem (Weiß)Hai http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

--


The only time I'd start to take Tagert seriously is when he posts a pic of him dancing limbo, wearing a read bra.
Only a red bra http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 06:11 PM
Der Bundesadler war genial.
Einer der besten Skins die ich je gesehen hab. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Copperhead311th
01-24-2008, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Grab a beer and chill yer ole redneck.
By now even you must have realised that nonones impressed.

Redneck? Redneck? where the hell do you live that you actually belive you can get away with using that piticular derigitory term?

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Please do..

And read the other non-wikipedia quotes..

Pay close att to the ones with pictures from Aero Engineering Text books and magazines like AIR POWER

The one's that Milton incorrectly allowed his but hurt feelings kick in with a knee jerk responce stating those sources were nothing but web quotes

We don't know who the author is </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<span class="ev_code_red">FALSE</span>
The Aero Engineering Book I quoted and provided a picture of was writen by Bandu N. Pamadi. Who is a senior aerospace engineer at NASA Langley Research Center. He was a German academic exchange fellow at the university of Stuttgart from 1973-75.

The Magazine I quoted and provided a picture of is from an WINGS magazine title Return of the Swallow: The Messerschmidt Me262 April 1980. I'm sure you can contact them to find out who the author is.

As for the strormbirds quote, Im sure if you contact the web master he will give you the name of the author.


Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
or what sources he has to back that part of the text up.
<span class="ev_code_red">FALSE</span>
Bandu N. Pamadi. book has references within..
The WINGS article may, I'm not sure..

As for the stormbirds quote.. rest assured they know more about the Me262 than you or anyone else in this forum.


Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
So those parts of my initial posts still count.
<span class="ev_code_red">FALSE</span>
See above


Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
But I feel I'm really starting to nit-pick on that one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
Agreed 100%


Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
Let's assume it's written or authorised by a stormbirds-engineer or somebody who has knowledge of the original 262 design process.
Again..

Rest assured that the folks over at stormbirds know more about the Me262 and it's development than anyone here!

And they agree with what I said..

The wings were sweepted to correct the cg..


Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
What about a consensus then?:

- First designs of the 262 had straight wings because that simplified the design (backed up by the source of Ugly_Kid http://freenet-homepage.de/majamaki/willy.jpg and you http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm)
- Germans engineers and Messerschmitt knew about the benefits of swept wings (backed up by the source of Ugly_Kid and you).
- The CoG was too much forward (http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm).
- They took the chance redesigning thus incorporating a slightly swept wing into the 262 (http://freenet-homepage.de/majamaki/willy.jpg).

If you are interested, I'll translate the text from Ugly_Kids source to English.
No need for a consensus..

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

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

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

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

Which is all I have ever said!!

Sorry if that bursts alot of nazi lovin bubbles around here..

But the FACTS are the FACTS

For example..

The USA knew more about rockets than the Germans at the start of WWII!

In that 20 of the major systems that comprised the V2 were copies of Goddards rocket patents from the 1920s and 1930s..

Now the USA knew the short comming of rockets and thus didn't bother trying to build a V2..

The short commings being you can not hit the intended target with them..

read only good as a terror weapon..

Thus the USA knew about rockets.. but didn't intentionally build one..

just like the Germans knew about the benefits of swept wings, but did not intentionally design the Me262 around that idea..

Like I said from the get go..

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

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
let the fish slapping continue!!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/Kurbalaganda/fishslap.gif Guess that stormbird quote left you kind of speechless

Atzebrueck
01-24-2008, 06:46 PM
It's 2 years from now that I've posted in this forum regularly.

Glad to see, that nothing has changed since then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

@ Tagert:
"Die Schwalbe 2000" is "just" a "STORMBIRDS.COM affiliate site". That doesn't mean the text is written by the those actually building the plane (http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html). It also doesn't say, that it's not written by one of them or with their help.
As I said, I/ we don't know who the author is, or where he got his information from.
My "consensus" still stands, though.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 06:47 PM
I feel your pain..

That is to say I can relate..

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

But..

If you expect me to belive you know more about the Me262 than the folks over at the stormbirds sight..

Well..

You got another thing commin..

Trying to discredit their sight is shameful IMHO!

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 06:50 PM
Talking about facts, I have not seen yet any source backing up Tagert, and Willy Messerschmitt saying Targert is wrong. I trust Willy Messerschmitt.
Trying to discredit that as "nazi lovin" is shameful. And really shameful.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Talking about facts, I have not seen yet any source backing up Tagert, and Willy Messerschmitt saying Targert is wrong. I trust Willy Messerschmitt.
So you guys know better than the guys building Me262s from scratch?

Huh..

Who knew

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Grab a beer and chill yer ole redneck.
By now even you must have realised that nonones impressed.

Redneck? Redneck? where the hell do you live that you actually belive you can get away with using that piticular derigitory term? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where I have lived in the past for some time might be the appropriate question.
But where the hell is your mind to take anything
posted to Taggies direction to your heart?

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Talking about facts, I have not seen yet any source backing up Tagert, and Willy Messerschmitt saying Targert is wrong. I trust Willy Messerschmitt.
So you guys know better than the guys building Me262s from scratch?

Huh..

Who knew </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 06:53 PM
Big suprise

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Talking about facts, I have not seen yet any source backing up Tagert, and Willy Messerschmitt saying Targert is wrong. I trust Willy Messerschmitt.
So you guys think you know better than the guys building Me262s from scratch?

Huh..

Go figure! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Willy Messerschmitt surely knows better than you and all modern copies are copies of - Willy Messerschmitt's work.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 06:54 PM
Your mistaken..

Im not saying 'it'

I am simply providing quotes of others who are saying it and I agree with them..

Like Aerospace Engineers who worked at Langly, and the folks over at stormbirds who have done more research on the Me262 than you could even begin to understand

SAVVY?

Atzebrueck
01-24-2008, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
We don't know who the author is
<span class="ev_code_red">FALSE</span>
The Aero Engineering Book I quoted and provided a picture of was writen by Bandu N. Pamadi. Who is a senior aerospace engineer at NASA Langley Research Center. He was a German academic exchange fellow at the university of Stuttgart from 1973-75.

The Magazine I quoted and provided a picture of is from an WINGS magazine title Return of the Swallow: The Messerschmidt Me262 April 1980. I'm sure you can contact them to find out who the author is.

As for the strormbirds quote, Im sure if you contact the web master he will give you the name of the author.


Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
or what sources he has to back that part of the text up.
<span class="ev_code_red">FALSE</span>
Bandu N. Pamadi. book has references within..
The WINGS article may, I'm not sure..

As for the stormbirds quote.. rest assured they know more about the Me262 than you or anyone else in this forum.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To clarify that: I was talking about the homepage http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/ not the other sources you listed.

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 06:56 PM
Taggy you can't agree on anything because you have absolutely no clue but only your sour child hearts's urge to
hate.

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Your mistaken..

Im not saying 'it'

I am simply providing quotes of others who are saying it and I agree with them

SAVVY?

Willy Messerschmitt surely knows better than all of them, those who not even cite a single source.
HE was the head of Me262 dev. HE knows.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Your mistaken..

Im not saying 'it'

I am simply providing quotes of others who are saying it and I agree with them

SAVVY?

Willy Messerschmitt surely knows better than all of them, those who not even cite a single source.
HE was the head of Me262 dev. HE knows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So in summary..

The only leg you guys got to stand on is the notion that the janitor is in charge of the web sight over at stormbirds and posts anything he pleases and no one over there gives a rip about their reputation enough to proof read things posted on their web sight..

Is that about the jist of it?

Pretty weak wouldn't you agree?

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 06:58 PM
*****neid.
Again and again.

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 06:59 PM
In summary Tagert stands with other's unproven, source-less opinions against Messerschmitt and Messerschmitt wins

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Your mistaken..

Im not saying 'it'

I am simply providing quotes of others who are saying it and I agree with them

SAVVY?

Willy Messerschmitt surely knows better than all of them, those who not even cite a single source.
HE was the head of Me262 dev. HE knows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As I already stated.. Being aware of the benefits of swept wings at the time the Me262 was being build does not mean the Me262 was designed around that knowledge..

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

SAVVY?

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
In summary Tagert stands with other's unproven, source-less opinions against Messerschmitt and Messerschmitt wins So in summary..

The only leg you guys got to stand on is the notion that the janitor is in charge of the web sight over at stormbirds and posts anything he pleases and no one over there gives a rip about their reputation enough to proof read things posted on their web sight..

Is that about the jist of it?

Pretty weak wouldn't you agree?

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Your mistaken..

Im not saying 'it'

I am simply providing quotes of others who are saying it and I agree with them

SAVVY?

Willy Messerschmitt surely knows better than all of them, those who not even cite a single source.
HE was the head of Me262 dev. HE knows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As I already stated.. Being aware of the benefits of swept wings at the time the Me262 was being build does not mean the Me262 was designed around that knowledge..

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

SAVVY? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He did not only know about it but wanted to incorporate the swept wing for performance increase, as proven with his own words in 1940. No source to back up you at all. Messerschmitts words to back up mine. No source against Messerschmitt, opinion against fact.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Your mistaken..

Im not saying 'it'

I am simply providing quotes of others who are saying it and I agree with them

SAVVY?

Willy Messerschmitt surely knows better than all of them, those who not even cite a single source.
HE was the head of Me262 dev. HE knows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As I already stated.. Being aware of the benefits of swept wings at the time the Me262 was being build does not mean the Me262 was designed around that knowledge..

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

SAVVY? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He did not only know about it but wanted to incorporate the swept wing for performance increase, as proven with his own words in 1940. No source to back up you at all. Messerschmitts words to back up mine. No source against Messerschmitt, opinion against fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So in summary..

The only leg you guys got to stand on is the notion that the janitor is in charge of the web sight over at stormbirds and posts anything he pleases and no one over there gives a rip about their reputation enough to proof read things posted on their web sight..

Is that about the jist of it?

Pretty weak wouldn't you agree?

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 07:07 PM
Chill pal.
Everything will be fine.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 07:09 PM
No need to chill..

Im not the one that just found out santa is not real! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HuninMunin
01-24-2008, 07:14 PM
Well our reactions should tell you that you still haven't convinced us mate.
Need to try a little harder.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 07:16 PM
stormbirds not good enough source..
Langly Engineers not good enough source..
WINGS magazine not good enough srouce..

Ok..

Try this one..


Accidental Benefit

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

http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct1996/1096wings.asp

Enjoy!

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 07:20 PM
Again no source of the dev., just opinion of a later writer for a NON-academic journal, note the distinct absence of footnotes or other references to source material. Again Messerschmitt contradicts, again he wins.

Loco-S
01-24-2008, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
let the fish slapping continue!!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/Kurbalaganda/fishslap.gif Guess that stormbird quote left you kind of speechless </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/Kurbalaganda/funny-pictures-dont-bother-me-0QB.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 07:29 PM
Poor Nancy

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Again no source of the dev., just opinion of a later writer for a NON-academic journal, note the distinct absence of footnotes or other references to source material. Again Messerschmitt contradicts, again he wins.
stormbirds not good enough source..
Langly Engineers not good enough source..
WINGS magazine not good enough source..
US Air Force not good enough source..

Ok..

Try this one..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/REAL_WORLD_DATA/Me262/Me262_Sweeped_wings_for_cg_purpose3.JPG

Enjoy!

Loco-S
01-24-2008, 07:31 PM
My mother name is Nancy...you are so toughtfool....

besides, discovered by accident or intentionally...the bird paved the way, dont you agree?

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
besides, discovered by accident or intentionally...the bird paved the way, dont you agree?
Dumb Luck..

Sure lots of things get paved by dumb luck

M_Gunz
01-24-2008, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Messerschmitt himself stated something contrary.
No debate mate.

Could you or someone else please post or re-post his words as I seem to have missed them?

....................

When someone presents to me a source saying that someone did something for a certain reason
and there is no reference sited as in a certain Aircraft Design book then without references
what I am reading is an OPINION, AKA_FEELING_PRESENTED_AS_TRUTH.
BTW, I learned that when learning to write papers to APA standards not even in those "all
important" 3rd and 4th year courses but just in early courses. So I -do- recognize UNSUPPORTED
OPINION by the mere LACK OF REFERENCE despite it being printed in a book that's supposed to
scare me by the title or somehow else.
Had I quoted such back in school it would have been marked as an error. Had the error been
a major part of my paper then the paper would have failed.

Messerschmidt's reasons need to come from Messerschmidt. Did Messerschmidt say CoG and wing
sweep was not in the design? Did any witness who was there say that?

Even in the book page posted the writer includes words about wing sweep BUT look at his words
and how they are chosen and again the LACK OF REFERENCES and I'd say someone is grinding his
personal peeve ax and not so much more. "About the same time" -- now the 262 was started
when? 1936? It's just a coincidence that Messerschmidt swept the wings as a fix to CoG?
Yeah, sure, any aircraft designer would have done that?

First it is argued that the 262 wings were not swept to put off compression as part of trying
to say that no, the design was not revolutionary and then we get dragged into the semantics
because that's ALL Nancy has left -- no point just aspersions that even they include again
and again that the wing sweep did improve the speed but... oh it MUST only have been added
to place the engines correctly with NO REFERENCE FROM THE SOURCE ABOUT WHY, JUST OPINION.

Personally I don't CARE if evidence from Messerschmidt is presented EITHER WAY -- just don't
present opinions as facts and call ME the Tard while pretending to be authority. You can
play that in HS maybe but I don't fall for it.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 07:35 PM
Poor Milton

PraetorHonoris
01-24-2008, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Again no source of the dev., just opinion of a later writer for a NON-academic journal, note the distinct absence of footnotes or other references to source material. Again Messerschmitt contradicts, again he wins.
stormbirds not good enough source..
Langly Engineers not good enough source..
WINGS magazine not good enough source..
US Air Force not good enough source.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No source at all, just modern literature remaining opinion without sources of the Me262 developement. What are the sources that no-one ever wanted the swept wing for the Me262 for performance reasons and cg-problem solution only?

FACT remains Messerschmitt saying he wanted a swept wing for performance increase in 1940 - that is a source - the only seen here so far, apart from my reference to Günther Siegfried earlier.

AKA_TAGERT
01-24-2008, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
No source at all, Pfffffffffft!

Who Knew!