PDA

View Full Version : POLL: F86



LuftKuhMist
02-24-2004, 03:05 PM

LuftKuhMist
02-24-2004, 03:05 PM

LuftKuhMist
02-24-2004, 03:06 PM
I voted Yellow.

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

Luftcaca
02-24-2004, 03:07 PM
muhuahahahahaah!
gotta luv the choices we have!

YELLOW I SAY!!!

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

Kamikaze_Gibbon
02-24-2004, 03:11 PM
Yellow is the way to go on this.

I can't help feeling that there should have been some kind of monkey / random primate option in there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

Luftcaca
02-24-2004, 03:14 PM
hahah Gibbon dude...
I agree we should have an option that goes like: Look theres a yellow CHIMP or something

it would be both laughable and irrelevent

eum...hewhehe

back on topic
Anyone thinks the Sabre would be a valuable add to the game....?

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

LuftKuhMist
02-24-2004, 03:14 PM
Monkeys can be yellowish....

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

MandMs
02-24-2004, 03:39 PM
Why not but wee don't want the crappy useless MiG-15.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



I eat the red ones last.

LuftKuhMist
02-24-2004, 04:05 PM
Crappy useless mig that filled nato's pants with crappy useless something else.

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

Gunner_361st
02-24-2004, 04:17 PM
Hehe. The Korean war comes back to haunt us.

Its a neat idea, but I doubt any modelers will bite. Maybe as an expansion from the Battle of Britian?

I wouldn't want the F86 unless we got its arch rival the MiG-15 anyway. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

From everything I've read, the MiG-15 was a bit faster, could fly 5,000 feet higher, and was better in the vertical. Pretty nice, but to take advantage of these things you need good pilots... and from other things I read, the North Koreans were... not the best. Something like 10 MiG-15's shot down for every one F-86? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ~S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

P.S. - I voted Yellow. I don't want a Sabre unless we get a MiG-15 too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

crazyivan1970
02-24-2004, 04:48 PM
Jets are for kids http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

LuftKuhMist
02-24-2004, 05:00 PM
Uh someone actually voted I am an american and patriotic... bwahaha!

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

Luftcaca
02-24-2004, 08:23 PM
''From everything I've read, the MiG-15 was a bit faster, could fly 5,000 feet higher, and was better in the vertical. Pretty nice, but to take advantage of these things you need good pilots''

pretty true

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

WUAF_Badsight
02-24-2004, 10:22 PM
OMG to think about how COOL a "Forgotten Battles : KOREA" would be has almost kept me up at night

ID LOVE IT

Urist
02-24-2004, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Hehe. The Korean war comes back to haunt us.

Its a neat idea, but I doubt any modelers will bite. Maybe as an expansion from the Battle of Britian?

I wouldn't want the F86 unless we got its arch rival the MiG-15 anyway. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

From everything I've read, the MiG-15 was a bit faster, could fly 5,000 feet higher, and was better in the vertical. Pretty nice, but to take advantage of these things you need good pilots... and from other things I read, the North Koreans were... not the best. Something like 10 MiG-15's shot down for every one F-86? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ~S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

P.S. - I voted Yellow. I don't want a Sabre unless we get a MiG-15 too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That 10:1 kill ratio gets revised every other day.

The Mig-15 did eat F80's for breakfast until the F86 arrived. And the B29 was basically Mig15 food, which is understandable because the Mig was basically built as a B29 intereceptor.

I read on www.acig.org (http://www.acig.org) that only 1 Mig-15 was lost to the defensive fire from a B29. I have no idea how reliable this site is, but it is certainly interesting reading. It mostly concentrated on how well the VVS units did and hardly mentioned the Chinese or North Koreans.

WUAF_Badsight
02-24-2004, 11:30 PM
the loss ratio was a lot closer to 9 : 1

put same trained pilots in both planes

ohhh look the Mig is faster & turns better

does that take a genius to work out whats going to happen ?

masamainio
02-25-2004, 02:16 AM
A lot better jet here:

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/I-153/I-153.htm

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/I-153/I-153.jpg

rudidlo
02-25-2004, 02:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
Who wants the F86 included in sturmovik. It should be, it has wings and an engine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You americans can't forget your disgraceful failure in Vietnam?

Rudidlo

CHDT
02-25-2004, 03:05 AM
"ohhh look the Mig is faster & turns better"

Not so true.

The Mig was faster at high altitude, but the F-86 was a better diver.

The Mig also had a not so good roll rate because of its narrow ailerons. So in turning the Sabre was better.

In fact, the Mig pilots tried to get the Sabre pilots get high and the Sabre pilots tried to get the Mig pilots get at lower altitudes.

A pretty equal match, I would say.

Cheers,

MandMs
02-25-2004, 03:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rudidlo:

You americans can't forget your disgraceful failure in Vietnam?

Rudidlo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that like the French failure in SE Asia or Algeria or the USSR's failure in Afganistan? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-25-2004, 05:54 AM
I'd like to see F-86 a Korea sim made by Oleg's team. The plane set limit for FB to the planes that flew in 1946 (or were scheduled to fly in 1946 but never flew) is understandable, F-86 and MiG are not for FB.

I'm interested in a Korea sim much more than in BoB, luckily Oleg had put a lot of goodies in BoB to keep us interested http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Abraxa
02-25-2004, 06:35 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BBB_Abraxa

Luftcaca
02-25-2004, 10:23 AM
hahahahhh the topic is turning into a YOUR FAiLURE vs OTHER FAILURES and blahblahblah

the Mig 15 was a great plane, so was the F-86, stop always trying to diss the other to prove that YOUR plane was better, its annoying an childish.

Simply face it, those planes DONT belong to the game as it is, maybe for a KOREA expension but NOT for WWII theaters.

LuftKuhMist and I started the thread to see what kind of funny and/or dumb reactions we would get, we are NOT disappointed so far!

Keep it comming!

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

MandMs
02-25-2004, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftcaca:

LuftKuhMist and I started the thread to see what kind of funny and/or dumb reactions we would get, we are NOT disappointed so far!

Keep it comming!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well you started this thread in the WRONG forum.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So garbage thread, garbage posts you got. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif



I eat the red ones last.

Luftcaca
02-25-2004, 10:57 AM
ah man, you just ruined my life...
I think its in the good forum though, after all, arent we talking about a plane we might add to FB?

its not general discussion about if we like Hartmann or about showing my new cool paints

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

LuftKuhMist
02-25-2004, 05:59 PM
Sigh... this turned into a countries failure arguing... how pathetic that some folks bash each others for their nationalities over the internet.

The F86 is a great plane but doesn't belong in sturmovik for two reasons:

1) WWII ended in 1945.
2) Even in a what if scenario the F86 wouldn't be able to exist (talking here also about the Mig15) because it is basically an evolution of an experimental luftwaffe fighter.

I think the poll was quite amusing.

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

MandMs
02-25-2004, 06:14 PM
"2) Even in a what if scenario the F86 wouldn't be able to exist (talking here also about the Mig15) because it is basically an evolution of an experimental luftwaffe fighter."

That is correct the MiG was, but not the Sabre which was on the drawing board before the German data arrived in the USA.



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-25-2004, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
"2) Even in a what if scenario the F86 wouldn't be able to exist (talking here also about the Mig15) because it is basically an evolution of an experimental luftwaffe fighter."

That is correct the MiG was, _but not_ the Sabre which was on the drawing board before the German data arrived in the USA.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without the wings designed according to German data F-86 would have been just another failed jet fighter.

Korolov
02-25-2004, 07:32 PM
P-80 wasn't a failed jet fighter. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

SkyChimp
02-25-2004, 07:33 PM
"Just another failed jet fighter"?

Hmmm, what were the previous failures?

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

Magister__Ludi
02-25-2004, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
"Just _another_ failed jet fighter"?

Hmmm, what were the previous failures?

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F-80, F-84, were they successful against MiG-15? That would mean a successful jet fighter.

Without swept wings designed according to German data F-86 would have had the same unremarkable air combat record. Anyway, XF-86 did not go past mock-up stage in the straight wings design.

WWMaxGunz
02-25-2004, 08:13 PM
Yellow because there was no choice that says NO!

F-86 does not belong as does not the MiG-15 or any of those post-war wonders. Too unbalancing by far!

Perhaps in an addon if addons go that far but if the high alt code is not so perfect then consider the trans-sonic compressibility part of the FM and ask yourself if those kinds of planes would have the quality of modelling that we have come to expect? IL2/FB is great so far but to stretch it beyond design --- well only with the right changes to the code would there be any chance, models alone are not enough.


Neal

SkyChimp
02-25-2004, 08:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

F-80, F-84, were they successful against MiG-15? That would mean a successful jet fighter.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, so that's the criteria, huh? The F-80 and F-84 were failures, both being 1943/1944 designs, since they couldn't compete with the MiG-15 that was designed several years later? By that logic, you must agree that the MiG-17 was a failure since it couldn't compete with the F-4?

Perhaps keeping things in context would help.

No, in 1950 both the F-80 and F-84 were obsolete as fighters, but did yoeman work as fighter bombers. But when they were designed and when they entered service, they were among the best there were.

Again, context.


===

But to answer your question, yes, both the F-80 and F-84 had successes against the MiG-15: the F-80 downed 4 MiG-15s for the loss of 9. The F-84 downed 10 MiG-15s for the loss of 21. Just to keep things in perspective, the F-86 downed 763 MiG-15s for the loss of 119.
Looks like the F-80 and F-84 were had better kill ratios against the MiG-15 than the MiG-15 did against the F-86. So I guess the MiG-15 must be considered a failure, too.

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

WUAF_Badsight
02-25-2004, 10:10 PM
well those 2 Jets were very evenly matched

the failures were the pilots that got shot down

we are talking high performance , high speed DogFighting which the Korean pilots WERE NOT experienced or good at

WWMaxGunz
02-25-2004, 11:25 PM
Not all MiG pilots in that conflict were rookies or Korean, or even Chinese. The NATO pilots tended to be experienced WWII vets and all were highly trained and well supported.


Neal

Copperhead310th
02-25-2004, 11:29 PM
my Grandfather worked on the F-86's in Korea.
if any one has any questions they would like answerd i can surely ask him.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron)

LuftKuhMist
02-26-2004, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
"2) Even in a what if scenario the F86 wouldn't be able to exist (talking here also about the Mig15) because it is basically an evolution of an experimental luftwaffe fighter."

That is correct the MiG was, _but not_ the Sabre which was on the drawing board before the German data arrived in the USA.



I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.luft46.com/mess/mep1101.html

Here you go mr.smarty pants. Congratulations.

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

Korolov
02-26-2004, 12:16 AM
Me-P1101 looks more like a A-6 Intruder than anything else. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MandMs
02-26-2004, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
"2) Even in a what if scenario the F86 wouldn't be able to exist (talking here also about the Mig15) because it is basically an evolution of an experimental luftwaffe fighter."

That is correct the MiG was, _but not_ the Sabre which was on the drawing board before the German data arrived in the USA.



I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.luft46.com/mess/mep1101.html

Here you go mr.smarty pants. Congratulations.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif So?

That is the X-5, not a F-86 Sabre.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Better brush up on your a/c IDing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Bell made the X-5 while NAA made the Sabre. LOL, you can't even get the manufacturers correct, even.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Keep trying.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



I eat the red ones last.

Tipo_Man
02-26-2004, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Hmmm, so that's the criteria, huh? The F-80 and F-84 were failures, both being 1943/1944 designs, since they couldn't compete with the MiG-15 that was designed several years later? By that logic, you must agree that the MiG-17 was a failure since it couldn't compete with the F-4?

Perhaps keeping things in context would help.

No, in 1950 both the F-80 and F-84 were obsolete as fighters, but did yoeman work as fighter bombers. But when they were designed and when they entered service, they were among the best there were.

Again, _context_.


===

But to answer your question, yes, both the F-80 and F-84 had successes against the MiG-15: the F-80 downed 4 MiG-15s for the loss of 9. The F-84 downed 10 MiG-15s for the loss of 21. Just to keep things in perspective, the F-86 downed 763 MiG-15s for the loss of 119.
Looks like the F-80 and F-84 were had better kill ratios against the MiG-15 than the MiG-15 did against the F-86. So I guess the MiG-15 must be considered a failure, too.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well to be honest MiG-15 was accepted for service in 1947 ... and in 1948 russians already had thousands of them. So it was only two years late than F-80.

MiG-17 was accepted in 1950
F-4 not remember correctly but at least 10 years later .
And MiG-17 scored some kills against F-4 in Vietnam . So it was not a correct comparison.


And about that so beloved by all americans ratio...
Well not so long ago there were peaple here who insisted that the actual ratio was 100:1 (I'm sure you remember them)... Than some more reasonable americans came with the 10:1 ratio, which now seems to diminished to 9:1 (Wow what a retreat http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) ... Now you came with the some 6:1 ratio or something like this.

I don't want to restart the "data war" which took part some time ago in the general discussion forum, but if someone is interested he can dug into forums to find some info about actual losses in Korea. There were some very interesting posts...
Several years ago russian made public their classified data for the korean war. I don't remember the exact numbers, but generally China, North Korea and Russia altogether lost about the same amount of planes than they downed. With russians regiments performing much better than chinese.

So to insist on that 10:1 or 6:1 or whatever ratio after so many data and reports had been brought here is simply childish

MandMs
02-26-2004, 06:29 AM
The MiG-15(S-01) first flew 30 Dec 1947. So ya, a 1947 a/c by a couple of days.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The Phantom first flew in May 1957.

MiG -17 first flew in Jan 1950 but service delivery not til 1952.



I eat the red ones last.

Tipo_Man
02-26-2004, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
The MiG-15(S-01) first flew 30 Dec 1947. So ya, a 1947 a/c by a couple of days.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The Phantom first flew in May 1957.

MiG -17 first flew in Jan 1950 but service delivery not til 1952.

I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1963 Nov. 20: The first Air Force Phantoms, F-4Cs, are delivered to a Tactical Air Command squadron.

1965
Jul. 7: McDonnell delivers its 1,000th F-4 Phantom, an F-4B for the Navy.

So F-4 was OPERATIONAL more than 10 years after MiG-17

MandMs
02-26-2004, 07:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
The MiG-15(S-01) first flew 30 Dec 1947. So ya, a 1947 a/c by a couple of days.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The Phantom first flew in May 1957.

MiG -17 first flew in Jan 1950 but service delivery not til 1952.

I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1963 Nov. 20: The first Air Force Phantoms, F-4Cs, are delivered to a Tactical Air Command squadron.

1965
Jul. 7: McDonnell delivers its 1,000th F-4 Phantom, an F-4B for the Navy.

So F-4 was OPERATIONAL more than 10 years after MiG-17<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Sorry made a mistake, it is May 1958 not 1957. Does not matter anyways as the first flight of each and the service delivery time was 2 years. Lets compare aplles and apples, please. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif So what is you point?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Oh yes, the F-4 was designed and built for the USN first.

Now would you like to tell me about the F-8 Crusader? This a/c first flew in March 1955 by a pilot who would become an astronaut.



I eat the red ones last.

LuftKuhMist
02-26-2004, 11:51 AM
Damnit it's always the same when we talk about american stuff... Some bozo comes here with pro american revisionist crap.

Hey champion, I know that's the X5, but the F86 wings STILL come from messerschmitt.

What do you want, that we say that american planes rule?? OK, American planes rule. American d*cks rule! America rules. You own the world.

Satisfied? Now stop polluting my thread.


http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

MandMs
02-26-2004, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
Damnit it's always the same when we talk about american stuff... Some bozo comes here with pro american revisionist crap.

Hey champion, I know that's the X5, but the F86 wings STILL come from messerschmitt.

What do you want, that we say that american planes rule?? OK, American planes rule. American d*cks rule! America rules. You own the world.

Satisfied? Now stop polluting my thread.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is the "pro American revisionist crap"?

Well if you and your Iron Curtain buddies got the facts correct in the first place, no one would be "polluting" up your thread.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-26-2004, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

F-80, F-84, were they successful against MiG-15? That would mean a successful jet fighter.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, so that's the criteria, huh? The F-80 and F-84 were failures, both being 1943/1944 designs, since they couldn't compete with the MiG-15 that was designed several years later? By that logic, you must agree that the MiG-17 was a failure since it couldn't compete with the F-4?

Perhaps keeping things in context would help.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, keeping things in context would help. And the proper context is given by the date at which fighters enter in service. Nobody cares how long took the development of those fighters. What is important is how good were they in the moment in which they entered in service compared with the best contemporary fighters. That means that it should be able to compete with the fighters expected to enter in service if not in the following 10 years, at least with the fighters expected in the following 1 year. F-80 entered in service in '46, F-84 in '47, MiG-15 in '48, F-86 in '49. So even if F-80 coulb be considered a success in '46, it was obsolete in '48, F-80C use in Korea and produced after the introduction of MiG-15 was definitely obsolete.

F-84A-E on the other hand were failures because they were not able to compete with the fighters soon due to be released, either American or foreign. F-86 would have shared the same fate if it's designers wouldn't changed the plans completely (only an early straight wing mock-up was made for aerodynamic testing - it was found inadequate for the give requirements - no F-86 component was made before the complete redesign of the plane to swept wings)

It's funny that you talk about context when you are comparing a MiG-17 with F-4. One is a first generation jet, a simple enlargment of MiG-15, the other is a third generation jet (fully 3rd gen beginning with F-4J), so what's the context here? As Tipo-Man remarked, F-4 entered in service 10 years later than MiG-17. Personally I like very much the Phantom, it's an amazing jet, ahead of it's time. But it's kill ratio against MiGs in Vietnam is rather embarrassing.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No, in 1950 both the F-80 and F-84 were obsolete as fighters, but did yoeman work as fighter bombers. But when they were designed and when they entered service, they were among the best there were.

Again, _context_.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Figthers relegated to ground attack?? - not really a proof of how excellent they performed in fighter duties.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But to answer your question, yes, both the F-80 and F-84 had successes against the MiG-15: the F-80 downed 4 MiG-15s for the loss of 9. The F-84 downed 10 MiG-15s for the loss of 21. Just to keep things in perspective, the F-86 downed 763 MiG-15s for the loss of 119.
Looks like the F-80 and F-84 were had better kill ratios against the MiG-15 than the MiG-15 did against the F-86. So I guess the MiG-15 must be considered a failure, too.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I won't open an endless discussion about the kill ratios in Korea here. Do it in GD if you want.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu February 26 2004 at 12:04 PM.]

LuftKuhMist
02-26-2004, 12:58 PM
Hey genius, I'd like to ride your time machine to live in the cold war as you do.

You're my buddy. I like you, I'd like to squeeze you in my arms and kiss you right on the mouth.

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

MandMs
02-26-2004, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:

Hey champion, I know that's the X5, but the F86 wings STILL come from messerschmitt.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not know the wings came from Messerschmitt. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif When did NAA have a plant in Germany making Sabre wings? Australia and Canada had plants for Sabre production.



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-26-2004, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:

I did not know the wings came from Messerschmitt. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif When did NAA have a plant in Germany making Sabre wings? Australia and Canada had plants for Sabre production.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F-86 wings come from Messerschmitt research, down to details like the wing slats and the choice of AR. Tail also taken from Messerschmitt designs. Generally the flight surfaces, therefore the general aerodynamics are borrowed from German research.

All this is well document, there is no need to deny the obvious. Read this article, for some details:

Sabre Jet
XP-86 SWEPT WING DEVELOPMENT
by Larry Davis

"The decision to radically re-design the XP-86 (NA-140) was both easy and difficult for North American officials. Costs incurred on the straight wing jet fighter were absorbed by the company. Some of this would be recovered through the Navy decision to produce the FJ-l Fury. However, it was easy for North American to make such a drastic move because the NA-140 would never meet the AAF General Operational Requirement (GOR) - a top speed in excess of 600 mph. The thin straight wing simply wouldn't allow that type of speed.

Wing sweep had long been known as one of the answers to lower drag. Drag Coefficient was significantly lower when the wing was swept; i.e. at 0.9 Mach, drag coefficient for a straight wing was 0.05, while a swept wing was 0.01. But the problems associated with wing sweep were as great as the end results. Sweeping the wing did lower the thickness ratio, thus reducing the drag coefficient, resulting in higher speeds. But sweeping the wing just 12 inches created wing tip stall and low speed stability problems that no one had been able to overcome.

In August 1944, Ed Horkey, North American Chief Aerodynamicist, went to NACA at Langley Field to study the effects of a very thin wing operating at high Mach numbers. He was informed that no data existed for such a design. In 1945, Allied forces overran German test facilities, including one conducting research into the effects of wing sweep. The Me-262 jet fighter had a mild (150) sweep to the leading edge of its wing. It was also discovered that Messerschmitthad been working on a radically swept (350) version of the Me-262, called the Pfeilflugelor 'arrow wing'.

George Schairer of the Boeing Company, went to Germany after the end of the war, with von Karman and Robert Jones (an early NACA proponent of swept wings), to investigate German data on swept wing technology. Schairer was very enthusiastic about wing sweep, proposing that Boeing incorporate it into the new XB-47, and noting that this information should be made available to the US aeronautical industry.

Larry Green, head of Design Aerodynamics at North American, came up with an answer to the swept wing instability problems. Green had been conducting wind tunnel tests on the Curtis XP-55 Ascender, which indicated severe non-linear instabilities present at high angles of attack over a swept wing, causing an extreme pitch up' attitude. Green, Walter Koch (who spoke fluent German), Dale Meyers, and Harrison Storms set up four Recordaks, and began translating the material being funneled to North American by Wright Field. Within the captured material were considerable data concerning the use of wing leading edge movable surfaces, commonly called 'slats' as a possible solution to the instability problems.

The North American Technical Section headed by Ed Horkey, included Harrison Storms as Chief Aerodynamicist, Walt Fellers, Larry Green, Meyers, Bill Wahi, and a host of others. This group finally convinced the powers-that-be that wing sweep would put the XP-86 over the top speed requirement of the G.O.R.. On 18 August 1945, North American received a research and development grant to develop a swept wing XP-86 (RD 1369). Two weeks later a .23 scale model of the swept wing XP-86 was ready for wind tunnel testing. The results were what North American had been looking for, and clearly indicated the drag rise and compressibility had been lowered enough to bring the XP-86 into the 600+ mph range.

In September 1945, the straight wing XP-86 fuselage was mated to a 350 swept wing and tested in North American's low speed wind tunnel. The results were satisfactory and seemed to indicate that the slats were probably the answer to the instability problems. On November 1st 1945, General Bill Craigie, head of R&D at Wright Field, gave North American the go ahead for the swept wing XP-86.
Slowly but surely, North American's engineers brought the design to its final shape. But the slat design remained a problem. Finally, an entire Me-262 wing was flown in from Wright Field. North American's engineers disassembled the slats and modified the slat track mechanism to fit the XP-86 wing, using the Me-262 slat lock and control switch. Although not perfect, it was a start and the slat worked. In fact, the first seven aircraft used Me-262 slat locks and tracks.

Both 5 and 6 aspect ratio wings were tested before finally settling on a 5 ratio wing with a 350 sweep The trailing edge of the wing was extended 4" at the root, thus reducing trailing edge separation which had caused some loss of aileron control. Modifying the trailing edge angle increased the amount of overall sweep to 35.20.

Originally, the swept wing proposal retained the tail assembly from the straight wing design. However, by the time the XP-86 mockup was built, both the vertical and horizontal tail surfaces were also swept at 350 Additionally, the horizontal stabilizer was fully trimmable to achieve a better balance between low speed control and high speed requirements. Sweeping the tail surfaces caused the overall fuselage length to increase from 35.5' to 37.54'.
[...]"

MandMs
02-26-2004, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Hmmm, so that's the criteria, huh? The F-80 and F-84 were failures, both being 1943/1944 designs, since they couldn't compete with the MiG-15 that was designed several years later? By that logic, you must agree that the MiG-17 was a failure since it couldn't compete with the F-4?

Yes, keeping things in context would help. And the proper context is given by the date at which fighters enter in service. Nobody cares how long took the development of those fighters. What is important is how good were they in the moment in which they entered in service compared with the best contemporary fighters. That means that it should be able to compete with the fighters expected to enter in service if not in the following 10 years, at least with the fighters expected in the following 1 year. F-80 entered in service in '46, F-84 in '47, MiG-15 in '48, F-86 in '49. So even if F-80 coulb be considered a success in '46, it was obsolete in '48, F-80C use in Korea and produced after the introduction of MiG-15 was definitely obsolete.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was the urgency for the Soviets to get a competative fighter in the air. The Americans did not have that urgency, with the defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan. The Soviets had no jet fighters of the calibre of the P-80.

So, yes it matters how long developement took.



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-26-2004, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Hmmm, so that's the criteria, huh? The F-80 and F-84 were failures, both being 1943/1944 designs, since they couldn't compete with the MiG-15 that was designed several years later? By that logic, you must agree that the MiG-17 was a failure since it couldn't compete with the F-4?

Yes, keeping things in context would help. And the proper context is given by the date at which fighters enter in service. Nobody cares how long took the development of those fighters. What is important is how good were they in the moment in which they entered in service compared with the best contemporary fighters. That means that it should be able to compete with the fighters expected to enter in service if not in the following 10 years, at least with the fighters expected in the following 1 year. F-80 entered in service in '46, F-84 in '47, MiG-15 in '48, F-86 in '49. So even if F-80 coulb be considered a success in '46, it was obsolete in '48, F-80C use in Korea and produced after the introduction of MiG-15 was definitely obsolete.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was the urgency for the Soviets to get a competative fighter in the air. The Americans did not have that urgency, with the defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan. The Soviets had no jet fighters of the calibre of the P-80.

So, yes it matters how long developement took.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure development time matters, but it doesn't matter as an excuse for how obsolete fighters are at the time of reaching service. Clear now?

One question though, why do you think that P-80 was better than MiG-9 and Yak-15/17(Yaks had restricted range, fault corrected in '48 with Yak-23)?

MandMs
02-26-2004, 01:52 PM
Tell me something I already know, Ludi.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"there is no need to deny the obvious". I was? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-26-2004, 01:56 PM
BTW MiG-9 and Yak-15 are very good candidates for '46 plane set in FB.

Magister__Ludi
02-26-2004, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
Tell me something I already know, Ludi.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"there is no need to deny the obvious". I was? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif



I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you do not deny that F-86 was successful design solely because its designers used ground breaking German aerodynamic research (like MiG for that matter)? My bad then http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MandMs
02-26-2004, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

So you do not deny that F-86 was successful design solely because its designers used ground breaking German aerodynamic research (like MiG for that matter)? My bad then http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, German data had some influence on the Sabre. But, unlike the MiG, which has direct lineage to the Ta183, the Sabre was already a design. As stated in your post, swept wings were a know for increasing a/c speed.

Btw, slats had been around even before Willy put them on his 109. The Swordfish torpedo bomber had them, for example.

Remember, that later Sabres got rid of the l.e. slats.

Does 350 mean 35*(35 degrees)?



I eat the red ones last.

JG77Hawk_9
02-26-2004, 04:25 PM
Do remember that in Korea, where UN Pilots encountered Migs with Soviet pilots, they had their hands full and both sides were very evenly matched. What handed the allies the ratios was to some extent Chinese pilots and to the greater, North Korean Pilots who were very inept. Had the Soviets been more involved then the allies would have had a very tough slog and they wouldn't have been able to destroy the Chinese supply columns which basically saved the allies the war.

If the Chinese had been able to maintain their supply columns with decent air support then Korea would have been a unified Stalinist hole instead of the half version that exists today.

I do hope for the civilians in the North something happens soon to alleviate the poverty and famine they are supposedly suffering for it is a horid state to be living in.
Then again, my views are limited to the information available in the west but from what I understand the rural parts of North Korea are F-ed.

end of rant (-:

Magister__Ludi
02-26-2004, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

So you do not deny that F-86 was successful design solely because its designers used ground breaking German aerodynamic research (like MiG for that matter)? My bad then http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, German data had _some_ influence on the Sabre. But, unlike the MiG, which has direct lineage to the Ta183, the Sabre was already a design.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not at all satisfied with your choice of words: some influence http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Without the German data F-86 would have been an another FJ-1, a perfect dud, it would have been worse than F-84. The flight surfaces designed according to German data were the crucial element that transformed Sabre in a competitive design (it was less perfomant than MiG-15 anyway).

BTW what do you mean by "unlike the MiG, which has direct lineage to the Ta183"?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As stated in your post, swept wings were a know for increasing a/c speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes it was a known fact that swept wing improve speed, but nobody thought that swept wings are practical. Americans tried it with Curtiss Ascender and concluded that they were not feasible. Until '45 NACA did not have 1 single research paper about swept wings, delta wings or bodies of rotation for flight at high speed. Germany started serious research on swept wings and high speed aerodynamics in general from '38, that makes 8 years of research ahead!! Do you think that Soviets and Americans covered all this lost ground alone all of a sudden?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Btw, slats had been around even before Willy put them on his 109. The Swordfish torpedo bomber had them, for example.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I know a biplane from 1910 than had slats to improve slow speed handling, slats were a known solution for improving slow speed handling.

Problem is that nobody thought in the '40s to improve slow speed handling for swept wings using slats, slots or fences except the Germans. The Germans made countless of tests, during the war, their knowhow was invaluable, that's why we will find the best known German aerodynamicists and aircraft designers in USA soon after the war (only big names like those that gave name to German aircraft plants during the nazi regime were not allowed to come to US, but except for Kurt Tank the rest of them were not actively involved in aircraft designing anyway - no big technical loss for an important political gain).

So practical swept wings using slats, slots and fences was a technical breakthrough. It was the most important ingredient of a successful first generation jet.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Remember, that later Sabres got rid of the l.e. slats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they got rid of them together with low speed maneuvrability. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
They used slots though. Slots and fences were better at high speed and worse at low speeds.
That doesn't mean that slats dissapeared, in fact today they are used in most military planes. How about this cutie http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://homepage.mac.com/jisaacjr/.Pictures/A1jets021JI.jpg

Korolov
02-26-2004, 05:06 PM
The F-86 was a successful jet fighter. I think we can all agree on that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

SkyChimp
02-26-2004, 05:12 PM
Ludi, your logic is peculiar, to put it mildly.

You assert the P-80 and the F-84 were failures because they were not able to compete with the MiG that was soon released.

Hmmmm.

The P-80 began entering USAAF service in February 1945. The F-84 began to enter USAF service in 1947. The F-86 began entering USAF service in May 1948. The MiG-15 entered service in 1949.

Ludi, how long were fighter designs supposed to stay state-of-the-art? In the 1940s and the 1950s fighters became obsolete faster than the PC you are using to read this.

Using your logic, we can conclude the Bf-109 was a failure since it couldn't compete with the P-51 in combat. The Yak-9 was a failure since it couldn't compete with the F-80. Silly proposition? Absolutely, and I think you know that.

And so what that NAA used German wind tunnel testing data to develope the F-86's wing. It certainly wasn't a copy of a German design, as there was no German wing like the F-86's to copy. NAA used slat technology of the Me-262, true, but slats on the F-86 actually worked well, unlike those of the 262. I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest. Yeah, NAA utilized German experience. Sort of like the Germans used American innovations to create the V-2 rocket. So what.

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

SkyChimp
02-26-2004, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Yes it was a known fact that swept wing improve speed, but nobody thought that swept wings are practical. Americans tried it with Curtiss Ascender and concluded that they were not feasible. Until '45 NACA did not have 1 single research paper about swept wings, delta wings or bodies of rotation for flight at high speed. Germany started serious research on swept wings and high speed aerodynamics in general from '38, that makes 8 years of research ahead!! Do you think that Soviets and Americans covered all this lost ground alone all of a sudden?


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Intersting. Bell was developing the XP-52/XP-59 beginning in 1940. It had swept wings. And unlike the Me-262, the XP-52 was designed with swept wings to reduce drag, not correct center of gravity deficiencies.

And by the way, NACA engineer Robert T. Jones developed the swept wing theory, as well as the delta wing, independently of any German influence, long before German "know-how" became available at the end of the war.

Ludi, you appear to be very selective in the history you present.

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

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Thu February 26 2004 at 04:37 PM.]

MandMs
02-26-2004, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Ludi, you appear to be very selective in the history you present.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah you noticed that to SkyChimp.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ludi, the Soviets massaged the Ta183 design to arrive at the MiG-15.

Let me quote Baugher's site on the XP-55

"The trials indicated that the XP-55 had satisfactory handling characteristics during level and climbing flight, but at low speeds and during landings there was a tendency on the part of the pilot to overcontrol on the elevators because of a lack of any useful "feel"."

Now what were you saying, Ludi?



I eat the red ones last.

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2004, 07:43 PM
And all of this means exactly WHAT about the thread topic? Why this brat-squabbling in the ORR?

I'm glad that birds had wings before there were countries.... but of course where in the world did birds, reptiles, even insects fly first? Quick guys! It's nationality time!


Neal

Urist
02-26-2004, 09:14 PM
I'm tired of all of this USA vs Russia crap...

So I am going to throw this in for fun..



The Canadian Orenda powered Sabre was better then the one built in the US.



So there!

I'm the first Canadair Sabre whiner!

MandMs
02-26-2004, 09:27 PM
All of them or were specific Mks better?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Some Aussies might dispute your statemant.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



I eat the red ones last.

Urist
02-26-2004, 09:41 PM
The Mk5 had an Orenda engine with 6000 lbs thrust. First flew in 1953.

The Mk6 had over 7000 lbs thrust and was faster then the Mig 17. First flew 1954. (710 vs 696 mph).

More info here:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_22.html

edit: The posted speeds are from a couple of websites, god knows how accurate they are as usual. Another website claims 715 mph for the Mig 17c. I'd imagine there were several versions of it.

MandMs
02-26-2004, 09:44 PM
More info in The Canadair Sabre by Larry Milberry.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ISBN 0-960703-7-3



I eat the red ones last.

Urist
02-26-2004, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
More info in _The Canadair Sabre_ by Larry Milberry.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ISBN 0-960703-7-3



I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Smart guy eh?

Well, wanna know what we do to smart guys around here?

We write meaningless replies kinda like this one....

yeah...
take that...

I've told myself I'm not buying any more books until I finish Crime and Punishment, which should take me another five years. Alright, ten.

Although I do need more airplane books. I only have one Avro Arrow book and I've read three or four times. Time for something fresh.

MandMs
02-26-2004, 10:04 PM
He also wrote one on the Clunk &gt; CF-100.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ISBN 0-07-549482-5



I eat the red ones last.

WUAF_Badsight
02-26-2004, 10:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
Ludi, the Soviets _massaged_ the Ta183 design to arrive at the MiG-15. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats a LOT of massaging

more like a total aerodynamic redesign

yes thats right ...... AERODYNAMICS ........ THE most important feature to high speed handeling

LuftKuhMist
02-27-2004, 12:57 AM
Damn it MandMS, we heard you already. Everybody here is tired of cold war nostalgics blablating that anything with a red star is evil crap.

You are biased. I am neither Russian or American I don't f***ing care if that plane is better because of its nationality. All I know is that EACH TIME we get a subject started on an american or german plane there is always some kind of armchair engineer/historian who comes here throwing biased patriotic/fanboy sh*t to boost the plane's performance or to boast that it's the best thing since sliced bread. I really don't understand you, you didn't draw the damn plane, you didn't build the damn plane WHAT'S THE POINT OF ANNOYING US WITH THIS?!?

Somebody lock this thread!

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

MandMs
02-27-2004, 04:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
Damn it MandMS, we heard you already. Everybody here is tired of cold war nostalgics blablating that anything with a red star is evil crap.

You are biased. I am neither Russian or American I don't f***ing care if that plane is better because of its nationality. All I know is that EACH TIME we get a subject started on an american or german plane there is always some kind of armchair engineer/historian who comes here throwing biased patriotic/fanboy sh*t to boost the plane's performance or to boast that it's the best thing since sliced bread. I really don't understand you, you didn't draw the damn plane, you didn't build the damn plane WHAT'S THE POINT OF ANNOYING US WITH THIS?!?

Somebody lock this thread!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are trully dillusional. Now what post was it that made you post this piece of crap? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Your description of the "biased patriotic/fanboy" reminds me of 2 who thought German a/c were the greatest a/c ever built. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-27-2004, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Ludi, your logic is peculiar, to put it mildly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp and MandM,
Keep our humble personalities out of this discussion. Concentrate on planes, do not start personal attacks. Thank you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You assert the P-80 and the F-84 were failures because they were not able to compete with the MiG that was soon released.

Hmmmm.

The P-80 began entering USAAF service in February 1945. The F-84 began to enter USAF service in 1947. The F-86 began entering USAF service in May 1948. The MiG-15 entered service in 1949. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-80 deliveries started in Feb '45 not service life. In '45 only a few P-80 were flown by the most experienced pilots with a high of rate of accidents of all kinds, including catastrophic airframe failures and engines bursting into flames. Both airframe and engine had a period of extensive trials to solve the defects. After '46 P-80 was pretty much a reliable plane.

F-84 entered in service in '47, that's correct. MiG-15 entered in service in late '48. F-86 entered in service in '49, F-86A-5-NA was the first service model, earlier ones were used for testing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Ludi, how long were fighter designs supposed to stay state-of-the-art? In the 1940s and the 1950s fighters became obsolete faster than the PC you are using to read this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

During the war, as long as there was production for a certain model it was expected to do well in combat. This was usually more than one year. After the war this period got longer and longer. Usually it spaned for 10 years (first 3 jet fighter generations), current generation of fighters stayed up-to-date for 30 years, and now we are expecting a generation good for the following next 75 years http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The only thing really that went obsolete fast in those jet fighters were the avionics and weapon systems. Airframes survived for many years. We see now that many 2nd gen fighters are upgraded to state of the art avionics instead of buying cheap second hand F-16. This happens because those 2nd gen fighters are much easier to maintain and the aerodynamics are not really obsolete. It's true that they have maneuvrability limitations in combat but modern avionics and weaponry is expected to compensate for that and at least you can lift fighters in the air.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And so what that NAA used German wind tunnel testing data to develope the F-86's wing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed so what. So what if NAA would spend the next five years trying to get the German knowhow on their own? right? Maybe time was not critical at NAA.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It certainly wasn't a copy of a German design, as there was no German wing like the F-86's to copy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.luft46.com/mess/3bm1101c.jpg

F-86's wing planform is very similar with that of Me P.1101. Me P-1101 used parts of Me-262 wing, basically it was a Me-262 wing with slightly different chord. NAA specialists visited Germany and studied the same wing and after testing they opted for the same airfoil (otherways Me-262 slats would not match), almost the same aspect ratio, chord and wing placement (in relationship with fuselage lenght) with those used for Me P.1101. Even the one-spar-wing solution was adopted for F-86, compared with earlier American designs that used 2 spars.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
NAA used slat technology of the Me-262, true, but slats on the F-86 actually worked well, unlike those of the 262. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, NAA did not use only slat technology, they copied the entire aerodynamic solution from Me P.1101. This aerodynamic solution took years of research.
Slats on Me-262 and F-86 had the same advantages and disadvantages.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest. Yeah, NAA utilized German experience. Sort of like the Germans used American innovations to create the V-2 rocket. So what.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is not that NAA used German experience for the development of F-86. German knowhow was fundamental for transforming obsolete NAA ideeas about jet fighters (FJ-1 like) in state of the art technology found in F-86. I see that you like to quote very often that development of F-86 started before the arival of German data. Ok let's see the result of those early NAA designs:

FJ-1
Engine: One Allison J35-A-2, 4000 lb.st. Weights: 8843 pounds empty, 15,115 pounds takeoff (clean). Performance: Maximum speed 547 mph at 9000 feet. Initial climb rate 3300 feet per minute. Service ceiling 32,000 feet. Dimensions: wingspan 28 feet 2 inches, length 34 feet 5 inches, height 14 feet 10 inches, wing area 221 square feet. Fuel capacity included an internal load of 465 gallons and a pair of 165-gallon drop tanks at the wingtips, giving the FJ-1 a maximum range of 1500 miles. Armament consisted of six 0.50-inch machine guns with 1500 rounds total. The wing was too thin to accommodate any underwing ordinance loads.

which was much worse than F-84, we know how competitive F-84 was, in fighter duties:

F-84B:
One Allison J35-A-15C, 4000 lb.st. Performance: Maximum speed 587 mph at 4000 feet. Initial climb rate 5200 feet per minute. Service ceiling 40,750 feet. Range 1282 miles. Weights were 9583 pounds empty, 16,475 pounds gross, 19,689 pounds maximum takeoff. Dimensions were wingspan 36 feet 5 inches, length 37 feet 5 inches, height 12 feet 10 inches, wing area 260 square feet. Armament consisted of six 0.50-inch machine guns, four in the fuselage and two in the wing roots.

In conclusion without German data NAA would have developed just another failure. Fortunately they redesigned F-86 from scratch after they received German knowhow, NAA pedigree was nothing to be proud of.

NAA FJ-1 Fury (Fury? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif maybe on its ancestry http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif)
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/images/north_american_fj-1.jpg

MandMs
02-27-2004, 05:52 AM
Ludi, what were the other NAA failures?

"In conclusion without German data NAA would have developed just another failure."

Surely not the P-51, B-25, AT-6.



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-27-2004, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And all of this means exactly WHAT about the thread topic? Why this brat-squabbling in the ORR?

I'm glad that birds had wings before there were countries.... but of course where in the world did birds, reptiles, even insects fly first? Quick guys! It's nationality time!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Let me answer this fast: outside Iron Curtain http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Magister__Ludi
02-27-2004, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
Ludi, what were the other NAA failures?

"_In conclusion without German data NAA would have developed just another failure._"

Surely not the P-51, B-25, AT-6.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Just another jet fighter failure".
Now it should be more clear.

MandMs
02-27-2004, 06:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:


"Just another jet fighter failure".
Now it should be more clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, you mean like the Ta183 Huckebein, OK.



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-27-2004, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:


"Just another jet fighter failure".
Now it should be more clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, you mean like the Ta183 _Huckebein_, OK.



I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last time I checked Ta183 still never flew. Any news on that?

But we have a lot of duds that did flew, even in service.


P.S. I liked a lot that thing with the "russian massage" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Magister__Ludi
02-27-2004, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Yes it was a known fact that swept wing improve speed, but nobody thought that swept wings are practical. Americans tried it with Curtiss Ascender and concluded that they were not feasible. Until '45 NACA did not have 1 single research paper about swept wings, delta wings or bodies of rotation for flight at high speed. Germany started serious research on swept wings and high speed aerodynamics in general from '38, that makes 8 years of research ahead!! Do you think that Soviets and Americans covered all this lost ground alone all of a sudden?


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Intersting. Bell was developing the XP-52/XP-59 beginning in 1940. It had swept wings. And unlike the Me-262, the XP-52 was designed with swept wings to reduce drag, not correct center of gravity deficiencies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

now this was too funny. You think that it was easier to ballance Me-262 with swept wings rather than with straight wings. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

The boat like fuselage shape and swept wings of Me-262 are derived from early high speed aerodynamics research done by Adolf Busemann in Germany. He observed that shock waves that form at high speed along fuselage are similar with waves along ships, hence the term "wave drag". He computed the swept angle according in relationship with shock waves angle for the speed interval Me-262 was supposed to operate. Me-262 prototype in 1940 also had symetrical airfoil wings (production model had it too), an innovation that will take some time until widespread adoption.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And by the way, NACA engineer Robert T. Jones developed the swept wing theory, as well as the delta wing, independently of any German influence, long before German "know-how" became available at the end of the war.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First paper on high speed aerodynamics R.T. Jones had published at NACA was in '46, simply because NACA did not have a supersonic wind tunnel before that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Germany had such a wind tunnel from the beginning of the '40s, that's why German research was so ahead of everybody in this field. Check your sources SkyChimp.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Fri February 27 2004 at 06:07 AM.]

Magister__Ludi
02-27-2004, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:

"The trials indicated that the XP-55 had satisfactory handling characteristics during level and climbing flight, but at low speeds and during landings there was a tendency on the part of the pilot to overcontrol on the elevators because of a lack of any useful "feel"."

Now what were you saying, Ludi?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not saying anything, let aerodynamicists say their opinion:

"Larry Green, head of Design Aerodynamics at North American, came up with an answer to the swept wing instability problems. Green had been conducting wind tunnel tests on the Curtis XP-55 Ascender, which indicated severe non-linear instabilities present at high angles of attack over a swept wing, causing an extreme pitch up' attitude. Green, Walter Koch (who spoke fluent German), Dale Meyers, and Harrison Storms set up four Recordaks, and began translating the material being funneled to North American by Wright Field. Within the captured material were considerable data concerning the use of wing leading edge movable surfaces, commonly called 'slats' as a possible solution to the instability problems."

XP-55 was abandoned precisely because it lacked stability.

MandMs
02-27-2004, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

now this was too funny. You think that it was easier to ballance Me-262 with swept wings rather than with straight wings. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

The boat like fuselage shape and swept wings of Me-262 are derived from early high speed aerodynamics research done by Adolf Busemann in Germany. He observed that shock waves that form at high speed along fuselage are similar with waves along ships, hence the term "wave drag". He computed the swept angle according in relationship with shock waves angle for the speed interval Me-262 was supposed to operate. Me-262 prototype in 1940 also had symetrical airfoil wings (production model had it too), an innovation that will take some time until widespread adoption.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah Ludi follow you own advice. Those http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif are much worse than the comment by SkyChimp.

Let me quote from Me 262 Vol 1 pg 66.

"P 1065 with swept wing. Originally this was done(ie. outer wing swept &gt; 18*) to solve problems that heavier weight estimates were causing with the positioning of the a/c CG"



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-27-2004, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:

Ah Ludi follow you own advice. Those are much worse than the comment by SkyChimp.

Let me quote from Me 262 Vol 1 pg 66.

"P 1065 with swept wing. Originally this was done(ie. outer wing swept &gt; 18*) to solve problems that heavier weight estimates were causing with the positioning of the a/c CG"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You found a technical nonsense in an otherways good book. How could they correct longitudinal stability problems (given by CG position) by aggravating longitudinal stability problems (characteristic to swept wings aircraft)?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Balancing a straight wing aircraft is always easier than a swept wing one.

And the ideea that a precise 18 deg swept angle was decided because of CG balancing is absurd anyway because fuel system placement and fuel capacity went through a lot of modifications until as late as 1944! leading to consequent modifications in CG. They could not decide for a swept value in 1940 if it was in direct relation with CG placement finally decided in 1944.

What I wrote about Busemann and his work for Me-262 is from one of the NASA online books. If you find it funny be my guest http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Last but not least your are selectively quoting. The author says there "Originally this was done for..". What was it later done for?

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Fri February 27 2004 at 02:08 PM.]

MandMs
02-27-2004, 03:32 PM
Just maybe you should look at some early a/c that had swept wings that were done for flight stability reasons.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Did you forget that the lighter BMW engines were to be the original engines used?

The fuel tanks stayed in the same place throughout its design. One does not add 100 L to one without not adding some to the other for balance.

Later it was found that the swept wing helped with higher speeds. No one is saying otherwise.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


This was what I was refering to:

"http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

now this was too funny" when I said take your own advice. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



I eat the red ones last.

Magister__Ludi
02-27-2004, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
Just maybe you should look at some early a/c that had swept wings that were done for flight stability reasons.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Swept wings improve lateral stability and deteriorate longitudinal stability. If the prototype had longitudinal stability issues swept wings would have only worsen them. Do no insist with this nonsense.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Did you forget that the lighter BMW engines were to be the original engines used?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you put on the wings can be easily balanced (I hope this does not require further explanation) therefore it doesn't matter that they switched from BMW to Jumo. What you put in the fuselage however requires complex CG calculations.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The fuel tanks stayed in the same place throughout its design. One does not add 100 L to one without not adding some to the other for balance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they did not. The fuel system with the fuel for one of the engines comming from multiple fuel tanks was done in late stages of design - this was done precisely for minimal CG shift with fuel consumption. Me-262 housed normaly inside fuselage around 1800l of fuel (sometimes 600l more), an enormous cantity at that time for a plane of its size. This posed a serious problem of important CG shift with fuel consumption (solved as described above). Also the switch to tricycle landing gear also required CG recalculation, again one thing done later. The ideea that the 18 deg swept angle was decided in relation to CG at the beginnigs of project design is ridiculous, it had nothing to do with it.

MandMs
02-27-2004, 08:30 PM
The only nonesense I see is coming from you.

Mass is mass, whether it is out on the wings or in the fuselage. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif If you want to disagree with Messerschmitt, fine, but I'll believe the experts on a/c design rather than some amateur which said the wings were swept to solve the CG problem due to the increase in weight of the P.3304 engines. This was a bonus when the Jumos were installed.

The 2 fuel tanks for the V1, and in the P1065, were one in front of the cockpit and one behind the cockpit, just like they were on the production 262. Note the V1 was a tail dragger, as was the P1065. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Read the report dated Dec 15 1939, Advantages of the Low Wing Configuration, Pt 3. This also explains why the fuselage was triangular. Also see the cutaway drawing of P1065 for the internal layout dated Mar 21 1940.



I eat the red ones last.

SkyChimp
02-27-2004, 08:41 PM
stupid software

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

SkyChimp
02-27-2004, 08:46 PM
This has got to be the dumbest fricking software. Trying to post a reply and all I get is "Message is a mandatory field."

olaleier
02-27-2004, 09:06 PM
I've told myself many times I'm not supposed to read these forums (other than what Oleg says), and I promise I won't come back to this thread, but I have to say:

The tension, urge for argument and general analness in here boggles the mind.

A joke topic ends up in another 5-page+ sphincter debate.

Again.

What's wrong with you people?

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby

SkyChimp
02-27-2004, 11:59 PM
Still can't post more than a single line.

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

SkyChimp
02-28-2004, 12:04 AM
nt

Voskhod5
02-28-2004, 12:24 AM
Use "Quick reply" feature above ---&gt; http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/images3/q_reply.gif

---------------------------
BlitzPig_Voskhod

http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/planes/pix/su27vsf15.jpg

SkyChimp
02-28-2004, 12:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
SkyChimp and MandM,
Keep our humble personalities out of this discussion. Concentrate on planes, do not start personal attacks. Thank you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure you're a fine person, but your logic was flawed. Sorry.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
P-80 deliveries started in Feb '45 not service life. In '45 only a few P-80 were flown by the most experienced pilots with a high of rate of accidents of all kinds, including catastrophic airframe failures and engines bursting into flames. Both airframe and engine had a period of extensive trials to solve the defects. After '46 P-80 was pretty much a reliable plane.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, you mean service, service, not service. I see, nice parsing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW, what's you definition of a few? In mid 1945, the 31st Squadron/412th Fighter Group took deliveries of P-80As 17 of them for operational use against Japan. 17, that's a few I guess. With the surrender of Japan, there was no need to rush the plane into further service.

(Source: Lockheed Aircraft: Since 1913, Rene Francillon.)



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
F-84 entered in service in '47, that's correct. MiG-15 entered in service in late '48. F-86 entered in service in '49, F-86A-5-NA was the first service model, earlier ones were used for testing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are wrong about this. The F-86A-1 was the first service model. There were only 33 F-86A-1s produced, and some were used for testing. Otherwise, the 94th Squadron/1st Fighter Group took delivery of their planes in February and March 1949. The 94th was entirely equipped with the F-86A-1. Additionally, the 27th and 71st Squadrons received F-86A-1s as well as F-86A-5s.

(Source: The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner.)



http://www.luft46.com/mess/3bm1101c.jpg
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
F-86's wing planform is very similar with that of Me P.1101. Me P-1101 used parts of Me-262 wing, basically it was a Me-262 wing with slightly different chord. NAA specialists visited Germany and studied the same wing and after testing they opted for the same airfoil (otherways Me-262 slats would not match), almost the same aspect ratio, chord and wing placement (in relationship with fuselage lenght) with those used for Me P.1101. Even the one-spar-wing solution was adopted for F-86, compared with earlier American designs that used 2 spars.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Me P.1101 did not influence the design of the F-86.

NAA specialists did not visit Germany, Bell specialists did, namely Robert J. Woods. And NAA did not have any access to the designs of the P.1101 as those designs were held in France for several years after the war. The only detailed study of the plane was conducted in the US after it was shipped to Bell in 1948. By 1948, the decision to used swept wings on the F-86 had already been made.

Additionally, you are wrong about the P.1101 and the Me-262 wing being "basically the same." They are not. The Me-262 HG II had a 35 degree sweep. The P.1101 had a 40 degree sweep. A set of wings with a 45 degree sweep were made for the P.1101, but never installed.

One can easily see the glaring dissimilarities between the Me-262 HG II wing and that the Me P.1101 posted above:
http://www.geocities.com/uni1ua/bigph/me262hg2.jpg

In fact, it was the Me-262 HG II wing design that influenced the F-86 the most, simply because German data from model testing suggested the 35 degree sweep, which the HG II had, had the most potential. However, once the sweep was decided upon, it was up to NAA alone to determine the aspect ratio. After exhaustive testing, NAA decided on an aspect ratio of 4.79. Further they chose a thickness/chord ratio of 11% at the root, 10% at the tip. This combination was determined by NAA to be the best though its own testing, not through German data. Germany had not produced, nor even designed, a wing with this combination of sweep, aspect ratio and thickness/chord ratio.

Additionally, NAA felt the automatic slat was need for low speed controllability. But Germany never produced a satisfactory automatic slat that is independent of pilot control, that it. It was up to NAA to develop a really useful and truly automatic slat.

Also, the construction of the wing itself was vastly different than those made and designed by the Germans. The F-86 used a double skin structure with hat sections between layers. It used tapered skins as well. And the single spar design was necessary to have any chance of installing fuel tanks with meaningful capacities into the F-86's very thin wings.

(Sources: The History Of German Aviation: The First Jet Aircraft, Wolfgang Wagner, and The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner.)



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No, NAA did not use only slat technology, they copied the entire aerodynamic solution from Me P.1101. This aerodynamic solution took years of research.
Slats on Me-262 and F-86 had the same advantages and disadvantages.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, this is wrong. NAA did not copy the "entire aerodynamic solution from Me P.1101." This is popular, but incorrect history, perpetuated by a select few people on this board. NAA did not study the plane. It wasn't available for them to study either in plan form or physically until after the F-86 was designed. See above and check your sources.

Additionally, the major difference between the slats on the Me-262 and those on the F-86 was that the ones on the F-86 worked when they were supposed to.

On the Me-262: "The outer sections of the wing leading-edge automatic slots were never satisfactory since these opened about 25mm and increased drag at high speed due to deflection." (Source: German Aircraft Of The Second World War, Smith and Kay.)

Testing on the F-86A revealed the leading edge slats were open fully at 130 knots, and fully closed at 290 knots. Later, the slats range was limited to 115-180 knots to prevent them from opening during maneuvering, a problem the Me-262 always suffered from.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Is not that NAA used German experience for the development of F-86. German knowhow was fundamental for transforming obsolete NAA ideeas about jet fighters (FJ-1 like) in state of the art technology found in F-86. I see that you like to quote very often that development of F-86 started before the arival of German data. Ok let's see the result of those early NAA designs:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif this is your silliest comment yet.

"North American's first jet fighter design, the NA-134, was actually destined for the Navy. Even before the Navy ordered three XFJ-1 (NA-134) prototypes on 1 January 1945, the company's RD-1265 design study, begun on 22 November 1944, proposed a high-performance jet fighter for the Air Force."

"This design, known in company records as NA-140, received an Air Force letter contract on 18 May 1945 authorizing three XP-86 aircraft. Shortly afterwards, on 28 May 1945, the Navy approved a contract for 100 production FJ-1s."

"Both North American designs used a low, thin, straight wing, but the Navy design's high speed potentialities were compromised in favor of low speed carrier operations. The P-86, being land based, used substantially the same aerofoil section and planform, but had a thinner wing and a very slim fuselage with a high fineness ratio."

You see, Ludi, the P-86 was not a developement of the FJ-1, as you assert. The P-86 and FJ-1 were two different designs, for two different services, with two different requirements.

If you'd like to see how the initial XP-86 looked compared to the FJ-1, look here:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/images/north_american_fj-1.jpg
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/NorthAmerican-XP-86/NA-140_4.jpg



Yep, Ludi, you are right. German research contributed to the development of the F-86. It was German research that suggested a 35 degree sweep was most appropriate. But it was up to NAA to design the actual wing, and to design truly automatic slats that actually worked properly. And remember, Ludi, "German know-how" is a misnomer. If the Germans knew-how, they would have actually produced a working plane with wings like the F-86. What the Germans contributed was theory based on wind tunnel testing of models. It was NAA know-how that actually took that theory, refined it, and put it into production.

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

SkyChimp
02-28-2004, 12:51 AM
Since there links above aren't working:

Me P.1101
http://www.luft46.com/mess/3bm1101c.jpg

Me 262 HG II
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/me262hg2.jpg



FJ-1 Fury
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/images/north_american_fj-1.jpg

XP-86
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/xp86.jpg


BTW, nice to have you back, Huck.

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

Magister__Ludi
02-28-2004, 12:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Yep, Ludi, you are right. German research contributed to the development of the F-86. It was German research that suggested a 35 degree sweep was most appropriate. But it was up to NAA to design the actual wing, and to design truly automatic slats that actually worked properly. And remember, Ludi, "German know-how" is a misnomer. If the Germans knew-how, they would have actually produced a working plane with wings like the F-86. What the Germans contributed was theory based on wind tunnel testing of models. It was NAA know-how that actually took that theory, refined it, and put it into production.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp,
I don't agree with a single one of your arguments but I find your conclusion appropriate. We can argue back and forth forever but as long as you agree with my amendament to your conclusion we can end this topic here:

"German research contributed to the development of the F-86. It was German research that suggested a 35 degree sweep as the most appropriate for the first generation of jet fighters and developed a practical mean to use swept wings. But it was up to NAA produce the first true first generation jet fighter."

Do you agree?

SkyChimp
02-28-2004, 01:05 AM
I'll agree with that in the spirit of compromise.

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

Magister__Ludi
02-28-2004, 01:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I'll agree with that in the spirit of compromise.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Ok

Magister__Ludi
02-28-2004, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
BTW, nice to have you back, Huck.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that we reached an historic agreement, we can also celebrate minor victories:

I see that Milo Morai (banned, now MandMs - I hope this is not your bigger brother Milo, I remember the smaller one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) finally learned to spell Messerschmitt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif
and guess what, tagert (banned, now ASH-SMART) changed "Agreed 100%" with "True Dat!". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Some changes are for the better. Thanks Tully http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Aaron_GT
02-28-2004, 02:20 AM
Skychimp wrote:
" If the Germans knew-how, they would have actually produced a working plane with wings like the F-86."

I suspect that the internicine (spelling?)
politics of German aircraft production and
the desperate situation from mid-1944 probably
slowed down some of the research. They had
lots of research irons in the fire, but in an
increasingly disorganised way. The USA, with
the F-86 had the advantage of being able to
devote a full idustrial complex geared up for
war, but with peacetime conditions, to devote
to the problem.

Note that I'm not saying that German technology
was superior (I don't believe this is the case)
but that the failure of Germany to produce
a fully working swept-wing single-engined
fighter in WW2 might have been influenced by
external events a bit!

Magister__Ludi
02-28-2004, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Skychimp wrote:
" If the Germans knew-how, they would have actually produced a working plane with wings like the F-86."

I suspect that the internicine (spelling?)
politics of German aircraft production and
the desperate situation from mid-1944 probably
slowed down some of the research. They had
lots of research irons in the fire, but in an
increasingly disorganised way. The USA, with
the F-86 had the advantage of being able to
devote a full idustrial complex geared up for
war, but with peacetime conditions, to devote
to the problem.

Note that I'm not saying that German technology
was superior (I don't believe this is the case)
but that the failure of Germany to produce
a fully working swept-wing single-engined
fighter in WW2 might have been influenced by
external events a bit!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me-262 wing was fully working as long it was safe to fly on all speed range (before stall). The thing that at slow speed slats did not have a fixed position did not matter, since they did not extended asymetrically.

It's the same (Bf-109) slats cliche repeated all over again in british sources. Take a look who's saying this: German Aircraft Of The Second World War, Smith and Kay. Since when this old book became a serious source for data on German planes??

I never heard anyone saying that slats were unsafe on Me-262. Flight characteristics of Me-262 were evaluated as excellent by everyone who flew it. Primary source for handling characteristics should be the opinion of those who really flew the plane.

AaronGT, we should better leave this thread die.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Sat February 28 2004 at 02:22 AM.]

MandMs
02-28-2004, 05:11 AM
If you say so banned Huckles.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Aaron, the P-80 was designed in very much less time than the 262 and this was during WW2. Yes, as Ludi(Huckles) says, since he has been shown how wrong he is, the thread should end.


I eat the red ones last.

Aaron_GT
02-28-2004, 07:35 AM
My last comment before this thread dies:
"Aaron, the P-80 was designed in very much less time than the 262 and this was during WW2."

Indeed - the USA wasn't being bombed and the
P-80 was less aerodynamically innovative. I
don't think it is unreasonable that the P-80
took less time to develop. The likes of the
XP-55, however were very aerodynamically
innovative designs from the USA.

MandMs
02-28-2004, 08:16 AM
Ever hear of KISS Aaron?

The bombing of Germany did not really get going until mid-late 1943.



I eat the red ones last.

Aaron_GT
02-28-2004, 12:17 PM
Of course I've heard of the principle of keeping
things simple. It wouldn't be unfair to say
that the Me-262 was too audacious a project for
Germany to undertake during WW2. Add to that
the infighting and project mismanagement that
seemed to plague the Luftwaffe, and you have
a plane that took twice as long from initial
design to service acceptance as the P-80. There
is no doubt that US project management on most
projects was better. The Me-262 is still rather
more aerodynamically advanced, with engines not
really ready for use, and this is probably
part of the delay. Plus I don't think a war is
the time to be doing more blue sky research.

Post war the USA had the liberty of not being
in an active war. Often this seems to mean
lack of haste and protracted development, but
the F86 fairly flew off the blueprints, even
given the change in design, and into the air,
and that's very impressive. It was just as
well, though, as the P-80 was sadly outclassed
by 1950. The F-86 and Mig-15 were both
impressive designs with various pros and cons.

WWMaxGunz
02-28-2004, 06:49 PM
It was a German Wehrwacht General, Milsch, who hobbled the LW and especially jet plane development. He wanted to see everything go into land warfare. No glory for flyboys. It did make the usual politicking and infighting of German military development and procurement worse than it would have been. Heinkel had jets going very early, one prototype that well outflew the FW-190 in a mock combat. Work had advanced very well and then Milsch stopped it. When things started back up, Messerschmidt had the lead and got the nod. I bet there was payoffs involved, Messerschmidt also got Heinkels jet men.

The US of course kept up development after 1945. The Cold War had started with Berlin! China was being taken over and when that was done the invasion of Korea started immediately. It's possible to say that WWII really didn't end until 1989. Look at how the US has been with military since.


Neal

AaronGT
02-29-2004, 02:57 AM
Milch really didn't like Heinkel!
He hampered its jet development,
the 219, etc. the excellent 113
was killed and the 177 hamstrung.

This being said, the 280 was not
particularly innovative in that it
was a straight wing design, like the
162. It does seem that
Messcherschmit was more
advanced aerodynamically so
maybe Milch was right on this
point, but the rest of it seems
like a vendetta.

I must say that I am very glad that
the Nazis fought each other as
much as the Allies!

rudidlo
03-02-2004, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rudidlo:

You americans can't forget your disgraceful failure in Vietnam?

Rudidlo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that like the French failure in SE Asia or Algeria or the USSR's failure in Afganistan? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif



I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that not equals.

Rudidlo