PDA

View Full Version : Am I right or what?



Galaboo
04-07-2007, 01:58 AM
Okay, back again about the Ta 183, got a point you can't overlook. I did some research about the reason why planes have swept wings and that is to help reduce drag, increase lift, stable through supersonic speeds - Is this correct?

I've noticed that the Ta183 begins to become violently shakey at speeds of 800+ of IAS (real airspeed at its prefered height is usually 960kph), so trying to get to supersonic airspeed (1225kph) is impossible as you being to break up. Is this supposed to be correct as the swept wing design is intended to deal with such speeds? Going past 1225kph usually creates such violent flight behaviour that you can not possibly aim and you start to break up - is this correct?

Also the MiG-9 (The Russian mig with 2 jet engines), that plane has normal wings but can turn nearly 3 times faster than the Ta 183 and can also reach the same speeds as the Ta 183 - Why is this so? it also handles alot better at high speeds when the MiG-9s wing configuration is best at Low - Medium speeds.

Galaboo
04-07-2007, 01:58 AM
Okay, back again about the Ta 183, got a point you can't overlook. I did some research about the reason why planes have swept wings and that is to help reduce drag, increase lift, stable through supersonic speeds - Is this correct?

I've noticed that the Ta183 begins to become violently shakey at speeds of 800+ of IAS (real airspeed at its prefered height is usually 960kph), so trying to get to supersonic airspeed (1225kph) is impossible as you being to break up. Is this supposed to be correct as the swept wing design is intended to deal with such speeds? Going past 1225kph usually creates such violent flight behaviour that you can not possibly aim and you start to break up - is this correct?

Also the MiG-9 (The Russian mig with 2 jet engines), that plane has normal wings but can turn nearly 3 times faster than the Ta 183 and can also reach the same speeds as the Ta 183 - Why is this so? it also handles alot better at high speeds when the MiG-9s wing configuration is best at Low - Medium speeds.

joeap
04-07-2007, 04:02 AM
The Ta-183 never flew, case closed.

Next.

Galaboo
04-07-2007, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
The Ta-183 never flew, case closed.

Next. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh okay thanks for reading and understanding and helping me out...................

Next!

NSAdonis85
04-07-2007, 05:50 AM
The main two problems are the hull shape viewed from above and materials used in construction.

Might I remind you that even the MiG-15, F-86, Saab Tunan and FJ Fury suffered from the same stability issues at high speed, but where of better construction, so they didn't brake up. Unofficially, the first claim of braking the sound barrier was by an F-86.

WWSensei
04-07-2007, 06:26 AM
While the swept wing helps in stability in supersonic flight just having swept wings doesn't make the aircraft supersonic. As was discovered on many of the early jets a flying tail was actually more of an aid.

stalkervision
04-07-2007, 06:41 AM
One can either go with very thin wing (X-1/f-104) or wings with a sweep back to achieve supersonic flight. A flying tail is required because with normal elevator control surfaces there is a loss of elevator control at transonic speeds do to the shockwave moving backword on the elevator and blanking out these control surfaces as one enters supersonic flight. It was found by accident almost on the x-1 that having a "all moving tail" where the whole tail moves as one big control surface this effect doesn't happen and the elevator retained it's control. For a long time it was kept a secret and was first featured on the f-86 jet fighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-1

VW-IceFire
04-07-2007, 08:28 AM
I can't remember which USAF jet it was but one was developed with the intention of being a very fast interceptor and despite a heavily swept back wing and a very sleek look the initial prototype refused to break the sound barrier as the wing design in terms of wing thickness and where it was thickest apparently plays a huge role in if a plane can exceed the speed of sound under its own power.

I want to say F-105 Delta Dart but I can't remember.

berg417448
04-07-2007, 08:51 AM
You may be referring to the F-102 Delta Dagger and the "area rule" concept.

NSAdonis85
04-07-2007, 09:01 AM
It was the F-102, and the top view shape of the hull at the wing roots I was refering to above.

Krt_Bong
04-07-2007, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
The Ta-183 never flew, case closed.

Next. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes, you are right. However it would have given time, this is what I like about these forums everyone is free to discuss the possibilities...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_183

ImpStarDuece
04-07-2007, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Galaboo:
Okay, back again about the Ta 183, got a point you can't overlook. I did some research about the reason why planes have swept wings and that is to help reduce drag, increase lift, stable through supersonic speeds - Is this correct?

I've noticed that the Ta183 begins to become violently shakey at speeds of 800+ of IAS (real airspeed at its prefered height is usually 960kph), so trying to get to supersonic airspeed (1225kph) is impossible as you being to break up. Is this supposed to be correct as the swept wing design is intended to deal with such speeds? Going past 1225kph usually creates such violent flight behaviour that you can not possibly aim and you start to break up - is this correct?

Also the MiG-9 (The Russian mig with 2 jet engines), that plane has normal wings but can turn nearly 3 times faster than the Ta 183 and can also reach the same speeds as the Ta 183 - Why is this so? it also handles alot better at high speeds when the MiG-9s wing configuration is best at Low - Medium speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at the performance of the Ta-183 sucessor design, the Pulqui, which had a more powerful engine and slightly more more sweep on the wings, and still never went supersonic. The Pulqui was insufficiently stable in pitch and prone to tumbling stalls at high AoAs.

The Mig-9 has approximately 3,600 lbs of thrust available to it, on a 7,900 lbs airframe. The Ta-183 has approximately 2,700 lbs of thrust available to it, on a 6,300 lbs airframe.

Galaboo
04-07-2007, 05:28 PM
"The Mig-9 has approximately 3,600 lbs of thrust available to it, on a 7,900 lbs airframe. The Ta-183 has approximately 2,700 lbs of thrust available to it, on a 6,300 lbs airframe."

The thing I'm comparing about the MiG9 to the Ta183 is the wing configuration and the difference in turn rate of them, I'm wondering is that accurate? considering all the other planes with the normal wing configuration trying to turn in high speeds like the MiG9 takes ages, though the MiG9 can turn to its side in under half a sec compared to the Ta183s 2 and a half seconds.

I'm very confused at that since no other plane (MiG9) can seem to do that with the same wing configuration, I can't see how that is right?

Jaws2002
04-07-2007, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
While the swept wing helps in stability in supersonic flight just having swept wings doesn't make the aircraft supersonic. As was discovered on many of the early jets a flying tail was actually more of an aid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.
You need a lot more then just swept wing to go supersonic. Flying tail and much thinner wing profiles are also requirements. That's why Mig-15 sucked at high mach numbers, while the Mig-17 and Sabre were so much better).

This game is a poor tool to try to analyze turn rates at high mach number. The game engine simply wasn't designed for that speed and you won't get accurate results. Remember back then the game was designed to have one plane, with rather limited flight envelope: IL-2.

stalkervision
04-07-2007, 06:45 PM
The f-86 could achieve supersonic speed in a dive. I believe the Ta-183 should also do this even with an underperforming engine. Then there is the fact much more powerful engines were on the way in germany at the end of the war. I believe there is more potental in the Ta-183 that isn't yet realised in this FM for it...

further excellent info on the Ta-183

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

Jaws2002
04-07-2007, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
The f-86 could achieve supersonic speed in a dive. I believe the Ta-183 should also do this even with an underperforming engine. Then there is the fact much more powerful engines were on the way in germany at the end of the war. I believe there is more potental in the Ta-183 that isn't yet realised in this FM for it...

further excellent info on the Ta-183

http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-i.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if you think a ww2 drawing could go supersonic how come the Mig-15 couldn't?

ImpStarDuece
04-07-2007, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
The f-86 could achieve supersonic speed in a dive. I believe the Ta-183 should also do this even with an underperforming engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems like blind faith to me...

The F-86 had a thinner wing profile, was more stable in pitch than the Ta-183 design and had significantly more thrust (almost double the amount available) to push it up to the sound barrier.

stalkervision
04-07-2007, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
The f-86 could achieve supersonic speed in a dive. I believe the Ta-183 should also do this even with an underperforming engine. Then there is the fact much more powerful engines were on the way in germany at the end of the war. I believe there is more potental in the Ta-183 that isn't yet realised in this FM for it...

further excellent info on the Ta-183

http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-i.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if you think a ww2 drawing could go supersonic how come the Mig-15 couldn't? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were fundemental design problems with the mig 15 that's why. When the american's tested a captured one out they found this out. In fact right in the cockpit I believe there was a warning not to go over a certain mach number.

luftluuver
04-07-2007, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
There were fundemental design problems with the mig 15 that's why. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well what should that tell you about the Ta183 which the MiG15 was based on? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

stalkervision
04-07-2007, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 stalkervision:
There were fundemental design problems with the mig 15 that's why. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well what should that tell you about the Ta183 which the MiG15 was based on? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually the Ta-183 and the Mig 15 are based on completely different designs.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your too funny... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_15


"Most early jets, especially those of the Western powers, were designed like piston-engined fighters with straight wings, and had only slightly better performance. German research during World War II had showed that swept wings would perform better at transonic speeds, and Soviet aircraft designers were not slow to take advantage of this information. However, claims that the successful Soviet piston-engined fighter designers Artem Mikoyan and Mikhail Gurevich (the lead designers of the "MiG" bureau) were heavily influenced by the Focke-Wulf Ta-183 have been discredited. Although the abortive late-war German jet had swept wings and bore a superficial resemblance to the later MiG-15, the two aircraft are very different in structure and general design. The Soviets did seize plans for the Ta-183, but most Focke-Wulf engineers were captured by Western armies. Currently, most sources acknowledge that the MiG-15 is an original design and that Western aircraft industries benefited from German aerodynamic research just as much as Soviets."

luftluuver
04-07-2007, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
actually the Ta-183 and the Mig 15 are based on completely different designs.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your too funny... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not as funny as you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

The Soviets studied the Ta183 and made changes because of aerodynamic defects in the Ta183, which resulted in the MiG15.

Jaws2002
04-07-2007, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:


There were fundemental design problems with the mig 15 that's why. When the american's tested a captured one out they found this out. In fact right in the cockpit I believe there was a warning not to go over a certain mach number. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then how did you get to the conclusion that the early rushed drawing, from 1944, called Ta-183 had a better chance to go supersonic?

Does the Ta-183 have thinner wing? Does it have the flying tail absolutely necessary to be able to control the thing at that speed? Are you sure the engine was designed to take the shockwave?
The answer is NO.

The TA-183 had a snow ball's chance in hell to go supersonic.

stalkervision
04-07-2007, 11:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:


There were fundemental design problems with the mig 15 that's why. When the american's tested a captured one out they found this out. In fact right in the cockpit I believe there was a warning not to go over a certain mach number. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then how did you get to the conclusion that the early rushed drawing, from 1944, called Ta-183 had a better chance to go supersonic?

&gt; Because german research into the field of high speed flight and axial flow jet engines was far more more advanced then any nation in the world at that time. I believe Germany was also the only nation to have to have a wind tunnel capable of supersonic speeds and above too. Actually if you look at the so called by you.."rushed drawings.." the Ta-183 was in the finally stages of development. In fact the Ta-183 was only the tip of the iceburg into german aircraft design and research into high speed flight.&lt;

Does the Ta-183 have thinner wing?

&gt;Yes in fact it does have a very thin wing and is designed that way. It is also swept back too.&lt;


Does it have the flying tail absolutely necessary to be able to control the thing at that speed?

&gt; I believe it you check the outer ailerons work together as an elevator substitute. This may have help control it at very high speeds.&lt;


Are you sure the engine was designed to take the shockwave?
The answer is NO.


&gt; The engine being buried in the fuselage wouldn't have needed it. The F-86 went supersonic in dives and wasn't designed to take a supersonic shockwave either. It apparently still worked just fine. The answer is therefore apparently... YES!&lt;



The TA-183 had a snow ball's chance in hell to go supersonic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


&gt;&gt; I believe had the Ta-183 been futher developed there would have had a pretty good chance for it to do just that with the stronger jet engines being developed in germany at the time. In fact a few of these jet engines were in prototype form and were being tested. Allied scientists that saw these advanced protoypes were quite certain they would have worked but the germans blew them all up before they were captured. The german research into high speed flight,rocket technology and jet engine design was years ahead of other nations. Our own f-86 was first designed with a straight wing. It was only when german research data was looked at that we put a swept back wing on the f-86 which made made it capable of supersonic flight.&lt;

I believe your "If maddox didn't put it into the game then it isn't so biasis" is showing big time. You better do a little more research on your own into exactly how advanced the science of high speed flight was in germany at the end of the war..

You may want to start with the most obvious thing. The V2 Apparently The Germans found out how to control that at supersonic speeds and above. Where do you think they got the info? From aliens? In reality Germany was the absolute leader into high speed flight at the time and the Ta-183 was just the tip of the iceburg.


Hay we have the Larche in luft 1946 don't we with it's automatic landing controls that weren't even possible back then and it's "vodoo FM" from where the heck god knows they got it. You have no qualms about that whatsoever which in reality was the real "snowball in hell" aircraft here.

Yet apparently you can't accept whatsoever that maybe in the Ta-183 just might have been possible made to go supersonic given another years development? Like I said your maddox biasis is showing big time.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 12:12 AM
You see this supersonic plane?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Grumman-X29-InFlight.jpg/800px-Grumman-X29-InFlight.jpg



where do you think they came up with this "snow ball in hell" idea? A clue is right in luft 46..

ImpStarDuece
04-08-2007, 12:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:


There were fundemental design problems with the mig 15 that's why. When the american's tested a captured one out they found this out. In fact right in the cockpit I believe there was a warning not to go over a certain mach number. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then how did you get to the conclusion that the early rushed drawing, from 1944, called Ta-183 had a better chance to go supersonic?

&gt; Because german research into the field of high speed flight and axial flow jet engines was far more more advanced then any nation in the world at that time. I believe Germany was also the only nation to have to have a wind tunnel capable of supersonic speeds and above too. Actually if you look at the so called by you.."rushed drawings.." the Ta-183 was in the finally stages of development. In fact the Ta-183 was only the tip of the iceburg into german aircraft design and research into high speed flight.&lt;

Does the Ta-183 have thinner wing?

&gt;Yes in fact it does have a very thin wing and is designed that way. It is also swept back too.&lt;


Does it have the flying tail absolutely necessary to be able to control the thing at that speed?

&gt; I believe it you check the outer ailerons work together as an elevator substitute. This may have help control it at very high speeds.&lt;


Are you sure the engine was designed to take the shockwave?
The answer is NO.


&gt; The engine being buried in the fuselage wouldn't have needed it. The F-86 went supersonic in dives and wasn't designed to take a supersonic shockwave either. It apparently still worked just fine. The answer is therefore apparently... YES!&lt;



The TA-183 had a snow ball's chance in hell to go supersonic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


&gt;&gt; I believe had the Ta-183 been futher developed there would have had a pretty good chance for it to do just that with the stronger jet engines being developed in germany at the time. In fact a few of these jet engines were in prototype form and were being tested. Allied scientists that saw these advanced protoypes were quite certain they would have worked but the germans blew them all up before they were captured. The german research into high speed flight,rocket technology and jet engine design was years ahead of other nations. Our own f-86 was first designed with a straight wing. It was only when german research data was looked at that we put a swept back wing on the f-86 which made made it capable of supersonic flight.&lt;

I believe your "If maddox didn't put it into the game then it isn't so biasis" is showing big time. You better do a little more research on your own into exactly how advanced the science of high speed flight was in germany at the end of the war..

You may want to start with the most obvious thing. The V2 Apparently The Germans found out how to control that at supersonic speeds and above. Where do you think they got the info? From aliens? In reality Germany was the absolute leader into high speed flight at the time and the Ta-183 was just the tip of the iceburg.


Hay we have the Larche in luft 1946 don't we with it's automatic landing controls that weren't even possible back then and it's "vodoo FM" from where the heck god knows they got it. You have no qualms about that whatsoever which in reality was the real "snowball in hell" aircraft here.

Yet apparently you can't accept whatsoever that maybe in the Ta-183 just might have been possible made to go supersonic given another years development? Like I said your maddox biasis is showing big time.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a fundamental difference between producing an unguided supersonic rocket, which is essentially a bullet shape with rear fins, and a manned supersonic aircraft, which is a far more complex form, in terms of aerodynamics and airflow.

For the Ta-183 to go supersonic it needs a SUBSTANTIAL redesign. Thinner wings, a new tail and an engine producing about 50% more thrust.

Besides, a foward swept wing is not a good example. High speed foward swept wings need MASSIVE amounts of strength, and flex considerably inflight.

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 01:01 AM
jaws 2002(mouth)<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Does it have the flying tail absolutely necessary to be able to control the thing at that speed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't know much do you really? Ever heard such a thing as supersonic delta wing numbnuts?


http://www.luft46.com/lippisch/3blp13a.jpg


Dr. Alexander Lippisch designed this ramjet powered interceptor in late 1944, much of the research coming from his work on the DM-1 test glider (see below). The wings were sharply swept back at 60 degrees, and there was a single large fin and rudder in which the cockpit was located. The ramjet was fed by a circular intake that protruded from the nose, and exhausted beneath the vertical fin at the rear. Research in the DVL high-speed windtunnel indicated that the P.13a had outstanding stability up to the maximum tested speed of Mach 2.6, and no unfavorable characteristics in the subsonic range. A liquid fueled rocket motor was planned for takeoff and to get the aircraft to ramjet operating speed.Since fuel was in short supply by this stage in the war, powdered coal was to be used in the ramjet.


http://www.luft46.com/lippisch/dm1-1.jpg

Slater_51st
04-08-2007, 01:09 AM
Saying something that really never made it past the paper phase "should" go supersonic is silly. Had the Ta-183 made it into the air, it would have been impressive, no doubt. Would it have gone "supersonic"? Definately not in level flight, and I can't say if it would have in a dive, but it's not something I'd want to risk my neck on.

As for the F-86 going supersonic first, October 1, 1947. George Welch took the XP-86 through the sound barrier in a shallow dive, a few days before Yeager and the X-1. IIRC, the X-1 holds the title as the first aircraft to break the barrier "in level flight."

-Slate

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 01:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:


There were fundemental design problems with the mig 15 that's why. When the american's tested a captured one out they found this out. In fact right in the cockpit I believe there was a warning not to go over a certain mach number. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then how did you get to the conclusion that the early rushed drawing, from 1944, called Ta-183 had a better chance to go supersonic?

&gt; Because german research into the field of high speed flight and axial flow jet engines was far more more advanced then any nation in the world at that time. I believe Germany was also the only nation to have to have a wind tunnel capable of supersonic speeds and above too. Actually if you look at the so called by you.."rushed drawings.." the Ta-183 was in the finally stages of development. In fact the Ta-183 was only the tip of the iceburg into german aircraft design and research into high speed flight.&lt;

Does the Ta-183 have thinner wing?

&gt;Yes in fact it does have a very thin wing and is designed that way. It is also swept back too.&lt;


Does it have the flying tail absolutely necessary to be able to control the thing at that speed?

&gt; I believe it you check the outer ailerons work together as an elevator substitute. This may have help control it at very high speeds.&lt;


Are you sure the engine was designed to take the shockwave?
The answer is NO.


&gt; The engine being buried in the fuselage wouldn't have needed it. The F-86 went supersonic in dives and wasn't designed to take a supersonic shockwave either. It apparently still worked just fine. The answer is therefore apparently... YES!&lt;



The TA-183 had a snow ball's chance in hell to go supersonic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


&gt;&gt; I believe had the Ta-183 been futher developed there would have had a pretty good chance for it to do just that with the stronger jet engines being developed in germany at the time. In fact a few of these jet engines were in prototype form and were being tested. Allied scientists that saw these advanced protoypes were quite certain they would have worked but the germans blew them all up before they were captured. The german research into high speed flight,rocket technology and jet engine design was years ahead of other nations. Our own f-86 was first designed with a straight wing. It was only when german research data was looked at that we put a swept back wing on the f-86 which made made it capable of supersonic flight.&lt;

I believe your "If maddox didn't put it into the game then it isn't so biasis" is showing big time. You better do a little more research on your own into exactly how advanced the science of high speed flight was in germany at the end of the war..

You may want to start with the most obvious thing. The V2 Apparently The Germans found out how to control that at supersonic speeds and above. Where do you think they got the info? From aliens? In reality Germany was the absolute leader into high speed flight at the time and the Ta-183 was just the tip of the iceburg.


Hay we have the Larche in luft 1946 don't we with it's automatic landing controls that weren't even possible back then and it's "vodoo FM" from where the heck god knows they got it. You have no qualms about that whatsoever which in reality was the real "snowball in hell" aircraft here.

Yet apparently you can't accept whatsoever that maybe in the Ta-183 just might have been possible made to go supersonic given another years development? Like I said your maddox biasis is showing big time.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a fundamental difference between producing an unguided supersonic rocket, which is essentially a bullet shape with rear fins, and a manned supersonic aircraft, which is a far more complex form, in terms of aerodynamics and airflow.


&gt;You think a ballastic missile isn't a complex proposition compaired to a supersonic airplane? Hardly.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Tell that to the North Koreans that keep trying to build one on their own.&lt;

For the Ta-183 to go supersonic it needs a SUBSTANTIAL redesign. Thinner wings, a new tail and an engine producing about 50% more thrust.

Besides, a foward swept wing is not a good example. High speed foward swept wings need MASSIVE amounts of strength, and flex considerably inflight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


&gt; It had thin wings already. The tail could have easily lowered if needed and the engines were already in development..&lt;


The basic design of forward swept wings is novel and sound was all I was trying to point out here.

What bothers me is people thinking that the germans weren't capable of a supersonic jet design. They were three quarters of the way and more there!

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 02:02 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slater_51st:
Saying something that really never made it past the paper phase "should" go supersonic is silly. Had the Ta-183 made it into the air, it would have been impressive, no doubt. Would it have gone "supersonic"? Definately not in level flight, and I can't say if it would have in a dive, but it's not something I'd want to risk my neck on.

&gt; Hardly a silly idea and saying it is doesn't make it so given it's swept wing design and given german advanced jet engine technology developments. As it was no, given the jet engine it had at this time but much more powerful engines were in development. The technology was rushed and this is what would have made it a problem to fly. Given a bit more time as luft 46 points to and it might have been a very effective fighter.

As for the F-86 going supersonic first, October 1, 1947. George Welch took the XP-86 through the sound barrier in a shallow dive, a few days before Yeager and the X-1. IIRC, the X-1 holds the title as the first aircraft to break the barrier "in level flight."

&gt;Actually in reality I believe this record first goes to the germans(unoffically of course) in an advanced version of the me-163b with twin rocket engines they were testing in 1944...702 mph at 14,000 ft.&lt;

Btw, before someone points out that it doesn't have a "flying tail;" for supersonic flight control again the Ta-183 has advanced "eleveons" and the tail is their only for stability and as a trim feature. For this reason the ta-183 would be much more stable in the transonic region then if it only had traditional common elevator surfaces....

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 02:17 AM
actually if they ever add anymore aircraft to the game this is what I would vote for..


http://www.luft46.com/lippisch/3blp13a.jpg

luftluuver
04-08-2007, 03:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision: What bothers me is people thinking that the germans weren't capable of a supersonic jet design. They were three quarters of the way and more there! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What bothers me is the people here who think the Germans were some kind of aeonautical gods. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The technology was rushed and this is what would have made it a problem to fly. Given a bit more time as luft 46 points to and it might have been a very effective fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well it was developed further in the Puiqui and this a/c was not so great. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The german research into high speed flight,rocket technology and jet engine design was years ahead of other nations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Your education is lacking. Rockets yes but not axial flow engines. Do a search on the engines by Metropolitan-Vickers. Ever hear of the Lockheed L-1000 engine?

As for advanced a/c, never heard of the 1940 design Lockheed L-133 then have you?

NSAdonis85
04-08-2007, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 stalkervision: What bothers me is people thinking that the germans weren't capable of a supersonic jet design. They were three quarters of the way and more there! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What bothers me is the people here who think the Germans were some kind of aeonautical gods. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They where, they knew about swept wing for instance long before either the US or USSR ones, and after years of (needless) research, both came to the same conclusion.

And the Ta-183 wasn't a rushed design of 1944, it was started out in 1942!

luftluuver
04-08-2007, 05:32 AM
There was swept winged a/c flying before WW1.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And the Ta-183 wasn't a rushed design of 1944, it was started out in 1942! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Try again. The Fw P V of Jan 1944 led to the Ta183.

Kocur_
04-08-2007, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
The basic design of forward swept wings is novel and sound was all I was trying to point out here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Novel? Google for Ju-287 or Tsybin.

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 stalkervision: What bothers me is people thinking that the germans weren't capable of a supersonic jet design. They were three quarters of the way and more there!


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>What bothers me is the people here who think the Germans were some kind of aeonautical gods. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

&gt; Not gods just very well funded government military researchers. We probably would have had similiar success had the govrnment funds our research into these fields a whole lot more...&lt;


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The technology was rushed and this is what would have made it a problem to fly. Given a bit more time as luft 46 points to and it might have been a very effective fighter.





</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well it was developed further in the Puiqui and this a/c was not so great. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


&gt; I don't believe the Puiqui benefited from a much more advanced german jet engine either. I fly a Puiqi in WOV as an add-on and it flies quite well. I have shot many a mig 15 down with it and I bet it could take on a f-86 with sucess too.&lt;


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The german research into high speed flight,rocket technology and jet engine design was years ahead of other nations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Your education is lacking. Rockets yes but not axial flow engines. Do a search on the engines by Metropolitan-Vickers. Ever hear of the Lockheed L-1000 engine?

As for advanced a/c, never heard of the 1940 design Lockheed L-133 then have you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually I am aware of it's limited developmental research in the usa. Apparently it wasn't funded by the government so it went no where like most of the projects our top researchers tried to get the govenment to fund. Like I said our scientist would have probaly had much more sucess in the jet field had they been funded like the germans.


" As far back as 1939, Lockheed engineers Clarence R. "Kelly" Johnson and Hall L. Hibbard had been interested in jet propulsion for aircraft, and had actually engaged in various paper projects. In particular, Lockheed had done some preliminary work on a company-financed project designated L-133 which had progressed to several different versions on the drawing board, culminating in the Model L-133-02-01, which was a canard design powered by a pair of Lockheed-designed L-1000 turbojet engines. The USAAF was not particularly interested in any of these projects and declined to finance any of them, so none of them ever progressed past the preliminary concept stage. However, spurred by reports from England on progress there with jet propulsion, and perhaps even more so by intelligence reports of German and Italian advances in the area of jet propulsion, the USAAF suddenly began to show more interest in jet-powered combat aircraft."


In America, General Electric engineers developing the turbo-supercharger discussed the potential for transforming their device into a turbo-jet but never initiated a serious project. Only the Lockheed Co. was committed to jet propulsion, with their sponsorship of a combination of Nathan Price's L-1000 axial flow turbo-jet and Kelly Johnson's L-133 high-speed fighter. It was a bold initiative that won modest support from Wright Field. Unfortunately,

"the L-1000 design was too advanced for timely development and did not mature into a production engine."

&gt; where as german jet engines were funded and developed futher into working engines by this time.. huh? &lt;

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
The basic design of forward swept wings is novel and sound was all I was trying to point out here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Novel? Google for Ju-287 or Tsybin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

forward swept wings were pretty "novel" to the rest of the world but apparently not in germany huh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 07:39 AM
Some people here have to stop being so touchy about the german's having developed technogogies beyond our own in ww2. Had our scientist receive similiar support ,funding and direction into building advanced aircraft,jet engines and advanced weapons no doubt we would have had similiar success. We had some great researchers and aeronautical minds here in the usa they just weren't supported and funded enough and had to play major catchup toward the end and after the war...

luftluuver
04-08-2007, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">&gt; I don't believe the Puiqui benefited from a much more advanced german jet engine either. I fly a Puiqi in WOV as an add-on and it flies quite well. I have shot many a mig 15 down with it and I bet it could take on a f-86 with sucess too.&lt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
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/sadeyes.gif

Yes when you are a war mongering nation like Germany was you put money and development into weapons of war.

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">&gt; I don't believe the Puiqui benefited from a much more advanced german jet engine either. I fly a Puiqi in WOV as an add-on and it flies quite well. I have shot many a mig 15 down with it and I bet it could take on a f-86 with sucess too.&lt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
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/sadeyes.gif

Yes when you are a war mongering nation like Germany was you put money and development into weapons of war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germany threw tons of money into advanced war research projects before and during the war. The usa was still on a peace time war footing primarily until it was attacked by Japan as was Britian with germany..


Here is an example. Robert Goddard was the modern pioneer of space flight and rocket science. The germans got a lot of info from what he was doing. They surpassed his research by a huge margin when the german military put major funding into rocket research. Godard had little funding and could never hope to match waht the german achieved although he started many many years before the war.

Jaws2002
04-08-2007, 10:31 AM
With decent funding and research Ta-183 could have became a supersonic plane in...like.... two weeks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

NSAdonis85
04-08-2007, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
There was swept winged a/c flying before WW1.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And the Ta-183 wasn't a rushed design of 1944, it was started out in 1942! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Try again. The Fw P V of Jan 1944 led to the Ta183. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

In late 1942, Focke-Wulf engineer Hans Multhopp headed up a design team that started aerodynamic studies for a new turbojet fighter. This culminated in 1945 as a fighter project known as "Huckebein" (a cartoon raven that traditionally makes trouble for others), also known as Project V (Project VI in some references) or Design II at Focke-Wulf and later to be given the designation Ta 183.

luftluuver
04-08-2007, 11:50 AM
Nice try. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif Fw Entwurfs 1 to 4 looked nothing like the Entwurf 5, aka Ta183.

luftluuver
04-08-2007, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Yes when you are a war mongering nation like Germany was you put money and development into weapons of war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Germany threw tons of money into advanced war research projects before and during the war. The usa was still on a peace time war footing primarily until it was attacked by Japan as was Britian with germany.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Is that not what I said? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Yes when you are a war mongering nation like Germany was you put money and development into weapons of war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Germany threw tons of money into advanced war research projects before and during the war. The usa was still on a peace time war footing primarily until it was attacked by Japan as was Britian with germany.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Is that not what I said? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually I pointed this out first. I didn't want anyone to have a hissy fit that the germans had one of the most advanced research centers in the world into high speed flight..
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
With decent funding and research Ta-183 could have became a supersonic plane in...like.... two weeks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The mig 17 was a 1.1 mach fighter and it had a 7500 lb thrust engine. It had a swept wing and swept tail. It also had convential tail elevator. The germans were running a 7500 lb engine very similiar to it at the end of the war.

The layout of the 183 was very similiar to it but was more advanced with the inclusion of elevavons for use in transonic flight stability. Had the germans put this engine in the 183 there is a distinct possability it would have matched the Mig 17's performance.

I ask you this serious question if you are adult enought to answer it seriously. Which do you think was more possible? A 183 doing mach 1.1 or a Larche actually ever flying like it does in the game..?

stop being such a "ubi-tool" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 02:37 PM
this is right from maddox...

Heinkel Lerche III

We used the Heinkel Lerche II as the basis. However, after modeling the plane we've discovered serious deficiencies in design, and were forced to make many changes to make this plane suitable for combat. Modeled precisely to original specifications, this plane would never take off.

Correspondingly, we've made the following changes:

Increased the fuselage cross-section;
Installed more powerful supercharged engines;
Used the details of a captured Hs-132 prototype as the basis for the cockpit;
Replaced Hs-132's landing gear well for an access hatch;
Installed oil and water radiators into the circular wing;
For take-off and landing stability, we've added automatic gas-powered control surfaces;
Changed the landing gear and tail unit shape (as originally designed, the plane would fall over)


I would say also that for some German and Soviet projects or prototypes we also needed to invest changes, but which were not changing the external design of aircraft itself or cockpits, compared to changes needed to make for Lerche.

There is no mention of it's "extream makeover" in the read me flight manual on the plane whatsoever and even in this interview he doesn't mention the fact that if it probaly couldn't even fly let alone possibly land again in one piece given the state of automatic landing systems in ww2!

The 183 is a much more plausable aircraft isn't it? He seems not to have " invested it with similiar changes" to make it "airworthy" though..

Kocur_
04-08-2007, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The mig 17 was a 1.1 mach fighter </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BS. MiG-17 was a subsonic plane in level flight. First serial MiG to go supersonic in level was MiG-19.

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
[QUOTE]The mig 17 was a 1.1 mach fighter </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BS. MiG-17 was a subsonic plane in level flight. First serial MiG to go supersonic in level was MiG-19.

Mig 17 f 711 mph at 10,000 ft. (level flight is much slower as is the mig 19) limiting mach number 1.15

mig 19 902 mph mach 1.34 at 32,800 ft.

actually the mig 19 isn't supersonic at sea leval. 715 mph or mach.94

Kocur_
04-08-2007, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:

Mig 17 f 711 mph at 10,oo ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Level top speeds of MiG-17F:
@5000m - 1123km/h
@10000m - 1060kh/h
@12000m - 1038km/h

Source: Piotr Butowski "Samoloty MiG", ISBN 83-206-0606-3

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
(level flight is much slower as is the mig 19) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm..."Level flight is much slower"... So you actually meant to give Vne for MiG-17? Are you sure you understand difference between level flight speed and speed in dive and their relation to thrust and drag...?

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:

Mig 17 f 711 mph at 10,oo ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Level top speeds of MiG-17F:
@5000m - 1123km/h
@10000m - 1060kh/h
@12000m - 1038km/h

Source: Piotr Butowski "Samoloty MiG", ISBN 83-206-0606-3

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
(level flight is much slower as is the mig 19) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm..."Level flight is much slower"... So you actually meant to give Vne for MiG-17? Are you sure you understand difference between level flight speed and speed in dive and their relation to thrust and drag...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you ? The Mig 17's airframe is limited to mach 1.15 meaning with a more powerful engine it is possible for it to reach that speed..

You also said the Mig 19 was supersonic at sea level which it is not..

actually their speeds are quite similiar there.

btw I don't do km/hs translate please to the Kings measurments..

Kocur_
04-08-2007, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Mig 17's airframe is limited to mach 1.15 meaning with a more powerful engine it is possible for it to reach that speed.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if pigs had wings...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You also said the Mig 19 was supersonic at sea level which it is not.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quote me where I said ANYTHING about MiG-19 at SEA level.

Jaws2002
04-08-2007, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
btw I don't do km/hs translate please to the Kings measurments.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans just like the Russians used metric, so what's the point to translate it to Imperial. Why don't you do it? The rest of us understand it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Jaws2002
04-08-2007, 04:22 PM
I think is a real insult to the Mig-17 to compare it with the Ta-183. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You are comparing one of the most agile jet fighters from 60's with a ... " 1944 Woulda Coulda Shoulda" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-08-2007, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
where do you think they came up with this "snow ball in hell" idea? A clue is right in luft 46.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pfffffffffffft! Let me guess.. your coloring book says the B2 was a copy of the Go229 too.

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Mig 17's airframe is limited to mach 1.15 meaning with a more powerful engine it is possible for it to reach that speed.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if pigs had wings...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You also said the Mig 19 was supersonic at sea level which it is not.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quote me where I said ANYTHING about MiG-19 at SEA level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


"First serial MiG to go supersonic in level was MiG-19."

Normally supersonic flight is quoted at sea level.

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
btw I don't do km/hs translate please to the Kings measurments.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans just like the Russians used metric, so what's the point to translate it to Imperial. Why don't you do it? The rest of us understand it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

good then you will have no problem whatsoever in translating it to me in mph will you? Me I don't feel like getting out my calulator.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 04:33 PM
<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 stalkervision:
where do you think they came up with this "snow ball in hell" idea? A clue is right in luft 46.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pfffffffffffft! Let me guess.. your coloring book says the B2 was a copy of the Go229 too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently this is where you get all your "facts" since you bring coloring books up so readily. What daddy give the "big boy" one on general aviation for christmas... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-08-2007, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<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 stalkervision:
where do you think they came up with this "snow ball in hell" idea? A clue is right in luft 46.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pfffffffffffft! Let me guess.. your coloring book says the B2 was a copy of the Go229 too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently this is where you get all your "facts" since you bring coloring books up so readily. What daddy give the "big boy" one on general aviation for christmas... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Said the guy who thinks the B2 was a Lw46 design

Kocur_
04-08-2007, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Normally supersonic flight is quoted at sea level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF is this "normally"? "Normally" Bell X-1 was not supersonic plane then. Nonsense.

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 04:42 PM
I guess the "ubi-tools' have crawled out of their caves haven't they? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Just did some compairison dives in Luft 46 Gee the p-47 pretty well matches all the german jet aircraft with swept wings. Isn't that interesting? Also the Ta-183 always loses a wing in these dive but maddox claims the tail is the weakest part. Funny if you look at the Ta 183 construction the wings are double box beam construction and very very strong..

Oh and the wildcat will come apart at 1200 kmh though in actual real life it is one of the few planes that has no terminal dive speed redline being extreamly well constructed and airframe drag limited before it would ever come apart...

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Normally supersonic flight is quoted at sea level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF is this "normally"? "Normally" Bell X-1 was not supersonic plane then. Nonsense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at sea level..

Btw, you never ever answered any of what I said about the mig 17 being supersonic in a dive. It matches up quite well with the xp-86 in that region..

stalkervision
04-08-2007, 04:49 PM
well "ubi-tools" I have a nice juicy ham just waiting for me to enjoy. Have fun defending your master all by yourself for a while will you..? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

NSAdonis85
04-08-2007, 04:55 PM
<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 stalkervision:
where do you think they came up with this "snow ball in hell" idea? A clue is right in luft 46.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pfffffffffffft! Let me guess.. your coloring book says the B2 was a copy of the Go229 too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, just based on the same basic design principle ("flying wing" airframe).

The X-29s Forward swept wing from the page before this one is originally pioneered on the Ju-287. The idea itself dates back to 1936!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-swept_wing

ImpStarDuece
04-08-2007, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:

Normally supersonic flight is quoted at sea level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

?

Que?

Nani?

Comu?

What?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I konw I'm going to regret this, but I sincerly feel the need to quote Tagert on this one:

"Poor Nancy"

AKA_TAGERT
04-08-2007, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I guess the "ubi-tools' have crawled out of their caves haven't they? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't be so hard on yourself.. Your new.. You will calm down with time

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Just did some compairison dives in Luft 46 Gee the p-47 pretty well matches all the german jet aircraft with swept wings. Isn't that interesting? Also the Ta-183 always loses a wing in these dive but maddox claims the tail is the weakest part. Funny if you look at the Ta 183 construction the wings are double box beam construction and very very strong.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That is because real planes made out of real metal are stronger than napkins

Kocur_
04-08-2007, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Btw, you never ever answered any of what I said about the mig 17 being supersonic in a dive. It matches up quite well with the xp-86 in that region.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what it could reach Ma=1+ in dive? MiG-15 could too. In fact quite probably, if given initial alt high enough, any of them would reach supersonic in dive with no engine...

Its all about your initial statement:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The mig 17 was a 1.1 mach fighter and it had a 7500 lb thrust engine. It also had convential tail elevator. The germans were running a 7500 lb engine very similiar to it at the end of the war.

The layout of the 183 was very similiar to it but was more advanced with the inclusion of elevavons for use in transonic flight stability. Had the germans put this engine in the 183 there is a distinct possability it would have matched the Mig 17's performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since MiG-17's engine thrust was not enough to let it reach supersonic in level flight, one can not draw a conclusion, that Ta183 could do that, even if had an engine of similar thrust.

stalkervision
04-09-2007, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Btw, you never ever answered any of what I said about the mig 17 being supersonic in a dive. It matches up quite well with the xp-86 in that region.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what it could reach Ma=1+ in dive? MiG-15 could too. In fact quite probably, if given initial alt high enough, any of them would reach supersonic in dive with no engine...

Its all about your initial statement:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The mig 17 was a 1.1 mach fighter and it had a 7500 lb thrust engine. It also had convential tail elevator. The germans were running a 7500 lb engine very similiar to it at the end of the war.

The layout of the 183 was very similiar to it but was more advanced with the inclusion of elevavons for use in transonic flight stability. Had the germans put this engine in the 183 there is a distinct possability it would have matched the Mig 17's performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since MiG-17's engine thrust was not enough to let it reach supersonic in level flight, one can not draw a conclusion, that Ta183 could do that, even if had an engine of similar thrust. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

&gt; actually in testing the mig 15 in a full out dive I believe Chuck Yager nearly killed himself because it was nearly impossible to get the plane to come out. THe North Korean defector that turned over the plane to the americans confirmed the jet pilots were warned never to do this.

No the mig 17 couldn't reach mach 1 in level flight. It was just under it by a very small margin though.

In a dive I believe it world reach mach 1 just as the xp-86 did.


I also believe the Ta-183 would do the same thing. I believe with the 7500 lb pound engine it would also match the mig 17's performance pretty closely. In a dive it should be possible to go at least mach 1

stalkervision
04-09-2007, 06:27 AM
Just did some compairison dives in Luft 46 Gee the p-47 pretty well matches all the german jet aircraft with swept wings. Isn't that interesting? Also the Ta-183 always loses a wing in these dive but maddox claims the tail is the weakest part. Funny if you look at the Ta 183 construction the wings are double box beam construction and very very strong..

Oh and the wildcat will come apart at 1200 kmh though in actual real life it is one of the few planes that has no terminal dive speed redline being extreamly well constructed and airframe drag limited before it would ever come apart...

(all this when...)

There seems to be major allowences and changes for planes that never possibly could fly "the lerche"

Then they critisize and demean the ta-183 because because one scale model of it that was captured the tail fell apart..


but the strongest part of the plane with a double box beam and swept wing beside other strenghtening features added to it for high speed flight they model to come apart at the same high speed just like a straight wing p-47 with a straight elevator setup. At these speeds the straight wing 47 would already be suffering extreamly major turbulence over that straight wing long before the Ta-183 would. Not withstanding the 183 wing fails at the same time or before the 47. The tail which they said was a weak feature stays on though..

There is also the matter of the wildcat. In most of the literature about it it is mentioned that the wildcat has no dive readline. It's extreamly strong structure combined with it's parastic drag allow the pilot to dive the wildcat full out without worry of it coming apart. Yet one can dive the wildcat in the game and destroy it time after time.


Me thinks a little more through research needs to be done on many of the aircraft modeled here.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


well it's a flight sim game that sells for twenty dollars isn't it. "You get what you pay for"


That being said it is still fun to use as long as one doesn't mind a few minor inaccuracies here and there huh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


stuff on the ta-183 and other advanced german jets at the end of the war are pretty much conjecture and guesstimations anyway but the wildcat data is WAY OFF!


Like I said before though."__ __ ___ _ _ __ " http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stalkervision
04-09-2007, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Just did some compairison dives in Luft 46 Gee the p-47 pretty well matches all the german jet aircraft with swept wings. Isn't that interesting? Also the Ta-183 always loses a wing in these dive but maddox claims the tail is the weakest part. Funny if you look at the Ta 183 construction the wings are double box beam construction and very very strong..

Oh and the wildcat will come apart at 1200 kmh though in actual real life it is one of the few planes that has no terminal dive speed redline being extreamly well constructed and airframe drag limited before it would ever come apart...

(all this when...)

There seems to be major allowences and changes for planes that never possibly could fly "the lerche"

Then they critisize and demean the ta-183 because because one scale model of it that was captured the tail fell apart..


but the strongest part of the plane with a double box beam and swept wing beside other strenghtening features added to it for high speed flight they model to come apart at the same high speed just like a straight wing p-47 with a straight elevator setup. At these speeds the straight wing 47 would already be suffering extreamly major turbulence over that straight wing long before the Ta-183 would. Not withstanding the 183 wing fails at the same time or before the 47. The tail which they said was a weak feature stays on though..

There is also the matter of the wildcat. In most of the literature about it it is mentioned that the wildcat has no dive readline. It's extreamly strong structure combined with it's parastic drag allow the pilot to dive the wildcat full out without worry of it coming apart. Yet one can dive the wildcat in the game and destroy it time after time.


Me thinks a little more through research needs to be done on many of the aircraft modeled here.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


well it's a flight sim game that sells for twenty dollars isn't it. "You get what you pay for"


That being said it is still fun to use as long as one doesn't mind a few "minor inaccuracies" here and there huh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


stuff on the ta-183 and other advanced german jets at the end of the war are pretty much conjecture and guesstimations anyway but the wildcat data is WAY OFF!


Like I said before though."__ __ ___ _ _ __ " http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>