Indeed, nobody disputes this.

But the Jumo added a lot of weight forward too, remember?
Not only behind.
So correctly placed there is no need for additional weight.
In particular as the majority of weight seems to be forward in the Jumo 004.

http://deanoinamerica.files.wordpres.../jumo004_1.jpg

There certainly seem to be more bits n pieces in those 60% percent mounted forward on the wing.


Additionally check this out, from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Luftwaffe-...123503&sr=1-12

Attachment 9905

As we see Jumo jet, still straight inner wings.

So we are likely back to this:

++++

I think you need to take another look at my drawing!

And note the overlay I did of the BMW on the Jumo (bottom center)..

First look at the overlay of the two engines ahead of the cg and note that the BMW and Jumo occupy about the same space ahead of the cg. Which means 'very little' NEW weight was added ahead of the cg due to the replacement of the BMW with the Jumo. That is to say the two almost cancel each other out. By candled out I mean subtract the BMW weight that was there from the Jumo that is now there and you will see that very little 'NEW' weight was added ahead of the cg

Now look at the overlay of the two engines behind the cg and note that the BMW and Jumo do NOT occupy the same space behind the cg. Which means 'a lot' of NEW weight was added behind the cg due to the replacement of the BMW with the Jumo. That is to say the two do NOT cancel each other out. By candled out I mean subtract the BMW weight that was there from the Jumo that is now there and you will see that 'a lot' of NEW weight was added behind of the cg

Which means they would have to add weight ahead of the cg to maintain the cg due to the replacement of the BMW with the Jumo

Hope that helps!

tools, you need to read the 4 volume tome on the Me262 by Smith and Creek.

I realized my verbal descriptions can confuse some people, so I took the liberty of creating another drawing that shows what I was describing in my last post.. The red being the new weight the Jumo added.. I also added the swept wing area in Green.. See attached

Enjoy

Wow....this waste of bandwidth is still going on?

Would have been nice to learn something about the Horton....but instead I see it turned into another 'Germany was a nation of supermen who invented absolutely every thing ever....period!!! and history is written by the winners so it's all lies lies lies!!!'

The 262 was not so revolutionary, pioneering but not revolutionary, swept wings were a british invention (J.W.Dunne), the automatic slats were already on the 109......a Handley page patented design.

Oh and why doesn't Leicester Space centre say anything about Von-Braun?
My guess is because its simply a family based experience of a place with the purpouse of inspiring youngsters to look to the heavens and not be a monument to wars, nothing to do with re-writing history.

IMO Von Braun should have gone to the Nuremberg trials, he did after all design and build the V2 weapons that were indiscriminately slaughtering British civillians in that war, yes his glory and acclaim as the best rocket scientist ever was stained in British blood, he was just lucky he was needed to continue that research at the behest of the americans and their space race.

Sad but true..

I often wonder..

What would have been Von Braun's fate had Robbert Goddard not died in Aug of 1945 of throat cancer?

Though the rest of your post in personal opinion garbage, this last paragraph is something I'd actually agree to. The end does not justify the means.
That said, this thread was not for your personal education.

Garbage?......read the thread and you will se I speak the truth....check Mr tools4fools posts.

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

You are argueing like Ace. In that you take some ppl and their inventions and make them the creators of the applications derived of those, completly neglecting the point that what it is all about is brining new inventions together to really create something never seen before.

You support Ace, but then you bring in J.W.Dunne as inventor of swept wings.
So, where is the jet fighter Dunne's created to actually make use of swept wings?

Same story.

Exactly what it said. You complain about the content of this thread and it not beeing interesting enough? Do not read it then. Or contribute a bit more constructivly. At least Ace, Tools and me put more into this thread then just ranting and offending.

You have that 180 out..

Allow me.. The premise that I am working from here is the history channel types of history that one sees being stated as true history is anything but..

And my goal is to point that out each and every time I see it come up.. For true histories sake

In that the history channel types of history, that sells, is to portray the Me262, Go229 and V2as something that appeared out of thin air. That is to say the history channel type of history gives those watching, who don't know any better, the impression that nobody in the world knew what a rocket was until a V2 hit a target.. Or that nobody knew what a jet was until the Me262 shot down a B17.. Or that nobody in the world knew what a flying wing was until the US captured the Go229 and that Northrop reversed engineered it to build the B2

I have simply pointed out here that all these systems were build on previous work! That is to say they didn't appear out of thin air in Germany one day due to the worked of a German scientists nor was the technology passed onto the Germans via aliens

With that said

Robert Goddard was building rockets in the 20s, 30s and 40s
The US and UK had jet fighters in operation during WWII
Jack Northrop was building flying wings in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s

So all this stuff (V2 rocket, Me262 fighter, Go229 Flying Wing) was done way before the Germans did it during WWII, as in it did not just appear one day out of thin air

About the only thing mentioned in this thread that was unique to one nation was the development and employment of an atomic bomb.. And you can bet your bottom dollar splinting atoms to make a bomb was a much bigger achievement than the natural progression of the technology mentioned above.

No....I said Dunne invented the swept wing and just mentioned HP had the patent on the slats Messershmitt used, it seems you are the one making stuff up.

Neither swept wing or slats were that 'new', it's just nobody else was in such a hurry to design new things to rampage across the globe murdering people.

Dunnes work was research into stability not high speed flight.

Oh I am terribly sorry Mr Bewolf Sir......I didn't read the sign on the door that this was a closed club, yes constructive contributions like 'history is written by the winners blah blah', I shall strike my mention of the inventor of the swept wing J.W. Dunne as complete spam and historically innacurate and as for automatic slats.....well everybody knows anything automatic could never be a British design.

Wrong premise then, we had that before. There are no history channel kids here, ppl know "how" things develop. But if you go by this, I hope you also make sure in discussions that the Wright flyers or Bell also did not invent their stuff out of thin air.

And btw, The Go229 was not the first wing the Hortens did.

The UK had in the Meteor, which hardly surpassed conventional prop driven fighters of that time. The US had 4 pre production YP80ies in Italy that never saw any action. The P80 was a great design, but jet engines and later wingtip tanks aside, very orthodox.
The british had the Vampire, but it only got into service after WW2. Added to that, all these allied aircraft had centrifugal jet engines, probably better suited for fast production with WW2 technology, but ultimately a dead end.

You said that before, but I yet have to see your examples of allied ballistic missles, swept wing jet fighters and jet powered flying wings. Convince me.

Funny. I thought your line of argument was that "nothing" comes out of thin air?
Then you may want to study history in regards to the nuclear development and the bomb itself a bit more thoroughly.

Double standarts in action.

Not true, centrifugal compressors are very much alive and well, most small turbines have retained them because they are perfect for reducing size, there are a few turbofan engines that use centrifugal cores, quite a few turboprops for the same size reason, centrifugal compressors are less prone to surge.....not such a dead end, axial flow compressors simply reduce the size of the frontal face area to give the low profile desireable for sleek high speed designs but don't offer massive advantages in any other areas.

Like I said, the rest of the world wasn't in a hurry for war.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/video]


Pretty much sums this thread up.

What stuff do I make up?

True, the british had no need for that in India, Iraq and Africa when they came down on uprisings and rebellions against their empire. Or their bomber campaigns against civilians.
You want to continue this line of argument?

So what is your point? Tools and Ace are talking swept wings in the high speed department.

That is what WIki says about slats (funnily enough, I just wanted to check what british company invented the patent later bought by Messerschmitt to support your point)

Slats were first developed by Gustav Lachmann in 1918. A crash in August 1917, with a Rumpler C aeroplane on account of stalling caused the idea to be put in a concrete form, and a small wooden model was built in 1917 in Cologne. In 1918, Lachmann presented a patent for leading edge slats in Germany. However, the German patent office at first rejected it as the office did not believe in the possibility of increasing lift by dividing the wing.[4][5]

Independently of Lachmann, Handley-Page Ltd in Great Britain also developed the slotted wing as a way to postpone stall by reducing the turbulence over the wing at high angles of attack, and applied for a patent in 1919; to avoid a patent challenge, they reached an ownership agreement with Lachmann. That year a De Havilland D.H.9 was fitted with slats and flown.[6] Later a D.H.4 was modified as a monoplane with a large wing fitted with full span leading edge and back ailerons (ie what would later be called flaps) that could be deployed in conjunction with the leading edge slats to test improved low speed performance.[7] Several years later, having subsequently taken employment at the Handley-Page aircraft company, Lachmann was responsible for a number of aircraft designs, including the Handley Page Hampden.

Let me specify. Dead end for high performance fighter aircraft.

No? The Russians and the Japanese had quite some fun before WW2 in this regard.
Or do you, in typical anglo saxon manner, consider Britian "the rest of the world"?

Disagree 100%

But you are welcome to your opinion! S!

This.

Yeah those awfull Brits, if only they had followed the example of the other colonising Nations in the days of colonialism which was from a completely different age with different moralities, still the Jerries came along and showed us how it 'should' be done in a typically efficient way.

I'm not making a point, you were the one that asked why dunne didn't make a high speed swept wing.

I hope you paid attention tho the fact I never said slats were a British invention, I merely mentioned Messershmitts slats were a HP patent.

Sorry to butt in, but yes. That's our Germanic invader's influences and came after our Roman invader's influences. The French invader's influences only came about later, in around erm..1066 I think.;)

Edit: Forgot to mention the Scandinavian invader's influences which were spread throughout most of that period. Sorry. :)

:D

touché

You are aware that the Empire was Old Adis personal inspiration for a Greater Germany?

So, why then did you bring him in? There were paper planes with swept wings before Dunne.

And there I thought you implied it was a british invention. Which I thought, too, btw, before checking Wiki.

Honestly the 262 would have been better off with the british engines mounted in a similar way, sure they were a bit fatter but they were more reliable and produced alot of power, the Meteor was no slouch, it took some time before axial flow compressors became particularily good, whereas the centrifugal compressor is unchanged to this day

Local incursions hardly constitute world war and Japan ended up as part of the Axis anyway.
Anglo Saxon....isn't the Saxon part from Germany anyway? does that mean were the same?

Agreed to a point. Back then Axial did not provide much improvement over Centrifugals, centrifugals also being less complex.
Then again the problems the Jumos had were not down to construction or design, but lack of heat resisting materials. The Jumo Prototypes had a much longer service life and produced more thrust compared to the production models.

Local Incursions? like Japan in China? Russia in Finland? Germany in Poland?
What made this war another affair was the France and the UK did not declare war on Japan, nor Russia, but Germany alone.

The Angel part, too. And indeed you will notice that folks from the Netherlands, Denmark, the UK and northern Germany are pretty much the same.

Yes?......

Because I want to glorify the Brits as much as I can, I'm nearly out of breath from the frantic waving of my union flag here.

I knew it wasn't entirely, note it was a simultaneous and coincidental discovery between HP and Lachmann, I just thought it very relevant to mention it being an HP design that Messershmitt used.

wow.. It took me and tools a week of back and fourth to generate a page.. You two have generated 3 in less than 30 min! ;)

So? Why are human beings in Africa, India and the middle east up for conquest, human beings in Europe not?
I personally condone all of it, but that hypocrisis displayed, fingerpointing while standing on a huge pile of bodies, is highly annoying.

Welcome to the club

Observe and learn, Ace ; )
I need a beer now.

Make mine a double! ;)

Remind me of the Russia Finland bit? the first war between them ended in 1809 and the winter war of 39 started after WW2 had started didn't it?...I admit I'm not a massive history buff.
So Japan was at war with China.......not sure it was particularily relevant or any threat to europe at the time, but Germany invading poland was, not only that it was a contravention of the treaty of Marseilles, come on admit it, russia and japan's conflicts at that time are irrelevant to what started in Europe.

Yeah so imagine how frustrating it is when people who are effectively the same as you keep pointing fingers and saying 'Anglo Saxon mentality'

So what you are really saying is that Britain should have stayed out of the war because of it's past? and because we had an Empire we should have let little Adolf have a slice of his pie too?

Prost!

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

You are correct, it started two months after the start of hostilities in Europe.
Nevertheless The Uk did not do anything about it, despite Finland being a democracy, while Poland was an authocratic and rather agressive regime (the Germany/Poland hatrad did not develop out of thin air, either, btw. There is some history to it extending to after the end of WWI and has a lot to do with polish attitudes in the interwar years while Germany was a democracy.)

What I am aiming at is the the UK did not declare their wars out of humanitarian reasons, the way it is always displayed, but pure power politics following century old traditions.

Actually, I agree. But the british always complain about Germany starting it all, while technically, they declared war on Germany, not vice versa. Imagine Germany declaring war on the UK for invading the Falklands and then blaming you guys for starting it all.

Imagine 60 years, and pretty much all my life, finger pointing and blames from other nationalities simply for my own nationality, despite never having done anything that would justify such blames. Eventually you adapt. You have to look not further then current news all over Europe to know what I mean.

No, that is not what I am saying. I actually like the UK. I am actually glad they declared war. I am not even angry over the bombing campaigns at all. That is something Germany brought onto itself for following that gangster.
But I am highly annoyed at the hypocrisy displayed and the way a lot of british try to use those crimes as a knock out argument in any debate over that time.

What I am saying is that Britian should display a bit more modesty when it comes to finger pointing due to their own history, especially at current generation Germans. And also give credit where credit is due at times.

Now we are talking! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/er...smiley-004.gif

I honestly don't think it has been claimed as such, and old habbits die hard as they say eh!

We don't complain about it....seriously we don't, we just have a habbit of reminding people of it ;)
The rest of the analogy is a bit like Germany invading Poland and blaming the French.......Ordinarily the Brits could get on board with that but there was a small issue of a previous war ending in an agreement between us and Pierre.

Are you 60?.....I shall endeavour to be much more respectfull to my elder ;) kidding of course I know what you mean, I symapathise to an extent but somehow it pales when compared to the blame Britain faces for the Empire, the people that perpetrated all of that died centuries ago but for some reason in particular in the UK we are obliged to feel ashamed for being White Anglo Saxons.
Don't be too cynical, you should forgive the attitudes aimed toward an ideology of a campaign aimed at unifying Europe headed effectively by the Germans, Germany most avidly support the EU but on the other hand seem the least comfortable with providing the bailouts to keep it alive, ah the price of maintaining an empire.

I like Germans and am also glad Britain declared war.
I think your annoyance is quite misplaced, I really don't see evidence of any of what you say, it's just unfortunate that your contries recent history can so often be brought up in debate, this topic is a discussion on German innovation which sadly is only due to it's military ambitions at the time, so I don't see how mentioning the war is misplaced here to be honest.

Modesty? the UK is the epitome of modesty, just look at the June 1st update thread and see the measuring contest it turned into, the vulgar claims to how many thousands of aces nations had blah blah with a completely unnecessary yet unchallenged refference to how 'few' the UK had

despite the rant I maintain the sentiment of that hearty cheers and hope you enjoy that drink.

I haven't had a drink as yet, but would like to ask Beowulf a question which is seriously off-topic.

I used to attend the IPMS Scale Modelling Nationals in Telford every year. People from all over the world come to this event.

One year, a German chap was giving a talk on the Bf109, having written a book on the subject, and we met up with him and his friends in the bar at lunchtime.

Before the first pint of beer had even been drank, the German chaps were apologising to us for their country's actions during the second world war. All of us were around the same age, born in the 60s and so had no direct involvement in the conflict. As Brits, we found this a little embarrassing and were telling the German chaps that there was no need to apologise to those present for what happened in a bygone age.

So I wondered, is this something German people are advised to do when attending any event connected with militaria? Or is it that those specific individuals felt there was a need to do so?

Oh you would not believe home many ppl make it out be like that. These kinda debates almost always come down to this sooner or later. The "alien, superhuman" references playing on the Aryan masterrace bullocks is just the tip of the iceberg. (btw, why does "Iceberg" contain the german word berg, aka "mountain"? It is "Eisberg" in german)

let's Blitz Fritz, eh?=)

Just that we did not blame the french...well, for that at least.
Generally though I think blaming France is fine.

UK folks mostly blame themselves for the Empire. If you ask me because they subconciously realize blaming Germany and their own history do not go together too well.
I haven't seen much foreign press in this regard, though I may be wrong here.

The whole empire thing is a double edges sword, however.
The british and other european empires introduced european culture, ideas, customs and fashion all over the world, something that, purely from a business POV, still massivly benefits us all to this very day. Much of our wellbeing depends on that.

I do not think German innovation is limited to WW2. And I think that is what rubs a lot of Germans the wrong way these days, this implication that it must have been the Nazis with all that stuff. It ingores the developements before and during WWI and the interwar years, as well as modern Germany.

Well, I guess modesty is a culturally very relative term =)
Are those numbers correct, though?

Pfff, it takes a lot more before I take internet history debates so serious that I actually start to dislike people. Esepcially when it is, like in Aces case, just a game of wits anyways ;)

I'd say that depends. It also differes wildley depending on generation. I am speaking with a west german history in mind here, though. Eastern Germany is a different story and reunification created an interesting mix.

Those born before 1945 usually just stay silent, today there are not many left anyways, but they never talk about the war, really. That has to do with later german history, too.

Those born in the last years of the war and after eventually rebelled in the 60ies against their parents for what they did in the war. They are called the 69ers here in Germany. That year started the RAF and a turbulent soul searching for what really happend. They also tended to blame the generation before in the same ultimate fashion as for example other nations did at that time, rebelled against the establishment, which still had a lot of former Nazis in positions of power, which resulted in something of a mental split with Germany as a country. It is probably folks of this generation you encounted. They really had the urge to apologize and make up for what happend in the name of their parents. Nothing to do with any official or inoffical advisement.

This attitude had lasting effects up until the late 90ies. Reunification changed everything all over again, Ppl today pretty much have a more balanced few, are aware of the countries atrocities and the responsebilities that comes with that, but do not want to get bothered with Nazi blames every other debate. In general they just see a country that is succesfull and rather well off, are proud of that achievement and look into the future. I guess I can consider myself one of those.

Younger folks these days then again are pretty much in line with everybody else in Europe, displaying the whole range from radical nationlism to liberal patriotism. For them the war does not play a role bar a year in school where they learend what happend in those days.

These chaps as I say were all born in the 60s like the Brits who were there, but your response explains a lot. Thanks..:)

That was just a very general assesment. And as I said, the 69ers attitudes lasted well into the 90ies.

English is a Germanic language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language yes it's wikipedia but it was a quick link and I don't see much to dispute.

Well you obviously haven't appreciated that there's people around...(not necessarily German) who really do push that idea around.

Bally good show! what what!

I have seen it myself in other threads, I recall one famous MB avro thread in particular where the start of war was litterally justified on the basis that the treaty was a humiliation to Germany....effectively blaming the French for the start of WWII but forgetting why the treaty was made in the first place, and to cap it all look what happened the minute the treaty was contravened.

Interesting, I don't have the same experience.......but was the Empire really a bad thing? volcanoes kill people but they are what shape this planet, and back in that day and age Empirism was an innevitability, the civilised world had a hunger for expansion and they were willing to take resources from what they considered savages....so much has changed :grin:, India may have been able to enjoy a space programme without the British empire ever existing but you can bet your ass it would have been because of someone elses empire.

Absolutely it's not, but here on a forum based on a WWII sim on a discussion about German wartime develpoment at that time?

Here modesty means not 'bragging' or 'boasting' or other means of showing off particular attributes, to preserve ones modesty is to remain clothed or covered, I guess you believe the Brits have a tendency to brag about our higher moral stance with regards to the war etc, but we certainly don't brag about superior we are or crap like that, the British mentality is very much the 'plucky underdog' in that regard.

I have no idea how correct those numbers are, all I can say is I found no urge to immediately challenge them based on any feelings of innadequacy.

Certainly is, made it incredible easy to learn. In contrast, I hated French in school.

Still, "berg" in connection with another native english word is rather odd.

Nope, "appreciated" would be the wrong word here for sure.

Avro is an agent Provocateur with a passion. Much bigger complexes over the war then you (or me) appear to show at times. The responses are mostly in kind.

However, the Versailles treaty was a humilation in more ways then most british realize. It was not just the financial conditions and lost territories, it also had to do with some very odd plebiscits in the east, rape on a massive scale during the occupation in the Rhineland by the French. The fact that Germany agreed to the Armistice based on Wilsons 14 point plan which was utterly trashed later in the negotiations. The fact that all war guilt was pushed on Germany, despite the Kaiser actually trying to attempt demobilisation in his letters with the Russian Csar. There are fair treates, and there are treaties especially aimed and kick an opponent already on the ground. This behaviour was expected from the French, not from the british.
The Versailles treaty was the latter and though I do not approve of the Nazis, I actually DO understand why people voted for them back then, also in connection with the Great Depression.

Are you judging from todays moral POV, or the historical one? There is a huge difference there.

About bringing civilisation to other parts of the world....would you accept being swallowed by China? Or Germany? Despite them willing to develop your industries?

Still does not justify why german innovations back then and there defense warrents such comparisons. Germany has been an innovative area right throughout it's history, with the printing press or the automobile as some prominent examples.


We also may have some cultural misunderstandings here. In Germany there is a lot of pride in achievements and knowledge and that is widely displayed. Lack of education or downplaying what you managed is rather frowned upon. That may be what you understand as "bragging".

That said, I never percieved or got the impression of "plucky undersdg" when it comes to the UK. It was an Empire, during the time of WW2 "the" dominant world power. I never understood the underdog mentality in the face of the massive overseas ressources the UK had at it's deposal. That is what the Germans thought at that time, and if you believe it or not, no German even in 1939 cheered when the war broke out, especially regarding the expiriences of WWI (UK Naval blokade caused huge famines in Germany during that period. Millions died and even more so when the 1918 flu pandemic hit)

isn't ice simply an anglicised version of eis?

Appreciation is not always a positive acceptance but more a simple understanding of the way things are.

Ok but even if the treaty was a humiliation did it justify war? and why exactly did the Polish get hammered on that basis?
In times of depression a massive drive toward civil engineering could work just as well as military development....there was another option.

Not sure......just my POV

Depends how good their 'fire water is';)

I'm surprised you missed my point, the V2 was an innovation no? but solely for the purpouse of war, and this is a forum about a period of war.
any innovation outside of periods of conflict have not been particularily remarkeable by comparison to other nations, what I mean to say is that every developed nation have invented and innovated something it's not a capability unique to Germany but it is accepted Germany have been in the top of the list.

Yes....to a degree, it's less vulgar to brag about admirable qualities like hard work, but modesty is practically a virtue in the UK.

Well during WWII thats exactly what Britain was.

Disagree. Think logic.

If the engine would have mounted same way as the BMW, then it would have added 160kg in front of CoG.
It needs to be moved backward and have weight in the back, ohterwise you gonna have a shift in CoG forward. So some weight will have to be added in the back. Perfect balance, no need for anything else.
Not a single source supports your claim anyway.

Radinger and Schick, page 18

Before it ever had engines on the wing.

It mentions elsewhere, later in the development, that there was a problem with airflow over the inner wing and hence the sweep was continued.

About the V3, which got this inner sweep first:

Bah, I give up ; )

Most certainly not.
As in regards to german polish interwar history, just some of the more important bullet points.

-Access to East Prussia (cut off from Germany after WWI). The Weimar Republic made several proposals, all rejected.
-Attempts by polish nationalists to attack Germany after WWI to gain even more land
-Mistreatment of german nationals that were left in now polish areas. (Never saw any real sources over this, though)
-Some very odd plebiscits in the Region of Krakow. The result was 60-40 in favor of staying in Germany, instead the region was just split 60-40.
-The situation around the Free City of Danzig, which was under official supervision by the league of nations, but practically under polish rule.

During the Weimar Republic days, these issues led to a lot of tensions and a gradual build up of bitterness and almost hate towards the Poles, which probably explains the treatment of Poland in WW2.

(note: "explains", not "justifies")

The Poles probably have their own side of the story, the whole topic is only very sparsley covered in Germany, I yet have to find a comprehensive and encompassing source.

In regards to engeneering, absolutely. During that time period the autobahns were built, for example. Massive infrastructure all over the country took place. Unluckily the folks in power did not deem that enough and had their own ideas.

For von Braun it was a step towards spaceflight. He wilingly sold his soul to achieve that. Agreed to the rest of your post but one fact.

Everybody accepts the americans inveting the airplane, the british the steam engine, juust as a couiple examples. But when it comes to german inventions the debates are endless.
Nothing wrong with that. Just different.

I dare say that is what Britian did become eventually. It was not the case in 1939 when Germany faced the most powerful army on the continent, the French, and the British Empire at the climax of it's power.

Maybe another picture will help you see what I am saying?

In that the top view picture I showed you before appears to have confused you a little

So allow me to post a side view of the BMW P.3302 vs Jumo 004 (see attached)

Looking at the attached picture you can see I lined up the wings..

From the picture you can see the Jumo and BMW both start at the same point ahead of the cg.
From the picture you can see the Jumo extends out behind the cg much further than the BMW.

That is that 'red' area I showed in my last drawing

This additional mass that extends out behind the cg will have to be compensated for to maintain the cg.

And just to be crystal clear here.. I am not saying this is the reason the inner wing was swept forward! All I am saying is if this is the reason, it agrees with what STORMBIRDS said or didn't say, as in it could explain why STORMBIRDS did NOT come out on record and say the reason the inner wing was swept forward was to take advantage of swept wing theory

Hope that helps!

Maybe another picture will help you see what I am saying?

It clearly shows JUMO 004 with inner wing not swept.

I posted this image above btw.

As explained that if you put additional weight on the plane and you put it ALL forward you have a shift CoG forward.
So you will need to put some of that extra weight behind as well, just logic.
Anbd looking at the image you posted you will see that the Jumo is much fatter engine as well and has much more bits and pieces in front - it does put a lot of additional weight in front as well.
You try to make it look like only weight in the rear was added, which is false.

The books I quoted above say in their short introcductions the same as Stormbirds does - wings swept to correct CoG.
In their short overviews.
In their detailed development history they state 'inner wings' for CoG early in development and inner wings for said aerodynamic problems with airflow later, much later in development, using V3 which was used for high speed testing, with Jumo 004 already, as seen on the link posted above.

The reason why Stormbirds does not go into he detail is likely that they write about 'plagiarism' in that article - and not about developmnt history.
++++

Lot of nonsense in this thread.

The German contributions to swept wing research:

The German pioneers did contribute to Northrop's flying wing designs.

The aerodynamic center moves under compressibility increasing the stability margin.

Two common methods of handling this are:

1. Add drag to slow the aircraft down below compressibility
2. If the CG is within limits<for that condition>, the aircraft will recover.

If you want to make the elevator effective enough to recover the aircraft, it must not violate the forward CG.

The forward CG limits defines the point you can raise the nose.

Under compressibility, behind the normal shock, the dynamic pressure is greatly reduced and the flow subsonic.

I am sure Mtt was aware of this fact.

What happenend to your reply, Tagert?

Nobody fully understood swept wing theory until after the war. As the history notes, even Jones work in the United States was viewed with skeptism and far from mainstream.

Nobody fully understood the transonic and supersonic realms either.

What the Germans were, is far ahead of anyone else during the war. Their research became the foundation others like Northrop built upon.

It appears you missed my post where I explained there is more than one way to correct the cg..

So allow me to quote myself, i.e.

With that said it should be clear that your 'conclusion' is in error..

That being the cg was not affected, by the BMW to Jumo engine swap, because the inner wing was not swept..

Because they could have simply corrected the cg by adding mass installing internal ballast forward of the cg instead of adding mass forward of the cg by sweeping the inner wing forward.

Which is pretty standard stuff that is done all the time.. If I recall correctly, the Bf109 had a 60lb ballast weight installed rear of the cg to compensate for the heavier engines.

As I noted, it is not the optimal way of doing things, but it is an 'easy' way of doing what has to be done.

In that simple physics dictates they would have to correct the cg due to the extra mass of the Jumo behind the cg one way or another

But I digress

As to the 'reason' why the inner wings were swept forward..

I just brought up the possibility that the inner wings were swept as part of the cg correction process.. As in the fillets would add more weight forward of the cg. That and doing it for that 'reason' would agree with what STORMBIRDS said about the 'reason' the wings were swept, i.e. to correct the cg due to the heavier than expected engines.

On that note, up to now you have admitted that the outer wings were swept to correct the cg, but you contend that the 'reason' the inner wings were swept forward was to take advantage of swept wing theory..

Even though most if not all agree that 18 degree sweep is too small to achieve any significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number..

Which begs the question..

If the Germans fully understood swept wing theory..

Why would they go to all the trouble of sweeping the inner wings forward 18 degree is they knew in advance it would not increase the critical Mach number?

Which did not make any sense to me, so I started doing a little more research and I actually found the 'reason' the Germans swept the inner wings forward..

Granted I still consider STORMBIRDS the.. how did you say it? Qualified Authorities on the subject of the Me262

But as you know, for some reason, they had nothing to say with regards to the 'reason' the inner wings were swept forward, it is almost as if they went out of their way to say nothing. All we know for sure is that when given the chance to give the Germans credit for taking advantage of swept wing theory, they said nothing but to confirm that the outer wings were swept to correct the cg.

But I digress

During my research I did find a source that noted the 'reason' the inner wings were swept forward..

And guess what!

It had nothing to do with the cg or swept wing theory!

http://naziscienceliveson.devhub.com...or-compromise/

So to sum it up..

• The outer wings were swept to correct the cg.

• The inner wings were swept to correct the airflow separation.

Neither of which were done to take advantage of swept wing theory

Hope that helps! S!

Bingo!

Now maybe tools will belive me? ;)

That is not correct. It is impossible to argue that Mtt was not aware of swept wing theory.

Probably as result of the swept wing research and compressibility effects on the CG......

Mtt was obviously interested in adding futher sweep to the design.

While nobody fully understood swept wing theory, the Germans were light years ahead of anybody else.

In fact, Sir Sydney Camm, the designer of the Hurricane initially remarked, "Has anyone seen such a bloody useless" design concept upon seeing the German swept wing designs.

That is your opinion and your welcome to it.. But I think Ill stick with what STORMBIRDS and Jenkins had to say on the subject. S!

That is not my opinion Tagert. It is what is written in:

Given at:

Would you like a paper from Boeing summing up the German contribution to aerodynamics during WWII? I am sure you will hate it and be very disappointed.

You do know the father of modern fluid dynamics was not only German, there are pictures of him with von Kármán in the article.

Do you have a clue who Theodore von Kármán is and his role during the war?

The leading academics in aeronautical sciences were for the most part, colleagues and all knew each other before the war. Theodore von Kármán, the leading US scientist in aerodynamics, was a student of Ludwig Prandtl.

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

Well I don't know what else to tell you Crump

Other than I choose to take STORMBIRDS and Jenkins statements over yours with regards to the reasons why the Me262 wings were swept..

Why? Well I consider them to be more of an expert on the topic than you..

Please don't take it personal!

Which should be understandable when you consider the fact that Dennis Jenkins has written more aviation books than most people own or have read, and that the folks at STORMBIRDS clearly did their homework during the process of building reproductions of the Me262, that were so good that messerschmitt gave them continuation serial numbers

It just makes sense to go with what they said over what you said

Please don't take it personal!

But look at the bright side..

I did agree with what you had to say with regards to the Germans fully understanding swept wing theory during the war, when you said

But as for the details as to the reason the wing was swept on the Me262, Ill have to stick with STORMBIRDS and Jenkins

S!

Let's examine your sources and compare it to mine.


Stormbirds, it is the Me-262 project. A company with the objective of selling airplanes. They are not a scientific organization.

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/general/updates.htm

Your other source is Dennis Jenkins. A very knowledgeable man and a consulting engineer who spent 20 years working in the Space Shuttle program. However he is not a primary source nor was he there conducting research in wartime Germany.

http://www.amazon.com/Dennis-R.-Jenk...ntt_dp_epwbk_0

He wrote books for profit in other areas of interest.

The article presented at:

Is from a scientific organization and not for profit.

Once more, it comes directly from the horses mouth. The scientist involved were all friends and colleagues both before and after the war.

The author of the article knew these men and was a colleage.

Once more, it is impossible to say that Mtt was not aware of the benefits of swept wing design. They were the first company in the world to design an aircraft purposely to take advantage of swept wing technology.

So while the statement the Me-262 was not originally designed with swept wing technology is factual, it is not factual to claim it did not benefited from Mtt knowledge and the German leadership of the world in swept wing research.

Here is the paper from Boeing summarizing the contribution of German research and development during the war.

From a Letter written by Theodore von K´arm´an:
Notice the Me-262 has nacelles while the Me-163 and P-1101 do not.

In summary, you can form your opinion based off your commercial and far removed from the original, sources. They fit your agenda and you are most welcome to it.

I personally believe the scientist who were there from both sides and the engineers that did the design work both during and after the war.

The characterization that the wing sweep of the Me-262 was accidental is factually not correct. It is intellectually dishonest.

Now don't take this personal..

But I really don't care about what you 'personally belive'

All I care about is what can be 'proven'

If we don't draw the line there, than what is to stop those who 'belive' the Germans were assisted by aliens from outer space?

Answer.. Nothing

So with that said.. Ill have to stick with what STORMBIRDS and Jenkins said wrt the reason the Me262 wings were swept..

Why?

Well for one thing I consider them to be more of an expert on the topic than you..

That and if there was any 'proof' to support the connections your making.. they would have made note of it..

Especially STORMBIRDS who are clearly pro German tech biased..

But unlike you they have a reputation to consider.. Which probably explains why they stop short of saying and/or making the connections your making..

So with that said, we will just have to agree to disagree as to the reason the wings were swept on the Me262

S!

Of course, there is evidence to support all opinions on any subject.

http://www.ufodigest.com/

Our critical Mach number is raised by reciprocal of the cosine of the angle of sweep. So for 18 degrees of sweep we see a 1.05146 increase to critical mach.

So mach limit of Mach .8 becomes a new limit of .84.

Now at sea level that is represents a 30mph increase in speed!

Now the drag reduction is proportional to cos^2<angle of sweep>

Or a 9.5% reduction in drag.....

Not a bad call on the part of Mtt to add 18 degrees sweep based off their advanced knowledge of swept wing theory. By keeping the sweep moderate, they certainly avioded all the stability and control issues found with sweep angles and engine nacelles.

What is your opinion based on again?

So what part of we will have to agree to disagree are you struggling with?

I am confused on just what your opinion is now.

Any engineer or someone familiar with aircraft performance can easily tell you it does increase the critical mach number and the top speed.

What are we agreeing to disagree on?

:confused:

Agreed in that you are all over the place on this topic..

To sum it up

• The outer wings were swept to correct the cg.

• The inner wings were swept to correct the airflow separation.

And note..

Those are NOT my opinions!

I am simply agreeing with the folks at STORMBIRDS and Jenkins who said those two things

Hope that helps!

S!

OK....

I guess Stormbirds never picked up a calculator and I am sure you are focusing on minutiae taking Jenkins out of context to fit your agenda.

In otherwords, if someone asked Jenkins if the ME-262 benefited from 18 degrees of sweep angle, he would pick up a calculator and say:

Our critical Mach number is raised by reciprocal of the cosine of the angle of sweep. So for 18 degrees of sweep we see a 1.05146 increase to critical mach.

So mach limit of Mach .8 becomes a new limit of .84.

Now at sea level that is represents a 30mph increase in speed!

Now the drag reduction is proportional to cos^2<angle of sweep>

Or a 9.5% reduction in drag.....

Not a bad call on the part of Mtt to add 18 degrees sweep based off their advanced knowledge of swept wing theory. By keeping the sweep moderate, they certainly avoided all the stability and control issues found with sweep angles and engine nacelles.

What is your opinion based on again?

Amateurs...they should have gone for 19 degrees.

If I didn't know better..

I would get the impression that your claiming to know more about the Me262 development than the folks over at STORMBIRDS and Jenkins..

If so, than that is another thing we will have to agree to disagree on!

S!

Now why would anyone get that impression of him?

Well the odd things is that most if not all admit that the 18.5 degree sweep was too slight to achieve any real significant advantage in the mach number..

Even those who don't agree on the reason for the wing sweep admit that..

So he is really in the minority with this line of reasoning..

As for his claim that I am focusing on minutiae an taking Jenkins out of context to fit my agenda

Here is what Jenkins had to say about 18.5 degree sweep angle and associated mach number (in red)

As you can see Jenkin's comment consist of both pros and cons, and his comment wrt mach benefits of the Me262 18.5 degree wing sweep agree with the majority.

So as you can see from Jenkins comments, nothing was taken out of context on my part, no agenda on my part, no opinion on my part

All I am doing is agreeing with Jenkins comments!

I see this thread is going downhill fast and will soon be locked.

Why is it when a certain person shows up the thread goes downhill and is locked?

No, Jenkins paraphrases the results of flight test results of captured airframes

<sarcasm on>

Of course this was at the height of allied knowledge and design savvy on swept wing theory.

<sarcasm off>

I wonder what the test teams basis for calculating the gains from the wing sweep where when the formulation for estimating it was not in their possesion??

How could they make any estimation at all of the performance impact of wing sweep???

:confused:

Oh yeah, the couldn't.......but it was nice to hear their opinion in the report.

You need to read a little bit further past the part you put in bold to see where hecomments on the benefits of the 18.5 degree wing sweep

Allow me..

And as noted, Jenkins is not the only one to say that..

Most if not all agree the 18.5 was too slight to achieve any real significant advantage in the mach number..

Hope that helps!

S!

:rolleyes:

So..

You are saying that you know more about the Me262 development than..

• STORMBIRDS who build replicas of them..

• Dennis Jenkins who has written more aerospace books that most people own..

And now your including the people who actually tested the Me262 after the war?

Interesting..

Again, don't take this personal

But Ill have to stick with what 'they' said wrt the reason the Me262 wings were swept over what 'you belive' the reason was the Me262 wings were swept.

That is to say we will have to agree to disagree that you know more about the Me262 development than those people know.

S!

Who is most??



I guess Stormbirds never picked up a calculator and I am sure you are focusing on minutiae taking Jenkins out of context to fit your agenda.

In otherwords, if someone asked Jenkins if the ME-262 benefited from 18 degrees of sweep angle, he would pick up a calculator and say:

Our critical Mach number is raised by reciprocal of the cosine of the angle of sweep. So for 18 degrees of sweep we see a 1.05146 increase to critical mach.

So mach limit of Mach .8 becomes a new limit of .84.

Now at sea level that is represents a 30mph increase in speed!

Now the drag reduction is proportional to cos^2<angle of sweep>

Or a 9.5% reduction in drag.....

Not a bad call on the part of Mtt to add 18 degrees sweep based off their advanced knowledge of swept wing theory. By keeping the sweep moderate, they certainly avoided all the stability and control issues found with sweep angles and engine nacelles.

What is your opinion based on again?

So what part of ..

we will have to agree to disagree that you know more about the Me262 development than those people know

Are you still struggling with?

I will repost these for readers to access....

And I might as well repost these for readers to access....

Note not my opinion.. Just agreeing with what they said

Here is some good infomation on flying wings too.....

Not at all. I am saying what the AIAA relates from the scientist and engineers involved.

I am also demonstrating the benefits as per what is now accepted performance calculations for swept wing aircraft. You know, the stuff Von Karman talks about in his letter?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=155

I am saying:

You are focusing on minutiae and twisting it fit your agenda.

Our critical Mach number is raised by reciprocal of the cosine of the angle of sweep. So for 18 degrees of sweep we see a 1.05146 increase to critical mach.

So mach limit of Mach .8 becomes a new limit of .84.

Now at sea level that is represents a 30mph increase in speed!

Now the drag reduction is proportional to cos^2<angle of sweep>

Or a 9.5% reduction in drag.....

Not a bad call on the part of Mtt to add 18 degrees sweep based off their advanced knowledge of swept wing theory. By keeping the sweep moderate, they certainly avoided all the stability and control issues found with sweep angles and engine nacelles.

What is your opinion based on again?

Ah good so you agree with what STORMBIRDS and Jenkins said wrt the reason the Me262 wings were swept

Better late than never!

Anyway, it's late

Glad to see you comming around!

S!

Where does this saying anything about Mtt not understanding swept wing theory or the Me262 not benefiting from its 18 degrees of wing sweep over a straight wing??

You do know there are other methods of fixing this problem, don't you? It could have easily been fixed with twist.

Mtt did not have add the filet and increase the sweep.

Mtt was already flying the Me163 and started the design work on the P1101 variable geometry wing.

You certainly can make some great leaps of logic off a few lines of text.

First flight of the Me 163A V4 in 1 September 1941.

Only nine days after the specification was issued by the RLM (July 24, 1944), the first Me P.1101 had taken shape on paper.

Me262 pg 66 Smith/Creek
"By Feb 1940, the design of the P1065 had been modified to have the outer wings swept back some 18 degrees. Originally this was done to solve problems that heavier engine weights estimates were causing with the positioning of the aircraft's center of gravity."

It would seem someone has trouble with dates.

Ah I see where you are confused..

As far as I know, nobody in this thread has stated the Germans knew nothing about swept wing theory..

About the only thing that was pointed out on that subject is the Germans did not fully understand swept wing theory..

As you your self admited when you said

Hope that helps!

S!

Don't confuse the date Mtt got the contract from the RLM to start the prototype with the date the design was started.

The concept was completed long before the RLM issued their specification and awarded the money to Mtt to build it.

Really?

I would have to see the documents they refer too.

Niether one are engineers and most of the Luftwaffe was not either. Many times I have come across Luftwaffe documents with an erroneous explaination for engineering decisions.

The use of MW-50 in the BMW801 is filled with this to include memo's being issued to use a system the RLM technical office has to retract and clarify.

The fact remains that Mtt was heavilly involved by July 1942 in swept wing research and had gained experience flying swept wing designs.

It is a fact that in order to increase longitudinal control when mach tuck is encounted, you can move the forward CG to regain control power.

Swept wing research had been going on 8 years in Germany by the time July 1942 rolled around. In 1940, the LFA was sharing their research with industry leaders, including Mtt.

In fact, Mtt developed the concept, applied for, and recieved the patent for a variable geometry swept wing in 1941.



Mtt certainly understood the benefits enough during the design testing of the Me-262 to both modify the existing aircraft to add 18 degrees of sweep to increase the transonic flight envelope and to complete redesign the aircraft for later variants by adding 45 degrees of sweep.

Fact is they changed the wing from a straight wing to swept. I suspect they initially kept the center section straight to avoid the stability and control issues of a swept wing with nacelles.

It is simply not factual to argue that Mtt was unaware of the benefits of a swept wing and only "accidentaly" added wing sweep.

Ah I see where you are confused..

As far as I know, nobody in this thread has stated the Germans knew nothing about swept wing theory..

About the only thing that was pointed out on that subject is the Germans did not fully understand swept wing theory..

As you your self admitted when you said

As for the rest...

Ah I see where you are confused..

As far as I know, nobody in this thread is saying the wings were swept by accident..

All I am saying is the 'reason' the inner wing was swept to correct the cg, and 'reason' the outer wing was swept to correct the air separation..

And me saying this is not my opinion, I am simply repeating what the Me262 experts said, i.e.

Hope this helps!

S!

No the reason the inner wing was not swept is due to stability and control issues with engine nacelles. Tractor propellers and jet intakes forward of the CG exhibit a destabilizing force at high coefficients of lift. In a turn, the destabilizing force in wing mounted nacelles is not symetrical.

Adding sweep lowers and flattens the CLmax but extends the available angle of attack so that the wing achieves more angle for a lower coefficient. In otherwords, it increases the destabilizing force of the nacelles.

Mtt did not sweep the inner wing to reduce this effect. In the second design, they did not add sweep only because they understood the basic's of swept wing theory. Unlike anybody in the mainstream aircraft designers of United States or Great Britain at the time.

After flight testing though, the original high aspect ratio wing design CG limits were not suitable for the higher mach limits the outboard sweep allowed.

As an aircraft enters transonic flight, the progression of the normal shock moves the AC rearward reducing the elevators effectiveness.
Additionally, the downwash angle behind the wing is decreased due to the seperated flow behind the normal shock. This increases the angle of attack of the horizontal stabilizer which is the main cause of mach tuck.

An airplane originally designed to have a straight wing would need to expand the forward CG limits if you are to increase the elevators effectiveness if you are going to fly in the transonic realm.

Well duh....

What do you think raising critical mach number is all about?? That is the whole point of adding sweep!!

Behind the normal shock is seperated flow. If we increase the critical mach, we reduce the amount of seperated flow on the wing.

;)

Now don't take this personal!

But I am going to stick with the Me262 experts (Jenkins and STORMBIRDS) on this one..

Who said..

• The 'reason' the outer wings were swept was to correct the cg.

• The 'reason' the inner wings were swept was to correct the airflow separation.

It is nothing personal!

It is just when you consider the fact that Dennis Jenkins has written more aviation books than most people have read, and that the folks at STORMBIRDS surly reviewed all the research on the Me262 during the process of building reproductions of the Me262.

It would be silly to pick you over them!

But I still want to thank you for sharing your personal beliefs and opinions!

But to be honest, I really don't care about what you personally belive and your opinions!

All I care about is what can be proven.

I mean if we don't draw the line there was is to stop someone from posting in this thread that they 'belive' and are of the 'opinion' that the Germans were assisted by aliens from outer space?

So with that said I think you can understand why I drawn the line there..

I also want to thank you for information and calculations you provided!

But I am sure the likes of Dennis Jenkins and STORMBIRDS are privy to that same information/calculations and MORE and took it all into account during their research of the Me262 and their ultimate statements on the reason why the wings were swept.

Which begs the question as to why they didn't come to the same conclusions you did?

I suspect they wanted to..

In that the whole history channel 'the Germans were supermen' stuff sells these days..

Especially the folks at STORMBIRDS who are pro German tech biased..

But I suspect the stopped short of making the claims you made because they just could not find any real proof of the connections your claiming are there. That and unlike you they have a reputation to consider! I mean think about it, nothing would hurt their image, and thus sales, more than for them to say something they said was based on proof only to find out later there was no proof!

So with that said..

We will just have to agree to disagree as to the reasons why the wings were swept on the Me262

S!

Sure it was,

Design and development

Within nine days of the 15 July 1944 issuance of the design specifications for the Emergency Fighter, the Messerschmitt design bureau under Woldemar Voigt had formed a preliminary paper design for the P.1101. The aircraft which was developed initially had a short and wide fuselage, tricycle landing gear, and mid-mounted wings with an inner sweep of 40 degrees near the fuselage, and a shallower 26 degree angle outboard. The single He S 011 jet engine was to be mounted internally within the fuselage, being aspirated by two rounded intakes located on either side of the cockpit. The tail was of a V configuration, and mounted on a tapered boom which extended over and past the jet exhaust, while the cockpit was forward mounted, with the canopy integrated into the fuselage and forming part of the rounded nose of the aircraft.

By late August 1944, the design still in paper form had evolved into a sleeker incarnation, with the previously stout fuselage lengthened and narrowed with a conical nose section added in front of the cockpit. The double angled wing was also abandoned, with the outer wing of the Me 262 instead being adapted for the design. The design was further developed, and after the wind tunnel testing of a number of wing and fuselage profiles, the design was further modified and finalized, with the decision made to undertake the construction of a full-scale test aircraft. This finalized design and associated test data were submitted to the Construction Bureau on 10 November 1944 and the selection of production materials was begun on 4 December 1944.

On 28 February 1945, the RLM settled on a competing design, the Focke Wulf Ta 183, as the winner of the Emergency Fighter program. This decision was based in part on the considerable design difficulties being encountered by the Messerschmitt P.1101 design team. For example, the cannon installation was proving too crowded, the mainwheel retraction and door mechanisms were too complex, the fuselage needed a great number of “strong points” to deal with loads, and the anticipated performance had fallen below the RLM specifications due to increased weight.

The airframe, considered of no intelligence value after an interview with Voigt revealed its many design flaws, was put on outdoor display and became a favorite prop for GI souvenir photos.

As fro Smith/Creek, despite writing a 900 page tome on the Me262, they just pulled the CG and swept wing out of thin air.

Even as late as July 18 1943, the Me262 V3 didn't have the sweep to the inner leading edge of the wing. The results of the tests in the Gottingen high speed wind tunnel were treated with great caution by the company's project office.

Thank you for the laughs!! I guess you don't understand the fact your sources are not wrong at all. They only convey a portion of the story but their facts are correct.


The information I posted comes from:


You do realize that in the decades since WWII, we in the United States have had time to sort through the data compliled by the Germans. We have a much better understanding of their work and swept wing theory.

That is why those papers were published and presented at conferences for engineers and scientist.

In 1946 when the NACA and USAAF references your "experts" use were written, the United States had little to know understanding of swept wing theory.

Notice the P-80 had straight wings.....


Yes, the outer wings were swept to eliminate flow seperation!!

What do you think raising critical mach number is all about?? That is the whole point of adding sweep!!

Behind the normal shock is seperated flow. If we increase the critical mach, we reduce the amount of seperated flow on the wing.

Yes, the aircraft benefited from just 18 degrees of wing sweep!!!

Our critical Mach number is raised by reciprocal of the cosine of the angle of sweep. So for 18 degrees of sweep we see a 1.05146 increase to critical mach.

So mach limit of Mach .8 becomes a new limit of .84.

Now at sea level that is represents a 30mph increase in speed!

Now the drag reduction is proportional to cos^2<angle of sweep>

Or a 9.5% reduction in drag.....

Not a bad call on the part of Mtt to add 18 degrees sweep based off their advanced knowledge of swept wing theory. By keeping the sweep moderate, they certainly avoided all the stability and control issues found with sweep angles and engine nacelles.

Yes the center portion was adjusted to expand the forward CG limits!!!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...kmfr_LD2mjThuA

After flight testing though, the original high aspect ratio wing design CG limits were not suitable for the higher mach limits the outboard sweep allowed.

As an aircraft enters transonic flight, the progression of the normal shock moves the AC rearward reducing the elevators effectiveness.
Additionally, the downwash angle behind the wing is decreased due to the seperated flow behind the normal shock. This increases the angle of attack of the horizontal stabilizer which is the main cause of mach tuck.

An airplane originally designed to have a straight wing would need to expand the forward CG limits if you are to increase the elevators effectiveness if you are going to fly in the transonic realm.

The sources you quote are correct and the sources they use were written at a time when you could count on one hand the number of United States Aereonautical Engineers who knew anything at all about swept wing theory.

Well that is your opinion and your welcome to it!

But I am going to stick with the Me262 experts (Jenkins and STORMBIRDS) on this one..

Who said..

• The 'reason' the outer wings were swept was to correct the cg.

• The 'reason' the inner wings were swept was to correct the airflow separation.

It is nothing personal!

It is just when you consider the fact that Dennis Jenkins has written more aviation books than most people have read, and that the folks at STORMBIRDS surly reviewed all the data on the Me262 during the process of building reproductions of the Me262.

It would be silly to pick you over them!

But I still want to thank you for sharing your personal beliefs and opinions!

But to be honest, I really don't care about what you personally belive and your opinions!

All I care about is what can be proven.

I mean if we don't draw the line there was is to stop someone from posting in this thread that they 'belive' and are of the 'opinion' that the Germans were assisted by aliens from outer space?

So with that said I think you can understand why I drawn the line there..

I also want to thank you for information and calculations you provided!

But I am sure the likes of Dennis Jenkins and STORMBIRDS are privy to that same information/calculations and MORE and took it all into account during their research of the Me262 and their ultimate statements on the reason why the wings were swept.

Which begs the question as to why they didn't come to the same conclusions you did?

I suspect they wanted to..

In that the whole history channel 'the Germans were supermen' stuff sells these days..

Especially the folks at STORMBIRDS who are pro German tech biased..

But I suspect the stopped short of making the claims you made because they just could not find any real proof of the connections your claiming are there.

That and unlike you they have a reputation to consider!

I mean think about it, nothing would hurt their image, and thus sales, more than for them to say something they said was based on proof only to find out later there was no proof!

So with that said..

We will just have to agree to disagree as to the reasons why the wings were swept on the Me262

S!

Right!!

Why the heck would anyone think they just did it out of thin air???

Of course they did not, the Germans had 7 years of swept wing theory research and development behind them. Not only that, Mtt was a leader in the German aviation industry with swept wing designs already in flight!!

It is silly to try and make the case they did not know or consider it when they added wing sweep to the Me-262!!

And rightly so!

Swept wing theory was in it's infancy, and as with any new technology that translates into proceeding with caution.

I mean that is something we all seem to agree one, even Crummp said the following on the topic

So it is clear to everyone that this was new territory that could have gone either way.

Fixed that for ya! ;)

Learn about aerodynamics and aeronautical science. There are plenty of references out today on swept wing theory.

Thanks the Germans we have a good understanding of swept wing theory and we have a very detailed mathmatical model with the ability to predict behaviors.

We, meaning the world scientific community has improved upon it, but it was Germans who provided the basic foundation. framework, and direction.

Keep in mind, the United States had one scientist who was working on swept wing theory. His ideas were not accepted by the mainstream.

The United Kingdom had no one at all and their top designers thought swept wing theory was "bloody useless". Unfortunately, their swept wing pioneers were limited to toy gliders with rare exceptions pre-dating WWI.

http://www.aviationclassics.co.uk/ne...ing-technology

Is it surprising to anyone that the Allies had little understanding or ability to explain the German design decisions on the Me-262?

It is not my opinion Tagert. It is how it works.

Pick up a aeronautical sciences book on swept wing theory and read it.

I have and during that process I have learned that it is best to go with the experts in the filed over self proclaimed experts in a flight sim forum.. Again nothing personal! I just think most here would agree that it would be silly to take your word on it over theirs.

S!

Well that is your opinion on your opinion and your welcome to it!

But I am going to stick with the Me262 experts (Jenkins and STORMBIRDS) on this one..

Who said..

• The 'reason' the outer wings were swept was to correct the cg.

• The 'reason' the inner wings were swept was to correct the airflow separation.

It is nothing personal!

It is just when you consider the fact that Dennis Jenkins has written more aviation books than most people have read, and that the folks at STORMBIRDS surly reviewed all the data on the Me262 during the process of building reproductions of the Me262.

It would be silly to pick you over them!

But I still want to thank you for sharing your personal beliefs and opinions!

But to be honest, I really don't care about what you personally belive and your opinions!

All I care about is what can be proven.

I mean if we don't draw the line there was is to stop someone from posting in this thread that they 'belive' and are of the 'opinion' that the Germans were assisted by aliens from outer space?

So with that said I think you can understand why I drawn the line there..

I also want to thank you for information and calculations you provided!

But I am sure the likes of Dennis Jenkins and STORMBIRDS are privy to that same information/calculations and MORE and took it all into account during their research of the Me262 and their ultimate statements on the reason why the wings were swept.

Which begs the question as to why they didn't come to the same conclusions you did?

I suspect they wanted to..

In that the whole history channel 'the Germans were supermen' stuff sells these days..

Especially the folks at STORMBIRDS who are pro German tech biased..

But I suspect the stopped short of making the claims you made because they just could not find any real proof of the connections your claiming are there.

That and unlike you they have a reputation to consider!

I mean think about it, nothing would hurt their image, and thus sales, more than for them to say something they said was based on proof only to find out later there was no proof!

So with that said..

We will just have to agree to disagree as to the reasons why the wings were swept on the Me262

S!

Here you go Tagert,

A good simple primer on the basis of swept wing theory.

http://www.desktop.aero/appliedaero/...eeptheory.html

No need I have several books on the subject, that I have read by the way!

But I am still incline to go with the experts statements over yours and even my own for that mater!

But thanks for the link!

S!

Good, try opening them and reading. If you need help understanding them I am sure somebody can help you.

+100000