Horton
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BbXK...feature=g-vrec
"A game changer!"
Sorry it's in German

Viking

Just post the original

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ap2xXdOzg

Yes off course! I wasn't looking hard enough, partly because I was so happy my German is still so good, haven't used it for years. Thank you.

Viking

Saw that show..pretty awesome. If I remember correctly, the even painted a swastika on the tail. I was quite surprised the PC police even allowed that.

I cannot help to think about the copyright problems that we had in Sturmovik when I see this documentary. Is OK to build a copy of the Horton today without permission and who own the rights to it?

well the two Horten brothers both died in the 90s (one in Argentina and one in Germany), I doubt anybody can (or would want to) claim anything over their designs.

Stealth by accident, not by intent.

The Northrop flying wings were the same. Very hard to see on radar at the time, but no one gave much thought to that aspect of their design then.

Just that Northrop up to the B2 hardly ever build a pure flying wing, but always used some kind of vertical stabilizers directly or in form of their engine setup. One of the great two pioneers (Northrop, Horten) nevertheless.

The thing about intentional stealth is debateable.
On the one hand, Germany did experiment with radar absorbing materials, U-Boats for example got a special coating for just that purpose. It's not far fetched to think that the Luftwaffe had their own interests in this regard and observed that development. The paint on the original Horton also has some Radar absorbing tendencies.

On the other hand, neither any documents from that period (those few left), nor direct testimony of the Horton brothers ever gave evidence over the Horten Bother's intention in that direction. This makes the whole debate purely speculative.

yeah, frankly I think that the choices for construction material for the Horten were based mainly on these aspects:

1) scarce raw materials.
2) lightweight construction
3) easier and cheaper to build

As you said there's no evidence to support the research in that anti-radar technology direction, if anything because if used properly the jets undoubtedly had a tactical advantage.

Maybe they choose wood because that's what they used for all of their gliders before?

If they really intended mixed charcoal dust in with the wood glue to absorb radar or for what else reason they did it, well, guess that can't be proven anymore either way.

maybe, again there's no certainty, you need to bear in mind that the primary need was structural flexibility and resistance to high G-loads, so the use of carbon layers was probably meant to address that more than radar stealth.

This is something that could be also verified in the RLM specs for the project, I doubt the Horten brothers would have bothered to come out with an idea on a field they probably didn't have a lot of info about(radar technology), especially because it was under strict secrecy at the time.

Who knows, had the Horten's continued to work on their projects post war they too may have found the need to do the same.

The only thing we know for sure is that the B2 was not based on a Horten design.

Well anything is debatable..

Thus the question should be is there anything that would be considered proof that they intended it to be stealth..

Time has a funny way of 'adding' to the myths..

Take the Me262 for example, ask your average History Channel watcher what was the first 'intentional' swept wing jet design and most will tell you it was the Me262.. When in fact the initial design of the Me262 had straight wings, they were swepted back NOT to take advantage of swepted wing aspects, they were swepted back to account for the lager than expect engine size/weight to correct the cg. Another example good example is the V2 rocket.. Ask your average history Channel watcher where some of the major V2 component designs came from.. Like the fuel pump, thrust steering veins, etc and they would say Von Braun came up with that during the war, when in fact those, and many other components used on the V2 were based on Robert Goddard's designs that he used in the 20s and 30s on his rockets.

Was it radar absorbing material? I thought they used rubberized coatings on Subs to absorbe sonar, not radar.

Agreed 100%

It's as well widely known that those who win wars rewrite history...

Which was true of wars in the past where winner takes all..

As in the loosers country no longer exists post war.. other as than slaves to the winners..

But in the 20th century..

Where one nation simply beats down another..

And than helps rebuild the beaton down nation

That sort of re-wirte is much Much MUCH harder to do..

In that the beat down country still exits and thus has input on history.

Now with that notion (diversion topic) put aside..

Is there anything I said that you feel was re-writen by someone?

For example

Are you saying the B2 was based on a Horten design?

Or

Are you saying the Me262 was initally a swept wing design?

Or

Are you saying the fuel pumps in the V2 were not based on a Goddard design?

It still done and they are still trying. Modern communication technologies make the situation even worse - it's more and more difficult to filter the information and misinformation.

How would I know?

This images shows a swept outer wing even without jet engines:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...-me-262-v1.jpg

And even if it was purely to correct the CG - this claim is as unconfirmed as the opposite claim to me - then why did they later on introduce the sweep to the inner section as well (which was obviosuly not needed for CG)? And why were other projects of the swept wing variant too? There sure has been done research regarding the swept wing in the 30ies as well.

At the end the real truth lies probably somewhere inbetween.
And the bottom line stays the same - first fighter plane with swept wing.

The V2 rocket was sure incoporating existing designs, in fact most innovative designs did. After all it is a learning and improving process.

But bottom line is that it was the first ballistic missile.

And what is someone trying to say when putting up that it was Goddards parts/inventions?
'Hey he used Goddards design ideas, so it wasn't really that much of an achievement'?
Well that's already bending history in my opinion. There's much more subtle ways to do it than just blatant lies.

Funny enough the article in wiki states:
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard

"the official US history'...that has me alarm bells going off.
I do not blindly believe in that "official US history". There is no reason why this US history would be the true and only version.

When it was decided that the B2 design would be a flying wing they sure looked at exisiting data of flying wings. They would have been stupid not to. However they would have look at their own designs, there's sure more data available from those.

Have you guys been to the Space Centre in Leicester? I was quite surprised to see there was no mentioning of Werner Von Braun there.. I wasn't expecting to see the V2, but at least him among the fathers of missile development..

Note I never said they don't try, sure they try.

But your missing the point, That 'old' saying of the winner write history applies more to ancient history. Where after the war there were no looses left to talk about the war (the winners killed them all) just the winners. Thus very easy for the winners to write history. With that said, the fact that Germany still exists means the story of WWII 'history' is NOT a one sided story.

Agreed.. It is harder but not impossible.

For example, the examples I already provided where the Me262 was not the first swept wing design and the V2 rocket was not something the rest of the world never heard of until the Germans build one. Yet that is the history they 'try' to 'sell' today

Do some research beyond the history channel, to filter out some of that 'noise' you noted above.

Well I would expect them to have to fudge the outer wings to account for the lack of engines, from that picture it appears that bent part start at the location of where the engines would be mounted. But

It is confirmed

From what I recall, there were several changes in the engines size and weight, so that may be one reason. Another could be a baby step process, where they made it work with what they had, than, to simplify production accounted for the changes in a total wing re-design.

I never said the Germans where aware of the benefits of a swept wing.. My point was the Me262 was not the first intentional from the start swept wing jet design. The 18 deg sweep was too too slight to achieve any significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number. Later designs.. Well I should say later concepts took this into account and used a much larger sweep than 18 deg. Sadly most of those concepts never made it from the napkin they were scribbled on to blue prints let alone wind tunnel models let alone prototypes let alone production. On that note I think the Ta183 was one of the few, if only, that made it to a wood wind tunnel model.

No the truth remains that the Me262 was NOT initially a swept wing design, and that the wings were swept to correct the cg. That and the truth that even the German swept wing analysis proved the 18 deg sweep of the Me262 was too small to take significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number. Which is why some later concept re-designs of the Me262 had a much larger sweep angle. On that note the F86 went through the same process, initially it was a straight wing design, but, the designed was change to sweep the wings, much more than 18 deg, NOT to correct a cg problem, but to take significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number.

Nope.. On that note there were some planes in WWI and WWII that had swept wings, some of which like the Me262 were done to correct the cg.

But the point your missing here is the purpose of the sweep.. Many history channel viewers belive the Me262 swept wing design was done to take significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number. Which as I pointed out is not the case, first the sweep was too small, and second the wings were swept to correct the cg

Agreed 100%

But ask your normal history channel viewer and they are under the impression that no one else in the world knew what a rocket was until a V2 landed in a filed and killed some cattle. The fact is the V2 was not a war winning design, it was a terror weapon. Which is why the US and others didn't bother building rockets during WWII. It was not because they couldn't, it was because they could not hit their intended target with any real certainty. The US was well aware of Robert Goddard work with rockets, but they also knew the limitations of said rockets, as in guiding them to the intended target. Which is whey the US employed Goddard to develop rockets for planes to assist in takeoff and bazookas.. Stuff that was useful and could assist in winning the war and not just pissing of some British farmer because a V2 landed in his filed and killed some of his sheep.

Nope.. Goddard build rockets too.. The biggest difference between his and the V2 was his had cameras and instruments installed where the Germans put explosives

That is your opinion and you welcome too it

But I think most would agree that it is much easier to refine a design than produce it from scratch

Lies? I noticed that you failed to quote anything I said that was a lie..

Is it safe to assu..

Oh wait I get it

You got nothing to contradict anything I said, so your only hope is to try and sway those who may be reading this to your side of the story by implying I lied

If you think that is funny.. Than you will love the wiki so called official US history on Von Braun! ;)

Bingo!

Northrop had all the flying wing info he needed.. Mater of fact if I recall correctly, the B2 has the same wing span and or dimensions of the wings (B35 B49) he build in the late 40s early 50s

Possible. The Go229 got it's stability mostly from it's "tail" design. Something Northrop only came up with much later in form of the B2.

Possible again. The B2 resembles the original Go229 much more then it resembles the 40ies, 50ies Northrop designs in regards to the extended wing area backwards around the fuselage.
Though completly agreed that the B2 is not based on the Horten, I think it is a bit naive to assume they did not get "any" inspiration from the Go229, which managed stability in a flying wing design to a degree not topped again until fly by wire.
Actually, Northrop dismissing that while developing the B2 would have been outright stupid. There was a reason their wings were pulled out of service in the 50ies.

That is not to diminish Northrop's designs and break throughs, far from it.


If you argue this way, then nothing was ever invented which wasn't there before in some way or another, intentional or not. Bringing together already existing concepts and ideas to make them work and then into a practical and persistent application is what matters.

Myths, btw, start by a lot of ppl expiriencing awe in sight of something new. So whatever swept winged jets or ballistic missles were there before the Me262 and the V2, they obviously failed to have an impact. (Same btw, applies to the myth of the english inventing and using RADAR for the first time)

Anti sonar for the hull, anti radar for persicopes and snorkles.

http://www.radarworld.org/radarwar.pdf

The Horten brothers disagreed about a vertical tail of some sort > one wanted it and the other did not.

Anything is possible..

Thus the question to ask yourself, 'what is more likely'

So let me be sure I understand your statement of 'stability'

Correct me I am wrong.. But the Germans manage to finish building two Go229s prototypes just prior to wars end.. One of which crashed and killed the test pilot.. And the other flown less than a handful of times.. All while operating under the constant fear of some allied plane attacking them during these handful of test flight.. Translated.. Probably not the most detailed flight data collected nor time to get real feel for all the edge of the envelope type of testing one would expect a statement of 'stability' to stem from.. In short, one would be hard pressed to collect the 'basic' required data during such a few test flights under such conditions

So with that in mind.. I think most people would agree claiming the Go229 was well tested and thus confirmed 'stable' aircraft a preliminary statement at best and a baseless statement at worst.

Which is true of a lot of the late war equipment of the Germans.. That is to say you would be hard pressed to find a lot of through testing.. The kind of testing that would find 'short comings' in a design.. Where as on the other hand the allied, especially the USA, could fully test equipment without the worry of a German plane strafing them during the test.

To make an analogy.. Take the P39 for example, one of the most tested planes of WWII.. Which is why a lot of people know so much about the negatives of the plane today.. Where as that level of testing was never done on a lot if not most of the late war German equipment.. Which means there was less negative things to say about them, which can lead to the false impression that there were no negatives aspects. The Go229 is a good example of this scenario.. I am sure that if the Hortons were able to continue their work like Jack Northrop did they would have came across some of the same problems Northrop did and thus have to make changes to their designs too.


Disagree..

On that note, as I pointed out earlier, the B2 shares the same dimensions (wing width, angle) of Northrop 40s/50s wings.. Which were much bigger than the Go229.. Thus based on that alone I think one would be naive to think that just happened by chance.. Chances are (that more likely thing I mentioned before) is they started with the 40s/50s designs and incorporated what they had learned since the 40s/50s as oposed to spending time investigating a design (Go220) that was never tested to the level that Northrop tested their own designs.

Agreed!

And note I never said otherwise.. The point I was making had more to do with the 'myths' of today.. As in ask the history channel types of historians what they think about the German V2 rocket.. And your likely to get the regurgitated history channel 'story'. That the V2 rocket was some sort of advanced concept.. As in the allied never even heard of rocket until a V2 landed in a field near London.

When in fact the allied knew very well what rockets were and their limitations! The main limitation being able to hit your intended target.. Which is why the allies didn't bother with them. It was not until after WWII that the guidance systems were such that one could actually get close to hitting the intended target. Thus I suspect the only real surprise was that the Germans put so much time, money, and effort into building such a terror weapon as opposed to building something that could actual win the war.. Like the ABOMB for example.

It was a prototype, naturally it had flaws. That is in the nature of a prototype.
However, the only crash of a Ho229 occored when an engine flamed out during the landing approach.
And though I agree that the plane was not in the air enough to get data on every single aspect of flight, the fact that in a mock dogfight against the 262 the Ho229 got the upper hand gives some indications of the potential. As do the reports from the flight data that did survive.

It stands, the Go229 was remarkebly stable for a swept wing design from the 40ies.

The Me262 was in development from 38 onwards. The Horten was based on designs stretching back to the late 20ies. This is not He162 material.

By your logic alone the P51 was a faulty design, given it's short development history.

See above. The Horten was not a new concept. The design history starts in the late 20ies. Stability issues in flying wings were not a new problem ppl suddenly had to wrap their head around.

Northrop was too ambitious in the way they build a huge bomber, which amplifies stability problems.

And funny enough, the russians considered the 39 to be one their best airplanes.


Possebilities and chances. If you believe Northrop was mentally stuck in a box, well, then you believe Northrop was stuck in a box.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...YB49-2_300.jpg

http://www.modellbau-eikapo.eu/image...ages/04070.jpg

Note the extended wing area around the rear fuselage in the B2. That is not Northrop 40ies/50ies.


I think you confuse the concept of a rocket with the achievement of a ballistic missle reaching the edge of space in a constant military application after countless trial and error.
The V2 was an advanced concept.

Or let's say it this way, the first Benz car or even the Ford Model T were nice and dandy, nevertheless I'd say the Veyron is an "advanced" concept.

In regards to your History Channel reference.....yes, there are people out there that never heared of Goddard and think the A4 came into existence from nothing. The same applies to the first automobile, the first telephone, the Wright flyer and so on. All these inventions build upon already existing concepts. However, I do not think you need to have a crusade to convince ppl of that here.

Redstones, Jupiter Cs and ultimately the Saturn V.
I think the A4 had enough influence on american rocket development alright.

Last but not least it was the ballistic missile "combined" with the A-bomb that produced the most terrifying weapon ever concieved.

I think you are missing the point. If you think just because those who lost the war still exist today as nations the history will be 'accurate' and 'neutral' because of that then I think you are wrong. Terribly wrong.
Look at the war against Saddam/Irag and the 'weapons of mass destruction' and the controversy out of that...



Well, that's where we disagree then.
Or you tell me which was the first swept wing jet fighter in service and the first ballistic missile used?

By who? Are those 'confirmed authorities' on the subject?

You would expect them? Sorry, but I don't count that as a source...
There's a lot of people out there who 'expect' stuff...

All your answers to this are assumptions. So it could well be possible that they tested the thing in the wind tunnel and realized that the outer swept wing sections did something good for high speed. And then decided to continue the swepot wing in the inner wing parts.
That would be an assumption as valid as yours - but nothing more than that (and yours). Assumptions.

I stand by this. It is well possible that the first part of wing sweep was done purely because of CG - even if it was done way before the first jet engine was actually put on that wing. Makes me wonder a bit about the claim that it was done because the jet engines were heavier than they thought. So they knew that in 1940, when they still planned with a BMW jet?
Nobody has ever answered the question why it was done to the inner wing as well later on - obviously not needed for CG.
So it is well possible that in the progress of designing the plane they did learn something about the effects of wing sweep as well. After all there was research done before the war even.
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e6...111/SW2623.jpg
Other swept wing design than the Ta 183:
http://www.scientistsandfriends.com/...ns/P1101-1.jpg

Nope. The biggest difference is that the V2 actually worked and flew way higher and further. Those were real rockets that worked.
The first ballistic missiles. 300km range and 90km altitude.
Goddards rockets were experimental.

And Goddard used a... De Laval nozzle...invented by De Laval in 1888. Guess what, he did the same than everybody else - build on existing stuff and knowledge, added new own stuff, improved other stuff.

Goddard gets credit for the launch of the first liquid fuel rocket, 1926. Von Braun and team for the first ballistic missile.

I never said you were lying - I said history is rewritten by those who win the wars. This is not really done so much by blatant lies but by more subtle ways.

Downplaying advances other countries had made is one of them - covering up for own 'shortcomings' at the same time.
Creating myths is part of that.
+++++

But it seemed to bother them enough to send almost 600 bombers over to Peenemuende in '43.
Plus Von Braun and his boys were taken to the USA immediately after the war.

To me it seems that contradicts your statement above...

Those reason given 'why the allies decided it was not worth to bother' are exactly those myths created to cover up for own shortcomings. Rewriting history. Bending reality.

It's a bit like about the Sherman tank. That a more heavy tank would have been a logistical problem to ship across the Atlantic and all that stuff. Yet after WW II all their main battle tanks were 45+ tons... Exactly the opposite.

If it really did not bother the allies they would not have send 600 bomber to Peenemuende and they would not have made a point in getting Von Braun and his crew.
+++++

Other than the fact that they are both flying wing type aircraft, comparing the Horten interceptor to the Northrop bomber and claiming that the Horton was somehow better/more stable/etc... makes no sense.

In the fighter/interceptor role, the kind of long frequency yaw translation instability that plagued all flying wings before the advent of computer controls, would never be an issue. In fact I doubt it would have even been detectable through a reflector gun sight at the ranges and with the short time "on target" that a first generation jet interceptor would have on a piston engine bomber.

The simple fact is that the Germans never tried to level bomb with a Go229 from 30000ft, as that is not what it was made for.

Saying the German design is somehow better/more advanced/whatever than the Northop bombers is just the same kind of flag waving, fanboy wishful thinking that proponents of American/Allied aircraft have been constantly accused of over the ten plus years of this simulation.

Was the Go229 a "superplane"? A world beater? I guess we will never know, as it never met a P-80 in combat.

As such, agreed.

Small flying wings has the very same problems, just not as pronounced as weith a big wing. Nevertheless it was an issue, especially in the kind of high maneuver dogfighting that still occured at times.

The "better" stuff is something you read into here. Nobody claimed that in this debate. As ACE, do not make the mistake to assume ppl debating here take this youtube video at face value. And better then what? There was no other flying wing jet fighter around at that time to compare it to.
The p80 was a great aircraft, but as conventional as an aircraft could get at that time, bar the jet engine and the wing tip fuel tanks later on.

Again, Northrop was a visionary. The Hortens were visionaries. With one big difference in regard to making their military aircraft.
One build a bomber, one a fighter bomber. One, at least from the few documents and sources we have, worked. The other one, however, and that is a documented fact, not.

Nobody ever claimed that the Go229 was a superplane.
It was a highly ambitious and for the time highly advanced aircraft with the pontential to produce a flying wing jet fighter in the 40ies, including some of the features that made flying wings a real possebility in the first place, the tail section in this already mentioned, the wing mounted air brakes to use as Rudder another one.
The Northrop wings of that time period did not have that, instead they tried to solve the problem with horizontal stabilisation.
The modern B2 went the Horten way in this regard, not the original Northrop designs.

Who knows what would have happend if Northrop tried to build a fighter in the 40ies/50ies instead, but they built a bomber, so there is as much speculation in here as to over what the final Go229 production fighter would have been like.

The 229 was the sign of how the concept of dogfight was changing: you didn't need something powerful AND manoeuvrable anymore, you needed to take X amount of firepower at Y altitude and at Z speed, make a couple of passes and bugger off.

This imprint will be the signature style of all the interceptors of the 50s and 60s, reaching its apex with the F-104 Starfighter.

That was already the case from 1941 onwards, if not earlier.

The XB-35/YB49 had it's outer rudder flaps as air brakes, an evelon (combined aileron/elevator) and trim tabs. Primary controlles were all hydraulic powered to reduce the forces for the pilot.

mmmh I'm not sure about that. Granted that it was the theory, but the manoeuvrability aspect was still very important, maybe the 229 wasn't the first, as things like the Natter and Komet came before, but it definitely shows a different trend from the concept of the conventional propeller driven air superiority aircraft. The advantage of superior speed of jets was the edge they needed really.

I am glad you agree with me..

But you didn't answer my question..

What do you think is more likely?

Personally I am going with the later

So let me see if I understand you statement of 'stability'

The Go229.. A plane that is a prototype, A plane that was not thoroughly tested, A plane that very little test data was collected on, and of that even less survived the war..

And you say it 'stands' as a 'stable' plane?

I have to ask what is that statment based on?

Please explain, because I don't see anything said here by anyone that would qualify as proof of stability.

I think you need to re-read what I said.. And note that I said NOTHING about design development time.. And to be clear, I 'think' you are referring to time it took between the time NA was given the green light to start work on the P51 design to the roll out of the first prototype.

If so, what you are referring to is the design development time.. Which was a very short time!

But now re-read what I wrote about the Go229 and note I was referring to the 'testing' time, not the 'design' time. Testing time is something the P51 got plenty of AFTER the first prototype was build!

With that cleared up

In short, durring WWII anyone could design a plane and build a prototype..

But until the flight testing was done, they really didn't know for sure if what they build would be worth a dam, let alone fly.

Today, they can simulate a lot if not most things prior to a prototype being build, such that when the actual flight testing occurs they got a pretty good idea of what to expect..

Which was NOT the case in WWII and is the core of my point in my previous post to you..

That being a lot of the late war Germans stuff did NOT have the luxury of extensive testing..

They were desperate and had to forgo a lot of the testing that they themselves would have like to have done, but were unable to do.

Therefore they did not have time to find the errors one could have found had they had more time to test it.. As was the case of Nortrops flying wings post war.. Which is why this 'myth' of the Go299 of being stable can go un-challanted, in that no one, not even post war, bothered to test it throghtly to see if that was in fact the case.

By your logic alone then no plane in WWII required any testing..

Yet we know in fact they did!

Which in turn means your logic has 'issues'

It has nothing to do with their head being stuck in a box and everything to do with being smart about what your doing. As noted above

Personally I am going with the later

Now if that has not sunk in yet.. I think I know a way to help it sink in.. And all you have to do is answer one question

Question: What does the Go229 have that the Northrop flying wings of the 40s and 50s didn't have?

Once you realize the answer is nothing

Than and only than will it be clear as to why Northrop would be smart to start the B2 project based on their thoroughly tested production level designs of the 40s and 50s over a Go229 prototype that was not thoroughly tested.. In that had it been thoroughly tested 'chances' are that Horton would have had to do some of the things Northrop did based on what Northrop discovered during testing

That is not Go229 either

Which is hard to see from the drawings you provided.. So I decided to make my own where I combined a top view of a B2, B49 and a Go229 (see attached). Note these are not blue prints, thus the scale may be off in the drawings a bit. But note the wing span of the B49 vs the B2.. And note they are both 172ft.. At which point one has to ask again

What do you think is more likely?

Personally I am going with the later

Hardly..

I think it is safe to say I know the difference.. As one who works at White Sands Missile Range and works in the same building that Von Braun worked in after the war.. A building that still has the rail-road tracks in it where they use to assemble the V2 for test, and is just down the street from a display of what some call 'the most complete V2 in the world'.. On that note WSMR is only a short drive from Roswell where they have a Goddards museum and one of Goddards original launch pads and is not the far from where Goddards did his rocket testings in the 20s and 30s.. Which is also why I feel safe in saying the V2 was not as advanced as the history channel would have you belive. Unless you consider 'advanced' to mean something build using about 20 of Goddards patents from the 20s and 30s in the construction of the V2.

Well not if we use the same measuring stick that you 'tried' to use to equate the B2 to the Go229, that being the tails look similar.. In that the V2 looks nothing like the Saturn V.

On that note, I always wondered what the space race would have been like had Goddard not died in 1945 to throat cancer. Imagine Von working with Goddard.. The man Von Braun freely admitted after the war, much of the V-2 design was directly borrowed from the writings of the American rocket scientist Robert Goddard [1].. The man Von Braun said "His rockets ... may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles[2].. I don't know what they could have done working together.. But I think it is safe to say the Russians would not have beat us into space and that we would have got to the moon even sooner.

[1] http://www.nmspacemuseum.org/halloff...tail.php?id=29
[2] http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbrau...childhood.html
[3] http://blog.modernmechanix.com/the-m...door-to-space/

Your still missing my point..

As I pointed out that 'old' saying is true of 'old' types of warfare where the winners killed off all of the losers, thus the ONLY people left to write the history were the winners.

Where as with modern warfare, as in the case of WWII, the countries like German and Japan still exist and thus have a say in what is written and thus affect history and thus history is NOT written by the winners as the old saying goes.. But also written by the losers

Where I think your confused is that you 'think' I am saying there will be no disagreements in what is written.. Far from!

Since both the winners and the losers still exist, than both accounts (read both sides of the coin) are being 'written' and thus both accounts are documented for 'history'

All that is left is for you to decided, based on what is written vs. what you have read to decided which of the two accounts are 'true'

A choice you didn't get in the 'old' days when the 'winners' killed off all of the 'losers' such that only the 'winners' wrote the history and thus the basis of the 'old' saying

Again, don't take my word for it that the wings of the Me262 were swept to correct the cg! And that the 18 deg was too too small to achieve any significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number. But since you seem to be unable or unwilling to do the research allow me..

Now, before I provide you the data..

Would you agree that the folks over at STORMBIRDS.COM are..

how did you say it?

'CONFIRMED AUTHORITIES' on the subject of the Me262?

You know the folks that build reproductions of the Me262 that were so good that messerschmitt provided them continuation serial numbers..

Well Ill just assume you do agree that they are..

how did you say it?

'CONFIRMED AUTHORITIES' on the subject of the Me262!

In that only a ninny would try and argue that they are NOT!

With that said, here is what STORMBIRDS.COM had to say about the REASON the Me262 went from STRAIGHT wings to SWEPT wings

Enjoy!

PS your welcome!

Great. Thanks for posting this link.
And since then the first part has been repeated loudly on often - to downplay the achievement of the design of the 262.



Which is often downplayed with the old " the production Me 262 had a leading edge sweep of only 18.5°, too slight to achieve any significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number" argument which you read all over.

It means exactly what the guys of Sturmvogel say - that the 18.5° sweep does have a advantage over straight wings - just not as big if the wing sweep would have been bigger.
As usual it is downplayed.
Interesting to note is that planes like the A320 and B737 have 25 degrees swept wings and top speeds under 900km/h and not the "ideal" 35 degrees for faster speeds.



So there were other aspects for the swept wing and INITIAL misgivings about practicality. Means some when the practically was discovered...


Now about the inner wing sweep, which was not done to correct for CoG:

Wiki has this:

Quote:

"the trailing edge of the mid-section of the wing remained unswept. Based on data from the AVA Göttingen and wind tunnel results, the middle section's leading edge was later swept to the same angle as the outer panels."

...they did wind tunnel tests...and maybe because of that the wing sweep was continued to the inner leading edge? Not because of CoG as we have seen.
Maybe they knew they were on something by the time they changed the inner wing leading edge?

Add to this that Ludwig Boelkow, designer of the 262, was certainly aware of the 1939 research on swept wing in the wind tunnel of AVA Goettigen.
And the stall problems associated with a swept wing were known as well - and a possible solution, slats.

Looking at all of this it is a bit surprising that they choose swept wing only to correct CoG - knowing the stall problems of such a wing which they knew could be overcome with slats.
Sounds like a hell of a difficult solution when they just could have repositioned the wing.

So question is why did they go the difficult way? With a designer that knew about the advantages of swept wings for high speed?







Which is exactly what you are trying to downplay.

A4/V2 was nothing...just a copy; on top wasn't worth to bother with that technology (but worth to send 600 bombers over and get the design team).
Me 262 was nothing...just an accident.
++++

No problem!

Just glad I could help!

And glad that you now understand the reason why the Me262 had swept wings

That being to correct the cg

tsk, that's a load of baloney, everybody knows that it was done because they put fluorine in their water and the engineers had a calcified fornix that didn't allow them to see in a 6 dimensional view :mrgreen:

Agreed. There are those who say that the Dh Mosquito was made of wood to reduce it's radar profile. No. It was made of wood for other reasons.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

got wood?

hur hur hur.....

Personally, I have to say that it was one of the crappiest documentaries I've ever seen. Except for the "dramatization" parts which looked somewhat authentic. It was soooo obvious they were just making a museum replica but then NE asked if they could make an angled "documentary" about the "nazi stealth fighter", lol on that one BTW. IMO, the ho229 had nothing to do with stealth. It was a jet interceptor, that's it. Made out of wood because it was one of the few raw materials that was still plentiful for yarn old German war industry. Attacking British home chain?!?!?!!? With it's 30mm cannons?!?!!?! Not even Hitler and Göring put together was that stupid *insert Cpt.Picard facepalming here*. Better go read a book so my brain stops degrading.....too quickly.

Be happy to read only what you like - and ignore everything else.
Black and white thinking makes life much easier.

Just ignore all the grey in between.
++++

Sorry, you lost me there, not sure what it is your trying to say..

So allow me to ask you a question to try and clear this up..

Are you NOW saying that the folks at STORMBIRDS.COM are NOT 'CONFIRMED AUTHORITIES' on the subject of the Me262?

And that they are uninformed, or worse yet, where lying when they stated that it is true, that the initialy design of the Me262 had strait wings, and that the reason they swept the wings back was to correct the cg to account for the heavier than expected engines

Is that what your trying to say?

well leaned wings have the adavnatage of having more effective surface with less used surface

i think they copied nature:

http://www.canonistas.com/galerias/d...lcon_sacre.jpg

No read what I wrote. Just read it.
And read all the other quotes from that site. Just read those as well instead of singling out one that fits your thinking and then "keep on repeating loud and proudly'.

+++++

I did read it and as I pointed out.. you lost me.

We were talking about the reason the wings were swept on the Me262..

At some point in the conversation you stated that the reason was NOT confirmed..

To which I responded the reason was confirmed..

To which you said (asked) the following

At that point I realized you were not going to take my word for it, and that you required and experts opinion (what you called confirmed authorities) before you would belive it.

That is when I provided you the statement from STORMBRIDS (aka experts aka confirmed authorities) who agreed with what I said.

So that is where we were.. Not sure what 'tangent' topic your going off on now, all I ask is that before you do.. Let finish this point to make sure we are on the same sheet of music before we proceed.. Because there really is no reason to move forward if we have not established this simple point.

With that said, allow me to present to you the same question I ask you in the form of a YES or NO question.

Hopefully that will help me understand what your trying to say..

Here we go..

Yes or No?

No, they are not lying. And yes, OUTER wings were swept to correct for CoG - and for OTHER reasons as well as they state on their site.

And yes, the design benefited from the swept wing even if it was only a moderate 18.5 degrees.
And yes, at one point the inner wings were swept back, not for CoG but because of wind tunnel data/testing.
And yes, there's still the question why the designers went the more difficult way of wing sweep when they could have repositioned the wing.
And yes, you still do the same, just keep on repeating loudly and often one single fact out of many.

Bottom line is that the 262 was an advanced design, the first jet fighter with swept wings, its high speed performance benefiting from those swept wings, proven and known at the time due to its high speed trials.
This advanced jet fighter design influenced postwar aircraft development.
++++

Ah good so you agree with me now.. thank you!

Other reasons?

Care to provide the link/quote?

I posted it already above:

Then as well Boelkow:
http://books.google.co.th/books?id=O...oelkow&f=false

Betz and Boelkow doing wind tunnel research for Messerschmitt 1939:
From wiki:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Betz

From:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1986017719.pdf

Compared with 262 wing history:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e6...111/SW2623.jpg

40 degrees wing testing in 41. Inner wing sweep added in 42-43.

So it seems:
a) outer wing sweep added to correct for CoG (and 'design aesthetics') in 1940
b) inner wing sweep added 42-43 after further research in wind tunnel in 41.

+++++

Sorry if I missed it.. So lets take a look at these 'other reason' your saying the folks at STORMBIRDS are stating..

In that we both agree that the folks at STORMBIRDS are 'confirmed authorities' on the Me262..

First up this quote you posted above

This one is interesting..

It is almost like they are trying to make excuses for the Germans? I say that because what is funny about that statement is.. On one had they want us to belive the Germans 'were aware' since the 30s.. Yet.. We both know that the Me262 was NOT designed in the 20s!

So, you have to ask yourself..

I don't know what that tells you..

But what that tells me is they either didn't understand it as well as some would have us belive, or, based on what they understood they didn't see it as being a great benefit.. Either of which seem to fit the historic record.. That being most of what the Germans understood of swept wing benefits was based on their studies of 'highly' swept wings. And the Me262 swept wing of only 18 deg is not considered highly swept.

Next up

This statement is more of a negative than a positive wrt what the Germans knew IMHO..

In that as most realized after WWII.. Those shapely designs of WWII.. what with the wings being shapely molded into the body (like that picture of the Go229 tail section) were more of a negative than a positive.. Based on the work supersonic area rule by Wallace D Hayes.. Which drove most if not all of the post war 50s and 60s high speed designs.

A good example is the Me262 vs P80

Note that both designs are before Hayes work..

Note the point where the wing attaches to the body and how both molded the wings into the body type of a design..

Now take a look at the F86 at the point where the wing attaches to the body.. No longer molded into the body like it was on the Me262 and P80.

That is why the Me262 and P80 are considered more of a 'evolutionary' than a revolutionary' design.. In fact more of a dead end step, in that you will be hard pressed to find any design aspects of the Me262 used in post war designs..

For example, you will be hard pressed to find a jet fighter with the engines mounted under the wings like the Me262 did.. Which some have noted keeps the Me262 from ever breaking the sound barrier.. Granted you can find a lot of post war jet bombers that mount the engines under the wings! Where as the P80 intakes location were ahead of their time, most post war designs placed the inlet at the tip of the nose, but after that (late 50s) most if not all designs placed the intakes at the wing root body location as the P80 did. About the only design aspect of the Me262 that was used in later designs was the 'flying tail' design that certain aspects of which were used in the X1 design that Chuck Yeager flew to break the sound barrier in level flight.

Last but not least we should point out that the folks at STORMBIRDS are Me262 lovers! You would have to be to do what they did! Thus, many have noted that they will paint the Me262 in the best possible light! That is to say give the Germans every benefit of the doubt! But they are not willing to lie about any aspect! Which is why it was so hard for them to admit that the swept wings of the Me262 and the associated benefits were NOT intentional.

Cool. You use them for what supports your claim.
Everything else you read there which you don't like simply doesn't count.
Man, you truly life in a black and white world.

The new greatest hero is Hayes, everything before wasn't really important.
A bit like Goddard, only what he did was important, no?
Both Americans of course, our heroes.

Funny enough you mention the 2262/P8o) being pre-Hayes and so outdated.
The you mention Hayes and the F86.

Hayes publications didn't start until 47.
F86 flew first time in 47 and went swept wing in August 45.

Downplaying again? That statement is just plain silly.

Every plane is evolutionary...

Revolutionary designs are successful firsts - first powered flight, first jet plane, first jet with wing sweep at high speed, first ultra sonic, etc.

Of course those revolutionary designs did not appear out of nowhere, they were based on planes and flight apparatuses made before them, nothing but logical.

I'm not surprised that you see no altering and bending of history since WW II looking at how biased you are and how one sided you look at things.


Keep on ignoring:

- high speed wind tunnel tests from 39 AVA Goettingen
- 262 with steep swept wing at 40 degrees tested in wind tunnel 41
- high speed trial of 262 with 18.5 wing sweep showing advantage over straight wing
- Me 262 swept inner wing added in 42-43, not for CoG

OK, lets sum this up:
- they didn't know anything about those swept wings really.
- even if they knew something about swept wing they thought it was of no advantage
- because their research was done in highly swept wings they had no clue about less swept wings. Boelkow doing research on high swept wing would be completely ignorant of a lesser wing sweep.


Oh boy, those German designers were really stupid.
Kind of surprised that the Americans thought it necessary to go over to Germany and get their hands on whatever they could, even went through the trouble to translate the papers.
+++++

guys, guys... don't turn this into a battle of wits..

The development of aviation is a non-stop history of copy/paste, sheer luck and loads of trial and error, a lot of error (it's not a case that they say "aviation rules are written with blood").

The Americans took great inspiration from the Me262 and other German designs, incidentally the Germans nailed a design that inspired a lot of other jets, the Russians partly followed their own development and partly copied from the Americans etc...

Aerodynamics are the same for everybody, and engineering solution will then be similar.

Development. Trial.

That's exactly the point. And there was a lot of development and trial going on and into the 262, from 39 until 44.
+++++

Me biased?

Hardly..

All I am trying to do is and add some balance to the 'biased' history channel type of history..

Where the history channel type of history is the type of history that 'sells'..

And what seems to 'sell' these days is the notion that the Germans were in some way 'special' compared to the rest of the world. It was this notion (the master race) that got them into trouble in the first place! Combined that notion with the Americans love of the underdog and you end up with this very strange kind of German worship. To make it worse, the skin head types here in the states take this warped type of history to justify some of what they do.. This is why I think it is so important to dispel this notion that the Germans were in some way 'special' compared to the rest of the world.

But I digress

As to my point, from the start

Ask your average history channel watcher what was it about the Me262 design that made it 'so revolutionary' and you can be 99 out of 100 will mention the swept wings.

Why?

Well because the history channel types of history always stop short of pointing out the FACT that the swept wings were not intentional and that they were swept to correct the cg.. Because that FACT does not fall into the story line that sells, that the Germans were 'special' in some way.

They were NOT.

The only real edge the Germans had over the rest of the world was the FACT that they knew in the 30s what they had planned for the 40s. Which gave them a good 5+ year RnD head start over the rest of the world.



PS I should point out that I am what one can call a full blooded German. That is to say I am an American, but, my grand parents on both sides of my family came from Germany. I also lived in Germany for many years.. So what I have to say about the Germans is not some sort of hatred for the Germans, nor is it some fear of the Germans rising up again. I just think it is important to get history right.

I doubt your average history channel fellow will even know the advantage of a swept wing design over a straight wing design.
He will only claim that it was the worlds first jet fighter.

Still you are very biased as I see it, forget about German grand parents, has nothing to do with it, neither have skinheads, it's simply that you continue pondering on one design aspect of a plane taken in its initial stages and ignoring all other steps in the design of the plane taken later on plus its development and testing and results going into the design before finally going into production.

And that is biased.
As is bringing in Goddard and Hayes, turning them into the real heroes, while everything else is nil.

You keep absolutely ignoring facts, to remind you:

- high speed wind tunnel tests from 39 AVA Goettingen
- 262 with steep swept wing at 40 degrees tested in wind tunnel 41
- high speed trial of 262 with 18.5 wing sweep showing advantage over straight wing
- Me 262 swept inner wing added in 42-43, not for CoG

Silence to all this that doesn't fit your view.
The 262 was a straight wing - correct for CoG swept wing - production design. 3 steps that's it.

You keep contradicting yourself as well:

While above you mention they:

- didn't understand it as well as thought
- they didn't see it as being a great benefit
- as they studied highly swept wings they would have have no clue about lesser swept wings

Which are nothing but assumptions from your side btw.
But at the end they had 5yrs RnD head stat, but somehow they didn't know what they were doing? Now how does that fit?
Not at all.

It makes about as much sense as the V2/rocket tech not being bothersome to the Allieds but still worth sending 600 bombers and capturing the design team.

But I don't see we're getting anywhere, you just keep repeating that one thing, loud and often as they say on that site quoted by you.
+++++

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree than

I am just glad I was able to educate you on the FACT that the wings were swept to correct the cg and not an intentional part of the design from the start to take advantage of some swept wing knowledge the Germans had.

Indeed. Not from the start.
But that leaves room that in its later design stages more was implemented into the design after further research and trial with prototypes.


And as being the first swept wing jet fighter in service it was certainly a remarkable airplane and achievement.
+++++

The point at which this became apparent to the Germans is debatable..

But it is clear to all that at some point before the end of the war the Germans where aware of it.. Clearly based on some of the preliminary designs the Germans had on paper.. Which is preliminary with a CAPITAL P and a far Far FAR cry from prototype..

But the problem is some want to give the Germans credit for this knowledge a good ten years prior to when they obtained it.. Which only feed that notion that the Germans were special in some way

For example.. Take the STORMBIRDS quote.. They say the Germans knew about it during the 30s.. They convently leave out the details of it being 1939.. And they convently leave out how long it can take theories on paper to make their way into production. Some think this can happen faster during war, and in some cases it does, but in some cases it does not. That is to say if it aint broke don't fixed it attitude Lockheed had with the P38 receiving upgrades. Where as the Germans were desperate so I think I could see them 'giving it a go' with their fingers crossed approach.

Agreed 100%

Only some like me see it as a logical evolution and not a revolution.. As I noted before.. You will be hard pressed to see any aspects of the Me262 designs being used in post war FIGHTERS.. Sure you will see a lot of post war BOMBERS slinging engine pods under the wings.. Which makes one take pause and wonder if Hitler was not the smartest guy in the room when he wanted to make it a fast attack bomber! ;) You know that 'other' Me262 myth that the Me262 was some how delayed by Hitler for wanting to put bomb racks on the Me262.. The truth is the Me262 was delayed due to the engines.. Because the only other way to 'spin' that is to say it took the Germans two years to figure out how to put bomb racks on the Me262! And I think we can both agree that the Germans were more than capable of doing that!! ;)

Hard pressed? Not at all.
Jet engines and (further developed) swept wings?
So out of 3 design points most still have two up to this day in one form or another. Not bad, no?
;-)

Some in wing engines are outright sexy:
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/colle...95-42883-4.jpg
:-)

But overall I would say 'and so what?'

You see hardly any twin boom designs in post war fighters. Does that make the P-38 less significant?

Why is all of the sudden just one design point (engine pods) part important?
Isn't it the overall design product we are looking at?

The DH Comet was the first passenger jet airliner. It had the engines in the wing root, which no (? maybe there's an odd one?) passenger planes of today have, but does that make the fact any lesser?
Nope, the introduction of the passenger jet, as happened with the Comet, changed air travel to the day.

That looks like going into the direction of a prototype:
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/His...1101/P1100.jpg
Certainly wasn't intended to be a toy, no?
:-)

That looks a bit odd but sure enough like a real plane:
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/His...87/Ju287V1.jpg


Well, there apart from the AVA wind tunnel research from 39 and onward there was Busemanns paper published in 35 (obviously worked on before publishing in 35).


An evolution that created a revolution? As it always goes? Such things usually don't happen overnight.
Those 'revolutions' are milestones along the evolution. The 262 was sure one of them.

Is a B2 a revolution? I would say yes, first flying wing stealth bomber, that sure is a mile stone. But for sure it is an evolution as well.
+++++

3 design points?

Must be that new math?

Because I only see you listing two..

1) Jet engines
2) Swept wings

As for Jet engines.. The Brits and US had there own designs that were in service before the end of WWII.. So not sure how that would be considered as a design aspect of the Me262 that was used in later fighters

As for swept wings.. As noted the swept wings of the Me262 were to correct the cg.. So not sure how that would be considered as a design aspect of the Me262 that was used in later fighters

Ah.. I see where you are confused!

1st the SR71 is not a FIGHTER
2nd the engines are mounted inside the wing, not under the wings in pods

So maybe you missed the part where I was talking about the Me262 being a dead end design..

In that you would be HARD PRESSED to find any post war FIGHTERS that mounted the engines under the wings in pods.. And note that I stated you would and could find bombers with engines mounted under the wings in pods

Which by the way, the engines being mounted under the wings in pod was the ONE aspect of the Me262 that was truly it's own 'thing'! And not used in post war jet fighter designs.. I won't say none, in that I seem to recall someone posting a pic of a post war Russian jet fighter that may have had engine pods under the wings.. But as we all know, in the jet engine race, the Russians were the farthest behind which is why they copied not only the German jet engines but the Britt jet engines

Remeber, you were asking for any 262 design?

Errr, yes, obvious as you had already mentioned one - engine in pods.

Plus jet engines, plus swept wing, makes indeed 3.

However you asked for those only that are still in todays designs, and thats two, jet engine and swept wing.

So here we go again:
3 in total minus 1 not in current designs anymore equals 2 still in current designs.

That's the 2 I mentioned.

3-1=2

Does that make sense to you?
Just read what I wrote. You asked for those that were still around.
I can't add the third one in the list.


As you noted to outer wing sweep was introduced for the CoG. Anything about inner wing sweep, additional research done while the plane was developed, flight tests, etc is stubbornly denied by you.
You just put your head in the sand.

No it wasn't. Just because one aspect of this plane is not found anymore in more modern fighter does not mean it was a dead end.

That's just plain silly.

Because every pane will be a dead end sooner or later then.
Like the F-86.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-86_Sabre
Know of any plane of recent design that has engine intake at the front of the fuselage?
Nope, so dead end design.
On top of that they put those outdated 0.50 caliber on that plane. A fighter plane with 0.50 cal guns in 47, imagine, what a dead end design!

Two wings and a prop, dead end design as no more fighter of today have it:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4139/4...6fd35c6c_z.jpg

Have seen any shoulder wings on a new fighter design lately? No?
So this is another dead end:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../2/1505224.jpg

And one day the stealth drone will turn all manned combat planes into dead end designs.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...e_1427413i.jpg

Boy, this is getting really silly.
+++++

Actually I recall noting you would be hard pressed to find any post war JET FIGHTER with engines mounted under the wing in pods..

I later expanded that to say something along the lines that you would be hard pressed to find any 'unique' feature of the Me262 that was used in post war JET FIGHTER designs.. As in something no other FIGHTER had except the Me262. As noted, most history channel types would chime in with 'swept wings' but as we have already shown, the wings were swept to correct the cg.

Errr, no, obvious as to I specifically asked for design aspects of the Me262 that ended up on post war JET FIGHTERS..

And I specifically noted that few if any post war JET FIGHTERS mounted their jet engines under the wings in pods..

So why you thought you could include that in your 'count' is beyond me!

Nope.. re-read what I said.. I did not ask for design aspects that are still in use today.. I speciflly mentioned post war designs of the 50s and 60s.. I did go as far as to point out that the design aspect of the P80 intakes are still in use today when I pointed out that the P80 was ahead of its time with regards to the intakes.. Where I went onto point out the early 50s JET FIGHTER designs put the intake location at the nose of the plane.. Which changed over time to the P80 style.

No as I pointed out above.. The question put to you was what design aspects of the Me262 were used in post war JET FIGHTER designs of the 50s and 60s

With that said, we can NOT list..

• swept wings as a unique Me262 design aspect because we know they did that just to offset the cg

• engine pods under the wings as a unique Me262 design aspect because few if any post war JET FIGHTERS of the 50s and 60s did that

• Jet engines as a unique Me262 design aspect because the US and Brits both had JET FIGHTERS in use during WWII

So.. there really isn't any unique Me262 design aspect that was used in post war JET FIGHTER designs! Other than the flying tail I pointed out earlier.. but that was not unique to the Me262 the Fw190 had a similar setup.. Which leaves

3-3=0

Does that make sense to you?

If not than please.. Tell me which unique Me262 design aspect that was used in post war JET FIGHTER designs during the 50s and 60s

I never denied it!

I just like to stick to things that can be proven..

With that said there is no proof that they swept the inner wing based on any high swept wing wind tunnel testing..

You have to remember, the Me262 was NOT designed to fly above 600mph.. It was a sub sonic plane..

And the high speed wind tunnel testing the Germans were working on was for planes flying faster than that.. Which is why they did not immediately make the connection that a swept wing is beneficial at sub sonic speeds.

That is my point..

No unique design aspect of the Me262 was used in post war JET FIGHTER designs that the US and Brits were not already doing!

The only thing that came close was the swept wings.. But as we now know they did NOT do that for high speed handling aspects.. They swept the wings to correct the cg

Agreed

Which is why I recommended a few posts back that we should just agree to disagree!

In the end I am glad that I was able to educate you on two things

1) The myth about the reason the Me262 wings were swept
2) The myth about the reason the Me262 was delayed

It is always a good day when I can find a way to undo what the history channel has managed to do to so many.. Granted the history channel can poison the minds of thousand with one half hour show.. Which means I have my work cut out for me! But you just have to keep chipping away at the German were supermen stone each and every chance you get!

True history is counting on us!

Why even bring nationalism into this discussion, "Ace"? Aren't there as many "Germanic" Americans as there are Germans in Germany?

Sorry, but that's what you asked. Not unique aspects but any.

So jet engines it is and swept wings. Because that what it was the first swept wing jet fighter in combat service.
It don't even matter for what reason it was.

High speed trial proved the advantage of...
So latest when the thing flew they knew.
But then there's still the question of the inner wing.

Where did you get that from? One of your expert assumptions to fit into your narrow minded view as usual?

From wiki, source orig from Development of the Swept Wing 1935-1945, AIAA Library of Flight, 2010.

http://www.amazon.com/German-Develop.../dp/1600867146

Another one of your very own myths goes down the drain.

Nope, I just look at all the data around and make an informed opinion for myself.
You look at one little part of data around, make an uninformed and biased opinion, repeat it a thousand times like a little child to make sure it becomes the 'truth', create other myths and spread misinformation (as above) and bring in Americans who were the real super-heroes.

Repeat after me:

V2, first ballistic missile, ahead of its time
Me 262, first swept wing jet fighter in service, ahead of its time
++++++

I only added the word in 'unique' in my last post to you for clarification..

In that you were listing (counting) Me262 design aspects that other planes already had..

But the question at hand was what design aspects of the Me262 were used in post war fighter jets..

As in what did the Me262 do that no one else was not already doing during the war..

Which stemmed from the 'myth' that the Me262 was the first jet fighter design with the intent of making use of swept wing 'technologies'

But as we now know, the wings on the Me262 were NOT swept with the intend of making use of swept wing technology, the wings were swept to correct the cg

The purpose of pointing that out is that once you remove that FACT.. You would be hard pressed to find any 'unique' design aspects of the Me262 that were used in post war JET FIGHTER designs.

With that in mind..

That is why I found it odd that you would list/count 'jet engines' as a 'unique' design aspect of the Me262 that was used in post war JET FIGHTER designs

Because the USA and Brits both produced jet fighters during WWII that saw service in WWII, thus the jet engine can NOT be listed/counted as a 'unique' design aspect of the Me262 that was use in post war JET FIGHTER designs.

As noted above, jet engines were not unique to the Me262, and the swept wings were not an intentional design aspect with the purpose of taking advantage of swept wing technology. Thus neither can be listed/counted as Me262 design aspects that were used in post war JET FIGHTER designs.

It was the first jet fighter in service, whose initial design included straight wings, but was later changed to correct the cg. In short, it was dumb luck that it just so happened that sweeping the wings to correct the cg also improved the high speed characteristics. To make an analogy using the old reese's peanut butter cup commercials.. Where it was dumb luck that a guy with a jar of peanut butter ran into a guy with a chocolate candy bar.

It does when your trying to dispel the myth that the Me262 was the first 'intentionally' swept wing jet fighter design. As I pointed out before, the history channel types belive that, and the only way to belive that is to belive the Germans were YEARS ahead of everyone else.. Which they would have to be for the Me262 to be the first 'intentionally' swept wing jet fighter design. But as we now know the wings were swept to correct the cg, thus the Germans were not as advanced as the history channel would 'lead' people into thinking and thus 'feeding' on the notion that 'sells' that the Germans were some sort of supermen or being assisted by aliean from outer space.

Agreed

Just as the guy eating chocolate with peanut butter knew and thus proved the advantage of the combination of the two

Agreed

There is no proof as to why the inner wing was swept..

But if I had to guess, I would suspect it had something to do with what STORMBIRDS said.. i.e.

Aesthetics..

As in it just looked better to do it that way

Not really..

In that it was all done before by Robert Goddard

In that even Von Baurn admitted he used many of Robert Goddard's rocket designs from the 20s and 30s in the construction of the V2

But not the first intentionally swept wing fighter design

Big difference!


In summary

The history channel type of history that sells is to give the impression that the Me262 showed up out of no where and caught the allies by surprise.

Which was NOT the case

The only 'unique' thing about the Me262 was the swept wings.. Unfortunatly the history channel type of history that sells gives the impression that the swept wings were by design to take advantage of swept wing technology.

Which was NOT the case

As a mater of fact just about every nation involved in WWII..

• Designed a jet fighter before the end of the war

• Prototype a jet fighter before the end of the war

• Produced a jet fighter before the end of the war

• Employed a jet fighter before the end of the war

Therefore one can NOT be safe in saying the Me262 was the sole inspiration of all post WWII jet fighter designs.

With that said..

Maybe it would help you understand my point of view if I gave you an example of a truly unique WWII weapon that did influence the world post WWII?

Take the ABOMB for example

Only one nation involved in WWII..

• Designed an atomic bomb before the end of the war

• Prototype an atomic bomb before the end of the war

• Produced an atomic bomb before the end of the war

• Employed an atomic bomb before the end of the war

Therefore one can be safe in saying the ABOMB was the sole inspiration of all post WWII ABOMB designs.

I hope that helps you understand my point of view! S!

What did I say that is considered nationalism?

It is a historic fact that the Germans considered themselfs 'super human' and better than eveyone else..

But that is not me being nationalistic..

That is me stating stating history..

And stating why it is so important to dispel this belive that one nation or one people have some great genitic advantage over another!

Not sure..

But I would not be suprised..

In that as I pointed out in one of my previous posts..

As far as a blood line goes, I am a full blooded German..

Both my grand parents came from Germany and as far back as the records go on my father side is 1610..

And I know my grandparents were not the only Germans to leave Germany! ;)

Roflmao!:grin: What a great thread! And what a terrific sense of deja vu.
In another place, in another time;


http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...pt+wings+me262

Ace of Aces appears on page four, post number 39. Enjoy!:evil:

consistency is a virtue! :grin:

Sure it was. Not initially, but after 42 when the research on swept wing was incoporated (and the inner wing swept as well).

So show me his 'ballistic missile' then. How far did it reach.

Sorry, but I can't see how anyone would take you serious with comments like that, obviously created by your mind to fit your simple minded views:

Funny enough too that you discredited 'design aesthetics' as other reasons for swept wing when it didn't suit your 'CoG only' theory, now that you need a straw to make it look as nothing but 'dumb luck' you use it yourself...

Uhhh...yes, true, you twist and bend what you say all times plus create a little stuff when needed, so guess that's some form of consistency.

Your way at looking at things is actually at least as bad as history channel.
____

Btw, the wing of the 262 was of course intentionally swept and not accidentially.

It really doesn't matter if the intention was to get better aerodynamics or a different cog.

I agree on this and I also think that we should be careful not to d evaluate the advancements in aero and rocket technology that "ze Germans" made before, during and after the war. There's good reason why both Soviet and the States were scrambling to get all those left over German scientist/engineers to their respective sides.

The fact that you can not attack the message and have to resort to attacking the messanger speaks volums with regards to your argument.

On that note, me quoting what 'experts' said about the reason why the Me262 wings were swept is not what I or most would consider twisting and bending what was said.

Where as you on the other hand have no proof let alone quotes to support your theories would be considered twisting and bending what was said.

So, I think this is a good point for you and I to agree to disagree.

S!

Yes it was intentionally swept to correct the cg due to the heavier than expected engines..

Which is very Very VERY different from intentionally sweeping the wings to take advantage of swept wing theory/technology

It does when your trying to dispel the myth that the Me262 was the first 'intentionally' swept wing jet fighter design to take advantage of swept wing theory/technology.

As I pointed out before, the history channel types belive that, and the only way to belive that is to belive the Germans were way ahead of everyone else..

Which they would have to be for the Me262 to be the first 'intentionally' swept wing jet fighter design to take advantage of swept wing theory/technology.

But as we now know the wings were swept to correct the cg and not to take advantage of swept wing theory/technology, thus the Germans were not as advanced as the history channel would 'lead' people into thinking

That being the Germans were some sort of super race and/or being assisted by aliens from outer space.

AoA,

to dispel a myth hard facts are needed, not the opinion of "Experts" who try to explain something with second hand knowledge.

None of them was present when the design decisions were made.

And as already was said, the german engineers and developers were the most precious price for the winners, that has never been disputed by anyone, afaik.

It is very disturbing to see such a crusade to denigrate something/someone.

Well other than digging up Willy and asking him..

I can not think of a better group of experts on the subject of the Me262 than the folks at STORMBIRDS

Can you?

How about this:
Untrue as we have seen. As we see bend and twisted to fit your argument.

Untrue!
You are twisting things once more - only the outer wing section was initially swept for COG reasons.

Where you had to add 'unique' later on. So bend and twisted from 'any' to 'any unique' - which has a completely different meaning.

Your claim on the first ballistic missile. As we all know his rockets never got beyond the experimental point.
The claim that Goddard had "done it all before" is simply untrue.
Another prime example where you bend and twist history to fit your agenda.

And there was the issue where you claimed the Allieds didn't bother with rockets and the V2 as it was not worth - yet they were keen on capturing the design team and send over 600 bombers.

The problem is again and again you pick selected quotes that fit your believe,create a few more myths along the way and bend and twist some sources that they fit your agenda, and ignore anything that doesn't fit your agenda.

Result is a completely distorted and one sided point of view, about as bad as history channel.
++++

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

Well what was I thinking.. In that this is like the 3rd or 4th time I have said that so I guess you just want to argue

Now since you insist on being persistent (aka argumentative)..

Allow me to put all your so called wiki link proof to rest

With that said

Recall that we both agreed that the folks at STORMBIRDS are the 'CONFIRMED AUTHORITIES' aka 'EXPERTS' on the Me262

First up, note that it is apparent from this statement, i.e.

with regards to the 'reason' the wings were swept to correct the cg, where they make note of what 'some writers' like myself point out, that they really hated having to admit that all their research they did during the process of building new Me262s from scratch confirms that statement.

That being the wings were swept to correct the cg due to heavier than expected engine..

Translated.. The wings were NOT swept to take advantage of swept wing theory/technology

As for Germanys knowledge of swept wing theory prior and during the development of the Me262.

STORMBIRDS has this to say wrt Busemann and Walchner published work titled "Profile Characteristics as SUPERSONIC Speed" and the conference on high speed flight held in Rome where Busemann gave a lecture title "Aerodynamic Lift at SUPERSONIC Speed".

Note the qualifier SUPERSONIC, it will come up later

Which also agrees with what I have been saying from the start.. Other than they left out the qualifier that the swept wing studies/data applied to SUPERSONIC flight which is something no plane, not even the early jets of WWII were capable of doing.

Now the funny part is the STORMBIRDS web sight goes on to say

Yet when you click on the subsections ('next pages') what you will find is...

• The ALLIED FORCES page is BLANK (under construction)

• The OTHER FORCES page is BLANK (under construction)

• The SOVIET BLOC page shows some examples of the Soviets testing some Me262 after the war, and a copy (Sukhoi Su9) they made of it that had straight wings (this is that 'one' post war jet I was referring to earlier)

So even STORMBRIDS had/has trouble making the wiki link types of connections between the Me262 and post war jet fighter designs that you claim are 'there' and easy to make..

I suspect it has something to do with STORMBIRDS having a reputation to consider, where as you don't! ;)

Which speaks volumes IMHO

And is very telling for those willing to listen and/or don't buy into the idea that the Germans were supermen and/or being assisted by aliens from space

This is a quote from the Smith/Creek 4 volume tome on the Me262, pg 66,

"By Feb 1940, the design of the P1065 had been modified to have the outer sections of its wings swept back some 18 degrees. Originally this was done to solve problems that heavier engine weight estimates were causing with the positioning of the aircraft's center of gravity. The BMW P.3304 turbojets were still proposed at this time."

The original P1065 design had straight wings and the engines were in the wings.

Again and again and again you ignore everything else.
I will repeat and repeat and repeat as long as you continue to do so.
Maybe after reading the same 1000 times you will actually understand it.
Like little kids which have to write 100 times the same sentence on a blackboard.
Other methods than that seem not to work with you.

Untrue, nothing but a myth created by you to support your single minded claims.

Which was held in 1935. The following is 39-42:
So research included subsonic speeds and wing sweep 13-45 degrees and by 42 they knew about the advantage of the swept wing.
Your statement is false.
Twisted, trimmed and bend to support your claims.

False again.
Only the outer wing was swept for correct of CoG as we have seen.

Feel free to post a link to Goddards 'ballistic missile' for once. As far as I know he never reached those 'extreme altitudes' he was aiming for, 2700m was the max in his experimental rockets.

Once again, maybe one day you will learn and understand:
The V2 was the worlds first ballistic missile.

Now you twist and bend things again. You turn a 'under construction' page into 'having trouble' and state this as it was a fact.
Once again only in your imagination.
If they never finished their webpage there can be thousands of reasons for it - your claim that it is because they are 'having trouble is completely ridiculous and not based on any freaking facts.

The only reputation you have is to post false and singled minded claims.
Have a nice day.
+++++

So your saying you know more about the Me262 than the folks at STORMBRIDS?

Huh.. Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that too

The only one who claims to know more than the guys from Stormbirds is you.
After all you are the only on who knows the reason why those pages are 'under construction':

You are just ridiculous.



And I still waiting your statements regarding the following:

Links to his working ballistic missile please.

Untrue as we have seen. Myth created by you to support your one sided claims.

False again.
Only the outer wing was swept for correct of CoG as we have seen.

Once more you have showed that the only reputation you have is to post false and singled minded claims.
Have a nice day.
++++

Hardly

When it comes to the Me262 design and development..

All I do is quote STORMBIRDS

Which is all it takes to upset those who belive, or want to belive the Germans were supermen and/or assisted by aliens!

For example.. The difference between your proof and my proof..

When I stated the wings of the Me262 were swept to correct the cg

my proof was to quote STORMBIRDS

When you stated the wings of the Me262 were NOT swept to correct the cg

Your proof consist of you having to resort to playing connect the dots with wiki links and ask people to take it on faith

See the difference?

IN SUMMARY

If there was any proof to support your faith based claims..

You can be sure STORMBIRDS would have mentioned it

Sadly he is over at the dcs forums, too.

And they are easy to spot..

Note how they have to resort to attacking the messenger..

Why?

Because they know they can not attack the message (aka truth)

Nope. You don't only quote them - you even know why those pages are 'under construction'.

Once more, this is nothing but an assumption on your side. No fact, no quote.
You just suck it out of your fingers.

Only the outer wings as we have seen. As the rest of the world sees at least. But maybe not you with your tunnel vision.

Faith based claims?
You are funny.
Maybe you could present your 'hard facts' on the inner wing sweep?
Or Goddards 'working ballistic missile'?

Until then:

Links to his working ballistic missile please.

This is facts, btw:

This is faith; or even fake:
Completely untrue, not supported by links or facts, just existing in your beautiful mind.
Faith you have, indeed, to the point where you twist bend and distort the facts. That's when it turns into fake.
And you complain about history channel? You are no better than them, even worse maybe.

Still false.
Only the outer wing was swept for correct of CoG as we have seen.

Have a faithful day.
++++

Intentional or not, the Germans aknowledged the advantages of swept wing and built on it.
Like it or not, they were the pioneers of swept wing design and everyone else copied them. FACT.

Not really:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._D8_flying.jpg

Swept wings had been around for a long time.

Ah, After reading that statement by you

I think I realized why you are so confused about the difference between proof vs. faith based proof.

Allow me..

You claim the inner wings were NOT swept to correct the cg, and that they were swept to take advantage of swept wing theory

What is this claim of yours based on?

As in what is your proof to support your claim?

Once you answer that..

I think it will not only be clear to you

But clear to all that 'your' reason the inner wings were swept is 'faith' based.

Which IMHO is the reason why STORMBRIDS did not make the same claim 'your' making..

In that their reputation requires them to stick to things they can prove

Which is based on all the data they reviewed during the process of building Me262s from scratch.

Which you can rest assured consists of more data than your wiki links! ;)

First things first

No one I know is saying the Germans were not pioneers in supersonic swept wing theory!

All I am saying is what STORMBRIDS and many others are saying

That the Me262 was NOT the first swept wing jet fighter design with the intent from the start of the design process to sweep the wings to take advantage of swept wing theory!

As we all know the Me262 stared out as a straight wing design!

The 'reason' the wings were swept was to correct the cg due to the heaver than expected engines.

Prior to the end of the war, the Germans were working on some designs that were intended to take advantage of swept wing theory, because at some point during the war they realized Busemann and Walchner published work titled "Profile Characteristics at SUPERSONIC Speed" also applied to slower speeds (as in less than SUPERSONIC, SUBSONIC)

On that note supersonic swept wing theory was no secret!

In that prior to the war a conference on high speed flight held in Rome where Busemann gave a lecture title "Aerodynamic Lift at SUPERSONIC Speed".

So everyone knew about swept wing theory prior to the war!

On that note STORMBRIDS had this to say about the conference in Rome

As you can see they concluded, as many who have worked in aerospace know, changing the 'status quo' can be a slow process sometimes

But there are other reasons!

For one at that time there were no piston or jet engines that would come close to propelling a fighter or bomber to supersonic speeds, thus it was not a real viable option from the start, which could also explained why there was no initial interest and probably why everyone stuck to what they knew worked.

This is from orig source from Development of the Swept Wing 1935-1945, AIAA Library of Flight, 2010, as I posted way above, ignored as usual by you as it doesn't fit your believe.

So by 1942 they knew what they were doing. Plus then there were the 262 flight tests that showed the advantage of the swept wing, as on Stormbirds webpage.
So by 42-43 when the inner wing was swept, they knew the advantges of swept wings.

On top of that we have seen that only the inner wing was swept early in development to correct for CoG as we have seen in the link about wing design of the 262 which I posted several times above.

So I have always showed what my claims were based on.

You better start reading for once, and not only what you like.

Now could you comment on this lie of yours:

You have never supported this with any factual proof. You just sucked it out of your fingers.

You still seem not to be able to come up with anything to support your claim that Goddard build a working ballistic missile.
Faithful believes, not supported by any sources.

Only the outer wing.
Only the outer wing.
Look at the wing design progress linked at least twice already.
Look at the wing design progress linked at least twice already.

The wing was straight, then it was swept in the outer part to correct for CoG, then the engines got on the wing...and then 42-43, by the time additional research had been done and they had access to it and they had tested lower speeds and less wing sweep, then the inner wing was swept.

And please for once could you tell me how come you know why that link in the Stormbirds webpage is still under construction?

Facts for this please. Not more BS which you just imagine.

And no, by shouting louder and writing bigger and in red, your faithful creations and manipulations won't disappear and your unanswered questions will not be answered.

The louder is right works in the kindergarden but not here.
+++++

You say that..

But just saying it does not qualify it as proof!

Clearly your basing your statement off the info you provided..

Information that STORMBIRDS has access to..

So why didn't the folks at STORMBIRDS say what your saying?

Or should we ask..

What do you know about the Me262 development that the folks at STORMBIRDS does NOT know?

I think we would all agree that the answer is NOTHING!

Actually they do..

Allow me..

Note STORMBIRDS said the 'swept wing design'..

Note the word WING and the lack of distinguishing between INNER WING and OUTER WING..

Based on that one can only conclude they were referring to the WHOLE WING DESIGN..

Also note, in reading that statement by STORMBIRDS one can notice that they are a bit annoyed by those who point out this FACT..

Where STORMBIRDS says 'as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often'.

Which tells me if there was any proof to indicate any part of the wing was swept with the intent of taking advantage of swept wing theory..

STORMBIRDS would have said so right than and there.

Also note STORMBIRDS goes on to say the following..

Note STORMBIRDS said 'design aesthetics'..

That being the design approach of 'if it looks right it should fly right'..

As was the case for many designs in WWII!

And if asked I think 9 out of 10 people would agree that the Me262 looks better (aesthetics) with the inner wings swept to match the outer wings.

Actually they do..

And in some cases in great detail!

For example when the re-drew the original Me262 blue prints and preformed some computer analysis they discovered quite a few things that needed fixing. For example the landing gear design was changed, among other things.

Well as I noted, only a fool would! ;)

So let me see if I understand you correctly..

Your saying I am ADDING/SUBTRACTING words to/from the STORMBIRDS statements?

I will have to disagree with you there!

In that as I showed above..

I just take them at their word!

As in when they say 'wing design' I 'interpret' that to mean the 'whole wing'..

Where as you on the other hand are the one that has to ADD words to what they said to make your dream come true!

For example your the one that claims the 'inner' wing was swept to take advantage of swept wing theory..

Yet STORMBIRDS says nothing of the sort!

About the only thing that STORMBIRDS said that could be attributed to the reason the inner wing was swept is when STORMBIRDS noted the Me262 swept wing design was also affected by the design aesthetics

There you are wrong again!

There are many sources out there that state the 'reason' the wings of the Me262 were swept to correct the cg!

And not just web sites or wiki links!

But books written by people who teach aerospace classes

I just forgo posting all those other sources here because I consider STORMBIRDS to be the..

How did you say it?

'CONFIRMED AUTHORITIES' on the subject of the Me262!

As in no need for any other sources.. Unless you know of another group that reviewed all the available Me262 data prior to building reproductions of the Me262 that were so good that Messerschmitt provided them continuation serial numbers. ;)

Fixed that for you.
Personally I am going with the first

Compared to the B49, which was a proven failure, despite even using vertical stabilizers? Yes.


And as you provided such nice pics in your post, let me provide some of my own.


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7221/7...cbe2362e52.jpg
wing2 von Gammelpreusse http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7081/7...65eea9505b.jpg
wing1 von Gammelpreusse

I am sure you will have an opinion on that one, too.


For the rest, tools4fools already settled that.

Disagree.. The B49, as with all flying wings had stability issues.. It was not until the advent of fly-by-wire computer control pilot inputs was this problem solved, which is what made the B2 possible.. Something the Germans would have surly realized for themselves had they had more time to fully test the Go229. Or had the US bothered to fully test the Go229 post war

Well that depends on your definition of failure.. Granted EDWARDS air force base got it's name due to the stability issues mentioned above

But as for the basic concept of the reduced drag a flying wing provides was not a failure

Add to that the basic shape of a flying wing is more stealth than say a B52 and it was not a failure.

Also note there were a lot of politics involved at the time that killed off the flying wings of the 50s, so even if they would have or could have addressed the stability issues in the 50s there is a good chance it woudl have been cancled due to politics

You do realize that one can stretch and pull drawings to make them look like they agree when in fact they don't.. In your case here the leading edges.

And in doing so you missed the point

That the wing span of by the B49 and B2 are the same.. Which is very different from the wing span of the Go229

See above

I would expect nothing less from someone who considers the Germans supermen assisted by aliens..

But here in the real world

The Me262 experts (STORMBIRDS) that build reproductions of the Me262 don't say what the people who belive the Germans were supermen assisted by aliens say they are saying

The Go229 was stable enough to be cleared for serial production. It may or may not have proven airworthy in the long run, I agree that desperation had a hand here. But ultimately is purely up for speculation if that aircraft would have had proven itself or not. There is not much going for the Go229 Document wise, but engine failure at landing approach issues aside, there is nothing going against it, either.

It won a mock battle against a Me262, though.

I define failure by the ability to create an operational aircraft. There have been a lot of flying wing prototypes in history.

I never disagreed about the wingspan. The pics are stretched to give an impression about shape.


Supermen assisted by aliens? You need to become that bitter? Says someone from the nation that invented the A-Bomb and the internet? Seriously?
A bit more self confidence would be in order, here.

Target, eh? Guess that explains the nostalgic vibrations here, hehe

So was the B49!


Agreed

Which is the essence of my point as to what was there to copy? Granted US had possession of the Go229 prototype

But..

Knowing how hard it is to reverse engineer something favors the idea that Northrop would just choose to pass on it and simply use their own designs and associated flight test data from testing their flying wing designs.

Actually there is some note of instability mentioned.. i.e.

So based on that one could say that 'size does not mater' with regards to instability of a flying wing

I keep seeing people make references to this.. But to be honest I have never seen the original source.

That and I have seen it stated in different way..

Everything from it 'PWND' the Me262 in a simulated dog fight to it 'outperformed' the Me262 in a simulated dog fight to your most recent it 'won' the simulated dog fight..

Knowing how those definitions can vary from person to person it would be interesting to see the original source and transcript of it.

That and as far as I can tell it was the smaller H.IX V2 not the Go229 V3 that was used in the simulated dog fight, and as far as I can tell the H.IX V2 did not have any guns.

Well they were all operational..

In that they all flew..

The YB35s had issues with the props and drives shafts and the YB49 had issues with the reliability of the jet engines.. Something the Go229 even suffered from..

And as noted above the YB49s were put into production.. And that was after the accident at Edwards.. A lot of people mistakenly think the crash at Edwards was the end of the Northrop flying wings, which is not the case! It was just one of many straws.. And not all straws were flying wing issues as much as political issues and miltary cuts backs

Ok, but my point is you can stretch an image to make the leading edges line up like you did in your shape pictures.. Thus one really needs to make those kind of measurements from a drawing with scales associated with it (blue prints)

Ah that's right..

You missed my whole statement on the state of history these days.. Where so much of it stems from silly sources like the History Channel..

Where the History Channel has so many kids today believing the Germans were some sort of super humans and/or assisted by aliens from outer space..

My point to that being how important it is to dispel such beliefs!

In that the notion of one country or one people being 'better' than another is what got Germany in all the trouble in the first place!

So not bashing Germany or Germans, in that I would be bashing my family in doing so..

Me being of 100% German decent having grand parents that both came form Germany with roots dating back to the 1600s..

If anything having that background motivates me to make sure these silly types of history channel types of history get put in their place (the bin) ASAP.

Because IMHO the only way you can 'hope' to not make the same mistakes twice is to educate the children of today of the sins of the past

In the flesh! ;)

On that note, even I was surprised at how consistent my argument was between that one at ubi so many years ago and this current one..

I am good like that! ;)

Quote:

Based on that one can only conclude they were referring to the WHOLE WING DESIGN..

That note is not o0n a page called 'the design evolution of the 262', it's called 'plagiarism'.

Saying the swept wing design is to correct for CoG and design aesthetics leaves room for other reasons, but once again, this is not an article mabout 262 design evolution.

Stormbirds does nowhere go in the detail of the design evolution on their page.

Only you believe that the 262 was designed with straight wings and then woops it had swept wings and that was it.
As we have seen the design evolution is much more complicated.

As the photos have proven only the outer wings was swept to correct for CoG. The fact that the 262 got the engines mounted, outer wing swept, inner wing not, proves that the inner wing sweep was not done for CoG.

From Stormbirds, btw:

Quote:
The Me 262 was a stunning design triumph, and the influence of the plane can still be seen in contemporary combat aircraft. Swept wings, automatic slats, modular construction ... all were leading advances for the time.
One more thing you dispute above - despite it coming from your one and only source.


Now back to the questions for you, those that you refuse to answer:

How did you come up with this? Supported by what?

Quote:
And the high speed wind tunnel testing the Germans were working on was for planes flying faster than that.. Which is why they did not immediately make the connection that a swept wing is beneficial at sub sonic speeds.
Links to his working ballistic missile please:

Quote:
In that it was all done before by Robert Goddard
Why do you know the reason for those Stormbird pages being under construction for a long time:

Quote:
So even STORMBRIDS had/has trouble making the wiki link types of connections between the Me262 and post war jet fighter designs that you claim are 'there' and easy to make..
How come you know more than 'under construction'?

++++++

Who said anything about copying? I think the words I used were "inspiration" and "certain design characterestics"

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7081/7...65eea9505b.jpg

I yet have to find similiarities aside the fact that both are flying wings...well, in the case of the B49, a semi flying wing (horizontal stabilizers)

Good, then you see no problem with this pic:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7221/7...cbe2362e52.jpg

I am sure you have enough imagination for the leading edges adjusted to your liking.

Nice from you to point out that the V3 was an even more improved design over the already quite successful H.IX V2 prototype. Unluckily the war ended before the V3 was assembled, so we will never know how those improvements would have benefitted the aircraft.
The V3 never had any guns installed before the war ended.

yeeaaah...That would make a stone operational once I throw it.

I am more then interested to know more about that. I consider the B49 programm quite fascinating, despite it's ultimate failure, for whatever reasons.

See above. I put the pictures over each other so that the most extended areas match. If you want I can provide you with updated graphics to your liking, though I am not sure that would help in support of your points.

Can't judge about that, last time I was in the US is a couple years ago now. (Patriot act? Ppl being treated like potential criminals at airports? Mit fingerprints taken? Did that once,
never again. Pity, I used to love the country and the people.)

I also doubt you will reach these kids here in this forum.

I am not exactly sure the US is a country that can afford fingerpointing when it comes to "we are better then others!"

Certainly explains the stubborness and the "I am always right!" attitude ;)

Once would have agreed to you, until I found out about what kind of lessons countries learned. For the longest time I thought WW2 taught the allies that War is a bad thing.
Now I know these countries learned that war is the best thing ever and you need one every couple years to bolster Egos.

In regards to your style, undoubtly.

I was looking at the 'Evolution of Wing Design' dawning and I noticed something..

There were two things that happened between 03-24-1942 and 07-19-1943

1) The BMW P.3302 was replaced with the Jumo 004A
2) The inner portion of the wing was swept to match the angle of the outer wing

First things first..

We know for a fact that STORMBIRDS agrees that 'the wing' was swept to correct the cg.
We know for a fact that STORMBIRDS did not distinguish between inner or outer wing.

What we don't know for sure is how many times the Germans had to correct the cg due to heavier and larger engines than expected.

But looking at the 'Evolution of Wing Design' it appears they had to do it more than once due to all the changes in the engines

For example, take a look at the pictures dated 03-24-1942 and 07-19-1943 and note:

a) The Jumo 004A is wider and longer than the BMW P.3302.
b) The Jumo 004A and BMW P.3302 intake location is the same.
c) The Jumo 004A sticks out the rear of the wing much further than the BMW P3302.

What this means is:

a) The Jumo 004B version of the Me262 V1 has more weight (mass) behind the cg than the BMW P.3302 version of the Me262 V1
b) The Jumo 004B version of the Me262 V1 is heavier than the BMW P.3302 version of the Me262 V1

Which means the Germans would have had to add more weight (mass) in front of the cg to maintain the cg

This can be done in several ways

1) Add ballast
2) Change the design (shape) of the plane to add more mass forward

Adding ballast is a 'fudge' and is to be avoided, in that it just adds weight. Where as increasing the wing area adds weight, but at the same time increases lift to offset the extra weight of the heavier than expected engines.

With that in mind, it make sense that the Germans would sweep the inner wing to match the sweep of the outer wing, in that it not only looks better (aesthetics) but it adds weight forward of the cg to offset the Jumo 004B mass behind the cg, and adds more lift by increasing the wing area to offset the total weight increase

This observation not only agrees with STORMBIRDS statement that the Germans swept the wing to correct the cg, but could explain why STORMBIRDS did not distinguish between inner and outer when they said the wing design was changed (swept) to correct the cg.

Enjoy!

Indeed there is the change of engines and indeed the Jumo is heavier.

If the inner wing sweep was doone for weight is still debatable as you see in your nicely drawn comparisons:
The Jumo is a much larger engine, stretching out further behind the wing. If you look at your own drawing there is only a small part of the BMW after the center wing, almost entire weight is in front.
Not so with the Jumo, where approx 40% is in the back of wing center.

Radinger and Schick seem to disagree as well:
http://www.amazon.com/262-Entwicklun...N%3D3925505210


In an article about plagiarism. They don't go into design and development details of the 262 really.

You really have to give up clinging to one single sentence on their site.
As said there's much more to design and development than one single sentence.
Start thinking open minded.
++++++

Agreed as my drawing showed

Agreed as my drawing showed

Most of the weight (mass) of the BMW engine is FORWARD of the cg..

Which is explains why the OUTER wing was swept BACKWARDS

As in to put some weight (mass) behind the cg to counter the weight (mass) of BMW engine sticking out ahead of the cg..

Agreed as my drawing showed

And is the essance of my point

As for 40%, I don't know if I would go as far as to say 40% of the weight (mass)..

In that assumes a uniform distribution of weight of the engine, framing, skin, etc.

But I think we can all agree that there is more weight (mass) behind the cg due to the replacement of the BMW with the Jumo..

With that said, we know..

The cg was 'set' for the BMW configuration
The cg will 'change' with the replacement of the BMW with the Jumo

The additional weight (mass) behind the cg has to be offset with weight (mass) added ahead of the cg.

Which is explains why the INNER wing was swept FORWARD

As in to put some weight (mass) ahead of the cg to counter the weight (mass) of Jumo engine sticking out behind the cg..

Hope that helps! S!