Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
It still done and they are still trying.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
Modern communication technologies make the situation even worse - it's more and more difficult to filter the information and misinformation.
|
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
How would I know?
|
Do some research beyond the history channel, to filter out some of that 'noise' you noted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
|
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
And even if it was purely to correct the CG - this claim is as unconfirmed as the opposite claim to me -
|
It is confirmed
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
then why did they later on introduce the sweep to the inner section as well (which was obviosuly not needed for CG)?
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
At the end the real truth lies probably somewhere inbetween.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
And the bottom line stays the same - first fighter plane with swept wing.
|
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
The V2 rocket was sure incorporating existing designs, in fact most innovative designs did. After all it is a learning and improving process.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
But bottom line is that it was the first ballistic missile.
|
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
And what is someone trying to say when putting up that it was Goddard parts/inventions? 'Hey he used Goddard design ideas, so it wasn't really that much of an achievement'? Well that's already bending history in my opinion.
|
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
There's much more subtle ways to do it than just blatant lies.
|
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
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. |
If you think that is funny.. Than you will love the wiki so called official US history on Von Braun!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools
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.
|
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