Thread: Horton
View Single Post
  #46  
Old 05-27-2012, 09:05 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tools4fools View Post
I posted it already above:
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by STOMRBIRDS.COM
it is also true that the Germans were aware of the advantages of the swept wing since the 30s!
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..

Code:
If the Germans 'were aware' of the advantages of a swept wing.. 
Why did the initial design of the Me262 have straight wings?
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by STOMRBIRDS.COM
It is also true that design aesthetics by the design team, irrespective of any initial misgivings about practicality, influenced the wing shape of the 262.
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.
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.