Thank you for the laughs!!
I guess you don't understand the fact your sources are not wrong at all. They only convey a portion of the story but their facts are correct.
You do realize that in the decades since WWII,
we in the United States have had time to sort through the data compliled by the Germans.
We have a much better understanding of their work and swept wing theory.
That is why those papers were published and presented at conferences for engineers and scientist.
In 1946 when the NACA and USAAF references your "experts" use were written, the United States had little to know understanding of swept wing theory.
Notice the P-80 had straight wings.....
Yes, the outer wings were swept to eliminate flow seperation!!
What do you think raising critical mach number is all about?? That is the whole point of adding sweep!!
Behind the normal shock is seperated flow. If we increase the critical mach, we reduce the amount of seperated flow on the wing.
Yes, the aircraft benefited from just 18 degrees of wing sweep!!!
Our critical Mach number is raised by reciprocal of the cosine of the angle of sweep. So for 18 degrees of sweep we see a 1.05146 increase to critical mach.
So mach limit of Mach .8 becomes a new limit of .84.
Now at sea level that is represents a 30mph increase in speed!
Now the drag reduction is proportional to cos^2<angle of sweep>
Or a 9.5% reduction in drag.....
Not a bad call on the part of Mtt to add 18 degrees sweep based off their advanced knowledge of swept wing theory. By keeping the sweep moderate, they certainly avoided all the stability and control issues found with sweep angles and engine nacelles.
Yes the center portion was adjusted to expand the forward CG limits!!!
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...kmfr_LD2mjThuA
After flight testing though, the original high aspect ratio wing design CG limits were not suitable for the higher mach limits the outboard sweep allowed.
As an aircraft enters transonic flight, the progression of the normal shock moves the AC rearward reducing the elevators effectiveness.
Additionally, the downwash angle behind the wing is decreased due to the seperated flow behind the normal shock. This increases the angle of attack of the horizontal stabilizer which is the main cause of mach tuck.
An airplane originally designed to have a straight wing would need to expand the forward CG limits if you are to increase the elevators effectiveness if you are going to fly in the transonic realm.
The sources you quote are correct and the
sources they use were written at a time when
you could count on one hand the number of United States Aereonautical Engineers who knew anything at all about swept wing theory.