Horton

[Sternjaeger II]

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.

[tools4fools]

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

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.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by tools4fools

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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!

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

[tools4fools]

But your missing the point

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...

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

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?

It is confirmed

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

I would expect them to have to fudge the outer wings to acc

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...

then why did they later on introduce the sweep to the inner section as well (which was obviosuly not needed for CG)?

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.

At the end the real truth lies probably somewhere inbetween.

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

The biggest difference between his and the V2 was his had cameras and instruments installed where the Germans put explosives

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.

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

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.

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

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.
+++++

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

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.

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

Originally Posted by tools4fools

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

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

http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/plagiarism/plag.htm
it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft

Enjoy!

PS your welcome!

[tools4fools]

While it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft, it is also true that the Germans were aware of the advantages of the swept wing since the 30s!

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.

Well, we can start by ascertaining that the various high - speed trials with the Me 262 proved without a doubt the advantage of the swept wing over the straight wing

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.

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.

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:

"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?

The real surprise then is why was this knowledge of the swept wing not taken advantage of worldwide before it was experimentally proven on the Me 262.

It is a generally well known fact that German designs for advanced jet aircraft (and rockets, for that matter) influenced postwar aircraft development to varying degrees.

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.
++++

[MB_Avro_UK]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

No. It was made of wood for other reasons.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

got wood?

hur hur hur.....

[addman]

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.