Horton

[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.
++++

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

Great. Thanks for posting this link.

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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

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

[tools4fools]

That being to correct the cg

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.
++++

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

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?

[raaaid]

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

i think they copied nature:

[tools4fools]

Is that what your trying to say?

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'.

+++++

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

Stormbirds nowhere specify that the 'entire' wing was swept to correct for CoG.

Actually they do..

Allow me..

Originally Posted by STORMBIRDS

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

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..

Originally Posted by STORMBIRDS

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tools4fools

Nowhere on their webpage do they go into detail about the 262's development.

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.

Originally Posted by tools4fools

There's nothing I disagree with Stormbirds.

Well as I noted, only a fool would!

Originally Posted by tools4fools

You however just interpret what they say in the way your faith wants it to be - not the way they say it.

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

Originally Posted by tools4fools

Nor do you look at any other resource.

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.