Horton

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

It was a prototype, naturally it had flaws. That is in the nature of a prototype.

I am glad you agree with me..

But you didn't answer my question..

What do you think is more likely?

1) Northrop used design aspects of the Go229.. A plane that you admit 
is a prototype, A plane that you admit was not thoroughly tested, A plane 
that you admit very little test data was collected on, and of that even less 
survived the war

Or

2) Northrop used design aspects from their own B-49.. A plane that was well 
beyond the prototype phase, A plane that was thoroughly tested, A plane 
that a lot of test data was collected on

Personally I am going with the later

Originally Posted by Bewolf

It stands, the Go229 was remarkebly stable for a swept wing design from the 40ies.

So let me see if I understand you statement of 'stability'

The Go229.. A plane that is a prototype, A plane that was not thoroughly tested, A plane that very little test data was collected on, and of that even less survived the war..

And you say it 'stands' as a 'stable' plane?

I have to ask what is that statment based on?

Please explain, because I don't see anything said here by anyone that would qualify as proof of stability.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

By your logic alone the P51 was a faulty design, given it's short development history.

I think you need to re-read what I said.. And note that I said NOTHING about design development time.. And to be clear, I 'think' you are referring to time it took between the time NA was given the green light to start work on the P51 design to the roll out of the first prototype.

If so, what you are referring to is the design development time.. Which was a very short time!

But now re-read what I wrote about the Go229 and note I was referring to the 'testing' time, not the 'design' time. Testing time is something the P51 got plenty of AFTER the first prototype was build!

With that cleared up

In short, durring WWII anyone could design a plane and build a prototype..

But until the flight testing was done, they really didn't know for sure if what they build would be worth a dam, let alone fly.

Today, they can simulate a lot if not most things prior to a prototype being build, such that when the actual flight testing occurs they got a pretty good idea of what to expect..

Which was NOT the case in WWII and is the core of my point in my previous post to you..

That being a lot of the late war Germans stuff did NOT have the luxury of extensive testing..

They were desperate and had to forgo a lot of the testing that they themselves would have like to have done, but were unable to do.

Therefore they did not have time to find the errors one could have found had they had more time to test it.. As was the case of Nortrops flying wings post war.. Which is why this 'myth' of the Go299 of being stable can go un-challanted, in that no one, not even post war, bothered to test it throghtly to see if that was in fact the case.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

The Horten was not a new concept. The design history starts in the late 20ies. Stability issues in flying wings were not a new problem ppl suddenly had to wrap their head around.

By your logic alone then no plane in WWII required any testing..

Yet we know in fact they did!

Which in turn means your logic has 'issues'

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Possebilities and chances. If you believe Northrop was mentally stuck in a box, well, then you believe Northrop was stuck in a box.

It has nothing to do with their head being stuck in a box and everything to do with being smart about what your doing. As noted above

1) Northrop used design aspects of the Go229.. A plane that you admit 
is a prototype, A plane that you admit was not thoroughly tested, A plane 
that you admit very little test data was collected on, and of that even less 
survived the war

Or

2) Northrop used designs aspects from their own B-49.. A plane that was well 
beyond the prototype phase, A plane that was thoroughly tested, A plane 
that a lot of test data was collected on

Personally I am going with the later

Now if that has not sunk in yet.. I think I know a way to help it sink in.. And all you have to do is answer one question

Question: What does the Go229 have that the Northrop flying wings of the 40s and 50s didn't have?

Once you realize the answer is nothing

Than and only than will it be clear as to why Northrop would be smart to start the B2 project based on their thoroughly tested production level designs of the 40s and 50s over a Go229 prototype that was not thoroughly tested.. In that had it been thoroughly tested 'chances' are that Horton would have had to do some of the things Northrop did based on what Northrop discovered during testing

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Note the extended wing area around the rear fuselage in the B2. That is not Northrop 40ies/50ies.

That is not Go229 either

Which is hard to see from the drawings you provided.. So I decided to make my own where I combined a top view of a B2, B49 and a Go229 (see attached). Note these are not blue prints, thus the scale may be off in the drawings a bit. But note the wing span of the B49 vs the B2.. And note they are both 172ft.. At which point one has to ask again

What do you think is more likely?

1) The wingspan of the B2 being 172 ft and the wingspan of the Go229 being 
55 ft indicates Northrop based the B2 design on the Go229

Or

2) The wingspan of the B2 being 172 ft and the wingspan of the YB49 
being 172 ft indicates Northrop based the B2 design on the B49

Personally I am going with the later

Originally Posted by Bewolf

I think you confuse the concept of a rocket with the achievement of a ballistic missile reaching the edge of space in a constant military application after countless trial and error.
The V2 was an advanced concept.

Hardly..

I think it is safe to say I know the difference.. As one who works at White Sands Missile Range and works in the same building that Von Braun worked in after the war.. A building that still has the rail-road tracks in it where they use to assemble the V2 for test, and is just down the street from a display of what some call 'the most complete V2 in the world'.. On that note WSMR is only a short drive from Roswell where they have a Goddards museum and one of Goddards original launch pads and is not the far from where Goddards did his rocket testings in the 20s and 30s.. Which is also why I feel safe in saying the V2 was not as advanced as the history channel would have you belive. Unless you consider 'advanced' to mean something build using about 20 of Goddards patents from the 20s and 30s in the construction of the V2.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

I think the A4 had enough influence on american rocket development alright.

Well not if we use the same measuring stick that you 'tried' to use to equate the B2 to the Go229, that being the tails look similar.. In that the V2 looks nothing like the Saturn V.

On that note, I always wondered what the space race would have been like had Goddard not died in 1945 to throat cancer. Imagine Von working with Goddard.. The man Von Braun freely admitted after the war, much of the V-2 design was directly borrowed from the writings of the American rocket scientist Robert Goddard [1].. The man Von Braun said "His rockets ... may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles[2].. I don't know what they could have done working together.. But I think it is safe to say the Russians would not have beat us into space and that we would have got to the moon even sooner.

[1] http://www.nmspacemuseum.org/halloff...tail.php?id=29
[2] http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbrau...childhood.html
[3] http://blog.modernmechanix.com/the-m...door-to-space/

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

I am glad you agree with me..

But you didn't answer my question..

What do you think is more likely?

1) Northrop used design aspects of the Go229.. A plane that you admit
is a prototype, A plane that you admit was not thoroughly tested, A plane
that you admit very little test data was collected on, and of that even less
survived the war, but which still suggests the Horten being a surprisingly stable wing

Or

2) Northrop used design aspects from their own B-49.. A plane that was well
beyond the prototype phase, A plane that was thoroughly tested, A plane
that a lot of test data was collected on but despite that never managed to be developed into a state of being airworthy and ultimately got pulled from service

Fixed that for you.
Personally I am going with the first

So let me see if I understand you statement of 'stability'

The Go229.. A plane that is a prototype, A plane that was not thoroughly tested, A plane that very little test data was collected on, and of that even less survived the war..

And you say it 'stands' as a 'stable' plane?

I have to ask what is that statment based on?

Please explain, because I don't see anything said here by anyone that would qualify as proof of stability.

Compared to the B49, which was a proven failure, despite even using vertical stabilizers? Yes.


And as you provided such nice pics in your post, let me provide some of my own.



wing2 von Gammelpreusse
wing1 von Gammelpreusse

I am sure you will have an opinion on that one, too.


For the rest, tools4fools already settled that.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Fixed that for you.

Disagree.. The B49, as with all flying wings had stability issues.. It was not until the advent of fly-by-wire computer control pilot inputs was this problem solved, which is what made the B2 possible.. Something the Germans would have surly realized for themselves had they had more time to fully test the Go229. Or had the US bothered to fully test the Go229 post war

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Compared to the B49, which was a proven failure, despite even using vertical stabilizers? Yes.

Well that depends on your definition of failure.. Granted EDWARDS air force base got it's name due to the stability issues mentioned above

But as for the basic concept of the reduced drag a flying wing provides was not a failure

Add to that the basic shape of a flying wing is more stealth than say a B52 and it was not a failure.

Also note there were a lot of politics involved at the time that killed off the flying wings of the 50s, so even if they would have or could have addressed the stability issues in the 50s there is a good chance it woudl have been cancled due to politics

Originally Posted by Bewolf

And as you provided such nice pics in your post, let me provide some of my own.

You do realize that one can stretch and pull drawings to make them look like they agree when in fact they don't.. In your case here the leading edges.

And in doing so you missed the point

That the wing span of by the B49 and B2 are the same.. Which is very different from the wing span of the Go229

Originally Posted by Bewolf

I am sure you will have an opinion on that one, too.

See above

Originally Posted by Bewolf

For the rest, tools4fools already settled that.

I would expect nothing less from someone who considers the Germans supermen assisted by aliens..

But here in the real world

The Me262 experts (STORMBIRDS) that build reproductions of the Me262 don't say what the people who belive the Germans were supermen assisted by aliens say they are saying

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Disagree.. The B49, as with all flying wings had stability issues.. It was not until the advent of fly-by-wire computer control pilot inputs was this problem solved, which is what made the B2 possible.. Something the Germans would have surly realized for themselves had they had more time to fully test the Go229. Or had the US bothered to fully test the Go229 post war

The Go229 was stable enough to be cleared for serial production. It may or may not have proven airworthy in the long run, I agree that desperation had a hand here. But ultimately is purely up for speculation if that aircraft would have had proven itself or not. There is not much going for the Go229 Document wise, but engine failure at landing approach issues aside, there is nothing going against it, either.

It won a mock battle against a Me262, though.

Well that depends on your definition of failure.. Granted EDWARDS air force base got it's name due to the stability issues mentioned above

But as for the basic concept of the reduced drag a flying wing provides was not a failure, add to that the basic shape of a flying wing is more stealth than say a B52 and it was not a failure. Also there were a lot of politics involved at the time that killed off the flying wings of the 50s.

I define failure by the ability to create an operational aircraft. There have been a lot of flying wing prototypes in history.

You do realize that one can stretch and pull drawings to make them look like they agree when in fact they don't.. In your case here the leading edges.. In doing so you missed the point, that the wing span of by the B49 and B2 are the same.

I never disagreed about the wingspan. The pics are stretched to give an impression about shape.

See above

I would expect nothing less from someone who considers the Germans supermen assisted by aliens..

But here in the real world

The Me262 experts (STORMBIRDS) that build reproductions of the Me262 don't say what the people who belive the Germans were supermen assisted by aliens say they are saying

Supermen assisted by aliens? You need to become that bitter? Says someone from the nation that invented the A-Bomb and the internet? Seriously?
A bit more self confidence would be in order, here.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I was looking at the 'Evolution of Wing Design' dawning and I noticed something..

There were two things that happened between 03-24-1942 and 07-19-1943

1) The BMW P.3302 was replaced with the Jumo 004A
2) The inner portion of the wing was swept to match the angle of the outer wing

First things first..

We know for a fact that STORMBIRDS agrees that 'the wing' was swept to correct the cg.
We know for a fact that STORMBIRDS did not distinguish between inner or outer wing.

What we don't know for sure is how many times the Germans had to correct the cg due to heavier and larger engines than expected.

But looking at the 'Evolution of Wing Design' it appears they had to do it more than once due to all the changes in the engines

For example, take a look at the pictures dated 03-24-1942 and 07-19-1943 and note:

a) The Jumo 004A is wider and longer than the BMW P.3302.
b) The Jumo 004A and BMW P.3302 intake location is the same.
c) The Jumo 004A sticks out the rear of the wing much further than the BMW P3302.

What this means is:

a) The Jumo 004B version of the Me262 V1 has more weight (mass) behind the cg than the BMW P.3302 version of the Me262 V1
b) The Jumo 004B version of the Me262 V1 is heavier than the BMW P.3302 version of the Me262 V1

Which means the Germans would have had to add more weight (mass) in front of the cg to maintain the cg

This can be done in several ways

1) Add ballast
2) Change the design (shape) of the plane to add more mass forward

Adding ballast is a 'fudge' and is to be avoided, in that it just adds weight. Where as increasing the wing area adds weight, but at the same time increases lift to offset the extra weight of the heavier than expected engines.

With that in mind, it make sense that the Germans would sweep the inner wing to match the sweep of the outer wing, in that it not only looks better (aesthetics) but it adds weight forward of the cg to offset the Jumo 004B mass behind the cg, and adds more lift by increasing the wing area to offset the total weight increase

This observation not only agrees with STORMBIRDS statement that the Germans swept the wing to correct the cg, but could explain why STORMBIRDS did not distinguish between inner and outer when they said the wing design was changed (swept) to correct the cg.

Enjoy!

[tools4fools]

Indeed there is the change of engines and indeed the Jumo is heavier.

If the inner wing sweep was doone for weight is still debatable as you see in your nicely drawn comparisons:
The Jumo is a much larger engine, stretching out further behind the wing. If you look at your own drawing there is only a small part of the BMW after the center wing, almost entire weight is in front.
Not so with the Jumo, where approx 40% is in the back of wing center.

Radinger and Schick seem to disagree as well:
http://www.amazon.com/262-Entwicklun...N%3D3925505210

On 1 March 1940, instead of moving the wing backward on its mount, the outer wing was repositioned slightly aft; 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

We know for a fact that STORMBIRDS did not distinguish between inner or outer wing.

In an article about plagiarism. They don't go into design and development details of the 262 really.

You really have to give up clinging to one single sentence on their site.
As said there's much more to design and development than one single sentence.
Start thinking open minded.
++++++

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

The Jumo is a much larger engine, stretching out further behind the wing.

Agreed as my drawing showed

Originally Posted by tools4fools

If you look at your own drawing there is only a small part of the BMW after the center wing, almost entire weight is in front.

Agreed as my drawing showed

Most of the weight (mass) of the BMW engine is FORWARD of the cg..

Which is explains why the OUTER wing was swept BACKWARDS

As in to put some weight (mass) behind the cg to counter the weight (mass) of BMW engine sticking out ahead of the cg..

Originally Posted by tools4fools

Not so with the Jumo, where approx 40% is in the back of wing center.

Agreed as my drawing showed

And is the essance of my point

As for 40%, I don't know if I would go as far as to say 40% of the weight (mass)..

In that assumes a uniform distribution of weight of the engine, framing, skin, etc.

But I think we can all agree that there is more weight (mass) behind the cg due to the replacement of the BMW with the Jumo..

With that said, we know..

The cg was 'set' for the BMW configuration
The cg will 'change' with the replacement of the BMW with the Jumo

The additional weight (mass) behind the cg has to be offset with weight (mass) added ahead of the cg.

Which is explains why the INNER wing was swept FORWARD

As in to put some weight (mass) ahead of the cg to counter the weight (mass) of Jumo engine sticking out behind the cg..

Hope that helps! S!

[tools4fools]

The additional weight (mass) behind the cg has to be offset with weight (mass) added ahead of the cg.

Indeed, nobody disputes this.

But the Jumo added a lot of weight forward too, remember?
Not only behind.
So correctly placed there is no need for additional weight.
In particular as the majority of weight seems to be forward in the Jumo 004.

http://deanoinamerica.files.wordpres.../jumo004_1.jpg

There certainly seem to be more bits n pieces in those 60% percent mounted forward on the wing.


Additionally check this out, from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Luftwaffe-...123503&sr=1-12

Me262wing01.jpg

As we see Jumo jet, still straight inner wings.

So we are likely back to this:

On 1 March 1940, instead of moving the wing backward on its mount, the outer wing was repositioned slightly aft; 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

++++