![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Lot of nonsense in this thread.
The German contributions to swept wing research: Quote:
Last edited by Crumpp; 06-13-2012 at 05:19 PM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Two common methods of handling this are: 1. Add drag to slow the aircraft down below compressibility 2. If the CG is within limits<for that condition>, the aircraft will recover. If you want to make the elevator effective enough to recover the aircraft, it must not violate the forward CG. The forward CG limits defines the point you can raise the nose. Under compressibility, behind the normal shock, the dynamic pressure is greatly reduced and the flow subsonic. I am sure Mtt was aware of this fact. Last edited by Crumpp; 06-13-2012 at 05:28 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
What happenend to your reply, Tagert?
Quote:
Nobody fully understood the transonic and supersonic realms either. Quote:
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Bingo!
Now maybe tools will belive me? ![]()
__________________
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. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 06-14-2012 at 01:37 AM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Mtt was obviously interested in adding futher sweep to the design. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
While nobody fully understood swept wing theory, the Germans were light years ahead of anybody else.
In fact, Sir Sydney Camm, the designer of the Hurricane initially remarked, "Has anyone seen such a bloody useless" design concept upon seeing the German swept wing designs. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
That is your opinion and your welcome to it.. But I think Ill stick with what STORMBIRDS and Jenkins had to say on the subject. S!
__________________
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. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|