Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Pilot's Lounge

Pilot's Lounge Members meetup

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-13-2012, 04:26 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Lot of nonsense in this thread.

The German contributions to swept wing research:

Quote:
1) German AVA/LFA/DVL wind-tunnel data gave proof in 1940
that Busemann’s 1935 supersonic swept-wing theory is also applicable
for subsonic compressibility effects.
2) The beginnings of area ruling can be traced back to Junkers’
patent in 1943.
3) Artificial stability (philosophy, Heinkel; theory, Fischel, 1940)
was first demonstrated by DVL’s rate gyro controlled yaw damper
(1944).
4) The existence of LFAVoelkenrode came as a complete surprise
to the Americans and British after WWII.
5) Only after von Karman and his scientific advisory team arrived
in Germany was the totality of the German aeronautical research and
design effort revealed.

6) German swept-wing wind-tunnel data dispelled U.S. doubts
regarding the validity of R. T. Jones’ theoretical work.

7) To preserve that scientific picture of LFA and AVA, every
hardware and technical data were boxed up and shipped off mainly
to Wright Field and to Bedford, United Kingdom.
Fairly extensive German wind-tunnel data were used for future
swept-wing designs in the United States, Russia, United Kingdom,
France, and Sweden.
Attached Files
File Type: zip German Swept Wing Research1.zip (4.07 MB, 2 views)

Last edited by Crumpp; 06-13-2012 at 05:19 PM.
  #2  
Old 06-13-2012, 05:03 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
It is clear from the literature and available data, that Germany has led the development of the flying wing concept. The work of Lillienthal, Lippish, and the Horten brothers is impressive by all measures. The contributions of the English, Dunne and Hill, while not as diverse as the German influence is extremely notewothy in the area of stability and control. Contributions by Burnelli and Northrop of the United States focused on the maturation and commercial development of the flying wing concept.
The German pioneers did contribute to Northrop's flying wing designs.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg flying wing contributors.jpg (17.1 KB, 12 views)
Attached Files
File Type: zip Flying wings.zip (3.42 MB, 2 views)
  #3  
Old 06-13-2012, 05:18 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Me 262 CG blah blah blah
The aerodynamic center moves under compressibility increasing the stability margin.

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  
Old 06-13-2012, 09:55 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

What happenend to your reply, Tagert?

Quote:
If the Germans fully understood swept wing theory..
Nobody fully understood swept wing theory until after the war. As the history notes, even Jones work in the United States was viewed with skeptism and far from mainstream.

Nobody fully understood the transonic and supersonic realms either.

Quote:
German swept-wing wind-tunnel data dispelled U.S. doubts
regarding the validity of R. T. Jones’ theoretical work.
What the Germans were, is far ahead of anyone else during the war. Their research became the foundation others like Northrop built upon.
  #5  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:18 AM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Nobody fully understood swept wing theory until after the war.
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  
Old 06-14-2012, 02:28 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Neither of which were done to take advantage of swept wing theory
That is not correct. It is impossible to argue that Mtt was not aware of swept wing theory.

Quote:
By 1945 the entire German aircraft industry had a multitude of experimental swept wing aircraft and missile designs in a final realization phase. Also, a Me 262 had been retrofitted with a 35 degree arrow wing and was ready for first flight. A further (Me 262 HG II) version with 45 degrees sweepback was under final construction at the end of WW II.
Quote:
The outer wings were swept to correct the cg.
Probably as result of the swept wing research and compressibility effects on the CG......

Mtt was obviously interested in adding futher sweep to the design.
  #7  
Old 06-14-2012, 02:32 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

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  
Old 06-14-2012, 01:26 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
That is not correct.
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.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.