Horton

[tools4fools]

All I do is quote STORMBIRDS

Nope. You don't only quote them - you even know why those pages are 'under construction'.

So even STORMBRIDS had/has trouble making the wiki link types of connections

Once more, this is nothing but an assumption on your side. No fact, no quote.
You just suck it out of your fingers.

When I stated the wings of the Me262 were swept to correct the cg

Only the outer wings as we have seen. As the rest of the world sees at least. But maybe not you with your tunnel vision.

If there was any proof to support your faith based claims

Faith based claims?
You are funny.
Maybe you could present your 'hard facts' on the inner wing sweep?
Or Goddards 'working ballistic missile'?

Until then:

In that it was all done before by Robert Goddard

Links to his working ballistic missile please.

This is facts, btw:

Hubert Ludewieg of the High-Speed Aerodynamics Branch at the AVA Göttingen in 1939 conducted the first wind tunnel tests to investigate Busemann's theory.[2] Two wings, one with no sweep, and one with 45 degrees of sweep were tested at Mach numbers of 0.7 and 0.9 in the 11 x 13 cm wind tunnel. The results of these tests confirmed the drag reduction offered by swept wings at transonic speeds.[2] The results of the tests were communicated to Albert Betz who then passed them on to Willy Messerschmitt in December 1939. The tests were expanded in 1940 to include wings with 15, 30 and -45 degrees of sweep and Mach numbers as high as 1.21.

This is faith; or even fake:

And the high speed wind tunnel testing the Germans were working on was for planes flying faster than that.. Which is why they did not immediately make the connection that a swept wing is beneficial at sub sonic speeds.

Completely untrue, not supported by links or facts, just existing in your beautiful mind.
Faith you have, indeed, to the point where you twist bend and distort the facts. That's when it turns into fake.
And you complain about history channel? You are no better than them, even worse maybe.

But as we now know the wings were swept to correct the cg and not to take advantage of swept wing theory/technology

Still false.
Only the outer wing was swept for correct of CoG as we have seen.

Have a faithful day.
++++

[Jaws2002]

Intentional or not, the Germans aknowledged the advantages of swept wing and built on it.
Like it or not, they were the pioneers of swept wing design and everyone else copied them. FACT.

[AndyJWest]

they were the pioneers of swept wing design

Not really:


Swept wings had been around for a long time.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

Faith based claims?
You are funny.
Maybe you could present your 'hard facts' on the inner wing sweep?

Ah, After reading that statement by you

I think I realized why you are so confused about the difference between proof vs. faith based proof.

Allow me..

You claim the inner wings were NOT swept to correct the cg, and that they were swept to take advantage of swept wing theory

What is this claim of yours based on?

As in what is your proof to support your claim?

Once you answer that..

I think it will not only be clear to you

But clear to all that 'your' reason the inner wings were swept is 'faith' based.

Which IMHO is the reason why STORMBRIDS did not make the same claim 'your' making..

In that their reputation requires them to stick to things they can prove

Which is based on all the data they reviewed during the process of building Me262s from scratch.

Which you can rest assured consists of more data than your wiki links!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

Intentional or not, the Germans acknowledged the advantages of swept wing and built on it.
Like it or not, they were the pioneers of swept wing design and everyone else copied them. FACT.

First things first

No one I know is saying the Germans were not pioneers in supersonic swept wing theory!

All I am saying is what STORMBRIDS and many others are saying

That the Me262 was NOT the first swept wing jet fighter design with the intent from the start of the design process to sweep the wings to take advantage of swept wing theory!

As we all know the Me262 stared out as a straight wing design!

The 'reason' the wings were swept was to correct the cg due to the heaver than expected engines.

Prior to the end of the war, the Germans were working on some designs that were intended to take advantage of swept wing theory, because at some point during the war they realized Busemann and Walchner published work titled "Profile Characteristics at SUPERSONIC Speed" also applied to slower speeds (as in less than SUPERSONIC, SUBSONIC)

On that note supersonic swept wing theory was no secret!

In that prior to the war a conference on high speed flight held in Rome where Busemann gave a lecture title "Aerodynamic Lift at SUPERSONIC Speed".

So everyone knew about swept wing theory prior to the war!

On that note STORMBRIDS had this to say about the conference in Rome

Originally Posted by STORMBIRDS

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. The only plausible (if somewhat vague) explanation was the resistance to new ideas found in all scientific circles

As you can see they concluded, as many who have worked in aerospace know, changing the 'status quo' can be a slow process sometimes

But there are other reasons!

For one at that time there were no piston or jet engines that would come close to propelling a fighter or bomber to supersonic speeds, thus it was not a real viable option from the start, which could also explained why there was no initial interest and probably why everyone stuck to what they knew worked.

[tools4fools]

This is from orig source from Development of the Swept Wing 1935-1945, AIAA Library of Flight, 2010, as I posted way above, ignored as usual by you as it doesn't fit your believe.

Hubert Ludewieg of the High-Speed Aerodynamics Branch at the AVA Göttingen in 1939 conducted the first wind tunnel tests to investigate Busemann's theory.[2] Two wings, one with no sweep, and one with 45 degrees of sweep were tested at Mach numbers of 0.7 and 0.9 in the 11 x 13 cm wind tunnel. The results of these tests confirmed the drag reduction offered by swept wings at transonic speeds.[2] The results of the tests were communicated to Albert Betz who then passed them on to Willy Messerschmitt in December 1939. The tests were expanded in 1940 to include wings with 15, 30 and -45 degrees of sweep and Mach numbers as high as 1.21.

So by 1942 they knew what they were doing. Plus then there were the 262 flight tests that showed the advantage of the swept wing, as on Stormbirds webpage.
So by 42-43 when the inner wing was swept, they knew the advantges of swept wings.

On top of that we have seen that only the inner wing was swept early in development to correct for CoG as we have seen in the link about wing design of the 262 which I posted several times above.

So I have always showed what my claims were based on.

You better start reading for once, and not only what you like.

Now could you comment on this lie of yours:

And the high speed wind tunnel testing the Germans were working on was for planes flying faster than that.. Which is why they did not immediately make the connection that a swept wing is beneficial at sub sonic speeds.

You have never supported this with any factual proof. You just sucked it out of your fingers.

In that it was all done before by Robert Goddard

You still seem not to be able to come up with anything to support your claim that Goddard build a working ballistic missile.
Faithful believes, not supported by any sources.

The 'reason' the wings were swept was to correct the cg due to the heaver than expected engines.

Only the outer wing.
Only the outer wing.
Look at the wing design progress linked at least twice already.
Look at the wing design progress linked at least twice already.

The wing was straight, then it was swept in the outer part to correct for CoG, then the engines got on the wing...and then 42-43, by the time additional research had been done and they had access to it and they had tested lower speeds and less wing sweep, then the inner wing was swept.

And please for once could you tell me how come you know why that link in the Stormbirds webpage is still under construction?

Facts for this please. Not more BS which you just imagine.

And no, by shouting louder and writing bigger and in red, your faithful creations and manipulations won't disappear and your unanswered questions will not be answered.

The louder is right works in the kindergarden but not here.
+++++

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

Only the outer wing.

You say that..

But just saying it does not qualify it as proof!

Clearly your basing your statement off the info you provided..

Information that STORMBIRDS has access to..

So why didn't the folks at STORMBIRDS say what your saying?

Or should we ask..

What do you know about the Me262 development that the folks at STORMBIRDS does NOT know?

I think we would all agree that the answer is NOTHING!

[tools4fools]

Stormbirds nowhere specify that the 'entire' wing was swept to correct for CoG. Nowhere on their webpage do they go into detail about the 262's development.
There's nothing I disagree with Stormbirds.
You however just interpret what they say in the way your faith wants it to be - not the way they say it. Nor do you look at any other resource.

V1 prototype photographs with outer swept wing only:
http://www.luftwaffen-projekte.de/lw...v/me262_v1.jpg
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...-me-262-v1.jpg

Evolution of wing design:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e6...111/SW2623.jpg

As the world can see between 41 and 42 the V1 had only the outer wing swept.Which brings up the question why the inner wing was swept later on too.

From Stormbirds, btw:

The Me 262 was a stunning design triumph, and the influence of the plane can still be seen in contemporary combat aircraft. Swept wings, automatic slats, modular construction ... all were leading advances for the time.

Now back to the questions for you, those that you refuse to answer:

How did you come up with this? Supported by what?

And the high speed wind tunnel testing the Germans were working on was for planes flying faster than that.. Which is why they did not immediately make the connection that a swept wing is beneficial at sub sonic speeds.

Links to his working ballistic missile please:

In that it was all done before by Robert Goddard

Why do you know the reason for those Stormbird pages being under construction for a long time:

So even STORMBRIDS had/has trouble making the wiki link types of connections between the Me262 and post war jet fighter designs that you claim are 'there' and easy to make..

How come you know more than 'under construction'?

++++++

[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.

[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.