Horton

[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.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

Roflmao! What a great thread! And what a terrific sense of deja vu.
In another place, in another time;


http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...pt+wings+me262

Ace of Aces appears on page four, post number 39. Enjoy!

Target, eh? Guess that explains the nostalgic vibrations here, hehe

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

The Go229 was stable enough to be cleared for serial production.

So was the B49!

The setback (crash at Edwards) in the program turned out to be temporary; the airplane's potential for a variety of roles was well recognized by the Air Force. A review of the Strategic Reconnaissance Program by the Air Force subsequently led to a formal contract in September 1948, for 30 reconnaissance versions of the B-49, designated the RB-49A.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

Agreed

Originally Posted by Bewolf

There is not much going for the Go229 Document wise, but engine failure at landing approach issues aside,

Which is the essence of my point as to what was there to copy? Granted US had possession of the Go229 prototype

But..

Knowing how hard it is to reverse engineer something favors the idea that Northrop would just choose to pass on it and simply use their own designs and associated flight test data from testing their flying wing designs.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

there is nothing going against it, either.

Actually there is some note of instability mentioned.. i.e.

Originally Posted by "The Great Book of Fighters" ISBN 0-7603-1194-3. pg 247

The H.IX V2 reportedly displayed very good handling qualities, with only moderate lateral instability (a typical deficiency of tailless aircraft).

So based on that one could say that 'size does not mater' with regards to instability of a flying wing

Originally Posted by Bewolf

It won a mock battle against a Me262, though.

I keep seeing people make references to this.. But to be honest I have never seen the original source.

That and I have seen it stated in different way..

Everything from it 'PWND' the Me262 in a simulated dog fight to it 'outperformed' the Me262 in a simulated dog fight to your most recent it 'won' the simulated dog fight..

Knowing how those definitions can vary from person to person it would be interesting to see the original source and transcript of it.

That and as far as I can tell it was the smaller H.IX V2 not the Go229 V3 that was used in the simulated dog fight, and as far as I can tell the H.IX V2 did not have any guns.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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

Well they were all operational..

In that they all flew..

The YB35s had issues with the props and drives shafts and the YB49 had issues with the reliability of the jet engines.. Something the Go229 even suffered from..

And as noted above the YB49s were put into production.. And that was after the accident at Edwards.. A lot of people mistakenly think the crash at Edwards was the end of the Northrop flying wings, which is not the case! It was just one of many straws.. And not all straws were flying wing issues as much as political issues and miltary cuts backs

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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

Ok, but my point is you can stretch an image to make the leading edges line up like you did in your shape pictures.. Thus one really needs to make those kind of measurements from a drawing with scales associated with it (blue prints)

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

Ah that's right..

You missed my whole statement on the state of history these days.. Where so much of it stems from silly sources like the History Channel..

Where the History Channel has so many kids today believing the Germans were some sort of super humans and/or assisted by aliens from outer space..

My point to that being how important it is to dispel such beliefs!

In that the notion of one country or one people being 'better' than another is what got Germany in all the trouble in the first place!

So not bashing Germany or Germans, in that I would be bashing my family in doing so..

Me being of 100% German decent having grand parents that both came form Germany with roots dating back to the 1600s..

If anything having that background motivates me to make sure these silly types of history channel types of history get put in their place (the bin) ASAP.

Because IMHO the only way you can 'hope' to not make the same mistakes twice is to educate the children of today of the sins of the past

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Target, eh? Guess that explains the nostalgic vibrations here, hehe

In the flesh!

On that note, even I was surprised at how consistent my argument was between that one at ubi so many years ago and this current one..

I am good like that!

[tools4fools]

Based on that one can only conclude they were referring to the WHOLE WING DESIGN..

That note is not o0n a page called 'the design evolution of the 262', it's called 'plagiarism'.

Saying the swept wing design is to correct for CoG and design aesthetics leaves room for other reasons, but once again, this is not an article mabout 262 design evolution.

Stormbirds does nowhere go in the detail of the design evolution on their page.

Only you believe that the 262 was designed with straight wings and then woops it had swept wings and that was it.
As we have seen the design evolution is much more complicated.

As the photos have proven only the outer wings was swept to correct for CoG. The fact that the 262 got the engines mounted, outer wing swept, inner wing not, proves that the inner wing sweep was not done for CoG.

From Stormbirds, btw:

Quote:
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.
One more thing you dispute above - despite it coming from your one and only source.


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

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

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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'?

++++++

[tools4fools]

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

Nope, not supermen, but they give credit where credit is due:

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.

While the Allies preferred to copy from the very advanced German projects because they already had some experience with jet power, the Soviets had no such experience.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Which is the essence of my point as to what was there to copy? Granted US had possession of the Go229 prototype

Who said anything about copying? I think the words I used were "inspiration" and "certain design characterestics"

But..

Knowing how hard it is to reverse engineer something favors the idea that Northrop would just choose to pass on it and simply use their own designs and associated flight test data from testing their flying wing designs.

I yet have to find similiarities aside the fact that both are flying wings...well, in the case of the B49, a semi flying wing (horizontal stabilizers)

So based on that one could say that 'size does not mater' with regards to instability of a flying wing

Good, then you see no problem with this pic:


I am sure you have enough imagination for the leading edges adjusted to your liking.

I keep seeing people make references to this.. But to be honest I have never seen the original source.

That and I have seen it stated in different way..

Everything from it 'PWND' the Me262 in a simulated dog fight to it 'outperformed' the Me262 in a simulated dog fight to your most recent it 'won' the simulated dog fight..

Knowing how those definitions can vary from person to person it would be interesting to see the original source and transcript of it.

That and as far as I can tell it was the smaller H.IX V2 not the Go229 V3 that was used in the simulated dog fight, and as far as I can tell the H.IX V2 did not have any guns.

Nice from you to point out that the V3 was an even more improved design over the already quite successful H.IX V2 prototype. Unluckily the war ended before the V3 was assembled, so we will never know how those improvements would have benefitted the aircraft.
The V3 never had any guns installed before the war ended.

Well they were all operational..

In that they all flew..

yeeaaah...That would make a stone operational once I throw it.

The YB35s had issues with the props and drives shafts and the YB49 had issues with the reliability of the jet engines.. Something the Go229 even suffered from..

And as noted above the YB49s were put into production.. And that was after the accident at Edwards.. A lot of people mistakenly think the crash at Edwards was the end of the Northrop flying wings, which is not the case! It was just one of many straws.. And not all straws were flying wing issues as much as political issues and miltary cuts backs

I am more then interested to know more about that. I consider the B49 programm quite fascinating, despite it's ultimate failure, for whatever reasons.

Ok, but my point is you can stretch an image to make the leading edges line up like you did in your shape pictures.. Thus one really needs to make those kind of measurements from a drawing with scales associated with it (blue prints)

See above. I put the pictures over each other so that the most extended areas match. If you want I can provide you with updated graphics to your liking, though I am not sure that would help in support of your points.

You missed my whole statement on the state of history these days.. Where so much of it stems from silly sources like the History Channel..

Where the History Channel has so many kids today believing the Germans were some sort of super humans and/or assisted by aliens from outer space..

My point to that being how important it is to dispel such beliefs!

Can't judge about that, last time I was in the US is a couple years ago now. (Patriot act? Ppl being treated like potential criminals at airports? Mit fingerprints taken? Did that once,
never again. Pity, I used to love the country and the people.)

I also doubt you will reach these kids here in this forum.

In that the notion of one country or one people being 'better' than another is what got Germany in all the trouble in the first place!

I am not exactly sure the US is a country that can afford fingerpointing when it comes to "we are better then others!"

So not bashing Germany or Germans, in that I would be bashing my family in doing so..

Me being of 100% German decent having grand parents that both came form Germany with roots dating back to the 1600s..

If anything having that background motivates me to make sure these silly types of history channel types of history get put in their place (the bin) ASAP.

Certainly explains the stubborness and the "I am always right!" attitude

Because IMHO the only way you can 'hope' to not make the same mistakes twice is to educate the children of today of the sins of the past

Once would have agreed to you, until I found out about what kind of lessons countries learned. For the longest time I thought WW2 taught the allies that War is a bad thing.
Now I know these countries learned that war is the best thing ever and you need one every couple years to bolster Egos.

In the flesh!

On that note, even I was surprised at how consistent my argument was between that one at ubi so many years ago and this current one..

I am good like that!

In regards to your style, undoubtly.

[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!