![]() |
#151
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
#152
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
#153
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You do know the father of modern fluid dynamics was not only German, there are pictures of him with von Kármán in the article. Do you have a clue who Theodore von Kármán is and his role during the war? The leading academics in aeronautical sciences were for the most part, colleagues and all knew each other before the war. Theodore von Kármán, the leading US scientist in aerodynamics, was a student of Ludwig Prandtl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Prandtl |
#154
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Well I don't know what else to tell you Crump
Other than I choose to take STORMBIRDS and Jenkins statements over yours with regards to the reasons why the Me262 wings were swept.. Why? Well I consider them to be more of an expert on the topic than you.. Please don't take it personal! Which should be understandable when you consider the fact that Dennis Jenkins has written more aviation books than most people own or have read, and that the folks at STORMBIRDS clearly did their homework during the process of building reproductions of the Me262, that were so good that messerschmitt gave them continuation serial numbers It just makes sense to go with what they said over what you said Please don't take it personal! But look at the bright side.. I did agree with what you had to say with regards to the Germans fully understanding swept wing theory during the war, when you said But as for the details as to the reason the wing was swept on the Me262, Ill have to stick with STORMBIRDS and Jenkins 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. |
#155
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
![]() Quote:
Stormbirds, it is the Me-262 project. A company with the objective of selling airplanes. They are not a scientific organization. Quote:
Your other source is Dennis Jenkins. A very knowledgeable man and a consulting engineer who spent 20 years working in the Space Shuttle program. However he is not a primary source nor was he there conducting research in wartime Germany. http://www.amazon.com/Dennis-R.-Jenk...ntt_dp_epwbk_0 He wrote books for profit in other areas of interest. The article presented at: Quote:
Once more, it comes directly from the horses mouth. The scientist involved were all friends and colleagues both before and after the war. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here is the paper from Boeing summarizing the contribution of German research and development during the war. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In summary, you can form your opinion based off your commercial and far removed from the original, sources. They fit your agenda and you are most welcome to it. I personally believe the scientist who were there from both sides and the engineers that did the design work both during and after the war. The characterization that the wing sweep of the Me-262 was accidental is factually not correct. It is intellectually dishonest. |
#156
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Now don't take this personal..
But I really don't care about what you 'personally belive' All I care about is what can be 'proven' If we don't draw the line there, than what is to stop those who 'belive' the Germans were assisted by aliens from outer space? Answer.. Nothing So with that said.. Ill have to stick with what STORMBIRDS and Jenkins said wrt the reason the Me262 wings were swept.. Why? Well for one thing I consider them to be more of an expert on the topic than you.. That and if there was any 'proof' to support the connections your making.. they would have made note of it.. Especially STORMBIRDS who are clearly pro German tech biased.. But unlike you they have a reputation to consider.. Which probably explains why they stop short of saying and/or making the connections your making.. So with that said, we will just have to agree to disagree as to the reason the wings were swept on the Me262 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. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 06-14-2012 at 10:28 PM. |
#157
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
|
#158
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
http://www.ufodigest.com/ Quote:
So mach limit of Mach .8 becomes a new limit of .84. Now at sea level that is represents a 30mph increase in speed! Now the drag reduction is proportional to cos^2<angle of sweep> Or a 9.5% reduction in drag..... Not a bad call on the part of Mtt to add 18 degrees sweep based off their advanced knowledge of swept wing theory. By keeping the sweep moderate, they certainly avioded all the stability and control issues found with sweep angles and engine nacelles. What is your opinion based on again? |
#159
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
So what part of we will have to agree to disagree are you struggling with?
__________________
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. |
#160
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Any engineer or someone familiar with aircraft performance can easily tell you it does increase the critical mach number and the top speed. What are we agreeing to disagree on? ![]() |
![]() |
|
|