# Ta183 vs Vampire



## Colin1 (Jun 21, 2009)

30.18ft (9.20m) *:Length:* 30.74ft (9.37m)
32.81ft (10.00m) *:Width:* 40.03ft (12.02m)
12.66ft (3.86m) *:Height:* 8.83ft (2.69m)
5,247lbs (2,380kg) *:Empty Weight:* 6,380lbs (2,894Kgs)
9,480lbs (4,300kg) *:Max Take-off Weight:* 10,494lbs (4,760Kgs)
1 x Heinkel HeS 011 turbojet engine, 3,500lbs thrust *:Engine:* 1 x deHavilland Goblin turbojet 3,100lbs thrust
1 *:Crew:* 1
593mph (955km/h) *:Max Speed:* 539mph (867km/h)
432 miles (695 kms) *:Max Range:* 730 miles (1,174 kms)
6,100ft/min (1,859m/min) *:Rate of Climb:* 4,300ft/min (1,311m/min)
45,932ft (14,000m) *:Service Ceiling:* 41,000ft (12,500m)
4 x 30mm Mk 108 cannons, max 1,000lbs (450Kgs) external ordnance *:Armament:* 4 x 20mm cannons, max 2,000lbs (907Kgs) external ordnance
5 *:Hardpoints:* 2


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2009)

I do not think we can compare these two aircraft. The Vampire saw service while the Ta 183 never even actually flew. We will never know how the Ta 183. Personally I think the Ta 183 was a better design. It was a more modern design and I think it would have been a better aircraft, but again we will never know. Therefore they can not be compared.


----------



## Maximowitz (Jun 21, 2009)

If the Ta183 was as unstable as Tank's later Pulqui II design, the only thing it would have killed was its pilots.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 21, 2009)

Well, no
not operationally anyway but the Pucara never flew against the Whirlwind either


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 21, 2009)

Colin - I'm sure you will know the answer to this - wasn't plywood used in the fuselege portion of the Vampire - same technique as the Mosquito ..?

MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Well, no
> not operationally anyway but the Pucara never flew against the Whirlwind either



Yes but the Pucara was not the Ta 183, it was only based off of the design. So again, how can we compare an aircraft that was never built with an aircraft that was operational?


----------



## Butters (Jun 21, 2009)

"Dream no small dreams for they have no power to move the hearts of men." Or to shoot down the Vampire, either...

With apologies to Galileo Galilei 

JL


----------



## lingo (Jun 21, 2009)

The Ta 183 fuselage looks abnormally short. Combined with the oversized fin and the sharply swept wings I suspect the design would have experienced severe stability ptoblems.
I trained on the Vampire T11 and managed a few trips in the single seat Mk 5/9s but as far as I know ALL the first generation jets had problems and limitations.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2009)

Folks, a few thoughts...

Never judge a book by its cover. Remember fighters are SUPPOSED to be a bit unstable, its a matter of mitigating any problems that would cause the aircraft undue danger to the pilot and the mission and many times this could be carried out by simple airframe modifications and training. When you say "unstable" you need to be specific. Unstable while doing adverse maneuvers? Unstable during normal flight? Unstable during landing? I know may aircraft that fly great straight and level and during 20 and 30 degree banks, but exceed that or start loading the aircraft up and you have a handful. The design was very promising and think it would have worked out.

Mike, the Vampire did have a portion of its nose made from plywood


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 21, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but the Pucara was not the Ta 183, it was only based off of the design. So again, how can we compare an aircraft that was never built with an aircraft that was operational?


Thing is Adler
if the two flew in combat with each other, we'd have lots of hard data on which was best at what and overall, who was likely to come out on top - so no need for a poll. For a poll to be fun, surely a sprinkling of what-if can do no harm?



FLYBOYJ said:


> Mike, the Vampire did have a portion of its nose made from plywood


Thanks Joe and sorry Mike
just got in from town - umm, and I didn't actually know that 

...and this just in

the majority of the Ta183's wings were covered in plywood too


----------



## delcyros (Jun 21, 2009)

The higher crit Mach figure is in great advantage for the Ta-183. Both planes probably have a somehow nasty low speed behavior. Crit Mach is enough of an advantage to be tactically important in this kind of comparison.


----------



## lingo (Jun 21, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Folks, a few thoughts...
> 
> Never judge a book by its cover. Remember fighters are SUPPOSED to be a bit unstable,
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 21, 2009)

lingo said:


> My personal view is that the German design was an act of desperation and it is fortunate that nobody was called upon to test it


I'd say that your opinion was a little wide of the mark
why couldn't it be construed as an act of pioneering aeronautical engineering? If the war had stopped sooner and the Allies had found workshops full of half-finished Me262s, would they have been construed as an act of desperation too?

As for it being fortunate that nobody was called upon to test it - what, not even a test pilot? Surely, when an aeronautical engineer pushes the envelope, someone with the right stuff has got to get up there and see if he's done it right?


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2009)

Just a small correction:

The expected climb rate of the Ta-183 was 6,100 ft/min, not 4,100 ft/min, also seems reasonable considering the higher P/W ratio 

And Adler is absolutely right, the Pulqui II Ta-183 cannot at all be compared, they are two very different a/c. On the Ta-183 the fuselage is short narrow and the wing is mid mounted, futhermore pitch was controlled with elevons. The Pulqui II featured a high mounted wing, long wide fuselage (different engine nessicated a completely new design) with pitch being controlled with normal elevators on a high mounted horizontal stabilizer, and this caused deep stall problems which is what plagued the Pulqui II. The Ta-183 wouldn't have experienced this however and the design looks sound.

As for how the Ta-183 Vampire would've done against each other, I can't really say, but the Ta-183's performance would've been higher, which is awlays a plus.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2009)

lingo said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Folks, a few thoughts...
> ...


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 22, 2009)

Soren said:


> Just a small correction:
> 
> The expected climb rate of the Ta-183 was 6,100 ft/min, not 4,100 ft/min, also seems reasonable considering the higher P/W ratio
> 
> ...



I think if you lok closely , the stats for Ta183 are on the left, Vampire right.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 22, 2009)

IL Sturmovik is a game, but it did include some interesting information about the Ta-183 in the aircraft guide pdf document.

At a Glance: Engine: 1 x HeS 011 Power: 1,300 kg/s Armament: • 4 x MK 108 cannon Advantages: • High speed; • Ease of production. Disadvantages: • Low-speed control problems due to wing configuration 

Pilot Notes: 

A captured model of the Ta-183 was tested in the TsAGI wind tunnel post war, and immediately uncovered a fatal mistake in the design. Flutter and subsequent structural failure of the tail unit began at only 700 km/h. Therefore we’ve had to artificially strengthen the tail unit by a great amount, in order to allow for the design to reach specified speeds while still keeping the famous original shape. 

In reality such a redesign would have been near impossible, and most likely the tail unit would have been radically redesigned instead (such as was the case with the historical Pulqui II fighter built by Kurt Tank after the war). 

In general, the plane is modeled with several concessions that were possible to make only using the knowledge gained post the 1950s.


You can dismiss it as baloney but unless the wind tunnel was inaccurate, it's possible at high speeds the tail of the Ta-183 would have broken off. Lots of odd things happen at close to the speed of sound, and the tail of the Ta-183 does look a bit vulnerable, with it's rather long length.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2009)

snafud1 said:


> I think if you lok closely , the stats for Ta183 are on the left, Vampire right.



I think if you go back and look closely, the Ta 183 was supposed to have a higher performance than the Vampire... Really go take a look...

Now having said that, I still stand by my original post that there is no way to compare these two aircraft. One never flew, so how can we base anything off of it?

Just for fun however, I will vote for the Ta 183. Why?

1. Much cooler design (that is about the only thing we can really compare...)
2. Projected performance was much better.
3. It was a more modern design, and therefore I think it would have better. This is just based off of my opinion however...



Colin1 said:


> Thing is Adler
> if the two flew in combat with each other, we'd have lots of hard data on which was best at what and overall, who was likely to come out on top - so no need for a poll. For a poll to be fun, surely a sprinkling of what-if can do no harm?



My point is, what are you going to use for comparison? There is no real data to compare. 

Just for fun is fine though. For fun I voted for the Ta 183, it was a much cooler looking design...



Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Pilot Notes:
> 
> A captured model of the Ta-183 was tested in the TsAGI wind tunnel post war, and immediately uncovered a fatal mistake in the design. Flutter and subsequent structural failure of the tail unit began at only 700 km/h. Therefore we’ve had to artificially strengthen the tail unit by a great amount, in order to allow for the design to reach specified speeds while still keeping the famous original shape.
> 
> ...



Not sure about the truth of any of that, but Tanks team was already looking at redesigning the aircraft. They actually had 3 different versions with different tails. They were all to be tested...

In the end the best choice obviously would have been chosen for production.


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2009)

The Il2 team got it all wrong however as they thought that a horizontal stabilizer with ordinary elevators was used to control pitch. They didn't check the historical data and missed the fact that wing mounted elevons were used for controlling both pitch roll. The horizontal stabilizer was there merely for trim purposes, in the game however it is used as the main control in pitch which is completely wrong.

Also I highly doubt that the tail section would've failed at 700 km/h, I simply can't see any reason for it. So wether TsAGGI really did find this is questionable at best, esp. since no reference is given to the supposed test document.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Butters (Jun 22, 2009)

Many of the projected German jets were very imaginative and unconventional in design. And most of them were never emulated by other designers for some reason. The Ta 183 has no real analog so far as I know, whereas the fundamental design features of the Vampire can be found in a number of successful designs (SAAB J21R, Sea Venom, Sea Vixen)

While I'm aware that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, the absence of any actual a/c that share the essential design suite of the Ta 183 suggests that it may be inherently flawed in some way. It would be interesting to see how a large-scale, jet powered RC model of it would perform.

Does anyone know if any such model exists?

JL


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2009)

Butters said:


> Many of the projected German jets were very imaginative and unconventional in design. And most of them were never emulated by other designers for some reason. The Ta 183 has no real analog so far as I know, whereas the fundamental design features of the Vampire can be found in a number of successful designs (SAAB J21R, Sea Venom, Sea Vixen)



There is nothing unrealistic or crazy about the Ta 183's design. In fact many post war aircraft had similiar designs, ie. Mig 15, F-86. The SAAB Tunnan and Mig-15 were indirectly influenced by the Ta 183. The Ta 183 was a much more modern design that Vampire, Sea Venom.


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 22, 2009)

DAIG , I was going by the projected stats myself. That's all we can do.


----------



## Butters (Jun 22, 2009)

I didn't say it was crazy or unrealistic. I said it was unconventional -which it is. It's essentially a tailless design where the nominal 'tailplane' is essentially a trimming device. Pitch control was a function of the aileron/elevons. 

While the Tunnan and MiG-15 bear a superficial resemblance to the Ta 183, they are in fact much more conventional in design. A planform comparison of the three demonstrates that quite clearly. The Me 163 is much closer in design philosophy to the Ta 183 than are the Tunnan and MiG. And if the Ta 183 were to exhibit the same handling qualities as the Komet, than perhaps it would be superior to the Vampire. But as you've said, there's no real way to know...

While the Ta 183 may have influenced those design of the other jets in certain aspects, that influence did not extend to the fundamental design philosophy they embodied. Which makes extropolating the performance of the Ta 183 from their's, problematic at best.

JL


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2009)

Butters,

Please keep in mind that the shape of any a/c very much depends on what type of engine is used. Taking that into consideration the design of the Ta-183 isn't at all unconventional. Had a longer engine been used the look would've been very similar to that of post war jets. Also to say that a design was bad just because it wasn't directly copied after the war is about as incorrect as one can be. 

Oh btw, the SAAB Tunnan is very similar to the Ta-183, and it was considered an excellent a/c btw.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Jun 22, 2009)

snafud1 said:


> I think if you lok closely , the stats for Ta183 are on the left, Vampire right.



He edited it after I wrote that snafud1


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 22, 2009)

Ok , I see.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 22, 2009)

To compare the tail of the Ta 183 to the tail of aircraft like the J-29 or MiG 15 (and especially the F-86) seems to me to be missing the point by a wide margin. There is a superficial likeness in general layout but none at all in the specific tail geometry.

There can be no doubt that the design was more advanced that that of the Vampire, only a moron would argue otherwise, but that does not necessarily make it better.

I was interested to see Soren comparing the design of the Ta 183 with that of the Pulqui II and concluding that the Ta-183 was superior. I have to ask why is that? Would Tank really promote an inferior design? Why would he not progress from his wartime efforts? Or maybe (for I do not pretend to know) could the Pulqui II have been an advance on the Ta 183 but which was still not good enough? I tend towards the view that this is the case here.

The fuselage is extremely short, yes, and that means that in order to get the tail in the right place the fin has to double up as a boom. It is an ingenious idea compared to DH 's rather pedestrian solution but what are the bending forces on that fin during manouvering? They must have been horrendous surely? Even if it would not break it must surely have suffered from severe flexing which would have given the pilot a horrible fright.

All in my humble and uninformed opinion of course, but the design of that tail looks terribly flawed. I hope we are not just praising this aircraft because it is a very advanced German 1945 project? To me the Messerschmitt P.1101 always looked far more likely to result in a successful high performance fighter and I think is the closer influence to the SAAB Tunnan than the FW was.

It also not true that German wartime designs were not reproduced. The Me P.1101 was cloned into the Bell X-5 research aircraft, the X-4 was based on a Lippisch design and the Vought Cutlass was pure Arado in its design. There are many other examples including the the Gloster P.276, a rival design to the Hunter and Swift that was based very much on the Lippisch P.13a. With the postwar luxury of time and research funds the wheat was sorted from the chaff and dead end designs based on German projects such as the P.276, Martin B-51 and others were buried, so it is very telling that no Ta-183 clone was ever flown and I believe the tail design has everything to do with it.


----------



## Butters (Jun 22, 2009)

Again, my words are being misinterpreted...I never said that the the Ta 183 is no good because it was not directly copied by others. I said that the fundamental design, ie; a tailless , swept wing jet fighter, was rarely emulated by other designers. The only one that comes to mind is the F7U Cutlass...

The tailplane on the Ta 183 is not the primary pitch control of the a/c. That function is served by the elevons. The Tunnan, OTOH, IS a conventional design, the rotund fuselage and tail boom notwithstanding. It has much more in common with other early post-war Western and Soviet jets than it does with the Ta I83.

Tank had the opportunity to recreate a fighter similar to the '183 in Argentina but instead chose a more conventional design (A flop as it happned. Maybe he should have built on the '183 design...) Why would he do so if the Ta 183 was such a promising a/c? 

Perhaps the Ta 183 would have been an effective fighter, but then again, more likely not. A more convential design would have been a safer bet. Such a/c have proved themselves repeatedly, whereas the tailless, swept wing design has not. and the fact that the Vampire is less 'modern' or advanced, does not a priori make it less effective. To assume that is also 'incorrect'.

JL

EDIT: I guess this is what happens when you stop halfway thru writing to eat supper...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2009)

The Ta 183 could not be considered tail-less. Despite the use of elevons the platform for fighter configuration for at least the next 10 years after its design was set in place. Here's some more influence...







One could speculate all day whether this design could have been a dog or a history maker but based what was flown in the preceding years I think Tank's team had it right.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 22, 2009)

Butters, the Cutlass takes nothing from the Ta 183. As I posted earlier, it was taken from an Arado design. The Tunnan is also much closer in concept to the Me P.1101 than anything else. Otherwise I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet.

FlyboyJ - If Tank had it right with the design of the Ta 183 why did he himself never use that design again? The tail design of the Ta 183 is not the same as the Lavochkin you posted above, it is extremely unorthodox and, in my view, dangerously so. Look at how every high mounted tail (including your pic above) is mounted on a stiff, broad chord fin. Why would you expect the Ta 183 to be any different?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 22, 2009)

Maybe it's just the pic but it kinda looks unstable. It seems the designs that came afterwards fuslage was longer but I think Soren is right, it does kinda look like the SAAB Tunnan.


I have to admit, it does look cool as hell.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 22, 2009)

Is this picture a forgery?






It's supposedly a Ta-183 landing somewhere in China or Russia, but some doubt if it's real. 

AMtech 1/48 Ta-183

If you type in Ta-183 windtunnel on Google you can find pictures of a wind tunnel model of the Ta-183 Kurt Tank built, but it doesn't say much how it performed. It doesn't even say if the Allies tested it or not.

It's pretty scarce information on it, much was probably lost after the war.

Edit: here's a picture of the wind tunnel model.











Focke-Wulf Ta 183 Luft '46 entry


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2009)

Waynos said:


> FlyboyJ - If Tank had it right with the design of the Ta 183 why did he himself never use that design again?


Funding and employment. Lets face it, although he had his shot in Argentina, it wasn't Germany in terms of resources and money, but then again it's the basic layout that was taken a step further in the generation of fighters.



Waynos said:


> The tail design of the Ta 183 is not the same as the Lavochkin you posted above, it is extremely unorthodox and, in my view, dangerously so.


 Why? Construction? Aerodynamics?


Waynos said:


> Look at how every high mounted tail (including your pic above) is mounted on a stiff, broad chord fin. Why would you expect the Ta 183 to be any different?


Why not?? Again, what did it look like in the wind tunnel?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 22, 2009)

When were drag chutes first used, 47 or 48??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2009)

Waynos said:


> FlyboyJ - If Tank had it right with the design of the Ta 183 why did he himself never use that design again? The tail design of the Ta 183 is not the same as the Lavochkin you posted above, it is extremely unorthodox and, in my view, dangerously so. Look at how every high mounted tail (including your pic above) is mounted on a stiff, broad chord fin. Why would you expect the Ta 183 to be any different?



No but many planes were influenced, influenced does not mean copied. Also Tank new that the tail design might not be the best, that is why he designed 2 other prototypes with 2 different tail designs.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 23, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> When were drag chutes first used, 47 or 48??



The Ar-234 and Ju-287 jets used them in 1944, too.
I tend to think that most Ta-183 pictures aviable were soviet propaganda tricks. They succeeded in this, the soviet Ta-183 even got a NATO-code.
When comparing the Ta-183 wih the Pulqui please do not forget that Multhopp designed the Ta-183, not Kurt Tank!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2009)

For what it's worth, the guys at AVHistory had a Ta183 for CFS3 built on Tank's data and it flew and handled well in the sim to a certain degree, but it had a tendancy to roll if you gave it any slack what so ever. It would also enter into a spin that was almost always fatal if you allowed excessive loading.

I know that this is merely a sim experience, but I trust the flight models of the guys at AVHistory for thier 1% accuracy over Oleg's people any day.

By the way, here's the 3-views of the Ta183 II and Ta183 III:


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2009)

I noted four things
highly swept wings without nothing, in drawings I have seen, to hinder spanvise airflow
Very stubby body, short engine doesn’t usually mean short fuselage, usually they put “flamepipe” behind engine and accepted some loss in trust and got reasonable fuselage length.
I also have some doubt on the tail shape, if made structurally enough strong it would be heavy.
T-tail had its own problems at high AoA

Juha


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 23, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Look at how every high mounted tail (including your pic above) is mounted on a stiff, broad chord fin


F-104?


----------



## Waynos (Jun 23, 2009)

> FlyboyJ;
> 
> 
> > Funding and employment. Lets face it, although he had his shot in Argentina, it wasn't Germany in terms of resources and money, but then again it's the basic layout that was taken a step further in the generation of fighters.
> ...



Not really - there could have been tooling and manufacturing considerations as well. Again, look where the Pulqui was to be built. At that time I don't think Argentina ever produced a production aircraft



> > Why? Construction? Aerodynamics?.
> 
> 
> 
> Both. *even aerodynamiscists of the day beleived it would be seriously prone to flutter,* I see no reason to disagree. Given its shape that flutter could quickly become catastrophic failure. Like I said, no tail like it was ever flown on any other T-tail, fighter or otherwise, even the ones designed by Tank.



Who are these "aerodynamicists"? How could they make such an assessment with out seeing wind tunnel data and testing?


----------



## lingo (Jun 23, 2009)

This has turned into an especially interesting thread.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 23, 2009)

lingo said:


> This has turned into an especially interesting thread.


It got off to a slow start
but I was hoping and sort of knew it would it would get interesting. By getting everybody on this forum to thrash out an argument on a little-documented type, we could end up with a reasonable pool of theories as to how it might have fared.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Adler;
> 
> precisely. Which is why the Ta 183 would not have succeeded.



Please explain how you can prove that? It was never built...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2009)

*Waynos - I accidentally edited out the other portion of your original post when responding - sorry*



Waynos said:


> Not really - there could have been tooling and manufacturing considerations as well. Again, look where the Pulqui was to be built. At that time I don't think Argentina ever produced a production aircraft
> 
> 
> 
> Who are these "aerodynamicists"? How could they make such an assessment with out seeing wind tunnel data and testing?


----------



## Waynos (Jun 23, 2009)

I wondered what had happened. I thought I was going insane  
Is there any way to get it back as I don't have a copy and I was hoping several of the points I raised could be debated?

In answer to the questions posed by you and Adler though, I am referring to a point made in the book Luftwaffe secret Projects - Fighters 1939-45 by Walter Schick and Ingolf Meyer where, unfortunately, no names are given. I am not trying to offer it up as empirical proof as, as adler rightly points out, there is none. I am saying it is a viewpoint that I agree with. The line that Adler quoted above should have ended with 'in my opinion'.

I base that opinion on reading from the various histories on aircraft like the Hawker P.1040, Gloster Javelin, et al, where flutter was found to be s serious issue around the tail, threatening structural integrity and requiring modifications to be made.

There is no definitive link between these and the Ta 183, but none of the other aircraft had a tail as 'extreme' (for want of a better phrase) or slender in their design and the cure was relatively modest but still caused delays. My thinking is that if the structure of the tail of something a brutish as the Javelin was threatened by flutter, why on earth would the Ta 183 NOT be?

I also believe that the design of the Pulqui, at least in the tail area, was aerodynamically and structurally more mature than the Ta 183. I see no logical reason for it to be any other way and I don't think it would necessarily have been 'easier' to buil;d that the former, which was designed to be built rapidly in austere conditions anyway, even to the extent of using plywood.

I supposed that what I am basically saying is that IF I was in a postion where I was in charge of Luftwaffe procurement and I was told "you have the funding, time and resourses to put ONE of these designs into service (a luxury that did not really exist) I would have picked the Me P.1101.

Side issue, Does anyone (apart from me) think that the Saab 32 Lansen was lifted directly from the Me P1110 in its Feb 45 configuration ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I wondered what had happened. I thought I was going insane
> Is there any way to get it back as I don't have a copy and I was hoping several of the points I raised could be debated?



Sorry, I tried but the internet gods already swallowed it up


----------



## Waynos (Jun 23, 2009)

I thought it would still be on the laptop but when I rushed downstairs to make a copy I saw my wife just closing the lid, bitch!

I will try to remember some edited highlights, though they may spark more argument than debate as without their original explanations, which I don't have the heart to type out all over again, they may look a little curt and confontational. Sorry if this is the case as it was not written like that originally. Also flyboyj I have edited the last post on the previous page with a bit more explanation of my position, you may have missed it as I didn't realise we had gone over the page.

So, in a nutshell. Pic of Ta 183 with drag chute = cgi drawing with photo grain added for realism, a fake, but a very good one.

I also replied that the wind tunnel would not have shown a flutter issue, these never manifested until the flight test stage even into the 1950's as the test models were naturally solid and therefore stiffer.

I agreed with Delycross that it was Multhopp who penned the Ta 183 and added it was Tank who was trying different tails. I think he thought it migh be flawed, or at least wanted to examine other possibilites which I realise is not necessarily the same thing. Multhopp stuck with the 'thin fin' and it was this that was being built. I don't know why Tank could not simply overrule him, but I think that testing would have proven Tank correct and made the Ta 183 unsuitable for service *in that form* which (new stuff - not a retread) *I THINK* basically removes it from the competition with the Vampire as, in a continued war, a modified aircraft based on Tanks Design III would have faced the DH 107, not the Vampire. That is a face off I cannot begin to guess at as even less is known about the DH 107 than about the Design III. I don't believe the P.1101 would have had as troublesome a time, which again, I know is just my theory and not provable.

I'm sure I have forgotten stuff, and I have certainly added stuff, but hey, roll on guys!


----------



## lingo (Jun 23, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Side issue, Does anyone (apart from me) think that the Saab 32 Lansen was lifted directly from the Me P1110 in its Feb 45 configuration ?



According to the Putnams SAAB Aircraft since 1937 the Lansen was originally to have been a larger, twin-engined machine designed to meet the Air Force specification for a recce/attack/night fighter to replace the B-18 and the DH Mosquito fleets. At one time a flying wing configuration was studied (as the 1119) before it was realised that it had become too big and expensive to proceed. The Lansen (project 1150) was the final design. Even then SAAB moved cautiously, testing the 39 degree swept wing on a Safir.
The Lansen was Swedens first true 'systems' aircraft and special development went into the integration of the electronic and weapons systems. The aerodynamic configuration caused many problems mainly the rear fuselage and its integration with the movable tailplane (solved after observing flow in a water tank) and the large Fowler flaps. Originally to have had flush engine intakes it had to be modified to have more open variety. The designers may well have been aware of the Me P1110 study, but it seems it was purely a step by step approach to the finished Lansen.


----------



## Butters (Jun 23, 2009)

I guess I need to learn how to C&P pictures...

Grau Geist's drawings clearly show that the Mk II and III were completely different machines. The MkII is the far more radical design, and has been the focus of this discussion. It is very different from all the a/c discussed here, having very little in common with either the Tunnann or the La-15. Note how the wings begin very far forward and extend past the aft fuselage. Nothing like either of the other a/c. Both those, and the Ta 183 III, are are far more conventional in fundamental design than is the Mk II. All three use conventional elevators for pitch control, whereas the Mk II uses elevons. It seems to me that the 'tailplane' served to provide a modicum of aft lift to provide trimming so that flaps could be used to reduce landing speeds. Maybe someone here knows...

Tank's ill-fated (and handling...)Pulqui II was also essentially conventional in design. It is much more similar to the other early swept-wing jets than it is to the Mk II. It would be helpful if someone could post 3-way drawings of the Pulqui, Tunnan, and La-15 for comparison to the Ta 183's. Then everyone here could see that the Ta 183 II's configuration is radically different from the other jets.

My argument is not that the Ta 183 II is inherently flawed. Only that other a/c designers chose not to emulate it. Not even Tank...This suggests that people far more learned in fighter design than ourselves believed that it had little to offer, despite its futuristic appearance, And because there is nothing of similar design to extropolate its probable flying qualities from, speculation is essentially moot.

Waynos: I was not implying that the Cutlass was inspired by the '183. I was just referring to it because it was the only operational tailless swept-wing design that I could think of. And in reference to the Me P.1100's influence on Saab fighters, I think you mean the Tunnan, not the Lancer. The Tunnan IS very similar to the Messerschmitt.

JL


----------



## Waynos (Jun 23, 2009)

Here you go Butters. Pulqui II and J-29 (thanks Butters - I think that is what's called a freudian slip)












While looking for images I stumbled across this drawing of the two unpowered gliders used for early tests and noticed a rather obvious feature pertinent to this discussion;






Now a couple of rather poorer qualitiy images. This first one shows the 'production' version of the Me P.1101, and although such things are purely subjective, it may illustrate why I rate it much more highly than the Ta 183;






and finally Butters, I went off topic a bit but I did mean the Lansen in my earlier post. I was referring to this design below.

A couple of interesting points I noticed from lingo's very informative and interesting post above is that the Lansen was originally supposed to have flush intakes (look below!) and also, at a slight stretch, SAAB's project number seems to match the format of Messerschmitts very closely indeed! (although to be fairt so did Hawkers  )






sorry for cluttering up the board.


----------



## Butters (Jun 23, 2009)

Thanks, Wayno

I get it now, re; Lansen. And I hate to nitpick about the favor you did me, but the top a/c should be labelled Pulqui II, not Ta 183.

JL


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2009)

Multhopp his team tested the various Ta-183 designs in windtunnels as-well as with scale models of the a/c to termine how it would perform in the air. After various tests and some minor corrections, leading to the design II mostly depicted today, the design was considered solid and capable. Attention then went on to the construction methods, tools materials needed to produce the a/c.

The design chosen was as already mentioned Design II which used elevons for controlling pitch roll as this was found to improve turn performance with a wing swepped as highly as that of the Ta-183 (Experience from the Me-163 project), and for lateral stability a long swepped tail with a high placed horizontal stabilizer purely for trim and stability was added. 

Knowing the aerodynamic properties of the a/c and engines to be used an expected peformance figure was extrapolated, and they were phenomenal for their time, suggesting a top speed of 967 km/h and a climb rate of over 6,100 ft/min with the HeS-011 engine. 

Two production models with different engines were submitted as the final design for full scale prototype testing:
*Jumo 004*




*HeS-011*





And there's really no doubt that after just a couple of the full scale prototype tests were completed it would've been realized that the design needed either wing fences or more preferably automatic LE slats to ease the nasty stalling characteristics of a wing that highly swepped. The slots on the Me-163 were added for the very same reasons.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2009)

Soren said:


> And there's really no doubt that after just a couple of the full scale prototype tests were completed it would've been realized that the design *needed either wing fences or more preferably automatic LE slats to ease the nasty stalling characteristics of a wing that highly swepped*. The slots on the Me-163 were added for the very same reasons.



Exactly! Look at what was done with the MiG-15 as far as wing fences!


----------



## Waynos (Jun 23, 2009)

Yes, I agree. My doubts however were not about the wing. Butters, I've edited it now, what was I thinking?


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Exactly! Look at what was done with the MiG-15 as far as wing fences!



Yeah I believe wing fences would've been added very early on in the testing phase, either that or slats. But considering that the production and installation of wing fences was a lot cheaper, faster less complicated than adding automatic LE slats I believe wing fences would've been chosen, just like on the MIG-15, considering the situation Germany was in by then.

The Soviets captured more than 2,000 German aerodynamicists at the end of the war (A LOT more than the Brits US were able to get a hold on), and many of them came to work for the Soviet a/c manufacturers right away. And there's absolutely no doubt that the MIG-15 was the direct result of this. By the end of the war the Germans were a long way ahead in high speed aerodynamic research, and their knowledge proved invaluable to the development of new a/c by both the US, Britsh and the Soviets. And looking at the different designs it seems that esp. the US primarily had their focus on designs by Messerschmitt AG while the Soviets seemed more focused on the designs by Focke Wulf AG although many of the innovations by Messerschmitt were utilized as-well in other projects. 

The F-86 was pretty much a mix of the Me-262 P.1011 design, while the MIG-15 pretty much was just a modified Ta-183 benefitting from the experience with wing fences by Messerschmitt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2009)

Waynos said:


> In answer to the questions posed by you and Adler though, I am referring to a point made in the book Luftwaffe secret Projects - Fighters 1939-45 by Walter Schick and Ingolf Meyer where, unfortunately, no names are given. I am not trying to offer it up as empirical proof as, as adler rightly points out, there is none. I am saying it is a viewpoint that I agree with. The line that Adler quoted above should have ended with 'in my opinion'.
> 
> I base that opinion on reading from the various histories on aircraft like the Hawker P.1040, Gloster Javelin, et al, where flutter was found to be s serious issue around the tail, threatening structural integrity and requiring modifications to be made.
> 
> ...



Very good book up there by the way. I own it as well.

I just don't believe that we can say an aircraft will be successful or not without it being built. One can always change the design of things. I like to think that they would have been smart enough to do so. Also Soren added some good info about the fences and slats.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 23, 2009)

I do believe it was Focke Wulf that devised wing fences. The book me and adler share an admiration for refers to the Mig 15 having a Focke Wulf wing and the F-86 having a Messerschmitt wing, in terms of design concept. I think the P.1101 drawing I posted earlier bears that out as far as the F-86 goes. The same book also points out the similarity between the McDonnell XF-88 and a Focke Wulf design too.



> I just don't believe that we can say an aircraft will be successful or not without it being built. One can always change the design of things. I like to think that they would have been smart enough to do so. Also Soren added some good info about the fences and slats.



Nothing much there to argue with Adler , except, for the first part, Is it any more unreasonable to look at the real life tribulations in this area, shared universally by aircraft manufacturers around the world, and deduce that the Ta 183 might have been in line for the same results, than it would be to blithely assume that the Ta 183 would have progressed majestically untroubled by any tail flutter issue for no reason at all?

It is interesting to me that the glider test models of the Pulqui II seemed to try both versions of the tail, yet the T a183 style version was not selected. Its nothing concrete of course but it does suggest the tail design of the Ta 183 would have caused delays.

For the second part of what you said, about mods, that is my point. The delays brought about by redesign would, in my view, have put the Ta 183 up against the DH 107, not the Vampire. Or are only German 'what if's allowed in an extended war? It was only the end of the fighting in Europe and the sudden guillotining of funds that stopped the DH 107, and delayed the service entry of the Vampire. From the accounts I have read, it resembled a scaled down single engined DH 110 (or even a more modestly swept DH 108 with a Vampire tail) and the prototype would have been constructed with Vampire components plus a new wing, a la Hawker P.1052 which was also, incidentally, first proposed by Sydney Camm in 1945. So ( I would hope) the match would have been closer.

An underdeveloped prototype undergoing modifications in 1946 is no antidote to operational squadrons of Vampires (or P-80's)

Anyway, I know we disagree, but that is why I think what I do. 

edit to add, OMG!! Can it really be true that the aerodynamically closest flying aircraft to the T a 183 was the Handley Page Victor?? with a shorter fin, naturally. The design concept, as described eloquently in previous posts is, I have just realised, exactly the same. Even down to the tail being added for trim to a basically tailless design. Crikey!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2009)

Soren said:


> Yeah I believe wing fences would've been added very early on in the testing phase, either that or slats. But considering that the production and installation of wing fences was a lot cheaper, faster less complicated than adding automatic LE slats I believe wing fences would've been chosen, just like on the MIG-15, considering the situation Germany was in by then.


And I remember reading that this was the reason why Mikoyan went with wing fences. Even with that the aircraft yawed a bit on landing. I flew in a UTI and noticed this when we were over the numbers.


----------



## Butters (Jun 23, 2009)

Those are great drawings, Soren. It is too bad that the nearly completed prototype captured by the Americans was so badly damaged. It would have interesting to have it flown.

Wayno has summed up my view on the subject. Anyway, here's a so-so vid of a turbine-powered RC Ta 183.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95cB9qXflLk_

JL


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Nothing much there to argue with Adler , except, for the first part, Is it any more unreasonable to look at the real life tribulations in this area, shared universally by aircraft manufacturers around the world, and deduce that the Ta 183 might have been in line for the same results, than it would be to blithely assume that the Ta 183 would have progressed majestically untroubled by any tail flutter issue for no reason at all?



I agree that it would not have gone untroubled. Like all early jets (especially one that is an advanced design), it is going have problems.



Waynos said:


> For the second part of what you said, about mods, that is my point. The delays brought about by redesign would, in my view, have put the Ta 183 up against the DH 107, not the Vampire. Or are only German 'what if's allowed in an extended war? It was only the end of the fighting in Europe and the sudden guillotining of funds that stopped the DH 107, and delayed the service entry of the Vampire. From the accounts I have read, it resembled a scaled down single engined DH 110 (or even a more modestly swept DH 108 with a Vampire tail) and the prototype would have been constructed with Vampire components plus a new wing, a la Hawker P.1052 which was also, incidentally, first proposed by Sydney Camm in 1945. So ( I would hope) the match would have been closer.
> 
> An underdeveloped prototype undergoing modifications in 1946 is no antidote to operational squadrons of Vampires (or P-80's)



Actually there we agree. That is why I don't really care for this comparison between the Ta 183 and the Vampire. I don't see it as a realistic match up.


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2009)

Yeah pretty much every aircraft design will have issues at the beginning of its full scale prototype testing phase, and in the case of the Ta-183 the absence of wing fences or LE slats was one thing which would've quickly been rectified, wouldn't take them 2 test flights to figure that out. 

Other than that there's the landing, stalling, low and high speed handling characteristics of the a/c which need to be examined, these are afterall the most important areas that the a/c must be good at. Now I'd suspect that German pilots would at first be quite surprised over the high approach angle that the a/c no doubt would exhibit with such a high sweep wing, and it would take a bit of time to get accustomed to that. So I'm also quite sure that there'd be other issues as-well, as like Adler says it was a veyr advanced a/c design for its time.


Hey guys, how about a Horten 229 vs Vampire thread ??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hey guys, how about a Horten 229 vs Vampire thread ??



Even though the Ho 229 was flown, I do not think it is a good one to compare either.


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Even though the Ho 229 was flown, I do not think it is a good one to compare either.



Well could be interesting, as like you pointed out yourself, the Ho-229 was actually flown and the Production version was weeks from completion.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jun 23, 2009)

The Ho-229 can turn on a dime in IL2

Now of course I never flew in any of them, but if I had to guess, I'd say that the Vampire turns like a P-38.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 23, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> ...I'd say that the Vampire turns like a P-38


The Vampire was 70 - 140mph (113 - 225Km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk XIV yet it could also turn tighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2009)

Careful with basing a real aircraft off of a simulator. Yes they try and make it realistic, but it is still a game. You can never get it like the real thing.


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2009)

The Ho-229 will no doubt turn tighter than the Vampire and about any other fighter, I mean it's pretty much just one big wing  

The lack of a vertical stabilizer however means that lateral stability wont be the best, and the Ho-229 will have a tendency to skid. But besides from that I can't find a single negative thing about the Ho-229 design. Excellent excellent excellent design, thank god Hitler didn't get to play around with it!


----------



## lingo (Jun 23, 2009)

Something else that has gone unremarked is the quality of the pilots in the cockpits. By 1945 the Luftwaffe has lost many of its experienced pilots whilst the Allies were still increasing theirs. The scenario as proposed would seem to be pitting inexperienced pilots trying to handle an advanced design (that was more than likely plagued with bugs) against experienced pilots in a more mature design. Let us also consider the respective production rates that were possible on each side. Finally the Allies had all the fuel and materials they needed whereas the Germans were short of everything.


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2009)

Yeah with the average pilots available to the Luftwaffe in late 44 to 45 they were pretty much screwed nomatter what a/c they came up with. And the lack of fuel would also make sure that most of all these wonderful a/c would just sit there, not being able to do squat.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 23, 2009)

All good points lingo
but the idea of most polls and what-ifs is a technical face-off, not a history-this-is-how-it-happened lesson - we know how it happened; for this to work, we need to assume all external and internal variables to be equal.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 23, 2009)

Going back to the other design which I was championing in the thread, how realistic might an operational P.1101 been? 

With the benefit of hindsight we can see it has probably the best wing in existence at the time ( and which would incidentally have been denied North American in this scenario so even a swept wing F-86 would have had an inferior wing). 

It is a much less risky proposition than the Focke Wulf with its near conventional fuselage boom and low tail. The usual bugs notwithstanding, I think it would have had a clear lead over the DH 107 and Hawker P.1047 (the design that begat the P.1052) in terms of in-service date. The Gloster Ace would have been pretty conclusively outclassed as would the P-84 as I see it. 

However I'm sure that you guys who study Luftwaffe projects more intently than me will be able to enlighten me on some pitfalls I am unaware of.

Soren, I greatly admire the Horten IX/Go 229 as well but I think it would probably have been too much of a handful to fly in combat.I think the Hortens forte would have been as a bomber interceptor rather than A2A combat with other fighters. 

I don't actually think that flying wings have ever been able to turn that well, but I may have been conditioned by the majestically cruising Go 229's in FCS 3, and I know I shouldn't let that happen, but I can't recal any agile flying wing at all?

A pet theory I have too, which may be completely unfounded as its just a guess, is that might not Allied aircraft have been developed (ie improved models of P-80, Vampire et al) with the razor thin wings that would have been validated on the M.52 had the war continued? In this way the gap in performance opened up by German swept wing knowledge might have been closed quite quickly. Especially since later tests proved that Miles' 'Gillette' wing delivered exactly as promised. Imagine if this was proven as early as 1946?

Now I am off on a flight of fantasy, of course, but what if, eh?


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2009)

Waynos,

I can tell you for a fact that flying wings are generally a lot better turners than anything else, the reason is quite simple really, very high lift low drag, it really is just a big wing, so it will turn on a dime. The reason you might not have heard about this is either because haven't read much about flying wing designs or because you've only read about bombers, and the turn peformance of a bomber isn't really of any importance, the extremely high lift of the flying wing design however is as it allows for a much bigger bomb load to be carried. 

But I can assure you that the Ho/Go-229 will outturn most if not any WW2 fighter without too much trouble, even a A6M2 Zero will be hard pressed trying to follow the Ho/Go-229 through a turn. So as a turn fighter the Ho/Go-229 is far superior to the far majority of WW2 fighters.

The only problem the Ho-229 will have is its lack of total lateral stability, making it somewhat of a tricky gun platform, so in that sense it will be inferior to all the regular fighters as it will tend to skid.

Hope that helps mate


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2009)

Oh forgot to respond to your P.1011 question, sorry.

Yeah a comparison with this a/c would indeed be very interesting! But as for wether it featured the best wing of them all, well I don't really think we can say that.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 23, 2009)

Soren. I have seen lots of different flying wings but all of them seemed to only want to fly straight and level or turn very gently. 

I always assumed this was a consequence of the design, not that I would know anything at all about the subject I hasten to add, so forgive my questions. I suppose I am presuming a structural limitation rather than an aerodynamic one.

Wouldn't a flying wing flex excessively under violent manouver? 

If so what would be the consequence when it sprang back? Also, if you try to turn tightly in such a design is there not a risk that it might flip right over and stall? 

Sorry if these questions seem ignorant, I can see the sense in your previous explanation, are there any online videos that illustrate your point?

I say the best wing, regarding the P.1101, only in the sense that when NA fitted it to the Sabre it proved to be exactly that in terms of loading and behaviour by comparison with other fighters of the period (and many since)


----------



## Soren (Jun 23, 2009)

Waynos,

No a flying wing wont flex anymore at all, infact it should be more rigid. But as it is with all a/c the bigger it is the higher the amount of flexing you must expect as it gets harder and harder to keep the structure rigid, so a bomber's wing will flex more than a fighter's wing at the same G loads. But the Ho/Go-229 was a small a/c, and it was in essence just a big rigid flying wing which no doubt could take a good deal higher G forces than the normal fighters as the load was spread over the entire body of the a/c = lifting body design = flying wing, and not just on two attached wings.

Now that you've only seen flying wings fly straight doesn't mean they can't turn well, that you must acknowledge right?  I can actually tell you that B-2 bomber pilots brag a lot about their ability to outturn any fighter in US service. (Probably not a F22 though)


----------



## Butters (Jun 23, 2009)

[QUOTE=Soren "I can actually tell you that B-2 bomber pilots brag a lot about their ability to outturn any fighter in US service. (Probably not a F22 though)"


Well, those Spirit jockeys can brag all they want, but before I'll believe that a B-2 can pull lead on an F-18 in a low-speed turning fight, I'm just gonna have to see it with my own eyes...

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2009)

Soren said:


> I can actually tell you that B-2 bomber pilots brag a lot about their ability to outturn any fighter in US service. (Probably not a F22 though)


It ain't out turning a -16. I know that for a fact.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 24, 2009)

Vulcan bomber pilots used to make similar claims back in the day and that was bollocks too. However I do accept that I may well have a bit of a knowledge gap regarding the agility of flying wings generally and wuill research it more.


----------



## Glider (Jun 24, 2009)

A number of companies have tried to design a flying wing since WW2 and they all as far as I know, failed due to control problems. The B2 is of course a success but relies on electronics which couldn't have been dreamed of in the mid 40's.

I admit that I find it hard to believe that Germany would have cracked such a difficult subject and no one else could do it for another 50 years.


----------



## Butters (Jun 24, 2009)

The Planes of Fame used to fly the Northrop N9M (a proof-of-concept test vehicle for their bomber project) and it seemed to handle fairly well, but I don't know of any flying wing design that has been put thru rigourous hi-G fighter manoeuver testing. 

Most 4th generation fighters can perform sustained 7-G turns at 4-500 kts. I don't know the structural G-limits and T/W ratio of the B-2, but it seems unlikely that a long-range, hi-capacity stealth bomber would also be expected to perform like a close-in dogfighter...

Wayno's reference to the Vulcan reminds me an air display in the mid-70's. The sight of that huge cream and brown delta standing on its wingtip at low-level , trailing plumes of black smoke as it thundered thru a 180 turn was totally mind-boggling 

They don't make airshows like that anymore...

JL


----------



## lingo (Jun 24, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Vulcan bomber pilots used to make similar claims back in the day and that was bollocks too. However I do accept that I may well have a bit of a knowledge gap regarding the agility of flying wings generally and wuill research it more.



I don't know exactly what claims were made on behalf of the Vulcan, but in its early days I can tell you when at great altitude it was darn near invulnerable to fighters. The few fighters that could get to those heights were not able to do much as a turn of more than a few degrees would cause them to lose hundreds of feet of altitude. On the other hand the huge area of the Vulcans wing allowed it to remain up in the thin air.


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2009)

The problem with a flying wing is the directional instability in jaw it features, which no doubt is why we dont see many flying wing fighters. But in terms of structural integrity a flying wing has it all over coventional a/c and will be able to take a lot more G's. 

A flying wings strong side is its ability to turn on a dime and having a very low landing speed, the weak point is the directional instability in the lateral axis. 

But a flying wing certainly doesn't need computers to fly, it can fly perfectly well without, it does however needs computers if it wants to achieve the same kind of lateral stability as a conventional a/c.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60CgYmNb2a8_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 24, 2009)

Soren said:


> The problem with a flying wing is the directional instability in jaw it features, which no doubt is why we dont see many flying wing fighters. But in terms of structural integrity a flying wing has it all over coventional a/c and will be able to take a lot more G's.
> 
> A flying wings strong side is its ability to turn on a dime and having a very low landing speed, the weak point is the directional instability in the lateral axis.
> 
> ...




It is also very efficient - you don't hear many people talk about range.







YB-35 - 8,150 mi 

YB-49 3,155 mi (not bad for an early jet)


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 24, 2009)

Good God, I had no idea it was that good.


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2009)

Yeah another one of the advantages of the flying wing design is the much lower drag and therefore fuel efficiency.


----------



## johnbr (Jun 24, 2009)

Dr Horten after the war is said to have solved the snaking on flying wings.He said the answer was in the design of the wing tips.


----------



## Soren (Jun 24, 2009)

I doubt he could have cured it completely though.


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 24, 2009)

Soren said:


> The problem with a flying wing is the directional instability in jaw it features, which no doubt is why we dont see many flying wing fighters. But in terms of structural integrity a flying wing has it all over coventional a/c and will be able to take a lot more G's.
> 
> A flying wings strong side is its ability to turn on a dime and having a very low landing speed, the weak point is the directional instability in the lateral axis.
> 
> ...




THAT.......is a cool link! Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 25, 2009)

Not QUITE the random post that it looks
Another aircraft with a high-T tail that is not particularly (in my opinion) broad-chord; it seems to have served successfully with WarPac airforces for a number of years so it can't have had that many problems. Why would the Ta183's have been so problematic?

JET FIGHTER PLANE,COLD WAR,AIRCRAFT,AVIATION,AIRFORCE. on eBay (end time 04-Jul-09 00:06:13 BST)

And no, I'm not in the market for a for a former Soviet-bloc jet trainer


----------



## Waynos (Jun 25, 2009)

Are you kidding me Colin? The L-29 fin is almost as wide as it is high making it one of the lowest aspect ratio fin/rudder combinations you will ever see (after the F-104) and with only a modest sweep angle. It cannot be compared with the fin shape of the Ta 183, which is long, slender and very highly swept. A form not used by any successful aircraft ever.

However, under 20k for a jet? Mmmm, wonder what the wife would say


----------



## Waynos (Jun 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> I doubt he could have cured it completely though.



I was reading the RAE report on the Ho IX the other day after our discussion and in there it stated that 'by applying the tip brakes simultaneously the aircraft could be held steady for shooting' which seems to address the skidding problem.

I do not share your, and others, enthusiasm for this aircraft as a fighter though. With so many flying wings demonstrated successfully before and since, and with all Hortens research (plus the men themselves) available after the war, no successful flying wing fighter of this form was ever deployed. The closest being the F7U and F4D which were both quite different and not that successful themselves. I just don't see where the confidence that seems to exist in the Horten as a service fighter comes from?


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 25, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Are you kidding me Colin? The L-29 fin is almost as wide as it is high making it one of the lowest aspect ratio fin/rudder combinations you will ever see


Are you counting the rudder as part of the fin? I didn't think the fin added any structural rigidity to the assembly, being a control surface


----------



## Waynos (Jun 25, 2009)

No, I thought it would just be clearer. I realise that was wrong because I added an irrelevant element (the rudder) to the discussion. The point still stands though for both types.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 25, 2009)

As a further query along similar lines. Is there any aerodynamic data for the Me 262 HG/III? with its root mounted engines and highly swept wing it was clearly an advance over the original, yet it looks all wrong?

Yet if I slightly modify the design and move the cockpit up to the nose it looks perfectly acceptable. This is no doubt due to the fact that we are conditioned by experience to see that as the 'normal' position for a fast jet, but do any aerodynamiscists/engineers out there have an opinion on whetherthis would have improved the aircraft in reality, ruined it, or made no difference at all?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 25, 2009)

The Ta-183 and the Vampire are not comparable as has been argued earlier. The Vampire was a generation 1 jet fighter and the Ta-183 was closer to a generation 2 aerodynamically with a generation 1 engine. 

Without a doubt, the Ta-183 was an advanced aircraft and influenced future aircraft design. However, I think it would have required further development and test flights to be an effective fighter. To me, obvious modifications would include a redesign of the tail, which the Design III provided. I know of no successful fighter design that incorporated that type of tail design. It seems complex to build and has apparent structural weakness compared to a straight horizontal stabilizer design. I think it would have been late ’46 or early’47 for Germany to field an adequately tested Ta-183 and it would have evolved into the Design III configuration (which to me appears to be a nice design that is reflected in later aircraft).

As for the Horton 229, my opinion hasn’t changed- a very advanced design but with a lot of development required. Soren covered the plane quite well including the maneuverability. Lateral stability was close to zero and an engine stall or asymmetrical deformative weapons strike on the aircraft could easily cause the plane to “Frisbee” out of control (how about that for a new verb?) before the pilot could react. I think some vertical tail area would be needed. I would also add that the design has a very close pitch moment, and while it did not appear to be a problem in the B-35/49, may impact high speed maneuvering and stall characteristics and needed to be investigated an tested.

*Here’s an article on the Horton 229 that should excite that all of you. I think it is of great interest.*

Northrop engineers research Nazi flying-wing aircraft for TV documentary - The Daily Breeze


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 25, 2009)

davparlr said:


> The Ta-183 and the Vampire are not comparable as has been argued earlier. The Vampire was a generation 1 jet fighter and the Ta-183 was closer to a generation 2 aerodynamically with a generation 1 engine


Is that statement valid?
The Me262 and the P-51 were not comparable, the technological gulf between them was considerably greater than any perceived gulf between the two pollsters here but they ended up fighting each other.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 25, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Is that statement valid?
> The Me262 and the P-51 were not comparable, the technological gulf between them was considerably greater than any perceived gulf between the two pollsters here but they ended up fighting each other.



Well, I don't quite understand this. While the P-51 did meet the Me-262, the P-51, which was a superb propeller driven fighter, one of the best of the war, was a plane that it was made obsolete by the Me-262 and its ilk. Had the Ta-183 been developed properly and met the vampire in 1947, it would be similar to the combat of the F-80 against the Mig-15, in my opinion.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 25, 2009)

Good link Davparlr, very interesting.

I don't think there can be much doubt thast it was stealthy, a more interesting question that I have seen posed before would be 'was it deliberately so?' 

I believe not, but its shape, coupled with its wooden skinning would certainly produce that effect, even though from straight ahead its engine intakes would have allowed the fans to act as huge reflectors. But this cannot be called a failing as I do not believe the Hortens, as I said before, were particularly looking for stealth, so much as they wanted to produce as practical working flying wing design that could be adapted for various roles.

Colin, assuming just for the sake of argument that a working Ta 183 could be deployed in time to face the Vampire in air combat, what is the point of the comparison? If the question is 'would the Ta 183 represent a more advanced design than the Vampire with a higher performance - then there is no debate to be had, the answer is undeniably yes. Isn't the point of a comparison to measure the strengths and weaknesses as we percieve them of programmes that were broadly concurrent? This is how I would view it, hence my raising of the DH 107 earlier, and may be what Davparlr means too?


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 25, 2009)

davparlr said:


> Well, I don't quite understand this. While the P-51 did meet the Me-262, the P-51, which was a superb propeller driven fighter, one of the best of the war, was a plane that it was made obsolete by the Me-262 and its ilk. Had the Ta-183 been developed properly and met the vampire in 1947, it would be similar to the combat of the F-80 against the Mig-15, in my opinion.


Dave
the point I am making is that the Ta183 can hardly be penalised for being a technologically more advanced design if it and the Vampire came on-stream at the same time. Assuming WWII continued into 1946, the Ta183 would very likely have entered service by then against a Vampire that actually did enter service in that year, then they'd be facing each other.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 25, 2009)

No, I disagree Colin if I may interject. In a continued war the Vampire would have deployed operationally before the end of 1945, by September of which year both Hawker and DH would have been making rapid progress with their swept wing DH 107 and P.1047. The Hawker would not have flown until the end of 1946, early47 by my own estimation, even if pressed, but the DH 107 would be flying by mid 1946 and first deployed around early 1947, assuming the transition to this relatively modest adaptation of the Vampire went ahead ok. Flight trials of the Ta 183 would have probably begun before the end of 1945, then there would have been the redesign (which Tank did have to do in real life to the Pulqui II) resulting in a deployment again in early 47. All purely by my guesswork of course.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 25, 2009)

Butters said:


> Soren "I can actually tell you that B-2 bomber pilots brag a lot about their ability to outturn any fighter in US service. (Probably not a F22 though)"
> Well said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard of some bombers outurning fighters and with the big wing of the B-2 it could possibly be done at some combination of airspeed and altitude. Some whiz could probably calculate some turn rates. I find it hard to believe that the B-2 would be trying to turn with a figter, or even get close to one. *It is expensive!*


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2009)

davparlr,

The sole reason I believe that we aren't seeing many flying wing fighters around is the fact that such a design always will have issues with lateral stability. Furthermore since the power of engine these days often supercede the actual weight of the a/c there simply is no need for the huge amount of lift a flying wing provides. But there are ofcourse other factors which are considered, such as visibility from the cockpit and so on, and a flying wing design usually doesn't permit a lot of visibility to anything below the a/c.

Nevertheless, some interesting designs sometimes turn up  :


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2009)

davparlr said:


> Butters said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard of some bombers outurning fighters and with the big wing of the B-2 it could possibly be done at some combination of airspeed and altitude. Some whiz could probably calculate some turn rates. I find it hard to believe that the B-2 would be trying to turn with a figter, or even get close to one. *It is expensive!*
> ...


----------



## lingo (Jun 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> davparlr said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. The B-2 most likely wont outturn any of the major US fighters in service atm, but the fact that the pilots believe it will says abit about the capabilities of the a/c. Most bomber pilots wouldn't ever dare make such a claim.
> ...


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2009)

lingo,

Where did I mention that the B-2 was ever supposed to be supersonic ? We were talking about turning, not speed


----------



## Waynos (Jun 25, 2009)

But Soren, how can you call a design that has issues serious enough to prevent it from ever seeing service 'excellent'? 

The Defiant and Botha both reached service but I wiould never call them that 

PS, What about the HG.III, any thoughts on my earlier meandering with that one?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 25, 2009)

lingo said:


> Not wishing to be rude but I very much doubt that the B-2 has ever exceeded the speed of sound so it is no faster than fighters from the 1950s



And this has what to do with turn rate?


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2009)

Waynos said:


> But Soren, how can you call a design that has issues serious enough to prevent it from ever seeing service 'excellent'?



I never said the issues were serious enough to prevent it from ever seeing service, quite the contrary infact. I explained that the reason the flying wing design isn't used much today is partly because engine power has increased as much as it has, making lift production less important than in the past. Aircraft today litterally power themselves through hard turns by use of excess thrust. 

In WW2 and immediately after the flying wing design could've proven very useful however it was largely forgotten until the late 80's. So in WW2 Ho/Go-229 would've no doubt proven a menace, sporting superior maneuverability than most a/c in service anywhere and a an unmatched performance to boot. Like I said an excellent design.

The great handling of the Ho-229 was confirmed already in the first glider prototypes of the a/c. Here's one being tested by the Horten brothers:


----------



## lingo (Jun 25, 2009)

davparlr said:


> And this has what to do with turn rate?



Nothing at all. I was replying to:



Soren said:


> davparlr said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. The B-2 most likely wont outturn any of the major US fighters in service atm, but the fact that the pilots believe it will says abit about the capabilities of the a/c. Most bomber pilots wouldn't ever dare make such a claim.
> ...


----------



## Waynos (Jun 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> I never said the issues were serious enough to prevent it from ever seeing service,



No, but history does. In the 5-10 years that followed WW2 no similar fighters were developed or used anywhere else, despite the mass export of this technology.



> quite the contrary infact. I explained that the reason the flying wing design isn't used much today is partly because engine power has increased as much as it has, making lift production less important than in the past. Aircraft today litterally power themselves through hard turns by use of excess thrust.



Well, not entirely, but what about the 40's and early 50's?



> In WW2 and immediately after the flying wing design could've proven very useful however it was largely forgotten until the late 80's.



No it wasn't. The flying wing has long been the holy grail of aircraft designers, even before the Wright brothers, Northrop, Boeing Avro, Armstrong Whitworth, Handley Page and many others were all developing flying wings before during and after the war and new designs appearted regulary through the 60, s 70's and 80's. Why, after 1945, was the Brilliance of the Hortens (for that is something I readily accept) still not enough to see such a design put into service?

Glider tests were also successfuilly accomplished by the allies too, and much more besides as did the Hortens, but it still didn't lead to operational hardware.

Thanks for the photo's though. Looking at the bottom one the shadow of the wing makes for quite a convincing fin too, it caught me out at first glance .


----------



## lingo (Jun 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> lingo,
> 
> Where did I mention that the B-2 was ever supposed to be supersonic ? We were talking about turning, not speed



Yes yes dear heart. I was expanding a little on your comment but my elderly eyes misread what you wrote and I thought you had said 'outrun' instead of outturn.  Sorry pardon! 


The B-2 most likely wont outturn any of the major US fighters in service atm, but the fact that the pilots believe it will says abit about the capabilities of the a/c. Most bomber pilots wouldn't ever dare make such a claim.


----------



## Soren (Jun 25, 2009)

No problem what'so'ever lingo


----------



## davparlr (Jun 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> davparlr,
> 
> The sole reason I believe that we aren't seeing many flying wing fighters around is the fact that such a design always will have issues with lateral stability. Furthermore since the power of engine these days often supercede the actual weight of the a/c there simply is no need for the huge amount of lift a flying wing provides. But there are ofcourse other factors which are considered, such as visibility from the cockpit and so on, and a flying wing design usually doesn't permit a lot of visibility to anything below the a/c.
> 
> Nevertheless, some interesting designs sometimes turn up  :



I am sure that flying wing designs have been studied for fighters and the lateral stability issue should be no problems with fly-by-wire systems. However, it appears that maneuverability requirements seem to drive some rather large control surfaces including vertical surfaces, eg. YF-23. The X-47A would probably be cleanest design, both aerodynamically and stealth, if it were expanded into a piloted vehicle. But then, maybe it will be a better UCAV, certainly "g's" could increase. Of course it is more of a delta.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 26, 2009)

Waynos said:


> No, but history does. In the 5-10 years that followed WW2 no similar fighters were developed or used anywhere else, despite the mass export of this technology.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Waynos, as an english professor, a good friend of mine repeatedly told me: 

*Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.*

But Your argumentation does not apply to this general critique. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence for You and honestly- I am convinced that this preposition is wrong.

First of all, Horten was on something. In fact he developed the aerodynamic rules of the bell shaped lift distribution to give his designs (following the Ho-III) the margin of stability typically missing on flying wings. Horten designed and build many planes in the post war period for sport aeronautics using his design principles. This is not without tradeoffs in drag but more importantly, he was ignored by Northrop, Handley Page and others for his findings in the 50´s, 60´s and 70´s. This is confirmed by dozens of unanswered letters surviving in the archives, where Dr. R. Horten points to his theories adressed primarely to Northrop. It took until the late 70´s that his findings were confirmed by intensive aerodynamic research and his rules are today applied to flying wings of RC-scale, ultra-light design, gliders and single engine powered flying wings, which do not make use of fly by wire technology. FbW does allow for stability without compromising drag, typical for the bell shaped lift distribution spanwise, and thus is the rightly preferred solution for large flying wings today. 

Had Northrop, Handley Page, A&W all applied his rules on their fyling wing design -how can You say that these design would have operationally failed based on other criteria than lack of stability (which is properly adressed with bell shaped lift distribution)?


----------



## Waynos (Jun 26, 2009)

Delycros, that was a very intersting and thought provoking reply, thank you. You do provide a possible reason why my earlier view may be incorrect. Are you able to post any of this evidence that shows Horten was right but ignored? Or maybe point me in the right direction that I might find it for myself? More questions do occur to me on this subject, for I am an inquisitive fellow. You may already have the answer to them?

Why was Horten ignored? Why would he be?

The root of these questions for me lay in a report in Flight magazine from 1943 extolling the virtues of Hortens superb all-wing gliders - so their knowledge and expertise in the field was an acknowledged fact long before the end of the war. 

Also their designs were extensively tested in the UK by RAE and in the USA by NACA, these tests would surely have expanded the knowledge base of all major allied constructors. Other areas of German expertise were comprehensively hoovered up by western designers, so why not this one?

Theory is easily ignored, especially when it is not understood, but it seems very curious that such important knowledge would be totally disregarded, even after domestic testing would have proven it right.

I hope you can see my dilemma.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 26, 2009)

For a brief overview over Hortens bell shaped lift distribution in english I prefer:

Horten Nurflugels

Evidence for ignoration of these theories may be found in several cases. All Northtrop design miss the bell shaped lift distribution developed by Horten. Further, I quote from Dr. Horten himselfe, published in Horten / Selinger, Nurflügel. Die Geschichte der Horten Flugzeuge 1933 - 1960 (Graz 1993), p.224:



> "Nearly all the new aircraft projects in Germany at the end of the war were tailless designs. I was interrogated by the British after the collapse, along with other designers. We talked about our work, but did not reveal our findings. It was therefore both, tragic and comical to see first the British then the Americans engaged all the same problems that we did ten years before.
> 
> I tried to offer my services to the Fairy Aircraft Company in 1947 for work on the supersonic delta aircraft, but while the management was positive in all respects, the general hate-attitude of the people against Germans driven by public press made working there impossible.
> As long as experimentation with high aspect ratio flying wings was undertaken in England without proper knowledge of the bell shaped lift distribution, the flying qualities would have been unstatisfying.
> ...



The german excerpt on this text is more technically detailed than the short english summery. It appears that Dr. R. Horten has two aims with his book. One is a personal one, the other is a scientific one. One should be careful to seperate between both but he explains why Northrop´s approach must have failed scientifically on the ground of his theoretical findings.

A detailed account on the british interogation report (TN Aero 1703 dating to oct. 1945) has been filed down and is now publicly aviable in the net:

Farnborough Hants - Horten Aircraft History 

There was no major investigation into why Hortens glider were stable. One of his vintage H-IV even won the mid US american gliderchampionship in the 60´s-so they were in limited use ( a rare sight). Many unprooven ideas surrounded the flying wing idea at this time.
His solutions are today generally accepted but in turn even outdated with the advent of FbW. 
best regards,
delc


----------



## davparlr (Jun 26, 2009)

lingo said:


> Nothing at all. I was replying to:



We said nothing about airspeed, only turning.



> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > davparlr said:
> ...


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2009)

Good post delcyros, I agree completely.

It has actually also been mentioned several times that the technology was forgotten until the development of the B-2 started where staff from Northrop went to the hangar to painstakingly research the Ho-229's airframe in detail. Now why would they have done that if it wasn't for the fact that there was a lot to learn from it??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 26, 2009)

> Later, Northtop factory wasted a large amount of money on several unsuccessful heavy bombers, similar to the H VIII or H XVIII. They could certainly have benefitted from my knowledge of high aspect ratio flying wings!



I have issues with that statement.

The B-35 had some propeller governor issues that were eventually addressed, but the war was well over by then. There was always reports of the later B-49 stability problems that eventually lead to an award to Convair for the B-36. Jack Northrop stated on his deathbed that he had conflicts with the DoD and even Truman himself and that is what ended the Northrop flying wings. The B-35 and B-49 did have some issues that could have been addressed especially if the war progressed. IMO neither aircraft could be considered "unsuccessful." Here's a good paper on this.

http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/2001arq/Baker.pdf


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 26, 2009)

Here's another slant...

Conspiracy?


----------



## Glider (Jun 26, 2009)

Looking at the way British Politicians forced our aerospace industries to merge with a spectacular lack of success this has the ring of possibility.


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2009)

Yeah I believe Northrop could've made it work as-well, the needed information was there. They could however still have benefitted a lot from including Horten in the project, esp. in cutting down on research time seeing that Horten already possessed all the knowledge needed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> Yeah I believe Northrop could've made it work as-well, the needed information was there. They could however still have benefitted a lot from including Horten in the project, esp. in cutting down on research time seeing that Horten already possessed all the knowledge needed.


No doubt. To say that either B-35 or B-49 were "unsuccessful" however were stretching it and perhaps Dr. Horten was a little envious that Northrop did indeed produce several large flying wing bombers that had intercontinental range.


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2009)

I don't think he was envious, I think he might have been abit disappointed that he wasn't included in the project maybe. Flying wings was his passion after all, and the Northrop project was a big one


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> I don't think he was envious, I think he might have been abit disappointed that he wasn't included in the project maybe. Flying wings was his passion after all, and the Northrop project was a big one


Again no doubt.

Envious? Disappointed? Perhaps a bit of both.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 26, 2009)

Thanks Delycross. While there is naturally no definitive proof, there is at least enough in there for me to now give the Ho IX the benefit of the doubt. Well persuaded. So the *balance of probability* for me lies as follows; the Ta 183, a bit of a dud without a redesign which would have cured it - , Ho IX, workable and practical in its existing form and a r4eal threat. 

Now, whats next?


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 26, 2009)

Waynos said:


> ...the Ta 183, a bit of a dud without a redesign which would have cured it ...


Wayne
at what point in the thread did we actually confirm this? Cured what?


----------



## Waynos (Jun 26, 2009)

It is something that is impossible to confirm. I merely said that it was the balance of probability for me. And maybe a few others who have posted share the view, but it is nothing any of us will ever prove definitively, all we can do uis form our own opinions.

Delycross (and Soren) have given me enough food for thought to revise my view of the Horten. Nothing in this thread has given me cause to revise my opinion that the Ta 183 would have suffered a severe flutter problem as built, until the modified tail was applied later on.

What has reinforced this view, from my position, are the facts that Tank, in Design III, was intending to try out a different tail design of a type we now know with experience would work, coupled with the Argentine glider that featured the Ta 183 tail as pictured earlier in the thread but was later redesigned, both versions are contained in the same image which was taken from a webage covering the history of the IAe 33. That's good enough for me.

Pulqui II


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 26, 2009)

I watched a special on the Northrop Co and it did state that it was politics that killed the B-35/49 projects. It did end on a very cool note. Before he passed away, he was shown him a model/mockup of the B-2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 26, 2009)

Waynos said:


> . Nothing in this thread has given me cause to revise my opinion that the Ta 183 would have suffered a severe flutter problem as built, until the modified tail was applied later on.
> 
> What has reinforced this view, from my position, are the facts that Tank, in Design III, was intending to try out a different tail design of a type we now know with experience would work, coupled with the Argentine glider that featured the Ta 183 tail as pictured earlier in the thread but was later redesigned, both versions are contained in the same image which was taken from a webage covering the history of the IAe 33. That's good enough for me.
> 
> Pulqui II



Remember this - the MiG-15 "fluttered" (among other things) when it reached critical mach. It was also not the most pleasant aircraft to land. That did not ruin its career. The Ta 183 was being developed to counter the Meteor in which the Mk I was exactly a speed demon. It was also being considered to carry the X-4 air to air missile. All the Ta 183 had to do is stay out of its critical mach number (which in a rough guesstimate had to be at least 100 mph faster than the Meteor if not more) and at least on paper would have been more than a match for the Meteor Mk I.

On the other end of the spectrum - as this flutter problem either been rectified or not materialized, you would an aircraft with MiG-15 performance in 1945/ 46.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 26, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Remember this - the MiG-15 "fluttered" (among other things) when it reached critical mach. It was also not the most pleasant aircraft to land. That did not ruin its career. The Ta 183 was being developed to counter the Meteor in which the Mk I was exactly a speed demon. It was also being considered to carry the X-4 air to air missile. All the Ta 183 had to do is stay out of its critical mach number (which in a rough guesstimate had to be at least 100 mph faster than the Meteor if not more) and at least on paper would have been more than a match for the Meteor Mk I.
> 
> On the other end of the spectrum - as this flutter problem either been rectified or not materialized, you would an aircraft with MiG-15 performance in 1945/ 46.




I have considered it flyboyj. Indeed it has been a central part of all my posts on the subject. That flutter affected aircraft in the same performance bracket with empennages of more than twice the chord (and presumably much higher stiffness as a consequence) is my entire argument. The broad still fins that T tail aircraft have always needed is directly because of this problem and allowed them to get away with relatively modest improvements like acorns and fairings. It is my gut feeling that the Ta 183 tail was too slender to allow such an easy get out. Hence design III, or is everyone ignoring that?

Can anyone find just ONE aircraft in the entire world that flew with the same shape tail? I can't. I thought if there is one it might be Russian, did a trawl. Nopem, nothing. over to you.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 26, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I have considered it flyboyj. Indeed it has been a central part of all my posts on the subject. That flutter affected aircraft in the same performance bracket with empennages of more than twice the chord (and presumably much higher stiffness as a consequence) is my entire argument. The broad still fins that T tail aircraft have always needed is directly because of this problem and allowed them to get away with relatively modest improvements like acorns and fairings. It is my gut feeling that the Ta 183 tail was too slender to allow such an easy get out. Hence design III, or is everyone ignoring that?


Perhaps - it also would have been interesting to see how the aircraft would have faired with fences or LE slats.


Waynos said:


> Can anyone find just ONE aircraft in the entire world that flew with the same shape tail? I can't. I thought if there is one it might be Russian, did a trawl. Nopem, nothing. over to you.


Are you talking the dihedreal, sweep or both?


----------



## Waynos (Jun 26, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Perhaps - it also would have been interesting to see how the aircraft would have faired with fences or LE slats.



You say perhaps, I say probably, such is life. I tend to agree with the view that it would have quickly sprouted fences, I have always felt that the rest of the design was perfectly sound.




> Are you talking the dihedreal, sweep or both?



if the sweep and/or dihedral can be found then fine, but its the narrow chord high aspect ratio that concerns me more on a T tail design like that.

edit, I'm still looking as I type and I've found something that relates to this subject, albeit in a way I had not considered. The Mikoyan I-360, a prototype along the road to the MiG 19, originally flew with a swept T-tail, albeit nothing like as extreme as the Ta 183 shape, and this was moved to the base of the fin as it interfered with spin recovery. Also English Electric, in wind tunnel tests later confirmed by the Short SB5 flying testbed, moved the tail of the P.1 (origin of the Lightning) from a high to a low postition as the high tail was found to be 'deeply unsatisfactory'. I wish some of this stuff was a bit more specific


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 26, 2009)

Waynos said:


> You say perhaps, I say probably, such is life. I tend to agree with the view that it would have quickly sprouted fences, I have always felt that the rest of the design was perfectly sound.


I still have an open mind until I could see wind tunnel data, but agree, the fences would have sprouted.




Waynos said:


> if the sweep and/or dihedral can be found then fine, but its the narrow chord high aspect ratio that concerns me more on a T tail design like that.


Again in stead of judging appearances, I'd like to validate the function. More than likely you're correct but I go back to my original statement that we can't always judge a book by its cover.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 26, 2009)

Sorry, I don't understand what the first half of your last sentence means, how would you validate the function? No, you can't judge a book by its cover, but if you read lots of others books either on the same subject or by the same author you can get a feel for what you are going to get.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 26, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Sorry, I don't understand what the first half of your last sentence means, how would you validate the function?


Through wind tunnel testing or by "math." The best way however would be to build a full size aircraft and evaluate its performance.



Waynos said:


> No, you can't judge a book by its cover, but if you read lots of others books either on the same subject or by the same author you can get a feel for what you are going to get.


Not all the time. I have some people make comments about the MiG-19 for example stating that the wing "looks" weak as it's too far swept back when in reality the aircraft is designed quite well and also exhibited great performance in its generation.


----------



## lingo (Jun 27, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Ta 183 was being developed to counter the Meteor in which the Mk I was exactly a speed demon. It was also being considered to carry the X-4 air to air missile. All the Ta 183 had to do is stay out of its critical mach number (which in a rough guesstimate had to be at least 100 mph faster than the Meteor if not more) and at least on paper would have been more than a match for the Meteor Mk I.
> 
> 
> Assuming you mean the Meteor I was not a speed demon, what evidence is there that the Ta 183 was designed to counter it? Very few mark Is were built and they were used by only 616 Squadron. The mark III replaced the mark Is in 616 and they also equipped other units.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 27, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No doubt. To say that either B-35 or B-49 were "unsuccessful" however were stretching it and perhaps Dr. Horten was a little envious that Northrop did indeed produce several large flying wing bombers that had intercontinental range.



Given his statement and the context of it - and likely the limited knowledge of how the politics were involved- , I think it is probable. At least he couldn´t be sure that other solutions to the stability issue existed and Mr. Northrop certainly had the money and will to explore them. Judging from his inability to serve in England and other statements he likely was not the most charming charackter to deal with.
I don´t consider the B-35 or B-49 as unsuccessful, either.
However, there can be no doubt that leaving out Horten from the design process was at least one out of many failures for the entire program. His expertise in stability question of high aspect ratio flying wings certainly would have convinced me to get him in charge.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 27, 2009)

Regarding to the original topic, Ta-183 vs Vampire, I would have to vote for the Ta-183. 
The Ta-183 was one generation ahead of the Me-262 and the Me-262 and Vampire were pretty
comparable planes in most respects performancewise.

Whether or not the Ta-183 is practical as a fighter would have been an interesting question. Without LE-slats, wing fences and other high lift devices it would have been a challanging experience for test pilots.
The Messerschmidt P 1101 was probably superior in many respects to the Ta-183, including crit Mach, top speed, low speed behavior and stall sensitivity. In top of this, the P1101 V1 prototype was found almost finished, while construction of the Ta-183V1 prototype likely did not even begun until end of the hostilities. Quite possible that the "Experimentierflugzeug" replaces the vaunted Ta-183.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2009)

I agree completely Delcyros.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 27, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Through wind tunnel testing or by "math." The best way however would be to build a full size aircraft and evaluate its performance..



Which aint happening, so were stuck with arguments like these 



> Not all the time. I have some people make comments about the MiG-19 for example stating that the wing "looks" weak as it's too far swept back when in reality the aircraft is designed quite well and also exhibited great performance in its generation.



But there again, the MiG 19 does not have a totally unique wing planform. Similar ones were used by other manufacturuers as well as MiG themsleves on various aircraft and the MiG 19 wing was perpetuated in China on the A-5 modelled upon it because it was proven and worked. It is the complete lack of any other use of the Design II tail anywhere that leads me to believe what I do. If something is good, it gets used.

Now, doing your job for you a bit here, I am also well aware that the wing design and tail arrangement of the EE Lightning, which was painstakingly researched and gave better manouverabilty than any other wing of the time was not copied by anyone else, which has always been a mystery, so I do recognize its not an absolute.


Delycross/Soren; thats why I mentioned the P.1101 earlier in the thread. I always thought the fixation with the Ta 183 as the 'just-around-the-corner superplane' was a bit of a red herring. P1101 all the way for me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2009)

Waynos said:


> But there again, the MiG 19 does not have a totally unique wing planform. Similar ones were used by other manufacturuers as well as MiG themsleves on various aircraft and the MiG 19 wing was perpetuated in China on the A-5 modelled upon it because it was proven and worked. It is the complete lack of any other use of the Design II tail anywhere that leads me to believe what I do. If something is good, it gets used.


Just because a configuration is used once and never seen again doesn't mean it won't look. Look at canard aircraft. They went away for a number of years and become popular again because of the Rutans.

I think you're making a determination by the way something "looks" rather than gathering or computing performance data.


----------



## Juha (Jun 27, 2009)

Hello
I voted for Vampire. At least it was workable solution, not spectacular but it worked. The Ta 183 design as it was in May 45 would IMHO more likely to kill its pilot than an enemy a/c. My reasons are those I wrote in message #38.

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2009)

Juha said:


> At least it was workable solution, not spectacular but it worked. The Ta 183 design as it was in May 45 would IMHO more likely to kill its pilot than an enemy a/c. My reasons are those I wrote in message #38.



For practical purposes I'd agree, the Vampire was simple and straight forward. The Ta 183 was a glimpse of what was just around the corner.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 27, 2009)

FlyboyJ

Are you having an identity crisis? Juha seems to be of the same opinion as me, yet you agree with him but take me to task.
in post 38 Juha wrote;



> I also have some doubt on the tail shape, if made structurally enough strong it would be heavy.
> T-tail had its own problems at high AoA


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2009)

Waynos said:


> FlyboyJ
> 
> Are you having an identity crisis? Juha seems to be of the same opinion as me, yet you agree with him but take me to task.
> in post 38 Juha wrote;


Wayne, we were having a good discussion here and no one is taking you to task, and please keep the rhetoric down. You keep bringing up the "looks" of the Ta 183 and with an assumption that it doesn't look right it might not fly right. I'm saying show me the "math." You may be right but in the end the basic configuration (Swept back wing and T tail) of the aircraft was used in several high performing aircraft a few years later.

BTW - I disagree with his statement -


> if made structurally enough strong it would be heavy.



As far as the Vampire - it was simplistic and straight forward when compared to the Ta 183 but was 5 years behind the Ta 183 aerodynamically. As pointed out earlier, had this aircraft been built and the issues discussed remedied, it possibly "could have" flown rings around the Vampire, but in the end history dictated otherwise.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2009)

Delcyros hit the nail on the head with post #139.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 27, 2009)

delcyros said:


> First of all, Horten was on something. In fact he developed the aerodynamic rules of the bell shaped lift distribution to give his designs (following the Ho-III) the margin of stability typically missing on flying wings. Horten designed and build many planes in the post war period for sport aeronautics using his design principles. This is not without tradeoffs in drag but more importantly, he was ignored by Northrop, Handley Page and others for his findings in the 50´s, 60´s and 70´s. This is confirmed by dozens of unanswered letters surviving in the archives, where Dr. R. Horten points to his theories adressed primarely to Northrop.


He was not ignored by Northrop. After the war Walter Horten was actively pursued by Northrop to come and work for him. However, Northrop did not have the political clout (like Horten mentioned in his note) to get him to America. I think this was a tragedy as Northrop and Horten were unquestionably the leaders in the flying wing field. While I do not believe Horton had a lot to add to the work of Northrop, there is no doubt he could have made significant contributions and reduced development effort. I do not think he could have saved the B-49 from the politics of the day. Also, I think that, working with Northrop, he would have gotten recognition that he justly deseved.



> It took until the late 70´s that his findings were confirmed by intensive aerodynamic research and his rules are today applied to flying wings of RC-scale, ultra-light design, gliders and single engine powered flying wings, which do not make use of fly by wire technology.



I believe analysis indicate that, while the Horten design of gliders are good, it has drawbacks in the area of drag.



> and thus is the rightly preferred solution for large flying wings today.



No, stability is handled by electronics so airfoils are design for optimum performance, not stability. I believe the B-2 has elliptical lift distribution.



> Had Northrop, Handley Page, A&W all applied his rules on their fyling wing design -how can You say that these design would have operationally failed based on other criteria than lack of stability (which is properly adressed with bell shaped lift distribution)?



The B-49 did have yaw instability but a Honeywell Electronic Yaw Stabilization System corrected the problem and the B-49 was a “very stable platform”, according to “Northrop, an Aeronautical History”.

By the end of the war, John Northrop had considerable more experience in powered flying wing designs than the Horten brothers. Here is a list of powered flying wing aircraft flown by May, 1945.

N1M-July, 1940 – low performance twin engine test vehicle 
N9M-Dec, 1942 – low performance Twin engine test vehicle for the B-35-still flying
XP-56-Sep, 1943 – High performance Single engine fighter aircraft
MX-324-July, 1944 – High performance, rocket power aircraft, a U.S. first
JB-10-1945 – V1 type cruise missile. While it had a few successful flights, it had unknown development problems.

In addition, the XP-79B flew in Sep, 1945. It could have easily flown in early ’45 had it been originally been designed with turbojets instead of a failed rocket engine. This plane was similar to the Ho-229 in that it was a twin turbojet, flying wing fighter. It was smaller, thus less versatile, and not as clean or advanced as the Ho-229, but, due vertical stabilizers, most likely represents a more reasonable configuration. Interestingly, the XP-79B also crashed on its initial test flight when the pilot tried to slow roll the aircraft, something very stupid. Cause of the accident is unknown.

The Horten brothers only had the Ho V-B, low performance twin engine test vehicle, the Ho VII, which appears to have had limited testing, and the Ho IX V2, a high performance twin jet test vehicle (two hours of flight).




> Evidence for ignoration of these theories may be found in several cases. All Northtrop design miss the bell shaped lift distribution developed by Horten. Further, I quote from Dr. Horten himselfe, published in Horten / Selinger, Nurflügel. Die Geschichte der Horten Flugzeuge 1933 - 1960 (Graz 1993), p.224:



Certainly not a non-bias account. It would be interesting to have heard Northrop’s comments on this.




> "Nearly all the new aircraft projects in Germany at the end of the war were tailless designs.



I’m not sure this is true.



> I tried to offer my services to the Fairy Aircraft Company in 1947 for work on the supersonic delta aircraft, but while the management was positive in all respects, the general hate-attitude of the people against Germans driven by public press made working there impossible.



Apparently this was somewhat true in America, as I stated before.



> Northrop published details of a new aircraft similar to the H V at that time. The machine had negative dihedral wing tips in an apparent (but useless) attempt to combat the skid-roll moment.



According to “Northrop an Aeronautical History”, the dihedral worked. The N9M however, had no dihedral and was very stable when flow (video in this site testifies as such).



> I tried to contact M. Northrop and offer my assistence, but without success. Later, Northtop factory wasted a large amount of money on several unsuccessful heavy bombers, similar to the H VIII or H XVIII. They could certainly have benefitted from my knowledge of high aspect ratio flying wings! "



Even if Northrop had been able to get Horten to work in the U.S., I don’t think he could have saved the B-49 from political extinction. However, if he and Northrop had conspired to build an upgraded Ho-229 with more modern engines and maybe vertical stabilizers, there may have been a serious competition to the Mig-15 and F-86 in the early 50’s.



Soren said:


> Good post delcyros, I agree completely.
> 
> It has actually also been mentioned several times that the technology was forgotten until the development of the B-2 started where staff from Northrop went to the hangar to painstakingly research the Ho-229's airframe in detail. Now why would they have done that if it wasn't for the fact that there was a lot to learn from it??



I suspect this was just a boondoggle for Northrop. Aerodynamic analysis, computer control, and manufacturing technology were many generations past the Ho-229. I don’t think there was anything to learn. I only think the center section was available.



Flyboy said:


> I have issues with that statement.
> 
> The B-35 had some propeller governor issues that were eventually addressed, but the war was well over by then. There was always reports of the later B-49 stability problems that eventually lead to an award to Convair for the B-36. Jack Northrop stated on his deathbed that he had conflicts with the DoD and even Truman himself and that is what ended the Northrop flying wings. The B-35 and B-49 did have some issues that could have been addressed especially if the war progressed. IMO neither aircraft could be considered "unsuccessful." Here's a good paper on this.



I don’t think the B-35/49 would be any more difficult than the B-29 to make into a great bomber. Only the effort was different.



Soren said:


> Yeah I believe Northrop could've made it work as-well, the needed information was there. They could however still have benefitted a lot from including Horten in the project, esp. in cutting down on research time seeing that Horten already possessed all the knowledge needed.



Probably not all the knowledge since he was not as far along as Northrop in the building of large flying wing aircraft. Flight trials have always enlightened designers.



vikingBerseker said:


> I watched a special on the Northrop Co and it did state that it was politics that killed the B-35/49 projects. It did end on a very cool note. Before he passed away, he was shown him a model/mockup of the B-2.



I was at the Northrop facility when he came. I saw him but I could not attend the briefing. I was not cleared for the B-2 at that time. Also, as I was probably not important enough.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 27, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Delycross/Soren; thats why I mentioned the P.1101 earlier in the thread. I always thought the fixation with the Ta 183 as the 'just-around-the-corner superplane' was a bit of a red herring. P1101 all the way for me.



As I have said on other post, I believe that a fixed wing P.1101 would have been the first swept wing fighter to enter the war if it had continued. It would have sent the Allied designers back to the drawing board, again. In my opinion, the Ta-183 and the Ho-229 were both pie-in-the-sky designs, that, while possible successes, would require quite a bit more development work. It appears to me the P.1101 did not require much more work to be an effective fighter.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 27, 2009)

davparlr said:


> In my opinion, the Ta-183 and the Ho-229 were both pie-in-the-sky designs, that, while possible successes, would require quite a bit more development work


Sorry
but by that stage of the war, I simply do not believe that the Germans could afford the luxury of 'pie in the sky' designs.


----------



## Graeme (Jun 27, 2009)

Just wishing to seek clarification in the Ta 183 project maze. The designations differ in books that I have and these silhouettes come from a German book whose text I can't read. 

A is called the Ta 183 (Fw P. VII) which is one of* eight* designs in the original Ta 183 series? I believe a mock up was produced but then the team switched to the Huckebein duo which when the final selection was made was also called the Ta 183? I thought B was the Ta 183 II that everyone is mentioning but the caption reads Ta 183 (Fw P. VI) so that makes it the number six design of the original eight. How did it differ to the final Ta 183 II?
C is called the Ta 183 (Endlosung) which is the Ta 183 III?

According to David Masters (German Jet Genesis) Tank's team wanted to produce C because it was "designed with ease of construction in mind" but the RLM wanted B. Anyone know why?..and does anyone know what dimension D might have been? Damn that's long!











delcyros said:


> They succeeded in this, the soviet Ta-183 even got a NATO-code.



What was the NATO codename?


----------



## delcyros (Jun 27, 2009)

Hi Daveparl,
You point to several cases, which I would like to respond to.
If Northrop tried to get Walter Horten, then he tried to get the wrong part of the brothers. Walter was an organizer but not with the aerodynamic and scientific background. That was Reimer, whom I quoted above.
ut I think You don´t recognize the effort undertaken by Horten with regard to stability effects of large aspect flying wings with bell shaped lift distribution. That´s somehting, Jack never tried on his designs. I really am convinced that this would be an aspect, where Northrop´s flying wing designs could benefit.

Your memeory is all correct, aerodynamic investigation prooved that bell shaped lift distributions do add static and dynamic stability AND significantly more drag than elliptical distribution schemes. That´s why we don´t see much bell shaped schemes on large flying wing designs today. Electronics do controll stability on elliptical -low drag- schemes (B-2). Without them, These designs would be inherently instable as they are on the low side of stability margins.

I do not possess any expertise on the B-49 stability issues and the electronic yaw stabilization system mentioned by You might have helped or cured the problem. Aerodynamically, stability by then could have been achieved with Hortens schemes -at the expense of more drag (still less than a normal layout A/C).



> By the end of the war, John Northrop had considerable more experience in powered flying wing designs than the Horten brothers. Here is a list of powered flying wing aircraft flown by May, 1945.
> 
> N1M-July, 1940 – low performance twin engine test vehicle
> N9M-Dec, 1942 – low performance Twin engine test vehicle for the B-35-still flying
> ...



Historical evidence is actually not confirming Your statement here. First of all, the XP-56 and the MX-324 are not flying wings, but tailless aircraft. 
That are at best five powered, flying wings or tailless and powered aircraft in the air until may 45.

The powered flying wing list for the Horten brother, however includes twice that many planes, not counting the gliders, all of them were true flying wings:

I) Ho-IId -1938 -Walter Micron powered flying wing.
0) Ho-Va- failed testplane 1937
II) Ho-Vb- twin engined flying wing 1940
II) Ho-IIId - single engined flying wing, called "Butterfliege" 1943
IV) Ho-IIIe -single engined flying wing, VW-engine driven, 1944 -pre production model of a small series from V&VI) 50 Ho-IIIe to be manufactured by Klemm in 1945. Two of them were delivered until may 45.
VII) Ho-Vc -completely rebuild Ho-Vb to a different design, 1942
VIII) Ho-VII V1: twin engined two seater trainer, 1944. 20 planes were to be manufactured by Peschke company at Minden. The V-2 and V-3 were finished by may 1945 but not flown.
IX) Ho-IXV2: twin engined jet fighter, 1945. 20 preproduction models were at different stages of construction by Gotha company with the Go-229V3 beeing almost complete (this one survived in Silver Hill).
X) Ho-XII: single engined two seater. Flown in 1945.

Judging from this list, it appears to me unreasonable to claim that Jack Northrop had more experience bringing powered flying wings into the air than the Horten brothers. Both were pioneers, indeed but Northrop only catched up after may 1945. 

Anyway best regards and thanks for the post,
Delc


----------



## Civettone (Jun 27, 2009)

Seems to me that the Ta 183 would have suffered from the same problems as the Pulqui II... so as such I'll go with the Vampire. 

Also note that the preceding design of the Ta 183 was the P VI Flitzer project which looks entirely like a Vampire!

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2009)

Graeme said:


> According to David Masters (German Jet Genesis) Tank's team wanted to produce C because it was "designed with ease of construction in mind" but the RLM wanted B. Anyone know why?


I think you're looking at the classic conflict between aerodynamicists vs structural engineers. The RLM was probably sold with the potential of the design rather than its producibility.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 28, 2009)

Graeme, I will have to check my books for it. It was a russian one with the Ta-183 Nato-codes. Since I am now away from my books You will have to wait some days for it.

Anyway, I was always more impressed by the Me-P1101 than by the Ta-183.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2009)

davparlr,

The whole Ho-229V3 a/c is available, wings, body, engines and all, and Northrop studied it all because they knew there was a lot to be learned. Horten was ahead in flying wing design all the way up until the 80's.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 28, 2009)

Soren said:


> davparlr,
> 
> The whole Ho-229V3 a/c is available, wings, body, engines and all, and Northrop studied it all because they knew there was a lot to be learned. Horten was ahead in flying wing design all the way up until the 80's.



It doesn’t matter. I would bet that there is almost zero Ho-229 data that went into the B-2. It certainly wasn’t any input into the wing or control surface design. The B-2 wing and control surfaces did not look at all like the Ho-229. It was designed for stealth and performance, not stability. The higher drag bell shaped lift distribution was not needed or desired here. Stability was handled by quad-redundant computers. It wasn’t aerodynamics; thousands of man-hours were put in curvature design to ensure that the radar reflecting nature, fit, and aerodynamic performance were optimized, and, computer driven manufacturing techniques were required. Nothing there was useful from the Ho-229. It wasn’t the inlet and exhaust design. Highly complex and advanced analysis was required for aero-performance and signature suppression. How about structure and manufacturing? No, the B-2 is primarily composite structure, which has zero commonality with the welded steel and wood construction of the Ho-229. Avionics/electrical, no way. Hydraulics, no way. Fuel systems, nope. How about the flight control system? No way. The B-2 has electrical activated hydraulic flight control system driven by computers. Cockpit, nope B-2 had a two man cockpit with ejection seats and special windshield. Weapons systems, mmm, no machine guns on the B-2. I cannot think of a single subsystem that benefited from any examination of the Ho-229. Wait, maybe the cooling of the wing section aft exhaust exits contributed. Probably not.

If anything was used it was the B-49. But again, I doubt if anything was actually used because of the above items applied here, too. It is interesting that the B-2 has the exact wingspan of the B-49.

Saying that the B-2 engineers benefited from examining the data from the Ho-229 is equivalent to Airbus 380 engineer getting useful data from examining a DC-3. No, I am sure the group did not expect to learn anything and went just to see an historic aircraft, on government funds.

What do you think they learned and used?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2009)

davparlr said:


> Saying that the B-2 engineers benefited from examining the data from the Ho-229 is equivalent to Airbus 380 engineer getting useful data from examining a DC-3.



That sums it up!!!


----------



## lingo (Jun 28, 2009)

As we are now discussing the B-2 Spirit  has anyone heard of the possible employment of electro-gravitics in this aircraft? Some years ago a distinguished physicist speculated the power of the installed engines were inadequate to meet the enormous range claimed for the type without it.


----------



## Butters (Jun 28, 2009)

There is little or no empirical evidence to suggest that the Ta 183 II would have been a capable combat a/c. Nor am I at all convinced that it had much, if any, impact on post-war jet fighter design. It never flew, nothing fundamentally similar to it ever reached operational status, and its only unique design features were the far-forward placement of elevon-fitted swept wings, and the unusual empennage design. Which were never emulated on any operational a/c, to my knowledge...

It may have the edge over the Vampire on paper, but paper dogfights won't give you command of the sky.

JL


----------



## Butters (Jun 28, 2009)

lingo said:


> As we are now discussing the B-2 Spirit  has anyone heard of the possible employment of electro-gravitics in this aircraft? Some years ago a distinguished physicist speculated the power of the installed engines were inadequate to meet the enormous range claimed for the type without it.



Has anyone ever heard of the 'electrogravitic' hypothesis being experimentally validated in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Thought not...

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2009)

lingo said:


> As we are now discussing the B-2 Spirit  has anyone heard of the possible employment of electro-gravitics in this aircraft? Some years ago a distinguished physicist speculated the power of the installed engines were inadequate to meet the enormous range claimed for the type without it.


Hogwash.

Sorry Lingo, I worked on the program, ship 2 through 7 and I could tell you the B-2 does quite well in the range department. I bet this distinguished physicist knows little if nothing about airplanes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2009)

Butters said:


> There is little or no empirical evidence to suggest that the Ta 183 II would have been a capable combat a/c. Nor am I at all convinced that it had much, if any, impact on post-war jet fighter design. It never flew, nothing fundamentally similar to it ever reached operational status, and its only unique design features were the far-forward placement of elevon-fitted swept wings, and the unusual empennage design. Which were never emulated on any operational a/c, to my knowledge...
> 
> It may have the edge over the Vampire on paper, but paper dogfights won't give you command of the sky.
> 
> JL



And it doesn't resemble the MiG-15 either.


----------



## Butters (Jun 28, 2009)

The resemblance is a superficial one. The MiG fuselage and conventional flight controls resemble any number of early swept-and unswept wing fighter designs. 

Replace the swept flying surfaces with unswept ones and it is essentially the same as Whittle's Gloster(?) and the He 178. Swept wing design was ubiquitous to all the major German a/c manufacturers late-war designs. The fact that the MiG's vertical tail surfaces are highly swept is what gives it an illusory resemblance to the Ta 183. 

Give the Me P.1101 a tailpipe and a larger tail, and you've got something much more like the Mig than the Ta 183 is.

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2009)

Butters said:


> The resemblance is a superficial one. The MiG fuselage and conventional flight controls resemble any number of early swept-and unswept wing fighter designs.


Superficial? Look at the MiG-9 and the early Yak jet fighters - they were nothing like the MiG-15 and especially in the tailplane. No other fighters carried a vertical stabilizer sweep of at least 30 degrees and the classic t tail configuration. I'm sorry but someone at MiG got at least some inspiration from the Ta 183.


Butters said:


> Replace the swept flying surfaces with unswept ones and it is essentially the same as Whittle's Gloster(?) and the He 178. Swept wing design was ubiquitous to all the major German a/c manufacturers late-war designs. The fact that the MiG's vertical tail surfaces are highly swept is what gives it an illusory resemblance to the Ta 183.


And coming in the post war gives some credence of my last comment


Butters said:


> Give the Me P.1101 a tailpipe and a larger tail, and you've got something much more like the Mig than the Ta 183 is.
> 
> JL



And the T tail?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 28, 2009)

lingo said:


> As we are now discussing the B-2 Spirit  has anyone heard of the possible employment of electro-gravitics in this aircraft? Some years ago a distinguished physicist speculated the power of the installed engines were inadequate to meet the enormous range claimed for the type without it.



Mmmm, that would explain why I felt so much lighter and my belt buckle would stick to the car when I left work! Just kidding. The B-2 got its great range and payload from excellent aerodynamics and efficient engines.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2009)

davparlr said:


> It doesn’t matter. I would bet that there is almost zero Ho-229 data that went into the B-2. It certainly wasn’t any input into the wing or control surface design. The B-2 wing and control surfaces did not look at all like the Ho-229. It was designed for stealth and performance, not stability. The higher drag bell shaped lift distribution was not needed or desired here. Stability was handled by quad-redundant computers. It wasn’t aerodynamics; thousands of man-hours were put in curvature design to ensure that the radar reflecting nature, fit, and aerodynamic performance were optimized, and, computer driven manufacturing techniques were required. Nothing there was useful from the Ho-229. It wasn’t the inlet and exhaust design. Highly complex and advanced analysis was required for aero-performance and signature suppression. How about structure and manufacturing? No, the B-2 is primarily composite structure, which has zero commonality with the welded steel and wood construction of the Ho-229. Avionics/electrical, no way. Hydraulics, no way. Fuel systems, nope. How about the flight control system? No way. The B-2 has electrical activated hydraulic flight control system driven by computers. Cockpit, nope B-2 had a two man cockpit with ejection seats and special windshield. Weapons systems, mmm, no machine guns on the B-2. I cannot think of a single subsystem that benefited from any examination of the Ho-229. Wait, maybe the cooling of the wing section aft exhaust exits contributed. Probably not.
> 
> If anything was used it was the B-49. But again, I doubt if anything was actually used because of the above items applied here, too. It is interesting that the B-2 has the exact wingspan of the B-49.
> 
> ...



Did you design the B-2 davparlr ? No. So how the heck can you be making all those claims ?

Fact is that before the B-2 ever even hit the drawing board in the early 1980's Northrop sent out people to study the Ho-229. Now why the heck did they do that if not to learn something ???


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2009)

Jack Northrop was interested in the Horton brother's gliders and wing designs in the 30's, but was designing (and flying) his own wings by '39-'40...

If anything, the B-2 borrowed from Northrop's B-35 and B-49 design research. If you compare the Ho229's design and features to any of Jack's designs, you'll see that about the only thing they have in common, is thier overall shape.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2009)

I dont believe any of us know the B-2 well enough to conclude wether or not features from the Go-229 were added into the design.


----------



## Graeme (Jun 28, 2009)

Did Northrop or the Hortens ever visit Australia?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2009)

Soren said:


> I dont believe any of us know the B-2 well enough to conclude wether or not features from the Go-229 were added into the design.


 I'll step up and say I do. I've worked with and met some of the people who designed the aircraft and I could tell you while there was "inspirational" considerations, the B-2 design was based on research and other test vehicles developed by Northrop in the 70s. IMO it was in the back of their minds knowing that the ultimate goal, an intercontinental stealth bomber was probably best configured with a flying wing and I'm sure they had not only the Horten Brothers on their minds, but also earlier Northrop products. Soren, I'll state here that when the B-2 started, it was on a "clean piece of paper."

BTW - the Lockheed/ Rockwell team that lost the ATB competition allegedly was also a flying wing, but it had a V tail.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 28, 2009)

delcyros said:


> Hi Daveparl,
> You point to several cases, which I would like to respond to.
> If Northrop tried to get Walter Horten, then he tried to get the wrong part of the brothers. Walter was an organizer but not with the aerodynamic and scientific background. That was Reimer, whom I quoted above.
> ut I think You don´t recognize the effort undertaken by Horten with regard to stability effects of large aspect flying wings with bell shaped lift distribution. That´s somehting, Jack never tried on his designs. I really am convinced that this would be an aspect, where Northrop´s flying wing designs could benefit.



I do not know if it was Walter or Reimer. I assumed it was Walter since Reimer went to Argentina. But I did read somewhere where Northrop tried very hard to hire one of them but was fustrated by red tape. I think Northrop was very aware of the Horten's work and was impressed. 



> Historical evidence is actually not confirming Your statement here. First of all, the XP-56 and the MX-324 are not flying wings, but tailless aircraft.
> That are at best five powered, flying wings or tailless and powered aircraft in the air until may 45.



I disagree. The aerodynamics, certainly pitch and roll effects, of these configurations is the same as a flying wing only Northrop was wise enough to install a vertical stabilizer. I think they contributed significant data on high speed flying wing operations.



> The powered flying wing list for the Horten brother, however includes twice that many planes, not counting the gliders, all of them were true flying wings:
> 
> I) Ho-IId -1938 -Walter Micron powered flying wing.
> 0) Ho-Va- failed testplane 1937
> ...



I did not include the the Ho II and the Ho III since they were basically powered gliders, thus very slow, and probably did not add any powered flight knowledge above that of a glider.

I did not include the Vc because it is basically a rebuilt Vb. But it is a worthy comment.

Very few VII were built, one source said only one, which did not fly very much before the end of the war and probably did not add much to Horten’s flying wing knowledge.

I stand by my post.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 28, 2009)

Soren said:


> Did you design the B-2 davparlr ? No. So how the heck can you be making all those claims ?
> 
> Your joking right?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 28, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'll step up and say I do. I've worked with and met some of the people who designed the aircraft and I could tell you while there was "inspirational" considerations, the B-2 design was based on research and other test vehicles developed by Northrop in the 70s. IMO it was in the back of their minds knowing that the ultimate goal, an intercontinental stealth bomber was probably best configured with a flying wing and I'm sure they had not only the Horten Brothers on their minds, but also earlier Northrop products. Soren, I'll state here that when the B-2 started, it was on a "clean piece of paper."
> 
> BTW - the Lockheed/ Rockwell team that lost the ATB competition allegedly was also a flying wing, but it had a V tail.



You are correct! Thanks for posting the Tacit Blue, the ugliest aircraft I ever worked on. I was responsible for the controls and displays, mostly F-5 stuff, airdata computer, and fuel management computer. It still reminds me of the Seaview!

For Soren sake, I was on the B-2 initial design/proposal team representing avionics. I joined about 6 months after it started (I transfered over from Tacit Blue). I was responsible for the initial design of the controls and displays, the CNI (com, nav, ident), and flight management (computers). After go-ahead, I was the design manager for Controls and Displays, which was about 95% of the pilot interface. Since we had a fully integrated C&D with color multpurpose display units, where I had the responsibity for all logic and symbology, I had intimate knowledge of fuel, hydraulic, electrical, weapons (including special weapons), radar, tactical situations, flight control operations, etc. Everything I, and you, said was correct. I did not know anything classified about the stealth characteristic nor did I know anything about the design specifics of the aerodynamics but I have no doubt what you said and I said is correct. Who did you know from the program?


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'll step up and say I do. I've worked with and met some of the people who designed the aircraft and I could tell you while there was "inspirational" considerations, the B-2 design was based on research and other test vehicles developed by Northrop in the 70s. IMO it was in the back of their minds knowing that the ultimate goal, an intercontinental stealth bomber was probably best configured with a flying wing and I'm sure they had not only the Horten Brothers on their minds, but also earlier Northrop products. Soren, I'll state here that when the B-2 started, it was on a "clean piece of paper."
> 
> BTW - the Lockheed/ Rockwell team that lost the ATB competition allegedly was also a flying wing, but it had a V tail.



Were you in the design team FLYBOYJ ? 



davparlr said:


> Your joking right?



I most certainly am not.

Various control systems, hook ups and aerodynamic features might very well have been partly copied or considered from the Ho-229. And even if not a single thing was directly taken from the Ho-229 then just by studying it could've brought up several crucial questions or ideas for the B-2 bomber project.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 28, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Did Northrop or the Hortens ever visit Australia?



The first flying wing concept aircraft John Northrop provided to hte AF for testing utilized many of the characteristics of the boomerang. Unfortunately they killed the project, the pilots complained too much about being dizzy!


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2009)

I do believe that there was a reason for why Northrop sent some peeps out to look at the Ho-229 in early 1980. Not necessarily to copy anything from the Ho-229, but to learn about the effectiveness of the some its features and how to improve them even further. We have afterall come a long way since the 1940's. Maybe there were some aerodynamic design elements which could be added to stabilize the a/c more without adding any extra radar signature. Maybe there was some interesting internal stuff to look at ? Who knows...

There's however no doubt in my mind that they went there to study learn, and I'm sure they did the same on the B-35 49.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2009)

Not wanting this thread to stray any further than it already has, but Soren, were you on the B-2 design team?

In other words, the complexity of the B-2 Spirit dictates that the design and interior components would have to be far more advanced than anything the Horton brothers ever dreamed of when the Ho229 was in it's design construction phase. Just the speeds of the B-2 alone require different formulas for the wing to allow stable flight. In addition, the Flying wing bombers that Jack successfully built and flew were far larger and complex than the '229 and required a different set of logistics to get them airborn reliably.

I understand the fancy of equating the Ho229 to the success of the B-2, but in reality there's very little connection to the two save for the basic shape and principles of each by virtue of the above mentioned reasons.

I think that each one of us here at the forums have unique perspectives and experiences to contribute to the discussion of the various aircraft, but unless Jack and his staff were here, or even the brothers and/or Lippisch, then we have to rely on the information and statistics that we have available, and come to a logical conclusion based on that.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 28, 2009)

Soren said:


> Were you in the design team FLYBOYJ ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I was on the design team and I am telling you that this comment is a joke. Did the Ho-229 use 4000 psi hydraulics or three phase, 400 hz power. Was the wiring system nuclear hardened never before seen, was the hook ups stressed to vibration levels high enough to melt solder on circuit boards? Did it use zone managers for installations. Was it designed to EMI levels greater than any aircraft in the world (the suppliers laughed when they saw that until they realized we were serious). The aerodynamics were just as unique. We could not even us normal air data sensors. The Ho-229 was a '55 Chevy to the B-2's 2009 Mercedes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2009)

davparlr said:


> I was on the design team...


Oops...I think that ammends my last sentance


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2009)

davparlr,

If you were on the primary design team then you'd have gone to see the Ho-229 as-well, right? I suspect one only sends designers there to get ideas of some sort.

Like I said, maybe some aerodynamic features were used or considered. The guys responsible for the aerodynamics should know, do we have any of those here ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2009)

Soren said:


> Were you in the design team FLYBOYJ ?


No, I buit AV 2 - 7. I could tell you what the interior of the wings looked liked, what the surface prep guys had to work to and how the main assemblies came together. I worked in Palmdale and Pico Rivera and as stated met the folks resposible for the design of that aircraft




Soren said:


> I most certainly am not.


Then perhaps those of us who were there may have a little more insight into this



Soren said:


> Various control systems, hook ups and aerodynamic features might very well have been partly copied or considered from the Ho-229.


That's almost laughable Soren. I give the Horten Brothers a lot of credit but I doubt that they had a workable fly by wire system or they used the same flaperons that the B-2 uses.


Soren said:


> And even if not a single thing was directly taken from the Ho-229 then just by studying it could've brought up several crucial questions or ideas for the B-2 bomber project.


That's more sensible.

BTW the B-49 and B-2 are EXACTLY the same wingspan.


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's more sensible.



Well that's my entire point and all I ever meant. 

Northrop sent people there to learn, not to have fun. Never claimed they were there to copy anything, just to learn of different approaches to various issues. When you know them all you can start taking the best aspects of each and apply them to a new design.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 29, 2009)

While the topic of the influence Horten / Northrop is an interesting one, and certainly would deserve it´s own research paper, I am also very sceptical about direct relationships between the Ho-229 and the B-2. Dave pretty much sums it up for me. There is no such influence on a significant scale. Time has changed since the 40´s and new options required new solutions. Superficially, the B-2 has some layout identities to unbuild Horten Ho-XVIIIa-bomber but these remain superficial and it is highly unlikely that much hard data from this plane was aviable to the B-2´s design team.

However, I am not convinced that one should that easily disregard Horten´s gliders and powered gliders. In addition to offer basic and advanced training for high performance jet´s like the Ho-229, they added significantly- dare to say- decisively in his understanding and solution of bell shaped lift distribution (Ho-II to Ho-III), high speed airfoils (Ho-IVb to Ho-XII, the first successful application of high speed laminar airfoils to a high aspect ratio flying wing) and layout questions (one Ho-III was used as a flying testbed for the Ho-IX´s wing design, another was used as a flying testbed for the sixth prototypes center fuselage section (Ho-IX V6, the nightfighter version). Finally, low aspect ratio flying wing, low speed behavior was studied and validated with the Ho-XIIIV1 to add information for his supersonic project.

To ignore them makes for a good mistake in qualifying Hortens knowledge base on powered flying wings but You and I may have a differing opinion on this. That´s ok for me, agreed to disagree.


----------



## uberninja (Jun 29, 2009)

there where problems with the tail of the ta-183, it would have never flown with those stats


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2009)

Soren said:


> Well that's my entire point and all I ever meant.
> 
> Northrop sent people there to learn, not to have fun. Never claimed they were there to copy anything, just to learn of different approaches to various issues. When you know them all you can start taking the best aspects of each and apply them to a new design.


No one said any about having "fun" and you're trying to speculate on something that happened over 30 years ago and you don't have the slightest conception on how the company worked and what actually went on during the design and construction. Dave and I was there, we touched the aircraft and saw the interior workings. He had more time on the program than I but I could tell you you're being quite silly in this "assumption."

Look at the Tacit Blue photo I posted, a lot of what became the B-2 started there, and just for clarification, please re-read Matt's post, he nailed it...



davparlr said:


> *I was on the design team and I am telling you that this comment is a joke. * Did the Ho-229 use 4000 psi hydraulics or three phase, 400 hz power. Was the wiring system nuclear hardened never before seen, was the hook ups stressed to vibration levels high enough to melt solder on circuit boards? Did it use zone managers for installations. Was it designed to EMI levels greater than any aircraft in the world (the suppliers laughed when they saw that until they realized we were serious). The aerodynamics were just as unique. We could not even us normal air data sensors. * The Ho-229 was a '55 Chevy to the B-2's 2009 Mercedes*.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2009)

uberninja said:


> there where problems with the tail of the ta-183, it would have never flown with those stats



Really? And what were those problems????


----------



## davparlr (Jun 29, 2009)

delcyros said:


> However, I am not convinced that one should that easily disregard Horten´s gliders and powered gliders. In addition to offer basic and advanced training for high performance jet´s like the Ho-229, they added significantly- dare to say- decisively in his understanding and solution of bell shaped lift distribution (Ho-II to Ho-III), high speed airfoils (Ho-IVb to Ho-XII, the first successful application of high speed laminar airfoils to a high aspect ratio flying wing) and layout questions (one Ho-III was used as a flying testbed for the Ho-IX´s wing design, another was used as a flying testbed for the sixth prototypes center fuselage section (Ho-IX V6, the nightfighter version). Finally, low aspect ratio flying wing, low speed behavior was studied and validated with the Ho-XIIIV1 to add information for his supersonic project.
> 
> To ignore them makes for a good mistake in qualifying Hortens knowledge base on powered flying wings but You and I may have a differing opinion on this. That´s ok for me, agreed to disagree.



Don't get me wrong. The Horten brothers were undoubably brilliant and it is too bad they couldn't get toghther with Northrop. I do think they could have contributed greatly to the advancement of the flying wing. I do not think Northrop ignored them but probably was competitive with them. No one can say that there designs were not brilliant. Did anyone see the special on the National Geographic Channel on the Nortrop rebuild of the Ho-229 and the RCS testing. That plane is certainly beautiful and inspiring, in my opinion, one of the best integrated designs in the history of aircraft. I was actually stunned when I saw the model on TV. The RCS testing turned out as I expected. It could have been effective against WWII radars, reducing detection range to 80%. I worked near that model shop and often peeked in when I could. There was always interesting models there. They did beautiful work.

I think their blatant Nazism hurt them with post war work, which is not fully understandable as the allies used strange bedfellows in the cold war. It it too bad.


----------



## lingo (Jun 29, 2009)

Butters said:


> Has anyone ever heard of the 'electrogravitic' hypothesis being experimentally validated in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
> 
> Thought not...
> 
> I certainly haven't, but then I am not in a position to read such articles (let alone to understand it when they descend into complex maths to 'explain' points!). I don't know enough on the subject to make claims about it - but I understand that many of the early Cambridge papers on the subject (once freely available to researchers) have now become unavailable, even unfindable. I don't want to be accused of creating conspiracy theories but I find this very odd and rather sinister.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2009)

Soren said:


> Did you design the B-2 davparlr ? No. So how the heck can you be making all those claims ?
> 
> Fact is that before the B-2 ever even hit the drawing board in the early 1980's Northrop sent out people to study the Ho-229. Now why the heck did they do that if not to learn something ???



You might want to learn a bit about him, before jumping all over him. He happened to work on the team. Based off of that, I am certain he knows a hell of a lot more about the B-2 than you do. Besides it is rude. Try learning a little bit of tack as well. Before jumping to rude conclusions, you could have asked him if he was on the team!

I would recommend an apology, and maybe he will teach you a thing or two. He happens to be the person with the most knowledge on the subject of the B-2 in this forum. Until then...


----------



## Butters (Jun 29, 2009)

lingo,

First, I apologize for my unwarranted condescension. Sorry...

That the US govt has somehow managed to sweep the world clean of widely disseminated scientific papers is a little too much for me to swallow. A quick Google search (electrogravitics cambridge) brought up all kinds of sites, scientific and otherwise. Here's a link to one I took a look at:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/electrogravitics_systems.pdf

Of all the fundamental forces, gravity is the most mysterious, and altho Einstein's GR gives an astonishingly accurate account of what gravity DOES(At least until you reach the quantum scale), neither he nor anyone else understands what it IS. And until there exists a coherent, experimentally confirmed theory of quantum gravity, it is unlikely that any technologically practical form of anti-gravity will be devised. By anyone...

However, the technical requirements of an extremely long-range, high-capacity a/c , ie: the B-2- do not include some sort of super-secret 'Area 51'l anti-gravity device What you need is a very efficient low-drag/high lift airframe with room for a whole lotta fuel, and powerful, fuel efficient engines. And while this may be very technologically challenging to achieve in the real world, it does not demand an extraordinary breakthrough in fundamental physics.

JL


----------



## lingo (Jun 29, 2009)

Butters said:


> lingo,
> 
> First, I apologize for my unwarranted condescension. Sorry...
> 
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2009)

lingo said:


> As you will see I did not claim electrogravitics were employed, merely mentioning a renowned American physicists speculation and wondering if any of our eclectic membership had also read that.


I thought he was British....

Outside the shape and materials its constructed from, the B-2 is actual pretty conventional. There's no magic propulsion systems or anything extra-terrestrial behind the aircraft. It was designed and built well and outside the normal problems associated with a large complex military contract (suppliers, labor, layoffs) it should be treated like any other military aircraft of the modern era.

As stated, I worked on program and was proud to be part of it. Any mention of any covert propulsion system borders between ignorance and retardation. You could quote me if you ever read any of this stuff on some of those select web sites.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

And in steps Adler  

I think if davparlr wanted an apology then he would've asked for it Adler. I think he sees as well as I that he was sorta attacking me as well with his post. I threw one back at him, so what. I still don't see why Northrop would sent designers over to look at the Go-229 if not to learn. davparlr didn't explain why they were sent there, which is all I was asking for. Call that being rude if you want but I can't really see how it ever could be. Had he said before my post that he went to look at the Go-229 with the others and then explained why, then my repsonse could've been considered rude, but he didn't, and as I understand it he wasn't one of the guys who were sent out to look at the Go-229.

I will apologize if I have offended him in any way though.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 30, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You might want to learn a bit about him, before jumping all over him. He happened to work on the team. Based off of that, I am certain he knows a hell of a lot more about the B-2 than you do. Besides it is rude. Try learning a little bit of tack as well. Before jumping to rude conclusions, you could have asked him if he was on the team!
> 
> I would recommend an apology, and maybe he will teach you a thing or two. He happens to be the person with the most knowledge on the subject of the B-2 in this forum. Until then...



No apology is required, but thanks for the thought, Adler. I was surprised by his comment since I had submitted my resume in a private message to him on a previous thread and he knew I had intimate knowledge of the much the B-2 design, thus the comment about "joking". Of course, that was a while back and memory is a short thing (at least it is to me).

All in all, I just thought that this was a spirited discussions. Often spirited discussions trigger an excellent learning experience in that it encourages research. It certainly has been an educational experience for me. I really miss the political thread, I like reading other peoples view.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

I had no clue you worked on the B-2 davparlr and I don't recall recieving a PM about it. Had I known I obviously wouldn't have wrote what I wrote, wouldn't have made any sense to do so. I respect you davparlr, always have, you know a lot and appreciate all you can contribute with which I know is a lot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> And in steps Adler
> 
> I think if davparlr wanted an apology then he would've asked for it Adler. I think he sees as well as I that he was sorta attacking me as well with his post. I threw one back at him, so what. I still don't see why Northrop would sent designers over to look at the Go-229 if not to learn. davparlr didn't explain why they were sent there, which is all I was asking for. Call that being rude if you want but I can't really see how it ever could be. Had he said before my post that he went to look at the Go-229 with the others and then explained why, then my repsonse could've been considered rude, but he didn't, and as I understand it he wasn't one of the guys who were sent out to look at the Go-229.
> 
> I will apologize if I have offended him in any way though.



Don't jump to conclusions, it makes you look like an ass...


----------



## davparlr (Jun 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> I had no clue you worked on the B-2 davparlr and I don't recall recieving a PM about it. Had I known I obviously wouldn't have wrote what I wrote, wouldn't have made any sense to do so.



It was back in the Ccrump discussions on EAS. Its fine if you don't remember, I may not even have sent it correctly. Anyway, I can now see why you thought I was attacking you.



> I respect you davparlr, always have, you know a lot and appreciate all you can contribute with which I know is a lot.


 
I have always enjoyed our discussions and have learned a lot from you, even if I didn't want to.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 3, 2009)

delcyros said:


> Graeme, I will have to check my books for it. It was a russian one with the Ta-183 Nato-codes. Since I am now away from my books You will have to wait some days for it.
> 
> Anyway, I was always more impressed by the Me-P1101 than by the Ta-183.


Yes me too. I always wondered why the Ta 183 got more attention than the P 1101 even though the latter was actually built... 

I've seen an article somewhere on the influence the Ta 183 had on the MiG-15. Apparently it seems to have been rather superficial as Butters claimed. Both are based on the same German late-war aerodynamical data and theories but there was no such thing as a direct influence. The T-tail may seem the connection but then again, there were several jet aircraft with T-tails, it's only a logical possible configuration for a jet aircraft.

Kris


----------

