Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
All aircraft have a record of killing their pilots...there are NO exceptions. The Spatz was a design that was rushed to the front lines from it's inception due to deperation, not aerodynamic advancement. No other airforce on the planet copied it's design or considered it for any role...it was a dead end.
Better spend more time reading about the machines you speak of, reducing weight also enhances speed.
The Ar234 was designed as a high-speed bomber and some were even used in the role of high-speed recon. It was NOT a fighter, never was intended to be a fighter and never used in the capacity as a fighter.
As far as "claims", I am not making any, I am simply repeating fact. If this bothers you, then learn a little more about the Ar234 and it's operational record.
I am going to assume that you mis-read my statement, because nowhere did I say the P-80 could "out fly" the Me262. I said the P-80 would "come up short" in a contest.
What this means, is that the P-80, while being close to performance profiles of the Me262, lacked the heavy armament and pilot experience in jet operations in a combat environment and would take a great deal of work to prevent themselves from falling victim to the Me262.
so was ever other early jet aircraft. I posted some of the P-80 mishaps from 1944 on and there weren't very many attributed to the aircraft malfunctioning. It's obvious early jets weren't reliable but there was also a high attrition rate due to pilot error.P80was killing its pilots 2 years after its First flights
Ar 234 able to fly only in strait Line????? Brown loved the plane. Which is your scource for this claim? And the c with almost double thrust was even better
In the "armed" version you refer to: if you're talking about the Ar234B-2/N, only two were made. If you're talking about the sub-varient C-3, it was virutally non-existant and the nightfighter, C-3/N was never made. Only 14 C models were made and the bulk of them sat on the ground for lack of engines.
As far as weight not influencing performance, you are sadly mis-informed. If weight was not a factor in flight dynamics, then the YB-40 would have been a spectacular success and there would have been no need for escorts to protect the B-17s over Europe. The bottom line, is that weight can be a penalty to performance.
Fact of the matter is, there is no documented downing of an attacking enemy by the defensive rear cannon and many Ar234 pilots had them removed.
In addition, the recon pilots were advised not to turn when engaged by Allied fighters during their missions, but instead rely on their forward speed to get them out of harm's way. What this means, is fly in a straight line.
The AR 234 was a wonderful machine and had a lot of growth potential, but for the most part, it was not going to maneuver with any fighter of the day, I encourage you to calculate the wing loading of this aircraft and although light for a bomber, it was not that maneuverable and this regardless of what Brown said about the aircraft. With a top speed of almost 470 mph it was not going to consistently sustain that speed as we already showed that turbine aircraft cannot be operated at 100% rpm for long periods of time. It's cruising speed was well within the recip piston engine fighters of the day.
Of course it could not turn fight with fighters . I disagree with graugeist s earlier statement that could fly only in a strait line
That's exactly what I said...the Ar234 was designed to go straight. Like any bomber. Bombers are not "twisty-turny" aircraft, they are designed to fly to their target, drop bombs and return home. This is what the Ar234 did.It s anothe said thing what are you saying now, that it was inadvisable for the 234 to turn, and another think what you wrote earlier that the 234 could fly only in a strait Line
Drgndog most likely "liked" my comment because he is well versed in the laws of aerodynamics. Weight can have a parasitic effect on performance just as much as drag does. I am not sure why you keep insisting otherwise. Either you don't fully understand the weight penalty or you're just bored and looking to argue over this factor.You keep insisting in the weight and speed Number. what has to do the YB40 with the case 234? The yb 40 was 1800 kgr heavier than standardt b17s on take off and about 3000 kgr heavier after bomb release. Additionaly the Extra turret caused drug
Drgondog, i ask you too because you hurried to like Grau geist post. reducing the weight of the ar 234 by about 140kgr ,wiht NO drug reduction would cause any speed gain?
Of course it could not turn fight with fighters . I disagree with graugeist s earlier statement that could fly only in a strait line
The He162 was not a reliable platform and can be considered more of an anomaly of military aviation born of desperation than an avenue to follow. In otherwords, it should have never been built, let alone put into combat.
The Ar234 and it's variants were high-speed bombers and recon units. Their only defense was to run like hell and in order to achieve a higher speed, some even had their fixed rear defensive cannon removed. There is no way one would be able to dogfight or do anything other than haul-ass in a straight line.
The Me262 was designed with the prospect of a pressurized cockpit (look at the cross-section of the cockpit/fuselage and see the "tub") but it was never implemented.
The "6-gun" Me262 mentioned (Me262A-1a/U1) was a one-off version to try and increase range against the bombers, while retaining defensive armament. It's performance wasn't impressive enough to make any others. The other "6-gun" version was the Me262A-1a/U5 packing 6 Mk108 cannon...and again, not impressive.
I think that the Mk108 was enough of a devastating weapon to the point that the rule of "less is more" should have applied. Only two cannon would have been sufficient and the weight savings from two less cannon would allow for a higher ammunition capacity. All it took was a single 30mm Minengeschoss round to tear a wing from a P-51 or devestate the cockpit of a B-17.
He 162 unreliable platform?? Why ? Becauce thre were fatal accidents the First 6 monts of its existence? P80was killing its pilots 2 years after its First flights
Removing the 20mm guns of ar234 increased its speed? They were causing no drug. They were removed just because were not useful
Ar234C was also having two forward firing 20mm.
Ar 234 able to fly only in strait Line????? Brown loved the plane. Which is your scource for this claim? And the c with almost double thrust was even better
About the P80 vs 262. Since P80, as you say, could outfly the 262, why you say it would come short against the 262?
I agree with you that the 262 was over gunned. But instead of 2x30 mk108s i would choose 3x Mg151s . more than enough against fighters and would Free weight for additional rockets against bombers
Do remember that almost all of the innovations that the Luftwaffe fielded in WW2 were developed and published before WW2: transonic aerodynamics was an active field of investigation for at least a decade before WW2. Indeed, there was a very famous conference in Rome, where Mussolini paid for people to attend from, among other countries, the US. During WW2, Robert T Jones, among others at NACA (and probably the ARC) was actively investigating swept wings for transonic flight, including the incredibly important areas of high AoA behavior, stall recovery, etc. Since the US, thanks to NACA's work on laminar flow profiles, had airfoils, like the NACA 6-digit series, e.g., 65-215, with better transonic characteristics than the Germans were using, sweep was less needed for the US aircraft (and we were talking to the British...)
As any engineer will tell you, one of the definitions of "expert" is having a foreign accent. This is why Deming wasn't accepted in the US, but was in Japan. Sometimes managers will ignore the guy down the hall who says "hey, if we sweep the wing, we can solve that problem with transonic drag rise," but listen to the $500/hr consultant say, "ach, if ve sveep the ving, you can solve all zat problem vith transonic drag rise."
Also, we all know that any aircraft can turn. I do not know about the Ar234's maneuver capabilities, but it would seem, from the roles into which the Luftwaffe placed it, that "fighter" wasn't in its job description, and maneuverability was likely low on its list of design priorities. Several bombers have had good maneuverability, but remained firmly "bombers" or "recon aircraft"; possibly the closest to an iconic example was the Canberra/B-57 which, from what I've read, had stellar maneuverability. So, apparently, did the B-47 and the Vulcan.
But, if I remember well, Kelly Johnson in person, in his book, admits that in the field of aerodynamics Germans in 1945 were ahead.
Of course armament causes drag: first, it has weight, which has to be lifted, which causes induced drag. Second, armament, especially turreted weapons, causes drag because of the wart-like execrecense destroying a smooth shape and the gaps that must be present. Forward-firing armament isn't quite as bad, but having a hole facing the wind increases drag. Rearward-firing fixed armament is probably the least bad, drag-wise, but something like a tail turret bollixes up the shape of the rear of the fuselage. There's a reason subsonic aircraft have finely tapered back ends: air doesn't like to make sharp turns, especially when it's slowing down, and a tail turret will increase drag.
If you're going to argue about aerodynamics, please read some books first. I recommend you start with von Mises, go through Schlicting, McCormack, Prandtl, Kuchemann, Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag and Fluid Dynamic Lift, and maybe some books on CFD, like Kuethe Chow. Don't bother reading things like Squadron Publications or Luft'46.
Also, we all know that any aircraft can turn. I do not know about the Ar234's maneuver capabilities, but it would seem, from the roles into which the Luftwaffe placed it, that "fighter" wasn't in its job description, and maneuverability was likely low on its list of design priorities. Several bombers have had good maneuverability, but remained firmly "bombers" or "recon aircraft"; possibly the closest to an iconic example was the Canberra/B-57 which, from what I've read, had stellar maneuverability. So, apparently, did the B-47 and the Vulcan.
As for pilots getting killed during the development of military aircraft, this used to be pretty routine, at least into the 1960s or so, when ejection seats became reliable enough. It has also happened during the development of civilian aircraft: a Challenger, during departure testing, went into a flat spin and killed the flight crew. And helicopters: at least one S-70 crashed during development, a S-65 had a fatal accident during ground resonance testing (although the story I heard was that it was really executive-ego satisfaction testing), a S-69 (ABC concept) test vehicle had a fatal crash on takeoff. (Note that these incidents all stick in my mind as I worked at Lycoming, specifically on the ALF-502, and at Sikorsky, mostly on the S-65).
We engineers try to prevent this -- we've no animus towards test pilots -- but we also have to find the edges beyond which normal pilots shouldn't go, and for a very long time, the only way to find those edges was to go past them. Occasionally, this would put the aircraft into a position from which recovery was impossible. Before ejection seats, this could result in a situation where the pilot couldn't get out. Hitting the ground or the water at at high speed is not compatible with life.
It s obvious that you dont know where the rear 20mm guns and their openings were located on the ar 234. Find a cutaway and then tell me what drag they were creating
For the induced drag ,i repeat ar 234 had a take off weight of 9000-9800kgr. Removing 140 kgr what difference would make in speed?
Perhaps, drgondog could make the calculations and tell us the difference.
140 kg out of 9800 is about 1.4%. Induced drag is proportional to lift coefficient squared. Tell you what: you do the math.
If the guns existed and had a way for the bullets to get out, they caused drag. How much drag is difficult to determine without a good CFD program and detailed drawings. Probably one or two drag counts, which is probably in the mud of individual production variation.
You really need to find a cytaway of ar 234