Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Everybody was always examining captured equipment to see what they could learn from it. Not only from a tactical sense ( where the armor was located or thickest/thinnest or what the turning circle was) but mechanical ideas and even metallurgy (different bearing materials, etc).
In some cases it was to see if the enemy was running short of certain materials.
Coping something often depended on complicated it was and what the advantages might be. Coping the Sten gun was relatively quick and simple, but since the MP-40 was already made out of stampings and was pretty cheap the Germans didn't copy the Sten until things got really desperate.
Copying an aircraft engine could take a couple of years and rather obviously the domestic engine makers are ALL going to claim that their new model XXX will beat the captured engine by the time the captured engine could be put into service.
The Japanese had shifted to using a large number of Browning type machineguns/cannon by the end of the war but when exactly they started may be hard to pin down and the basic Browning had been on the world scene since 1917 so they started copying when?
They also "copied" it in calibers the US never tried to use.
Easy to examine a metal and get its chemical analysis but figuring out the manufacture and heat treatment is much more difficult. Does anyone know how the Tu-4 performed?
North American "copied" the L/E slat carriage from the Me 262 and used it on the F-86 from what I'm told. There have been members who stated that the actual German-made assemblies were used on production aircraft, I've called total BS to that.
Don't know...Was that anything like the 109 LE slat?
Similar, but each were unique in both physical and application terms.Was that anything like the 109 LE slat?
All I can find is from modelling forums saying they were out while the plane was on the ground. These type of slats were not really unusual although invented by Gustav Lachmann the patent was shared with Handley Page. I believe Messerschmidt payed to produce under license until hostilities broke out. Maybe the designers of the F86 got some tips but that is what engineers do.Similar, but each were unique in both physical and application terms.
There are rumors floating around out there, like Joe mentioned, where people believe that the slats from Me262s were transferred directly to the F-86. It was the concept that was incorporated into the design, not the physical equipment. This would be like saying the MiG-15 and F-86 were copies of the He178 just because both types had their engine buried in the fuselage...
The British, U.S. and the Soviet Union tested captured A4 (V-2) rockets. They were mostly assembled from components although the Soviets built and tested their own as the R-1 and the U.S. developed a copy called the RTV-G-4....Similarly we know the USA copied the V1 (to late to see service) but what else?
A former member made the claim about the -262 slat carriages and got the quote from a book, the author wording his text in such a manner as if actual -262 slat carriages were placed on early production F-86s - putting it mildly, IMO both of these gentlemen were (are) idiots!Anyone who says they used German slats on production F-86's (from the Bf 109) has obviously never seen them side by side. Once you do, you cannot make such a claim. I'll get pics this week and post in here for all to see.
Greg I want saying that they were the same at, all just they were similar and as you say may be termed Handley Page slats. For a slat designed for a 1936 prop fighter to work on a 1949 jet would be a miracle. The point I am making was that these type of slats wern't unique to the 262 or to Messerschmidt, in fact they were common on many aircraft and covered by a British patent. I am sure Boeing looked at the 262 may even has seen some thing useful about it and copied it to incorporate into the Sabre but they wernt waiting for one to be captured, in fact the Sabres design was helped more by looking at captured data on swept thin wings than the 262 itselfThe Bf 109 slats are NOTHING like F-86 slats ... except for being slats.
The Bf 109 slats are about 3.5 feet long, are of one surface, and move in out by about an inch to an inch and a half. They are narrow, being of something like a 4-inch chord or so.
Anyone who says they used German slats on production F-86's (from the Bf 109) has obviously never seen them side by side. Once you do, you cannot make such a claim. I'll get pics this week and post in here for all to see.
The similarities are that they are both slats that are unpowered and operate by air pressure alone. Technically they may both be called "Handley-Page slats," but that is about the only thing that is similar between them.
Slats were first developed by Gustav Lachmann in 1918. A crash in August 1917, with a Rumpler C aeroplane on account of stalling caused the idea to be put in a concrete form, and a small wooden model was built in 1917 in Cologne. In 1918, Lachmann presented a patent for leading-edge slats in Germany. However, the German patent office at first rejected it as the office did not believe in the possibility of increasing lift by dividing the wing.[4][5]
Independently of Lachmann, Handley-Page Ltd in Great Britain also developed the slotted wing as a way to postpone stall by reducing the turbulence over the wing at high angles of attack, and applied for a patent in 1919; to avoid a patent challenge, they reached an ownership agreement with Lachmann. That year a De Havilland D.H.9 was fitted with slats and flown.[6] Later, a D.H.4 was modified as a monoplane with a large wing fitted with full span leading edge and back ailerons (i.e. what would later be called flaps) that could be deployed in conjunction with the leading-edge slats to test improved low speed performance.[7] Several years later, having subsequently taken employment at the Handley-Page aircraft company, Lachmann was responsible for a number of aircraft designs, including the Handley Page Hampden.
Licensing the design became one of the company's major sources of income in the 1920s. The original designs were in the form of a fixed slot in the front of the wing, a design that was found on a number of STOL aircraft.
During World War II, German aircraft commonly fitted a more advanced version that pushed back flush against the wing by air pressure to reduce drag, popping out when the angle of attack increased during slower flight. Notable slats of that time belonged to the German Fieseler Fi 156 Storch. These were similar in design to retractable slats, but were fixed non-retractable slots. The slotted wing allowed this aircraft to take off into a light wind in less than 45 m (150 ft), and land in 18 m (60 ft). Aircraft designed by the Messerschmitt company employed automatic, spring-loaded leading-edge slats as a general rule, except for the Alexander Lippisch-designed Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet rocket fighter, which used fixed slots in the wing panel's outer leading edges instead.
HMS Explorer was an experimental British submarine based on the captured German high test peroxide (HTP) powered U-boat U-1407. U-1407 had been scuttled following the German collapse at the end of the Second World War, was salvaged and eventually commissioned into the Royal Navy as HMS Meteorite. Her recovery was the impetus for a British research programme which resulted in the construction of two experimental submarines, HMS/m Explorer and HMS Excalibur. Built for speed trials, they were unarmed. Their HTP engines were essentially steam turbines, with the steam being generated by the interaction of HTP with diesel oil and a catalyst.
Explorer suffered from so many teething troubles that her first captain never took her to sea. When these initial problems were conquered, however, she turned out to be impressively fast, achieving submerged speeds of 25 knots (46.3 km/h), aided by her streamlined hull and retractable fittings.
Both Explorer and her sister ship were fitted with the latest underwater escape technology, including a one-man escape chamber, and equipped with up to date escape breathing apparatus.
Explorer and Excalibur were popularly known as the 'blonde' submarines because of their hydrogen peroxide fuel and they served a useful purpose as high-speed targets for the Royal Navy's anti-submarine forces. Their main use, however, was to finally prove that HTP was impractical as an air-independent propulsion for submarine use. The volatile HTP was carried in special bags outside the inner pressure hull, and were prone to exploding unexpectedly. Additionally, the engine room (which was not manned while under way) would often be the scene of flames appearing on the top of the combustion chamber, and on at least one occasion the crew were forced to evacuate the pressure hull and stand on the upper casing to avoid fumes which had suddenly filled the boat. The HTP fuel proved to be so troublesome that the boats quickly became known as Exploder and Excruciator.