drgondog
Major
A little overstated?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Me 163 was not at all underdeveloped. The airframe was perfected over a course of several years, there was nothing rushed about its introduction. The propulsion system proved to be a failure, that's the plain truth. But that was only really found out when the type was used in combat.
KK - the Me 163 designers knew the Hydrazine was both lethal to handle and sensitive to shock. They experienced the same explosion disasters in development as production and did not solve the 'flying this a/c can be hazardous to your health" issues. The Me 163 is a flight system. If you want to point to the airframe and pose that it is an exceptional (and successful) armed glider - your argument is flawless. When you fold the engine and fuel into the equation and claim it was not rushed into production it leaves room for questions? The YP-80 by comparison could be viewed as 'relatively' safe,
What ultrathin straight wing are you referring too? How many of the fighter jets after World War 2 used straight wings as compared to those that used swept wings?
The F-104 is the only supersonic a/c that come to mind, but if you look at F-80, F-84, F-94, and F-89 you will see 'thin' design approach without much sweep. Most modern military aircraft (designedafter 1947) use combination of both. Mission and weight and aeroelastic challenges will always have to be balanced for high speed transonic aircraft
That sounds a lot like typical nationalist excuses. British airframe design somewhat lacked behind their much better engine design progress, simple as that.
What I saw from Waynos postulate was that there were two ways to skin the transonic drag rise 'cat' in WWII. The swept wing was the more elegant approach to delaying transonic wave drag but the thin wing was very successful (as in Spitfire) and deployed well in advance of German designs? Why is his argument 'nationalistic'?
You've just run completely out of arguments to support your obviously wrong statements made here. In this thread, the only one claiming designs to be available that weren't is you.
Besides the F-104...How many of the fighter jets after World War 2 used straight wings as compared to those that used swept wings?
I am well aware that there are fighter aircraft, even supersonic, that utilize other techniques to overcome the issues transonic speeds. Compared to the number that use a swept-wing they are however few in numbers, especially the further you go down the road after the first jet-to-jet combat experiences. And I am pretty sure the Ouragan had at least a slightly swept leading edge. The Starfighter is the one big exception that comes to mind, but it barely had wings at all.Besides the F-104...
F-94, AVRO Canuck, Dassault Ouragan, F9F, Supermarine Attacker, and YaK-23 comes to mind.
The F-94 and the Canuck were able to go supersonic without their tip tanks/ pods.
How thick was the Me 262 wing? I am just tired of people who don't give credit where credit is due, or try to relativize that credit with "our engineers' designs were at least as great". Airframe-wise there was little competition for the Messerschmitt designs in 1945.What I saw from Waynos postulate was that there were two ways to skin the transonic drag rise 'cat' in WWII. The swept wing was the more elegant approach to delaying transonic wave drag but the thin wing was very successful (as in Spitfire) and deployed well in advance of German designs? Why is his argument 'nationalistic'?
As far as propulsion layout goes, I agree, the P-80 was prety advanced. However the airframe itself was fairly conventional. It has to be said though that major fighters for the coming years had the intake right in the middle, which I assume was the best way to provide the short engines with sufficient air. There were plans for the 262 that would've moved the engines to the fuselage, very similar to the Canuck. In this configuration I think it could've been very competitive until the early 50s.Davparl said:This is why I believe that the P-80 was the most conceptually advanced design of the four aircraft mentioned here. After the P-80, and as time went by, almost all fighter aircraft adapted its basic concepts of engine buried in the fuselage, exhaust exiting at (below) or behind the tail surfaces, and air inlets mounted on each side of the fuselage, ahead of the wings. The Vampire, He-162, and the Me-262, were all dead end designs. I don't know of any other aircraft that used the Vampire design except follow-on versions.
You've just run completely out of arguments to support your obviously wrong statements made here.
The d.H. 108 was built in winter 45 and delivered for testing in April 46. It had significantly greater wing sweep than the Me 163 and was able to go supersonic.
drgndog, your style of quoting makes it impossible to answer to your points individually. My argumentation regarding the Komet was that the airframe was well matured, i stated in the very same post that the rocket engine was a failure. It was not rushed into production, as the defects were inherent with the propulsion design and could've never been solved completely. It was a deliberately taken risk. Was it a good choice? Certainly not. The point is the aircraft was not rushed into service as for example the Ta 152 or the He 162 were. Mature designs aren't necessarily safe and I have never seen anyone argument that the Me 163's defects were due to it being rushed into service.
>The Me 163 was not at all underdeveloped. The airframe was perfected over a course of several years, there was nothing rushed about its introduction. The propulsion system proved to be a failure, that's the plain truth. But that was only really found out when the type was used in combat.<
KK - those (above) are both of your comments. The German engineers Knew about the engine fuel issues before operations and chose to deploy the highly dangerous airplane anyway.
If the war had not been going so badly do you think they would have placed it into service before making the engine safe and reliable? Say, in 1939-1942 when the 109 and 190 were as good or better than anything flying? The simple answer is 'no'.
By this logic the YP-80 was ready for combat in 1944 as the airframe was well developed and tested with no stability issues. The engine/tailpipe combination/fuel pump system, however, were another story. We could say the P-59 was a well developed airframe - but the engines brought it to P-51 level performance. Unfortunately the propulsion system capability is an intrinsic marker for both performance and reliability. The Me 163 aircraft/engine system was 'underdeveloped' by any definition of 'suitable for operations'
I am well aware that there are fighter aircraft, even supersonic, that utilize other techniques to overcome the issues transonic speeds.
The only 'other' techniques available in the aero toolkit is thin wings and Whitcomb area rule.
Compared to the number that use a swept-wing they are however few in numbers, especially the further you go down the road after the first jet-to-jet combat experiences. The Starfighter is the one big exception that comes to mind, but it barely had wings at all.
Virtually all the of the jets were employing straight wings until after the F-86 and MiG 15 were operational.. so even for several years after WWII was over the approach was 'thin wing'. For the US, the first example of area rule was the F-102 modified to become F-106 - mid 50's
How thick was the Me 262 wing? I am just tired of people who don't give credit where credit is due, or try to relativize that credit with "our engineers' designs were at least as great". Airframe-wise there was little competition for the Messerschmitt designs in 1945.
This is why I believe that the P-80 was the most conceptually advanced design of the four aircraft mentioned here. After the P-80, and as time went by, almost all fighter aircraft adapted its basic concepts of engine buried in the fuselage, exhaust exiting at (below) or behind the tail surfaces, and air inlets mounted on each side of the fuselage, ahead of the wings. The Vampire, He-162, and the Me-262, were all dead end designs. I don't know of any other aircraft that used the Vampire design except follow-on versions. The only possible follow-on to the He-162 design was the F-107, but only the intake was above the aircraft, the engine was still in the fuselage. As for the Me-262 design (and Meteor) it soldiered on a few more years, mainly in the Soviet Air Force, but petered out due to poor concept.
Swept wings are only one way to reduce drag. Lower aspect ratio and simply having thinner wings is another option, as is detailed consideration of drag. .
We will not agree on the Me 163 so I'll just leave it at that. The point was that the D.H.108 was no longer very advanced as an airframe in 1946 as the Me 163 (and arguably the Go 229) had all of its distinctive features years before. One might even argue if it had existed in its form at all if it wasn't for the Me 163.The Me 163 was a good airframe design and would have been a very good airplane with a Bede 5 engine (probably) or some derivative. It was not a good Airplane (airframe/engine combination) because the engine/fuel approach killed good pilots - but that doesn't detract from the very good German engineering of the airframe.
And how many of them saw substantial combat before the Korean war? And what design proved to be dominating in that war? The answer: Swept wing, inline engine, air intake in the middle.Virtually all the of the jets were employing straight wings until after the F-86 and MiG 15 were operational.. so even for several years after WWII was over the approach was 'thin wing'.
I don't beleive layout makes a design advanced else one would consider the Gloster E.28 advanced. It does not matter what future designs used but how the design performed with its configuration, vampires layout was pretty much the same as the p80 as well except for the tail to keep the engine pipe short, and it continued on to two follow on types the venom and vixon.
We will not agree on the Me 163 so I'll just leave it at that.
OK
And how many of them saw substantial combat before the Korean war? And what design proved to be dominating in that war? The answer: Swept wing, inline engine, air intake in the middle.
Which just shows that swept wings were very advanced for any mid-40s fighter. And the Me 262 had leading edge sweep if only very little and rather coincidentally.So could we safely say that air battles, with the exception of the Me 163 as a limited value point defense rocket with limited value, were fought with medium to thin wing fighters - non swept -, from 1914- late 1950?
The Vampire, He-162, and the Me-262, were all dead end designs. I don't know of any other aircraft that used the Vampire design except follow-on versions.
TG276 and TG280 Vampires were fitted with RR Nenes, with TG276 having distinctive dorsal intakes to provide more air for the double sided impeller.
Which just shows that swept wings were very advanced for any mid-40s fighter. And the Me 262 had leading edge sweep if only very little and rather coincidentally.
The Me 163 was not at all underdeveloped. The airframe was perfected over a course of several years, there was nothing rushed about its introduction. The propulsion system proved to be a failure, that's the plain truth. But that was only really found out when the type was used in combat.
What ultrathin straight wing are you referring too? How many of the fighter jets after World War 2 used straight wings as compared to those that used swept wings?
That sounds a lot like typical nationalist excuses. British airframe design somewhat lacked behind their much better engine design progress, simple as that.
However, I don't think we should downplay the role German research added to post-war fighter development. I changed a lot opinions.
How thick was the Me 262 wing? I am just tired of people who don't give credit where credit is due, or try to relativize that credit with "our engineers' designs were at least as great". Airframe-wise there was little competition for the Messerschmitt designs in 1945
There were plans for the 262 that would've moved the engines to the fuselage, very similar to the Canuck. In this configuration I think it could've been very competitive until the early 50s.
We will not agree on the Me 163 so I'll just leave it at that. The point was that the D.H.108 was no longer very advanced as an airframe in 1946 as the Me 163 (and arguably the Go 229) had all of its distinctive features years before. One might even argue if it had existed in its form at all if it wasn't for the Me 163.
The Su-9 (soviet Me-262 inspired plane)
The Me 262's production wing was pretty advanced for a 1943 design imo. I hope I am not going out on a limb but I seem to remember it was thinner than the P-80 wing. Wasn't the thickness ratio of the P-80's wing something like 9-13% as compared to the Me's 8-11%? And the leading edge sweep was 18 degrees not much but still somewhat more than that of the P-80.So did the P-80, T-33, F-94 - each with basically same trapezoidal planform wing with ~ 10 degrees. The F-84 and 89 had a 'trap' wing but less forward and greater trailing edge sweep.
I would not classify the operational wing of the Me 262 as 'advanced' and maybe not as good as any of the above wings. The sweep represented on the drawing boards Were advanced.
During development, Me 163s could circle forever over airfields, in combat they often had to make a rushed landing due to the danger posed by Allied fighters that followed them. They also ran out of fuel and had to land on fields. Though this was planned from the start, it proved to be a lot more difficult and dangerous in reality. Hence there was a steep increase in accidents once the plane became operational.It was landing and refuelling that was the real hazard, nothing to do with combat.
The specification was there but the plane wasn't designed or built until way after the Komet was evaluated. So I think it's a possibility that the designers had a look or two at that plane.I think it would, due to the fact that it was built as a small scale test vehicle for an airliner that was intended to be produced after the war. I don't think DH would have set out in 1944 to build the DH 106 as a tailless swept wing jetliner based on reports of a secret German fighter.
During development, Me 163s could circle forever over airfields, in combat they often had to make a rushed landing due to the danger posed by Allied fighters that followed them. They also ran out of fuel and had to land on fields. Though this was planned from the start, it proved to be a lot more difficult and dangerous in reality. Hence there was a steep increase in accidents once the plane became operational.
The specification was there but the plane wasn't designed or built until way after the Komet was evaluated. So I think it's a possibility that the designers had a look or two at that plane.