Luftwaffe Secret Projects 1939-1945
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Erich
the old Sage
are we positive about this ?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The performance of the F-86 with straight wings is not impressive. Even a good axial jet engine could not ensure 600 mp/h speed. The swept wing was analysed by NACA-researcher, also in 1945 but they lacked some very important points:
The disadvanteges at low speed and stall speed behavior. A swept wing also increase the weight and reduces the comparably lift for wide areas of the speed (compared to a similar sized straight wing), that´s why it wasn´t considered a solution. The german captured datas about swept wings also consist of methods to reduce the disadvantages (leading edge slats to improve lift at near stall speed, wing boundary layers) and optimize the benefits (area rule, supercritical profile) for high sub- and transsonic speeds.
From the point of the construction, the F-86 was a genuine US design with a modified german wing design (close to the Me-262 wing with higher degree os sweep, comparable to Me-P1101 and Me-262 HG-II), while the Mig-9 was a genuine soviet design (with no influence of the Ta-183) and the Mig-15 and La-15 were inspired by the Fw-Ta-183 (maybe, but not more than preliminary studies). Some may say that the wing design of F-86 and Mig-15 reminds on Messerschmidt vs. Focke Wulf, but I believe this is wrong. They both have significant differences in wing geometry, aspect ratio and degree of anhedral/dihedral as well as space in the wing (in case of the Mig-15 used for the retreacting main wheel while that of the Ta-183 retreacts into the fuselage). The He-162 was a comfortable and advanced fighter in 1945, I doubt that 6000 could have been produced in a few months (a year is a more probable timeframe) but the rate of it´s production was impressive.
The disadvanteges at low speed and stall speed behavior. A swept wing also increase the weight and reduces the comparably lift for wide areas of the speed (compared to a similar sized straight wing), that´s why it wasn´t considered a solution. The german captured datas about swept wings also consist of methods to reduce the disadvantages (leading edge slats to improve lift at near stall speed, wing boundary layers) and optimize the benefits (area rule, supercritical profile) for high sub- and transsonic speeds.
From the point of the construction, the F-86 was a genuine US design with a modified german wing design (close to the Me-262 wing with higher degree os sweep, comparable to Me-P1101 and Me-262 HG-II), while the Mig-9 was a genuine soviet design (with no influence of the Ta-183) and the Mig-15 and La-15 were inspired by the Fw-Ta-183 (maybe, but not more than preliminary studies). Some may say that the wing design of F-86 and Mig-15 reminds on Messerschmidt vs. Focke Wulf, but I believe this is wrong. They both have significant differences in wing geometry, aspect ratio and degree of anhedral/dihedral as well as space in the wing (in case of the Mig-15 used for the retreacting main wheel while that of the Ta-183 retreacts into the fuselage). The He-162 was a comfortable and advanced fighter in 1945, I doubt that 6000 could have been produced in a few months (a year is a more probable timeframe) but the rate of it´s production was impressive.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
delcyros said:
Well said!!!!
Have you even looked at a MiG-15 next to a Ta-183 model? They're basically the same with a lengthened fuselage and the tail planes are moved to the center of the tail instead of on top.
It's a Ta-183 with a Rolls Royce Nene engine! The Russians are still trying to deny it.
It's a Ta-183 with a Rolls Royce Nene engine! The Russians are still trying to deny it.
Chocks away!
Senior Airman
- Thread starter
- #28
The F-86 Sabre's wing is actually directly based off of the Messerschmitt Me-P.1101's wing.
And del as for the larger and more heavier engines. they would have just been heavier fighters. Just because an aircraft is heavy as long as it puts out eneogh thrust it can still be fast and the maneueverability is based off the desing of the aircraft not directly on the engine.
And del as for the larger and more heavier engines. they would have just been heavier fighters. Just because an aircraft is heavy as long as it puts out eneogh thrust it can still be fast and the maneueverability is based off the desing of the aircraft not directly on the engine.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Yes, but the thrust to weight factor is important for fighter planes. From this position on, the Jumo-012 is not better than the BMW-003. The He-S011 A is not better than the BMW-003, the He-S011B is better. Another problem is the diameter, esspeccially in the front area. This is a great disadvantage for the BMW-018 (as well as for the Rolls Royce Nene).
The F-86 wing is based on the MeP1101, but this observation is misleading because the wing of the Me-P1101 is actually a standart Me-262 wing with more sweep. If you take a careful look to North American, you will find it more probable that the F-86 wing is derivated directly from the Me-262 (esspeccially the HG-II) and not via Bell from the Me-P1101.
Plan_D, it´s quite interesting, the RD-45 jet engine is a bad made copy from the Rolls Royce Nene MK-V, there is no denie to this. But I am not sure if the soviets still try to denie this (you can read it´s british origin even in Yakolevs book from1962!). The MiG on the other hand is not that much similar to the Ta-183, I repeat myself here:
If you look closer to the details, both planes have remarkably common features: high tail, swept mid wing, engine mounted in the rear fuselage.That´s all. The fuselage is really different: the diameter of the huge RR Nene limits the circular (and not oval as in the Ta-183) fuselage diameter, all systems are positioned behind each other (weapons, fuel tanks, engine), while the Ta-183 bears parts above each others (fuel tanks for example) and it takes the main wheel, while those of the MiG-15 retreacts into the wing. The tail design is more stable on the Mig-15, the wing has another size, another aspect ratio, anhedral (while that of the Ta-183 has no anhedral), wing boundary layers (taken from german, not Ta-183, research pepers) and even a different degree of sweep.
No, Plan_D, the Ta-183 and the Mig-15 are not that close to each other, not in the wing design, not in the fuselage design, not in the tail design, not in the weaponry nor the cockpit design. What´s left? A quite similar appearing from distance, ther is some reason that the Ta-183 or other late designs influenced the soviet designers in the paper study stage.
The F-86 wing is based on the MeP1101, but this observation is misleading because the wing of the Me-P1101 is actually a standart Me-262 wing with more sweep. If you take a careful look to North American, you will find it more probable that the F-86 wing is derivated directly from the Me-262 (esspeccially the HG-II) and not via Bell from the Me-P1101.
Plan_D, it´s quite interesting, the RD-45 jet engine is a bad made copy from the Rolls Royce Nene MK-V, there is no denie to this. But I am not sure if the soviets still try to denie this (you can read it´s british origin even in Yakolevs book from1962!). The MiG on the other hand is not that much similar to the Ta-183, I repeat myself here:
If you look closer to the details, both planes have remarkably common features: high tail, swept mid wing, engine mounted in the rear fuselage.That´s all. The fuselage is really different: the diameter of the huge RR Nene limits the circular (and not oval as in the Ta-183) fuselage diameter, all systems are positioned behind each other (weapons, fuel tanks, engine), while the Ta-183 bears parts above each others (fuel tanks for example) and it takes the main wheel, while those of the MiG-15 retreacts into the wing. The tail design is more stable on the Mig-15, the wing has another size, another aspect ratio, anhedral (while that of the Ta-183 has no anhedral), wing boundary layers (taken from german, not Ta-183, research pepers) and even a different degree of sweep.
No, Plan_D, the Ta-183 and the Mig-15 are not that close to each other, not in the wing design, not in the fuselage design, not in the tail design, not in the weaponry nor the cockpit design. What´s left? A quite similar appearing from distance, ther is some reason that the Ta-183 or other late designs influenced the soviet designers in the paper study stage.
The weapons system wasn't based off the Ta-183, obviously but that doesn't mean anything. The fuselage is a stretched Ta-183 fuselage to accomodate the Nene. The tail plane, well, that was fiddled around with by Kurt Tank himself in Argentina.
If you actually believe that MiG built the MiG-15 from scratch without any outside influence from the Ta-183, you're living in a dream world. Are you communist by any chance?
And the P-86s wing was actually based off the P-51 Mustang's wing and then altered to swept when studying the swept wing designs from Germany.
If you actually believe that MiG built the MiG-15 from scratch without any outside influence from the Ta-183, you're living in a dream world. Are you communist by any chance?
And the P-86s wing was actually based off the P-51 Mustang's wing and then altered to swept when studying the swept wing designs from Germany.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Sure, the Ta-183 may of had dimensional and minor lay-out differences over the Mig-15, but their is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Mikoyan and Mr. Gurevich looked at the Ta-183 platform, inspired by that configuration and began their design around the RR Nene.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I have to agree that Mikoyan looked into some captured papers (as did the other allies). But under no circumstances the fuselage or the wing of the Project C (in our letters "S"), which led to the Mig-15 derivates directly from the Ta-183. There are much more differences than similarities and this is what makes me think, the MiG-15 is a genuine soviet design.You cannot simply declare the differences with stretching the fuselage, this is a mistake (spars and ribs are positioned on completely other points, the systems are completely differently positioned, the size and shape are two worlds).
By the way, Plan_D, i am far away from beeing communist. I was born in the eatern part of Germany, so I know, what I am speaking of in the politics. If you would have the experiances I do have with a communistic gouvernment (politization, is off-topic), than you would understand me here.
The P-86 wing originally was based on the Mustang, right. But the leading edge slats are not taken from the P-51 or aren´t they?
The soviets copied german planes and modified some of them (the I-270 is actually an elenghtened Me-263, the Su-9 a much modified Me-262, the DFS-346 and Ju-287 are one to one german planes in the SU), true. But to say that they depended completely on german jet tech is disrespectful at least. They had their own jet projects, also. The TR-1 jet engine is a genuine soviet design and not influenced by a german nor by a british design. The La-15 airframe is more close to the Ta-183 than the Mig-15 (tail design for example).
By the way, Plan_D, i am far away from beeing communist. I was born in the eatern part of Germany, so I know, what I am speaking of in the politics. If you would have the experiances I do have with a communistic gouvernment (politization, is off-topic), than you would understand me here.
The P-86 wing originally was based on the Mustang, right. But the leading edge slats are not taken from the P-51 or aren´t they?
The soviets copied german planes and modified some of them (the I-270 is actually an elenghtened Me-263, the Su-9 a much modified Me-262, the DFS-346 and Ju-287 are one to one german planes in the SU), true. But to say that they depended completely on german jet tech is disrespectful at least. They had their own jet projects, also. The TR-1 jet engine is a genuine soviet design and not influenced by a german nor by a british design. The La-15 airframe is more close to the Ta-183 than the Mig-15 (tail design for example).
- Thread starter
- #33
delcyros said:
Good point I did not think about that.
Plan_D said:
Yes and look at the wings of the Messerschmitt P.1011 and compare it.
The F-86 was swept like German designs. I don't think anyone can deny both the Soviets and Western Allies gained a lot of influence from German designs and designers.
To lengthen an airframe you don't just stretch it, of course the struts would have to be in a different place. Not only to hold the lengthened structure but to hold the new British engine. Anyway, I think the MiG-9 is more based off the Ta-183 than the MiG-15, the MiG-15 was development.
To lengthen an airframe you don't just stretch it, of course the struts would have to be in a different place. Not only to hold the lengthened structure but to hold the new British engine. Anyway, I think the MiG-9 is more based off the Ta-183 than the MiG-15, the MiG-15 was development.
dinos7
Airman
do you think the soviets got that mig-15 desing from that jet fighter.
They certainly were influenced by the German projects of the war years, as all nations of the world were. As you can see there is debate on the MiG-15 arriving from the Ta-183. I certainly believe the MiG-9 was derived from the Ta-183, with the MiG-15 just being developed from the MiG-9.
And del will say "...but the tail is completely different..."
And del will say "...but the tail is completely different..."
Attachments
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
And this....
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
We are positive about the german influence in the aerodynamic department in postwar times, Plan_D.
Why you think the Mig-9 has anything to do with the Ta-183, I will never un derstand
...
The Pulqui-II is influenced more by the Ta-183 than the Mig-15. Actually the Pulqui-II turns out to be nothing special (unlike the Mig-15).
What is your point in the Mig-9? Almost ALL details in layout and configuration differ from the Ta-183, except maybe that the Mig-9 is a single seat fighter, also.
To be more concrete:
fuselage:
The Ta-183 has a barrel shaped fuselage with a single He-S011 (or Jum-004) engine mounted in the REAR, not uncommon to the fuselage of the Saab J-9 Tunnan or Pulqui-II. The Mig-9 has a box-shaped fueslage with two RD-9 or TR-1 engines mounted in the CENTER of the fuselage with the short engine exhaust directly behind and a longer beam with a (you are right) completely different tail design based on the I-220 with a higher set elevator. The Ta-183 fuselage contains the main wheel, the Mig-9 not. The armement is mounted in the splitted engine intake (which caused some flameouts until the introduction of the Mig-9 FR), while the Ta-183 has its wepons on the sides.
Wing: Virtually nothing common to the Ta-183, the later one has a 40-45 degrees swept back wing, while the Mig-9 has no sweep, The Mig wing has 3,5 degrees anhedral and contains the main wheel and some fuel tanks, while the Ta-183 wing has 0 anhedral and contains nothing. Aspect ratio is also different. A very general similarity is the mid wing configuration.I do not denie that the SU was influenced very much from german research in the post war period, but the degree of this influence in real designs might be a little overstressed, I should remind that the Su-9 fishpot wasn´t accepted for serial production because it looked quite similar to the Me-262. This was a reason to exclude this plane, which was- after all I know - the ultimate SU first generation fighter plane, beating all other contenders in performance, maneuverability, ease of maintenance, and low speed behavior.
In many ways the SU designers were keener in airframe designs (where they feel free to take notice from foreign designs) than in jet designs (the RD-9 and RD-20 as well as RD-45 and RD-500 have been direct copys of german and british jet engines)
Why you think the Mig-9 has anything to do with the Ta-183, I will never un derstand
...The Pulqui-II is influenced more by the Ta-183 than the Mig-15. Actually the Pulqui-II turns out to be nothing special (unlike the Mig-15).
What is your point in the Mig-9? Almost ALL details in layout and configuration differ from the Ta-183, except maybe that the Mig-9 is a single seat fighter, also.
To be more concrete:
fuselage:
The Ta-183 has a barrel shaped fuselage with a single He-S011 (or Jum-004) engine mounted in the REAR, not uncommon to the fuselage of the Saab J-9 Tunnan or Pulqui-II. The Mig-9 has a box-shaped fueslage with two RD-9 or TR-1 engines mounted in the CENTER of the fuselage with the short engine exhaust directly behind and a longer beam with a (you are right) completely different tail design based on the I-220 with a higher set elevator. The Ta-183 fuselage contains the main wheel, the Mig-9 not. The armement is mounted in the splitted engine intake (which caused some flameouts until the introduction of the Mig-9 FR), while the Ta-183 has its wepons on the sides.
Wing: Virtually nothing common to the Ta-183, the later one has a 40-45 degrees swept back wing, while the Mig-9 has no sweep, The Mig wing has 3,5 degrees anhedral and contains the main wheel and some fuel tanks, while the Ta-183 wing has 0 anhedral and contains nothing. Aspect ratio is also different. A very general similarity is the mid wing configuration.I do not denie that the SU was influenced very much from german research in the post war period, but the degree of this influence in real designs might be a little overstressed, I should remind that the Su-9 fishpot wasn´t accepted for serial production because it looked quite similar to the Me-262. This was a reason to exclude this plane, which was- after all I know - the ultimate SU first generation fighter plane, beating all other contenders in performance, maneuverability, ease of maintenance, and low speed behavior.
In many ways the SU designers were keener in airframe designs (where they feel free to take notice from foreign designs) than in jet designs (the RD-9 and RD-20 as well as RD-45 and RD-500 have been direct copys of german and british jet engines)
- Thread starter
- #39
I have to agree with Plan_D on this. The Mig-9 even looks more closely related to the Ta-183.
As for lengthening the aircraft you are correct, there has to be structural strengthening applied to it and things have to be rearanged as to affect the CG of the aircraft.
The Pulqui II was a direct evolution of the Ta-183. Didn't Tank himself go to Argentina and work on the design?
As for lengthening the aircraft you are correct, there has to be structural strengthening applied to it and things have to be rearanged as to affect the CG of the aircraft.
The Pulqui II was a direct evolution of the Ta-183. Didn't Tank himself go to Argentina and work on the design?
cheddar cheese
Major General
I agree with D here too.
