p-80 V Me 262 (1 Viewer)

So did all tanks cause high-speed problems or just the centerline 233 gal tanks. The F-80Cs used both the centerline tanks as well as 265 US gallon under-tip tanks (sometimes named "Misawa" tanks) see: Lockheed P-80C Shooting Star


Quote from Lockheed XP-80A Shooting Star : "The second XP-80A became the first in the Shooting Star series to carry a 165 US-gallon drop tank underneath each wingtip. When carried, these tanks actually lowered rather than increased the drag. They could be brought home empty with no penalty in aerodynamic drag. The tanks also improved aileron effectiveness and wing loading."

So was it just the early 165 gallon tanks that had this possitive effect?

Below is a comparison of the tanks from: BVM T-33 Jet Kit

Below that is an interesting story of the P-80 found on the same site: Hot Shots BVM F-80 Shooting Star

Some cool cool model flight there, I wonder if there are any like Me-262 models?

The larger tank was the Fletcher tank, I think that article is wrong. Among civilian operators its the most popular because it carries the most fuel.



I used to fly in this one, it belongs to my friend Charlie Wallash.

I can't speak for the other tanks or for the F-80. I would imagine at higher speeds they would have the same effect. At lower or normal operating speeds I think they became "first generation winglets."

The 165 gal "Lockheed" tanks still look the most streamlined. And is that letter correct about the problems on the YP-80's guns?

kool kitty89 said:

The 165 gal "Lockheed" tanks still look the most streamlined. And is that letter correct about the problems on the YP-80's guns?

Click to expand...

Possibly - I know there were problems with the F-94C firing all its rockets in one blast.

FLYBOYJ said:

Possibly - I know there were problems with the F-94C firing all its rockets in one blast.

Click to expand...

like what?

comiso90 said:

like what?

Click to expand...

It shook the hell out of the aircraft and cracked the canopy - this was from Tony LeVier.

not good.

Bill, all I have posted is facts ! Check up on it yourself !

The laboratory of Ludwig Prandtl at Göttingen was the main center of theoretical and mathematical aerodynamics and fluid dynamics research in the world from 1904 to the end of WW2. The term boundary layer was coined at the Göttingen lab, and modern mathematical aerodynamics was founded there. Thats fact Bill !

And here are some of THE most important and influencial persons within the history of aerodynamics:

Ludwig Prandtl - Germany (Probably the most important contributor to aerodynamic research in history, the father of modern aerodynamics)
Albert Betz - Germany
Michael Max Munk - Germany (Worked with NACA)
Richard von Mises - Germany
Theodor Meyer - Germany
Adolph Busemann - Germany (Specialist in supersonic airflows, and the father of the swepped wing concept)

Prandtl and Theodor Meyer developed the first theories of supersonic shock waves and flow in 1908.

Prandtl later worked with Adolf Busemann and created a method for designing a supersonic nozzle in 1929, and today all supersonic wind tunnels and rocket nozzles are designed using the same method.

Now seeing that you've apparently heard nothing about the above earning your PhD, not even recognizing their work eventhough it was some of the most influencial to date, you most be very rusty on the subject history of aerodynamics fluid dynamics!

So were US (as well as a few others than Germany) using designs based on Adolph Busemann's pre-war work (was it even public?) in projects like the XP-55 Ascender? Also the XP-56, XP-59 (20 degree swept-wing development of the XP-52, not the airacomet) and the pre-war, Russain Borovkov-Florov IzdeliyeD

Not critisizing, just an honest question.

comiso90 said:

not good.

Click to expand...

Niether is blowing the nose off when all 6 guns are fired! (I'm not sure this was a problem on all YP-80s though, just that pilot's account. Though I do seem to rember some othe sourse that said the armament of the YP-80A had been reduced to 4x guns. Any knoledge of this?)

Adolph Busemann hold a public lecture on his "Pfeileffekt" theories in the aerodynamic symposium of Rome, june 1938. As far as I understand, his theories were not appreciately recognized by other scientists. But that doesn´t has to wonder, the practical effect of his works was beyond their horizon and it lasted until 1942 that his theories could be verified with experiements in supersonic windtunnels.
Swept wings are common features since the early days of aviation. What makes Busemanns work outstanding is that the relation to a higher crit Mach figure was recognized and deliberately choosen instead of accidentally. The Me-262 had accidentally swept back wings (because of very similar reasons why the DC3 had those: to counter cog issues). The -262HG II and Ju-287 had deliberately swept wings, as had some experimental planes, the almost completed Me P-1101 and DFS 346, a half finished He-162 prototype with interchangable swept back and swept forward wings and an Ar-234B experimental prototype with crescant wings.

Soren, we over embilish and over exaggerate german scientific efforts, which are fine examples of practical applications that requires no such thing from anyone. The US UK and other nations scientists did excellent work in their grounds. For some technological breakthroughs the conditions were given in many nations, leading to parallel and often independent lines of R&D.

The wings of the XP-55 were certainly swept deliberately though. (35 degrees I think) I'm pretty sure the XP-56 and XP-52/59 were designed likewise, but the sweep was only 20 degrees. (Which was more reasonable for the speeds they were designed for, the XP-55's sweep being overkill and resulted in stalling problems.)

Soren said:

Bill, all I have posted is facts ! Check up on it yourself !

You stated that Germany had 'best' engineers and best metallurgy - I will address the aerodynamicists below. By citing some leading aero theorists you forgot a few things that I addressed below

The laboratory of Ludwig Prandtl at Göttingen was the main center of theoretical and mathematical aerodynamics and fluid dynamics research in the world from 1904 to the end of WW2. The term boundary layer was coined at the Göttingen lab, and modern mathematical aerodynamics was founded there. Thats fact Bill !

Fact include that the purge of Gottingen by Nazi's drove most of the Physics and Math department heads including Planck out of Germany - but more importantly engineers (and former students of Prandtl) emigrated to the US and expanded on his work there. Theodorsen, Von Karman and Munk - all in the 1920s separating their works entirely from Gottingen

The mathmatical discourse of the physics of flight was indeed pioneered by Prandtl - no question. His primary works on propellers, boundary layer, lifting line and tip vortex theory was indeed his works and essentially completed by him in the 1908 to 1921 period. Is it your contention that nobody in UK or US had advanced those theories and were still in dark ignorance in WWII?

And here are some of THE most important and influencial persons within the history of aerodynamics:

Ludwig Prandtl - Germany (Probably the most important contributor to aerodynamic research in history, the father of modern aerodynamics)

Yes - and his last major contributions in Aero were when - 1921?
Albert Betz - Germany - Yes
Michael Max Munk - Germany (Worked with NACA) -

Rolling on floor LMAO - yes from 1921 until he retired long after WWII as Director of Aero FOR NACA. Are you seriously offering him as a part of 'wartime Germany' ?? You so fonny Soren

Richard von Mises - Germany
Theodor Meyer - Germany
Adolph Busemann - Germany (Specialist in supersonic airflows, and the father of the swepped wing concept)

Yep - all great theorists

Prandtl and Theodor Meyer developed the first theories of supersonic shock waves and flow in 1908.

Yeh but Jones and Von Karman took supersonic flow theory to new heights and Whitcomb took it further.

don't know how much you know about area rule for example but Dietrich Kuchemann (Germany) patented the concept in 1944, Wallace Hayes wrote his doctoral thesis at Cal Tech in 1951, Buseman lectured at NASA and Whitcomb developed the theory to practical solution in leading edge airframes

Prandtl later worked with Adolf Busemann and created a method for designing a supersonic nozzle in 1929, and today all supersonic wind tunnels and rocket nozzles are designed using the same method.

I would debate supersonic nozzle.. I suspect de Laval, Swedish Physicist, was first in 1890s and Robert Goddard first to apply it practically? but would have to research more


Not exactly "all" - they did nothing for shock wave interaction of moving and variable geometry inlets, variable exhausts, 3 dimensional wind tunnels originally modeled from Bessel Functions, etc but the standard wind tunnel design for both low speed and high speed wind tunnels did derive from them.

Now seeing that you've apparently heard nothing about the above earning your PhD, not even recognizing their work eventhough it was some of the most influencial to date, you most be very rusty on the subject history of aerodynamics fluid dynamics!

Click to expand...

I think the subject of conversation was WWII alignment of engineering and metallurgy - not the history of pioneering Aero! You assumed I had not heard of them but you 'assume' too much - and often. Your presentation of Munk as an impled German contributor of Gottingen is somewhat typical of your debate style since he did NOTHING at Gottingen after 1920 and everything in US starting at NACA in 1921! .

You conclude your argument for 'best engineering' by citing some truly innovative pioneers but do you really want to make an argument about Germany having the 'best' when so many leading Allied Engineers, Mathmeticians and Physicists were not only US and Brit but also leading emigre's from Hungary, Norway, Italy and Germany - all in US or Great Britain. Who do you want to stack up against Plank, Einstein, Courant, Fermi, Munk, Von Karman, Theodorsen, Robert Jones Glauert, etc?

Last - I did NOT get my Doctorate and said exactly that - I finished my Masters and 24 hours of course work toward PhD and then got out of Aero biz - but finished math with Calculus of Variations, and engineering with study of applying Chaos theory to wake turbulence.

I DID explain to you what the leading engineering theoretical guys were for MY coursework but failed to mention Prandtl and Buseman - not because they weren't great but because Von Karman and others like Munk and Whitcomb had EXTENDED their works to the state of the art in the 60s.

So, what Facts do you have to support that Germany had the Best Engineers in contrast to Allies?

delcyros said:

Soren, we over embilish and over exaggerate german scientific efforts, which are fine examples of practical applications that requires no such thing from anyone. The US UK and other nations scientists did excellent work in their grounds. For some technological breakthroughs the conditions were given in many nations, leading to parallel and often independent lines of R&D.

Click to expand...

VERY WELL SAID!

delcyros said:

Soren, we over embilish and over exaggerate german scientific efforts, which are fine examples of practical applications that requires no such thing from anyone. The US UK and other nations scientists did excellent work in their grounds. For some technological breakthroughs the conditions were given in many nations, leading to parallel and often independent lines of R&D.

Click to expand...

Right on target. Nobody claims the Germans didn't make huge contributions - that wasn't the debate. well spoken

delcyros said:

Soren, we over embilish and over exaggerate german scientific efforts, which are fine examples of practical applications that requires no such thing from anyone. The US UK and other nations scientists did excellent work in their grounds. For some technological breakthroughs the conditions were given in many nations, leading to parallel and often independent lines of R&D.

Click to expand...

A prime example of this would be the parallel development of gas turbines by both von Ohain and Whittle; both developed "jet propulsion" at more or less the same time, apparently unaware of the other's efforts. One train of development (Whittle's) led to the centrifugal-flow gas turbine, the other to axial-flow gas turbines. Both had advantages disadvantages, but axial-flow gas turbines had more development potential.

My point, as already clearly illustrated, is that the Germans were ahead in the field of aerodynamics from before the beginning till the end of WW2, being far ahead in supersonic airflow research as-well as slightly ahead in other more basic fields of aerodynamics. The UK were right behind though, and were only really behind in terms of supersonic airflow research, but they were nevertheless the closest to the Germans - as evident during the early post-war period.

I mentioned Max Munk because he is German and got his PhD at Göttingen, but Bill apparently choose to ignore that I stated he worked for NACA in my very own post. The other aerodynamicists I mentioned worked in Germany throughout the war. I can mention more as-well.

As to engineers, well Bill I can't believe you would even ask, but since you did: Focke-Wulf engineer Hans Multhopp as an example was experienced with swepped wing designs and knew of its merits and its characteristics, something which can't be said about any Allied aerospace engineer by that time. After the war Multhopp was sent to the US where he proved very valuable.

Anyways as to examples of why German engineers were in general better educated, or lets say more up to date in terms of their designs, refraining from going into detail, let me just ask you to look at what the Germans were fielding in terms of equipment throughout WW2: (Only going to name a few examples of the equipment which was state of the art throughout WW2)


Aircraft:
FW-190 - 1941
Me-262 - 1944
He-162 - 1945
Ta-152 - 1944
Ar-234 - 1944
Me-163 - 1944
Me-323 - 1941
Fa 223 - 1942
Me-410 - 1943
He-219 - 1943
Ju-388 - 1944

Small-arms:
StG.44 - 1943
MG-42 - 1942
MG-34 - 1934
FG-42 - 1942
K98k - 1935 (The action is what I'm thinking about here)
G-43 - 1943 (The Garand does have an edge in reliability, otherwise equal)
Panzerfaust - 1943

AFV's:
Pzkpfw V - 1943
Pzkpfw VI - 1942
Pzkpfw VI B - 1944
JagdPanther - 1944
JagdTiger - 1944
Hetzer - 1944
Etc etc, as the list in this category goes on for very long.

Navy vessels:
Type VII U-boat - 1940
Type IX U-boat - 1941
Type XXI U-boat - 1945
Type XXIII U-boat - 1945
(Should probably list the pocket battleships as-well as they were top notch)

(I know I didn't even mention half of what should be up there, self-guided missiles, bombs, projectiles, computers, etc etc)

Now the Allies in some cases produced equals to some of the above, but in most cases the Allies failed to produce anything as good.

The Allies ofcourse produced other advanced equipment on their own, such as the B-29 which was the overall best large bomber to see widespread service during WW2.

You're ofcourse welcome to dispute the above and come forward with what you believe is the Allied equal or the closest to the above.


Delcyros,

I agree, however the Germans were clearly ahead, how much is debatable but they were ahead, something which is demonstrated quite clearly in the equipment in service throughout the war.

The P-47 was a good match for the FW-190. Though it was heavier and less maneuverable at low altitude, the P-47 could take more damage and had the advantage at high altitude. The speeds were about the same, but the P-47 was faster if both were without boost. The 190 had 20 mm cannons but the P-47 was still powerefull with 8x .50 cal BMG. The Mustang would also have put up quite a fight, though it lacked the damage resistance and armament of the P-47, it was more agile.

The Mossie was at least equal overall to the 388 and 410. It was multirole like the 388 but was a better fighter, ie more maneuverable, and was faster. It also had a good climb rate. Though it lacked a defensive armament, as said before it had the speed to run and enough maneuverabillity to fight, but not verry well aganst single engine fighters. The mossie was also fielded im much larger numbers. Personally I think the FW-187 could have been better (maby on the scale of the P-38 ) but that's another issue. (see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-twin-engined-fighter-8053-6.html )

Granted, the Germans were ahead in feilding jets, particularly the Ar-234 which was performing recon before D-day I believe, though to be honest I've never liked the fixed rearward guns of the 234, there's virtually no rearward vission to aim it with or a gunner, I'd rater have them foreward fireing since the plane had decent maneuverabillity and could have outfaught intercepting fighters better than fireing aimlessly backward (if it couldn't outrun them).

Soren said:

You're ofcourse welcome to dispute the above and come forward with what you believe is the Allied equal or the closest to the above.

Click to expand...

How about May 8, 1945...

Undoubtably the Germans were ahead in some of the fields of aerodynamics. But it was technology for the next war, not the "here and now war" of 1944/1945.

None of that R&D advantage translated into anything meaningfull for when it counted.