Ta183 vs Vampire

Soren · Jun 28, 2009

davparlr,

If you were on the primary design team then you'd have gone to see the Ho-229 as-well, right? I suspect one only sends designers there to get ideas of some sort.

Like I said, maybe some aerodynamic features were used or considered. The guys responsible for the aerodynamics should know, do we have any of those here ?

FLYBOYJ · Jun 29, 2009

Soren said:
Were you in the design team FLYBOYJ ?

No, I buit AV 2 - 7. I could tell you what the interior of the wings looked liked, what the surface prep guys had to work to and how the main assemblies came together. I worked in Palmdale and Pico Rivera and as stated met the folks resposible for the design of that aircraft

Soren said:
I most certainly am not.

Then perhaps those of us who were there may have a little more insight into this

Soren said:
Various control systems, hook ups and aerodynamic features might very well have been partly copied or considered from the Ho-229.

That's almost laughable Soren. I give the Horten Brothers a lot of credit but I doubt that they had a workable fly by wire system or they used the same flaperons that the B-2 uses.

Soren said:
And even if not a single thing was directly taken from the Ho-229 then just by studying it could've brought up several crucial questions or ideas for the B-2 bomber project.

That's more sensible.

BTW the B-49 and B-2 are EXACTLY the same wingspan.

Soren · Jun 29, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
That's more sensible.

Well that's my entire point and all I ever meant.

Northrop sent people there to learn, not to have fun. Never claimed they were there to copy anything, just to learn of different approaches to various issues. When you know them all you can start taking the best aspects of each and apply them to a new design.

delcyros · Jun 29, 2009

While the topic of the influence Horten / Northrop is an interesting one, and certainly would deserve it´s own research paper, I am also very sceptical about direct relationships between the Ho-229 and the B-2. Dave pretty much sums it up for me. There is no such influence on a significant scale. Time has changed since the 40´s and new options required new solutions. Superficially, the B-2 has some layout identities to unbuild Horten Ho-XVIIIa-bomber but these remain superficial and it is highly unlikely that much hard data from this plane was aviable to the B-2´s design team.

However, I am not convinced that one should that easily disregard Horten´s gliders and powered gliders. In addition to offer basic and advanced training for high performance jet´s like the Ho-229, they added significantly- dare to say- decisively in his understanding and solution of bell shaped lift distribution (Ho-II to Ho-III), high speed airfoils (Ho-IVb to Ho-XII, the first successful application of high speed laminar airfoils to a high aspect ratio flying wing) and layout questions (one Ho-III was used as a flying testbed for the Ho-IX´s wing design, another was used as a flying testbed for the sixth prototypes center fuselage section (Ho-IX V6, the nightfighter version). Finally, low aspect ratio flying wing, low speed behavior was studied and validated with the Ho-XIIIV1 to add information for his supersonic project.

To ignore them makes for a good mistake in qualifying Hortens knowledge base on powered flying wings but You and I may have a differing opinion on this. That´s ok for me, agreed to disagree.

uberninja · Jun 29, 2009

there where problems with the tail of the ta-183, it would have never flown with those stats

FLYBOYJ · Jun 29, 2009

Soren said:
Well that's my entire point and all I ever meant.

Northrop sent people there to learn, not to have fun. Never claimed they were there to copy anything, just to learn of different approaches to various issues. When you know them all you can start taking the best aspects of each and apply them to a new design.

No one said any about having "fun" and you're trying to speculate on something that happened over 30 years ago and you don't have the slightest conception on how the company worked and what actually went on during the design and construction. Dave and I was there, we touched the aircraft and saw the interior workings. He had more time on the program than I but I could tell you you're being quite silly in this "assumption."

Look at the Tacit Blue photo I posted, a lot of what became the B-2 started there, and just for clarification, please re-read Matt's post, he nailed it...

davparlr said:
I was on the design team and I am telling you that this comment is a joke. Did the Ho-229 use 4000 psi hydraulics or three phase, 400 hz power. Was the wiring system nuclear hardened never before seen, was the hook ups stressed to vibration levels high enough to melt solder on circuit boards? Did it use zone managers for installations. Was it designed to EMI levels greater than any aircraft in the world (the suppliers laughed when they saw that until they realized we were serious). The aerodynamics were just as unique. We could not even us normal air data sensors. The Ho-229 was a '55 Chevy to the B-2's 2009 Mercedes.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 29, 2009

uberninja said:
there where problems with the tail of the ta-183, it would have never flown with those stats

Really? And what were those problems????

davparlr · Jun 29, 2009

delcyros said:
However, I am not convinced that one should that easily disregard Horten´s gliders and powered gliders. In addition to offer basic and advanced training for high performance jet´s like the Ho-229, they added significantly- dare to say- decisively in his understanding and solution of bell shaped lift distribution (Ho-II to Ho-III), high speed airfoils (Ho-IVb to Ho-XII, the first successful application of high speed laminar airfoils to a high aspect ratio flying wing) and layout questions (one Ho-III was used as a flying testbed for the Ho-IX´s wing design, another was used as a flying testbed for the sixth prototypes center fuselage section (Ho-IX V6, the nightfighter version). Finally, low aspect ratio flying wing, low speed behavior was studied and validated with the Ho-XIIIV1 to add information for his supersonic project.

To ignore them makes for a good mistake in qualifying Hortens knowledge base on powered flying wings but You and I may have a differing opinion on this. That´s ok for me, agreed to disagree.

Don't get me wrong. The Horten brothers were undoubably brilliant and it is too bad they couldn't get toghther with Northrop. I do think they could have contributed greatly to the advancement of the flying wing. I do not think Northrop ignored them but probably was competitive with them. No one can say that there designs were not brilliant. Did anyone see the special on the National Geographic Channel on the Nortrop rebuild of the Ho-229 and the RCS testing. That plane is certainly beautiful and inspiring, in my opinion, one of the best integrated designs in the history of aircraft. I was actually stunned when I saw the model on TV. The RCS testing turned out as I expected. It could have been effective against WWII radars, reducing detection range to 80%. I worked near that model shop and often peeked in when I could. There was always interesting models there. They did beautiful work.

I think their blatant Nazism hurt them with post war work, which is not fully understandable as the allies used strange bedfellows in the cold war. It it too bad.

lingo · Jun 29, 2009

Butters said:
Has anyone ever heard of the 'electrogravitic' hypothesis being experimentally validated in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Thought not...

I certainly haven't, but then I am not in a position to read such articles (let alone to understand it when they descend into complex maths to 'explain' points!). I don't know enough on the subject to make claims about it - but I understand that many of the early Cambridge papers on the subject (once freely available to researchers) have now become unavailable, even unfindable. I don't want to be accused of creating conspiracy theories but I find this very odd and rather sinister.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 29, 2009

Soren said:
Did you design the B-2 davparlr ? No. So how the heck can you be making all those claims ?

Fact is that before the B-2 ever even hit the drawing board in the early 1980's Northrop sent out people to study the Ho-229. Now why the heck did they do that if not to learn something ???

You might want to learn a bit about him, before jumping all over him. He happened to work on the team. Based off of that, I am certain he knows a hell of a lot more about the B-2 than you do. Besides it is rude. Try learning a little bit of tack as well. Before jumping to rude conclusions, you could have asked him if he was on the team!

I would recommend an apology, and maybe he will teach you a thing or two. He happens to be the person with the most knowledge on the subject of the B-2 in this forum. Until then...

Butters · Jun 29, 2009

lingo,

First, I apologize for my unwarranted condescension. Sorry...

That the US govt has somehow managed to sweep the world clean of widely disseminated scientific papers is a little too much for me to swallow. A quick Google search (electrogravitics cambridge) brought up all kinds of sites, scientific and otherwise. Here's a link to one I took a look at:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/electrogravitics_systems.pdf

Of all the fundamental forces, gravity is the most mysterious, and altho Einstein's GR gives an astonishingly accurate account of what gravity DOES(At least until you reach the quantum scale), neither he nor anyone else understands what it IS. And until there exists a coherent, experimentally confirmed theory of quantum gravity, it is unlikely that any technologically practical form of anti-gravity will be devised. By anyone...

However, the technical requirements of an extremely long-range, high-capacity a/c , ie: the B-2- do not include some sort of super-secret 'Area 51'l anti-gravity device What you need is a very efficient low-drag/high lift airframe with room for a whole lotta fuel, and powerful, fuel efficient engines. And while this may be very technologically challenging to achieve in the real world, it does not demand an extraordinary breakthrough in fundamental physics.

JL

lingo · Jun 29, 2009

Butters said:
lingo,

First, I apologize for my unwarranted condescension. Sorry...

No need for apologies Butters. You are not debating with one of the planets scientists, only a superannuated airman.

That the US govt has somehow managed to sweep the world clean of widely disseminated scientific papers is a little too much for me to swallow.

I didn't claim it was the work of the US Government! (Although I have heard it said.....)

A quick Google search (electrogravitics cambridge) brought up all kinds of sites, scientific and otherwise. Here's a link to one I took a look at:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/electrogravitics_systems.pdf

True I'm sure, but the fact remains that researchers claim certain (don't know how many) papers have 'disappeared'. I neither know how nor why but I find this disturbing. ( Is this how conspiracy theories come into being?)

Of all the fundamental forces, gravity is the most mysterious, and altho Einstein's GR gives an astonishingly accurate account of what gravity DOES(At least until you reach the quantum scale), neither he nor anyone else understands what it IS. And until there exists a coherent, experimentally confirmed theory of quantum gravity, it is unlikely that any technologically practical form of anti-gravity will be devised. By anyone...

That is a fair summation. However, people do blunder into discoveries. Sometimes there is a solution to a problem we didn't know we had(!)

However, the technical requirements of an extremely long-range, high-capacity a/c , ie: the B-2- do not include some sort of super-secret 'Area 51'l anti-gravity device What you need is a very efficient low-drag/high lift airframe with room for a whole lotta fuel, and powerful, fuel efficient engines. And while this may be very technologically challenging to achieve in the real world, it does not demand an extraordinary breakthrough in fundamental physics.

I can't disagree with anything in that paragraph. Having only read and heard nonsense from the Area 51 conspiracy crowd I find their 'extraterrestrial' claims to be rather less than convincing.
My original post was: As we are now discussing the B-2 Spirit has anyone heard of the possible employment of electro-gravitics in this aircraft? Some years ago a distinguished physicist speculated the power of the installed engines were inadequate to meet the enormous range claimed for the type without it.

As you will see I did not claim electrogravitics were employed, merely mentioning a renowned American physicists speculation and wondering if any of our eclectic membership had also read that.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 29, 2009

lingo said:
As you will see I did not claim electrogravitics were employed, merely mentioning a renowned American physicists speculation and wondering if any of our eclectic membership had also read that.

I thought he was British....

Outside the shape and materials its constructed from, the B-2 is actual pretty conventional. There's no magic propulsion systems or anything extra-terrestrial behind the aircraft. It was designed and built well and outside the normal problems associated with a large complex military contract (suppliers, labor, layoffs) it should be treated like any other military aircraft of the modern era.

As stated, I worked on program and was proud to be part of it. Any mention of any covert propulsion system borders between ignorance and retardation. You could quote me if you ever read any of this stuff on some of those select web sites.

Soren · Jun 30, 2009

And in steps Adler

I think if davparlr wanted an apology then he would've asked for it Adler. I think he sees as well as I that he was sorta attacking me as well with his post. I threw one back at him, so what. I still don't see why Northrop would sent designers over to look at the Go-229 if not to learn. davparlr didn't explain why they were sent there, which is all I was asking for. Call that being rude if you want but I can't really see how it ever could be. Had he said before my post that he went to look at the Go-229 with the others and then explained why, then my repsonse could've been considered rude, but he didn't, and as I understand it he wasn't one of the guys who were sent out to look at the Go-229.

I will apologize if I have offended him in any way though.

davparlr · Jun 30, 2009

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
You might want to learn a bit about him, before jumping all over him. He happened to work on the team. Based off of that, I am certain he knows a hell of a lot more about the B-2 than you do. Besides it is rude. Try learning a little bit of tack as well. Before jumping to rude conclusions, you could have asked him if he was on the team!

I would recommend an apology, and maybe he will teach you a thing or two. He happens to be the person with the most knowledge on the subject of the B-2 in this forum. Until then...

No apology is required, but thanks for the thought, Adler. I was surprised by his comment since I had submitted my resume in a private message to him on a previous thread and he knew I had intimate knowledge of the much the B-2 design, thus the comment about "joking". Of course, that was a while back and memory is a short thing (at least it is to me).

All in all, I just thought that this was a spirited discussions. Often spirited discussions trigger an excellent learning experience in that it encourages research. It certainly has been an educational experience for me. I really miss the political thread, I like reading other peoples view.

Soren · Jun 30, 2009

I had no clue you worked on the B-2 davparlr and I don't recall recieving a PM about it. Had I known I obviously wouldn't have wrote what I wrote, wouldn't have made any sense to do so. I respect you davparlr, always have, you know a lot and appreciate all you can contribute with which I know is a lot.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 30, 2009

Soren said:
And in steps Adler

I think if davparlr wanted an apology then he would've asked for it Adler. I think he sees as well as I that he was sorta attacking me as well with his post. I threw one back at him, so what. I still don't see why Northrop would sent designers over to look at the Go-229 if not to learn. davparlr didn't explain why they were sent there, which is all I was asking for. Call that being rude if you want but I can't really see how it ever could be. Had he said before my post that he went to look at the Go-229 with the others and then explained why, then my repsonse could've been considered rude, but he didn't, and as I understand it he wasn't one of the guys who were sent out to look at the Go-229.

I will apologize if I have offended him in any way though.

Don't jump to conclusions, it makes you look like an ass...

davparlr · Jun 30, 2009

Soren said:
I had no clue you worked on the B-2 davparlr and I don't recall recieving a PM about it. Had I known I obviously wouldn't have wrote what I wrote, wouldn't have made any sense to do so.

It was back in the Ccrump discussions on EAS. Its fine if you don't remember, I may not even have sent it correctly. Anyway, I can now see why you thought I was attacking you.

I respect you davparlr, always have, you know a lot and appreciate all you can contribute with which I know is a lot.

I have always enjoyed our discussions and have learned a lot from you, even if I didn't want to.

Civettone · Jul 3, 2009

delcyros said:
Graeme, I will have to check my books for it. It was a russian one with the Ta-183 Nato-codes. Since I am now away from my books You will have to wait some days for it.

Anyway, I was always more impressed by the Me-P1101 than by the Ta-183.

Yes me too. I always wondered why the Ta 183 got more attention than the P 1101 even though the latter was actually built...

I've seen an article somewhere on the influence the Ta 183 had on the MiG-15. Apparently it seems to have been rather superficial as Butters claimed. Both are based on the same German late-war aerodynamical data and theories but there was no such thing as a direct influence. The T-tail may seem the connection but then again, there were several jet aircraft with T-tails, it's only a logical possible configuration for a jet aircraft.

Kris

Ta183 vs Vampire

Engaging each other in numbers, who's going to win it?

Focke-wulf Ta183

de Havilland Vampire

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Recruit

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads