Ta183 vs Vampire

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

  • Total voters
    66

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Waynos said:
Vulcan bomber pilots used to make similar claims back in the day and that was bollocks too. However I do accept that I may well have a bit of a knowledge gap regarding the agility of flying wings generally and wuill research it more.
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly what claims were made on behalf of the Vulcan, but in its early days I can tell you when at great altitude it was darn near invulnerable to fighters. The few fighters that could get to those heights were not able to do much as a turn of more than a few degrees would cause them to lose hundreds of feet of altitude. On the other hand the huge area of the Vulcans wing allowed it to remain up in the thin air.
 
The problem with a flying wing is the directional instability in jaw it features, which no doubt is why we dont see many flying wing fighters. But in terms of structural integrity a flying wing has it all over coventional a/c and will be able to take a lot more G's.

A flying wings strong side is its ability to turn on a dime and having a very low landing speed, the weak point is the directional instability in the lateral axis.

But a flying wing certainly doesn't need computers to fly, it can fly perfectly well without, it does however needs computers if it wants to achieve the same kind of lateral stability as a conventional a/c.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60CgYmNb2a8
 

It is also very efficient - you don't hear many people talk about range.



YB-35 - 8,150 mi

YB-49 3,155 mi (not bad for an early jet)
 
Yeah another one of the advantages of the flying wing design is the much lower drag and therefore fuel efficiency.
 

THAT.......is a cool link! Thanks for posting it.
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Are you kidding me Colin? The L-29 fin is almost as wide as it is high making it one of the lowest aspect ratio fin/rudder combinations you will ever see (after the F-104) and with only a modest sweep angle. It cannot be compared with the fin shape of the Ta 183, which is long, slender and very highly swept. A form not used by any successful aircraft ever.

However, under 20k for a jet? Mmmm, wonder what the wife would say
 
Last edited:
Soren said:
I doubt he could have cured it completely though.
Click to expand...

I was reading the RAE report on the Ho IX the other day after our discussion and in there it stated that 'by applying the tip brakes simultaneously the aircraft could be held steady for shooting' which seems to address the skidding problem.

I do not share your, and others, enthusiasm for this aircraft as a fighter though. With so many flying wings demonstrated successfully before and since, and with all Hortens research (plus the men themselves) available after the war, no successful flying wing fighter of this form was ever deployed. The closest being the F7U and F4D which were both quite different and not that successful themselves. I just don't see where the confidence that seems to exist in the Horten as a service fighter comes from?
 
Waynos said:
Are you kidding me Colin? The L-29 fin is almost as wide as it is high making it one of the lowest aspect ratio fin/rudder combinations you will ever see
Click to expand...
Are you counting the rudder as part of the fin? I didn't think the fin added any structural rigidity to the assembly, being a control surface
 
No, I thought it would just be clearer. I realise that was wrong because I added an irrelevant element (the rudder) to the discussion. The point still stands though for both types.
 
As a further query along similar lines. Is there any aerodynamic data for the Me 262 HG/III? with its root mounted engines and highly swept wing it was clearly an advance over the original, yet it looks all wrong?

Yet if I slightly modify the design and move the cockpit up to the nose it looks perfectly acceptable. This is no doubt due to the fact that we are conditioned by experience to see that as the 'normal' position for a fast jet, but do any aerodynamiscists/engineers out there have an opinion on whetherthis would have improved the aircraft in reality, ruined it, or made no difference at all?
 
The Ta-183 and the Vampire are not comparable as has been argued earlier. The Vampire was a generation 1 jet fighter and the Ta-183 was closer to a generation 2 aerodynamically with a generation 1 engine.

Without a doubt, the Ta-183 was an advanced aircraft and influenced future aircraft design. However, I think it would have required further development and test flights to be an effective fighter. To me, obvious modifications would include a redesign of the tail, which the Design III provided. I know of no successful fighter design that incorporated that type of tail design. It seems complex to build and has apparent structural weakness compared to a straight horizontal stabilizer design. I think it would have been late '46 or early'47 for Germany to field an adequately tested Ta-183 and it would have evolved into the Design III configuration (which to me appears to be a nice design that is reflected in later aircraft).

As for the Horton 229, my opinion hasn't changed- a very advanced design but with a lot of development required. Soren covered the plane quite well including the maneuverability. Lateral stability was close to zero and an engine stall or asymmetrical deformative weapons strike on the aircraft could easily cause the plane to "Frisbee" out of control (how about that for a new verb?) before the pilot could react. I think some vertical tail area would be needed. I would also add that the design has a very close pitch moment, and while it did not appear to be a problem in the B-35/49, may impact high speed maneuvering and stall characteristics and needed to be investigated an tested.

Here's an article on the Horton 229 that should excite that all of you. I think it is of great interest.

Northrop engineers research Nazi flying-wing aircraft for TV documentary - The Daily Breeze
 
davparlr said:
The Ta-183 and the Vampire are not comparable as has been argued earlier. The Vampire was a generation 1 jet fighter and the Ta-183 was closer to a generation 2 aerodynamically with a generation 1 engine
Click to expand...
Is that statement valid?
The Me262 and the P-51 were not comparable, the technological gulf between them was considerably greater than any perceived gulf between the two pollsters here but they ended up fighting each other.
 
Colin1 said:
Is that statement valid?
The Me262 and the P-51 were not comparable, the technological gulf between them was considerably greater than any perceived gulf between the two pollsters here but they ended up fighting each other.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't quite understand this. While the P-51 did meet the Me-262, the P-51, which was a superb propeller driven fighter, one of the best of the war, was a plane that it was made obsolete by the Me-262 and its ilk. Had the Ta-183 been developed properly and met the vampire in 1947, it would be similar to the combat of the F-80 against the Mig-15, in my opinion.
 
Good link Davparlr, very interesting.

I don't think there can be much doubt thast it was stealthy, a more interesting question that I have seen posed before would be 'was it deliberately so?'

I believe not, but its shape, coupled with its wooden skinning would certainly produce that effect, even though from straight ahead its engine intakes would have allowed the fans to act as huge reflectors. But this cannot be called a failing as I do not believe the Hortens, as I said before, were particularly looking for stealth, so much as they wanted to produce as practical working flying wing design that could be adapted for various roles.

Colin, assuming just for the sake of argument that a working Ta 183 could be deployed in time to face the Vampire in air combat, what is the point of the comparison? If the question is 'would the Ta 183 represent a more advanced design than the Vampire with a higher performance - then there is no debate to be had, the answer is undeniably yes. Isn't the point of a comparison to measure the strengths and weaknesses as we percieve them of programmes that were broadly concurrent? This is how I would view it, hence my raising of the DH 107 earlier, and may be what Davparlr means too?
 
Last edited:
Dave
the point I am making is that the Ta183 can hardly be penalised for being a technologically more advanced design if it and the Vampire came on-stream at the same time. Assuming WWII continued into 1946, the Ta183 would very likely have entered service by then against a Vampire that actually did enter service in that year, then they'd be facing each other.
 
No, I disagree Colin if I may interject. In a continued war the Vampire would have deployed operationally before the end of 1945, by September of which year both Hawker and DH would have been making rapid progress with their swept wing DH 107 and P.1047. The Hawker would not have flown until the end of 1946, early47 by my own estimation, even if pressed, but the DH 107 would be flying by mid 1946 and first deployed around early 1947, assuming the transition to this relatively modest adaptation of the Vampire went ahead ok. Flight trials of the Ta 183 would have probably begun before the end of 1945, then there would have been the redesign (which Tank did have to do in real life to the Pulqui II) resulting in a deployment again in early 47. All purely by my guesswork of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Thumpalumpacus
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
4K
bravenest0
  • Poll
Gloster Gladiotor vs PZL P24
Replies
0
Views
2K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
Hurricane Mk1 vs 109E-6
Replies
2
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register