Glider
Captain
Looking at the way British Politicians forced our aerospace industries to merge with a spectacular lack of success this has the ring of possibility.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No doubt. To say that either B-35 or B-49 were "unsuccessful" however were stretching it and perhaps Dr. Horten was a little envious that Northrop did indeed produce several large flying wing bombers that had intercontinental range.Yeah I believe Northrop could've made it work as-well, the needed information was there. They could however still have benefitted a lot from including Horten in the project, esp. in cutting down on research time seeing that Horten already possessed all the knowledge needed.
Again no doubt.I don't think he was envious, I think he might have been abit disappointed that he wasn't included in the project maybe. Flying wings was his passion after all, and the Northrop project was a big one
Wayne...the Ta 183, a bit of a dud without a redesign which would have cured it ...
. Nothing in this thread has given me cause to revise my opinion that the Ta 183 would have suffered a severe flutter problem as built, until the modified tail was applied later on.
What has reinforced this view, from my position, are the facts that Tank, in Design III, was intending to try out a different tail design of a type we now know with experience would work, coupled with the Argentine glider that featured the Ta 183 tail as pictured earlier in the thread but was later redesigned, both versions are contained in the same image which was taken from a webage covering the history of the IAe 33. That's good enough for me.
Pulqui II
Remember this - the MiG-15 "fluttered" (among other things) when it reached critical mach. It was also not the most pleasant aircraft to land. That did not ruin its career. The Ta 183 was being developed to counter the Meteor in which the Mk I was exactly a speed demon. It was also being considered to carry the X-4 air to air missile. All the Ta 183 had to do is stay out of its critical mach number (which in a rough guesstimate had to be at least 100 mph faster than the Meteor if not more) and at least on paper would have been more than a match for the Meteor Mk I.
On the other end of the spectrum - as this flutter problem either been rectified or not materialized, you would an aircraft with MiG-15 performance in 1945/ 46.
Perhaps - it also would have been interesting to see how the aircraft would have faired with fences or LE slats.I have considered it flyboyj. Indeed it has been a central part of all my posts on the subject. That flutter affected aircraft in the same performance bracket with empennages of more than twice the chord (and presumably much higher stiffness as a consequence) is my entire argument. The broad still fins that T tail aircraft have always needed is directly because of this problem and allowed them to get away with relatively modest improvements like acorns and fairings. It is my gut feeling that the Ta 183 tail was too slender to allow such an easy get out. Hence design III, or is everyone ignoring that?
Are you talking the dihedreal, sweep or both?Can anyone find just ONE aircraft in the entire world that flew with the same shape tail? I can't. I thought if there is one it might be Russian, did a trawl. Nopem, nothing. over to you.
Perhaps - it also would have been interesting to see how the aircraft would have faired with fences or LE slats.
Are you talking the dihedreal, sweep or both?
I still have an open mind until I could see wind tunnel data, but agree, the fences would have sprouted.You say perhaps, I say probably, such is life. I tend to agree with the view that it would have quickly sprouted fences, I have always felt that the rest of the design was perfectly sound.
Again in stead of judging appearances, I'd like to validate the function. More than likely you're correct but I go back to my original statement that we can't always judge a book by its cover.if the sweep and/or dihedral can be found then fine, but its the narrow chord high aspect ratio that concerns me more on a T tail design like that.
Through wind tunnel testing or by "math." The best way however would be to build a full size aircraft and evaluate its performance.Sorry, I don't understand what the first half of your last sentence means, how would you validate the function?
Not all the time. I have some people make comments about the MiG-19 for example stating that the wing "looks" weak as it's too far swept back when in reality the aircraft is designed quite well and also exhibited great performance in its generation.No, you can't judge a book by its cover, but if you read lots of others books either on the same subject or by the same author you can get a feel for what you are going to get.
The Ta 183 was being developed to counter the Meteor in which the Mk I was exactly a speed demon. It was also being considered to carry the X-4 air to air missile. All the Ta 183 had to do is stay out of its critical mach number (which in a rough guesstimate had to be at least 100 mph faster than the Meteor if not more) and at least on paper would have been more than a match for the Meteor Mk I.
Assuming you mean the Meteor I was not a speed demon, what evidence is there that the Ta 183 was designed to counter it? Very few mark Is were built and they were used by only 616 Squadron. The mark III replaced the mark Is in 616 and they also equipped other units.
No doubt. To say that either B-35 or B-49 were "unsuccessful" however were stretching it and perhaps Dr. Horten was a little envious that Northrop did indeed produce several large flying wing bombers that had intercontinental range.