Ta183 vs Vampire

[Waynos]

Through wind tunnel testing or by "math." The best way however would be to build a full size aircraft and evaluate its performance..

Which aint happening, so were stuck with arguments like these

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.

But there again, the MiG 19 does not have a totally unique wing planform. Similar ones were used by other manufacturuers as well as MiG themsleves on various aircraft and the MiG 19 wing was perpetuated in China on the A-5 modelled upon it because it was proven and worked. It is the complete lack of any other use of the Design II tail anywhere that leads me to believe what I do. If something is good, it gets used.

Now, doing your job for you a bit here, I am also well aware that the wing design and tail arrangement of the EE Lightning, which was painstakingly researched and gave better manouverabilty than any other wing of the time was not copied by anyone else, which has always been a mystery, so I do recognize its not an absolute.


Delycross/Soren; thats why I mentioned the P.1101 earlier in the thread. I always thought the fixation with the Ta 183 as the 'just-around-the-corner superplane' was a bit of a red herring. P1101 all the way for me.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

But there again, the MiG 19 does not have a totally unique wing planform. Similar ones were used by other manufacturuers as well as MiG themsleves on various aircraft and the MiG 19 wing was perpetuated in China on the A-5 modelled upon it because it was proven and worked. It is the complete lack of any other use of the Design II tail anywhere that leads me to believe what I do. If something is good, it gets used.

Just because a configuration is used once and never seen again doesn't mean it won't look. Look at canard aircraft. They went away for a number of years and become popular again because of the Rutans.

I think you're making a determination by the way something "looks" rather than gathering or computing performance data.

 

[Juha]

Hello
I voted for Vampire. At least it was workable solution, not spectacular but it worked. The Ta 183 design as it was in May 45 would IMHO more likely to kill its pilot than an enemy a/c. My reasons are those I wrote in message #38.

Juha

 

[FLYBOYJ]

At least it was workable solution, not spectacular but it worked. The Ta 183 design as it was in May 45 would IMHO more likely to kill its pilot than an enemy a/c. My reasons are those I wrote in message #38.

For practical purposes I'd agree, the Vampire was simple and straight forward. The Ta 183 was a glimpse of what was just around the corner.

 

[Waynos]

FlyboyJ

Are you having an identity crisis? Juha seems to be of the same opinion as me, yet you agree with him but take me to task.
in post 38 Juha wrote;

I also have some doubt on the tail shape, if made structurally enough strong it would be heavy.
T-tail had its own problems at high AoA

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FlyboyJ

Are you having an identity crisis? Juha seems to be of the same opinion as me, yet you agree with him but take me to task.
in post 38 Juha wrote;

Wayne, we were having a good discussion here and no one is taking you to task, and please keep the rhetoric down. You keep bringing up the "looks" of the Ta 183 and with an assumption that it doesn't look right it might not fly right. I'm saying show me the "math." You may be right but in the end the basic configuration (Swept back wing and T tail) of the aircraft was used in several high performing aircraft a few years later.

BTW - I disagree with his statement -

if made structurally enough strong it would be heavy.

As far as the Vampire - it was simplistic and straight forward when compared to the Ta 183 but was 5 years behind the Ta 183 aerodynamically. As pointed out earlier, had this aircraft been built and the issues discussed remedied, it possibly "could have" flown rings around the Vampire, but in the end history dictated otherwise.

 

[Soren]

Delcyros hit the nail on the head with post #139.

 

[davparlr]

First of all, Horten was on something. In fact he developed the aerodynamic rules of the bell shaped lift distribution to give his designs (following the Ho-III) the margin of stability typically missing on flying wings. Horten designed and build many planes in the post war period for sport aeronautics using his design principles. This is not without tradeoffs in drag but more importantly, he was ignored by Northrop, Handley Page and others for his findings in the 50´s, 60´s and 70´s. This is confirmed by dozens of unanswered letters surviving in the archives, where Dr. R. Horten points to his theories adressed primarely to Northrop.

He was not ignored by Northrop. After the war Walter Horten was actively pursued by Northrop to come and work for him. However, Northrop did not have the political clout (like Horten mentioned in his note) to get him to America. I think this was a tragedy as Northrop and Horten were unquestionably the leaders in the flying wing field. While I do not believe Horton had a lot to add to the work of Northrop, there is no doubt he could have made significant contributions and reduced development effort. I do not think he could have saved the B-49 from the politics of the day. Also, I think that, working with Northrop, he would have gotten recognition that he justly deseved.

It took until the late 70´s that his findings were confirmed by intensive aerodynamic research and his rules are today applied to flying wings of RC-scale, ultra-light design, gliders and single engine powered flying wings, which do not make use of fly by wire technology.

I believe analysis indicate that, while the Horten design of gliders are good, it has drawbacks in the area of drag.

and thus is the rightly preferred solution for large flying wings today.

No, stability is handled by electronics so airfoils are design for optimum performance, not stability. I believe the B-2 has elliptical lift distribution.

Had Northrop, Handley Page, A&W all applied his rules on their fyling wing design -how can You say that these design would have operationally failed based on other criteria than lack of stability (which is properly adressed with bell shaped lift distribution)?

The B-49 did have yaw instability but a Honeywell Electronic Yaw Stabilization System corrected the problem and the B-49 was a "very stable platform", according to "Northrop, an Aeronautical History".

By the end of the war, John Northrop had considerable more experience in powered flying wing designs than the Horten brothers. Here is a list of powered flying wing aircraft flown by May, 1945.

N1M-July, 1940 – low performance twin engine test vehicle
N9M-Dec, 1942 – low performance Twin engine test vehicle for the B-35-still flying
XP-56-Sep, 1943 – High performance Single engine fighter aircraft
MX-324-July, 1944 – High performance, rocket power aircraft, a U.S. first
JB-10-1945 – V1 type cruise missile. While it had a few successful flights, it had unknown development problems.

In addition, the XP-79B flew in Sep, 1945. It could have easily flown in early '45 had it been originally been designed with turbojets instead of a failed rocket engine. This plane was similar to the Ho-229 in that it was a twin turbojet, flying wing fighter. It was smaller, thus less versatile, and not as clean or advanced as the Ho-229, but, due vertical stabilizers, most likely represents a more reasonable configuration. Interestingly, the XP-79B also crashed on its initial test flight when the pilot tried to slow roll the aircraft, something very stupid. Cause of the accident is unknown.

The Horten brothers only had the Ho V-B, low performance twin engine test vehicle, the Ho VII, which appears to have had limited testing, and the Ho IX V2, a high performance twin jet test vehicle (two hours of flight).

Evidence for ignoration of these theories may be found in several cases. All Northtrop design miss the bell shaped lift distribution developed by Horten. Further, I quote from Dr. Horten himselfe, published in Horten / Selinger, Nurflügel. Die Geschichte der Horten Flugzeuge 1933 - 1960 (Graz 1993), p.224:

Certainly not a non-bias account. It would be interesting to have heard Northrop's comments on this.

"Nearly all the new aircraft projects in Germany at the end of the war were tailless designs.

I'm not sure this is true.

I tried to offer my services to the Fairy Aircraft Company in 1947 for work on the supersonic delta aircraft, but while the management was positive in all respects, the general hate-attitude of the people against Germans driven by public press made working there impossible.

Apparently this was somewhat true in America, as I stated before.

Northrop published details of a new aircraft similar to the H V at that time. The machine had negative dihedral wing tips in an apparent (but useless) attempt to combat the skid-roll moment.

According to "Northrop an Aeronautical History", the dihedral worked. The N9M however, had no dihedral and was very stable when flow (video in this site testifies as such).

I tried to contact M. Northrop and offer my assistence, but without success. Later, Northtop factory wasted a large amount of money on several unsuccessful heavy bombers, similar to the H VIII or H XVIII. They could certainly have benefitted from my knowledge of high aspect ratio flying wings! "

Even if Northrop had been able to get Horten to work in the U.S., I don't think he could have saved the B-49 from political extinction. However, if he and Northrop had conspired to build an upgraded Ho-229 with more modern engines and maybe vertical stabilizers, there may have been a serious competition to the Mig-15 and F-86 in the early 50's.

Good post delcyros, I agree completely.

It has actually also been mentioned several times that the technology was forgotten until the development of the B-2 started where staff from Northrop went to the hangar to painstakingly research the Ho-229's airframe in detail. Now why would they have done that if it wasn't for the fact that there was a lot to learn from it??

I suspect this was just a boondoggle for Northrop. Aerodynamic analysis, computer control, and manufacturing technology were many generations past the Ho-229. I don't think there was anything to learn. I only think the center section was available.

I have issues with that statement.

The B-35 had some propeller governor issues that were eventually addressed, but the war was well over by then. There was always reports of the later B-49 stability problems that eventually lead to an award to Convair for the B-36. Jack Northrop stated on his deathbed that he had conflicts with the DoD and even Truman himself and that is what ended the Northrop flying wings. The B-35 and B-49 did have some issues that could have been addressed especially if the war progressed. IMO neither aircraft could be considered "unsuccessful." Here's a good paper on this.

I don't think the B-35/49 would be any more difficult than the B-29 to make into a great bomber. Only the effort was different.

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.

Probably not all the knowledge since he was not as far along as Northrop in the building of large flying wing aircraft. Flight trials have always enlightened designers.

I watched a special on the Northrop Co and it did state that it was politics that killed the B-35/49 projects. It did end on a very cool note. Before he passed away, he was shown him a model/mockup of the B-2.

I was at the Northrop facility when he came. I saw him but I could not attend the briefing. I was not cleared for the B-2 at that time. Also, as I was probably not important enough.

 

[davparlr]

Delycross/Soren; thats why I mentioned the P.1101 earlier in the thread. I always thought the fixation with the Ta 183 as the 'just-around-the-corner superplane' was a bit of a red herring. P1101 all the way for me.

As I have said on other post, I believe that a fixed wing P.1101 would have been the first swept wing fighter to enter the war if it had continued. It would have sent the Allied designers back to the drawing board, again. In my opinion, the Ta-183 and the Ho-229 were both pie-in-the-sky designs, that, while possible successes, would require quite a bit more development work. It appears to me the P.1101 did not require much more work to be an effective fighter.

 

[Colin1]

In my opinion, the Ta-183 and the Ho-229 were both pie-in-the-sky designs, that, while possible successes, would require quite a bit more development work

Sorry
but by that stage of the war, I simply do not believe that the Germans could afford the luxury of 'pie in the sky' designs.

 

[Graeme]

Just wishing to seek clarification in the Ta 183 project maze. The designations differ in books that I have and these silhouettes come from a German book whose text I can't read.

A is called the Ta 183 (Fw P. VII) which is one of eight designs in the original Ta 183 series? I believe a mock up was produced but then the team switched to the Huckebein duo which when the final selection was made was also called the Ta 183? I thought B was the Ta 183 II that everyone is mentioning but the caption reads Ta 183 (Fw P. VI) so that makes it the number six design of the original eight. How did it differ to the final Ta 183 II?
C is called the Ta 183 (Endlosung) which is the Ta 183 III?

According to David Masters (German Jet Genesis) Tank's team wanted to produce C because it was "designed with ease of construction in mind" but the RLM wanted B. Anyone know why?..and does anyone know what dimension D might have been? Damn that's long!

They succeeded in this, the soviet Ta-183 even got a NATO-code.

What was the NATO codename?

 

[delcyros]

Hi Daveparl,
You point to several cases, which I would like to respond to.
If Northrop tried to get Walter Horten, then he tried to get the wrong part of the brothers. Walter was an organizer but not with the aerodynamic and scientific background. That was Reimer, whom I quoted above.
ut I think You don´t recognize the effort undertaken by Horten with regard to stability effects of large aspect flying wings with bell shaped lift distribution. That´s somehting, Jack never tried on his designs. I really am convinced that this would be an aspect, where Northrop´s flying wing designs could benefit.

Your memeory is all correct, aerodynamic investigation prooved that bell shaped lift distributions do add static and dynamic stability AND significantly more drag than elliptical distribution schemes. That´s why we don´t see much bell shaped schemes on large flying wing designs today. Electronics do controll stability on elliptical -low drag- schemes (B-2). Without them, These designs would be inherently instable as they are on the low side of stability margins.

I do not possess any expertise on the B-49 stability issues and the electronic yaw stabilization system mentioned by You might have helped or cured the problem. Aerodynamically, stability by then could have been achieved with Hortens schemes -at the expense of more drag (still less than a normal layout A/C).

By the end of the war, John Northrop had considerable more experience in powered flying wing designs than the Horten brothers. Here is a list of powered flying wing aircraft flown by May, 1945.

N1M-July, 1940 – low performance twin engine test vehicle
N9M-Dec, 1942 – low performance Twin engine test vehicle for the B-35-still flying
XP-56-Sep, 1943 – High performance Single engine fighter aircraft
MX-324-July, 1944 – High performance, rocket power aircraft, a U.S. first
JB-10-1945 – V1 type cruise missile. While it had a few successful flights, it had unknown development problems

Historical evidence is actually not confirming Your statement here. First of all, the XP-56 and the MX-324 are not flying wings, but tailless aircraft.
That are at best five powered, flying wings or tailless and powered aircraft in the air until may 45.

The powered flying wing list for the Horten brother, however includes twice that many planes, not counting the gliders, all of them were true flying wings:

I) Ho-IId -1938 -Walter Micron powered flying wing.
0) Ho-Va- failed testplane 1937
II) Ho-Vb- twin engined flying wing 1940
II) Ho-IIId - single engined flying wing, called "Butterfliege" 1943
IV) Ho-IIIe -single engined flying wing, VW-engine driven, 1944 -pre production model of a small series from V&VI) 50 Ho-IIIe to be manufactured by Klemm in 1945. Two of them were delivered until may 45.
VII) Ho-Vc -completely rebuild Ho-Vb to a different design, 1942
VIII) Ho-VII V1: twin engined two seater trainer, 1944. 20 planes were to be manufactured by Peschke company at Minden. The V-2 and V-3 were finished by may 1945 but not flown.
IX) Ho-IXV2: twin engined jet fighter, 1945. 20 preproduction models were at different stages of construction by Gotha company with the Go-229V3 beeing almost complete (this one survived in Silver Hill).
X) Ho-XII: single engined two seater. Flown in 1945.

Judging from this list, it appears to me unreasonable to claim that Jack Northrop had more experience bringing powered flying wings into the air than the Horten brothers. Both were pioneers, indeed but Northrop only catched up after may 1945.

Anyway best regards and thanks for the post,
Delc

 

[Civettone]

Seems to me that the Ta 183 would have suffered from the same problems as the Pulqui II... so as such I'll go with the Vampire.

Also note that the preceding design of the Ta 183 was the P VI Flitzer project which looks entirely like a Vampire!

Kris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

According to David Masters (German Jet Genesis) Tank's team wanted to produce C because it was "designed with ease of construction in mind" but the RLM wanted B. Anyone know why?

I think you're looking at the classic conflict between aerodynamicists vs structural engineers. The RLM was probably sold with the potential of the design rather than its producibility.

 

[delcyros]

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.

 

[Soren]

davparlr,

The whole Ho-229V3 a/c is available, wings, body, engines and all, and Northrop studied it all because they knew there was a lot to be learned. Horten was ahead in flying wing design all the way up until the 80's.

 

[davparlr]

davparlr,

The whole Ho-229V3 a/c is available, wings, body, engines and all, and Northrop studied it all because they knew there was a lot to be learned. Horten was ahead in flying wing design all the way up until the 80's.

It doesn't matter. I would bet that there is almost zero Ho-229 data that went into the B-2. It certainly wasn't any input into the wing or control surface design. The B-2 wing and control surfaces did not look at all like the Ho-229. It was designed for stealth and performance, not stability. The higher drag bell shaped lift distribution was not needed or desired here. Stability was handled by quad-redundant computers. It wasn't aerodynamics; thousands of man-hours were put in curvature design to ensure that the radar reflecting nature, fit, and aerodynamic performance were optimized, and, computer driven manufacturing techniques were required. Nothing there was useful from the Ho-229. It wasn't the inlet and exhaust design. Highly complex and advanced analysis was required for aero-performance and signature suppression. How about structure and manufacturing? No, the B-2 is primarily composite structure, which has zero commonality with the welded steel and wood construction of the Ho-229. Avionics/electrical, no way. Hydraulics, no way. Fuel systems, nope. How about the flight control system? No way. The B-2 has electrical activated hydraulic flight control system driven by computers. Cockpit, nope B-2 had a two man cockpit with ejection seats and special windshield. Weapons systems, mmm, no machine guns on the B-2. I cannot think of a single subsystem that benefited from any examination of the Ho-229. Wait, maybe the cooling of the wing section aft exhaust exits contributed. Probably not.

If anything was used it was the B-49. But again, I doubt if anything was actually used because of the above items applied here, too. It is interesting that the B-2 has the exact wingspan of the B-49.

Saying that the B-2 engineers benefited from examining the data from the Ho-229 is equivalent to Airbus 380 engineer getting useful data from examining a DC-3. No, I am sure the group did not expect to learn anything and went just to see an historic aircraft, on government funds.

What do you think they learned and used?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Saying that the B-2 engineers benefited from examining the data from the Ho-229 is equivalent to Airbus 380 engineer getting useful data from examining a DC-3.

That sums it up!!!

 

[lingo]

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.

 

[Butters]

There is little or no empirical evidence to suggest that the Ta 183 II would have been a capable combat a/c. Nor am I at all convinced that it had much, if any, impact on post-war jet fighter design. It never flew, nothing fundamentally similar to it ever reached operational status, and its only unique design features were the far-forward placement of elevon-fitted swept wings, and the unusual empennage design. Which were never emulated on any operational a/c, to my knowledge...

It may have the edge over the Vampire on paper, but paper dogfights won't give you command of the sky.

JL