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


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

Thought not...

JL
 
Hogwash.

Sorry Lingo, I worked on the program, ship 2 through 7 and I could tell you the B-2 does quite well in the range department. I bet this distinguished physicist knows little if nothing about airplanes.
 
Last edited:

And it doesn't resemble the MiG-15 either.



 
The resemblance is a superficial one. The MiG fuselage and conventional flight controls resemble any number of early swept-and unswept wing fighter designs.

Replace the swept flying surfaces with unswept ones and it is essentially the same as Whittle's Gloster(?) and the He 178. Swept wing design was ubiquitous to all the major German a/c manufacturers late-war designs. The fact that the MiG's vertical tail surfaces are highly swept is what gives it an illusory resemblance to the Ta 183.

Give the Me P.1101 a tailpipe and a larger tail, and you've got something much more like the Mig than the Ta 183 is.

JL
 
Butters said:
The resemblance is a superficial one. The MiG fuselage and conventional flight controls resemble any number of early swept-and unswept wing fighter designs.
Click to expand...
Superficial? Look at the MiG-9 and the early Yak jet fighters - they were nothing like the MiG-15 and especially in the tailplane. No other fighters carried a vertical stabilizer sweep of at least 30 degrees and the classic t tail configuration. I'm sorry but someone at MiG got at least some inspiration from the Ta 183.
And coming in the post war gives some credence of my last comment
Butters said:
Give the Me P.1101 a tailpipe and a larger tail, and you've got something much more like the Mig than the Ta 183 is.

JL
Click to expand...

And the T tail?
 

Mmmm, that would explain why I felt so much lighter and my belt buckle would stick to the car when I left work! Just kidding. The B-2 got its great range and payload from excellent aerodynamics and efficient engines.
 

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 ???
 
Jack Northrop was interested in the Horton brother's gliders and wing designs in the 30's, but was designing (and flying) his own wings by '39-'40...

If anything, the B-2 borrowed from Northrop's B-35 and B-49 design research. If you compare the Ho229's design and features to any of Jack's designs, you'll see that about the only thing they have in common, is thier overall shape.
 
I dont believe any of us know the B-2 well enough to conclude wether or not features from the Go-229 were added into the design.
 
Soren said:
I dont believe any of us know the B-2 well enough to conclude wether or not features from the Go-229 were added into the design.
Click to expand...
I'll step up and say I do. I've worked with and met some of the people who designed the aircraft and I could tell you while there was "inspirational" considerations, the B-2 design was based on research and other test vehicles developed by Northrop in the 70s. IMO it was in the back of their minds knowing that the ultimate goal, an intercontinental stealth bomber was probably best configured with a flying wing and I'm sure they had not only the Horten Brothers on their minds, but also earlier Northrop products. Soren, I'll state here that when the B-2 started, it was on a "clean piece of paper."

BTW - the Lockheed/ Rockwell team that lost the ATB competition allegedly was also a flying wing, but it had a V tail.

 
Last edited:

I do not know if it was Walter or Reimer. I assumed it was Walter since Reimer went to Argentina. But I did read somewhere where Northrop tried very hard to hire one of them but was fustrated by red tape. I think Northrop was very aware of the Horten's work and was impressed.


I disagree. The aerodynamics, certainly pitch and roll effects, of these configurations is the same as a flying wing only Northrop was wise enough to install a vertical stabilizer. I think they contributed significant data on high speed flying wing operations.


I did not include the the Ho II and the Ho III since they were basically powered gliders, thus very slow, and probably did not add any powered flight knowledge above that of a glider.

I did not include the Vc because it is basically a rebuilt Vb. But it is a worthy comment.

Very few VII were built, one source said only one, which did not fly very much before the end of the war and probably did not add much to Horten's flying wing knowledge.

I stand by my post.
 

You are correct! Thanks for posting the Tacit Blue, the ugliest aircraft I ever worked on. I was responsible for the controls and displays, mostly F-5 stuff, airdata computer, and fuel management computer. It still reminds me of the Seaview!

For Soren sake, I was on the B-2 initial design/proposal team representing avionics. I joined about 6 months after it started (I transfered over from Tacit Blue). I was responsible for the initial design of the controls and displays, the CNI (com, nav, ident), and flight management (computers). After go-ahead, I was the design manager for Controls and Displays, which was about 95% of the pilot interface. Since we had a fully integrated C&D with color multpurpose display units, where I had the responsibity for all logic and symbology, I had intimate knowledge of fuel, hydraulic, electrical, weapons (including special weapons), radar, tactical situations, flight control operations, etc. Everything I, and you, said was correct. I did not know anything classified about the stealth characteristic nor did I know anything about the design specifics of the aerodynamics but I have no doubt what you said and I said is correct. Who did you know from the program?
 

Were you in the design team FLYBOYJ ?

davparlr said:
Your joking right?
Click to expand...

I most certainly am not.

Various control systems, hook ups and aerodynamic features might very well have been partly copied or considered from the Ho-229. 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.
 
Last edited:
I do believe that there was a reason for why Northrop sent some peeps out to look at the Ho-229 in early 1980. Not necessarily to copy anything from the Ho-229, but to learn about the effectiveness of the some its features and how to improve them even further. We have afterall come a long way since the 1940's. Maybe there were some aerodynamic design elements which could be added to stabilize the a/c more without adding any extra radar signature. Maybe there was some interesting internal stuff to look at ? Who knows...

There's however no doubt in my mind that they went there to study learn, and I'm sure they did the same on the B-35 49.
 
Not wanting this thread to stray any further than it already has, but Soren, were you on the B-2 design team?

In other words, the complexity of the B-2 Spirit dictates that the design and interior components would have to be far more advanced than anything the Horton brothers ever dreamed of when the Ho229 was in it's design construction phase. Just the speeds of the B-2 alone require different formulas for the wing to allow stable flight. In addition, the Flying wing bombers that Jack successfully built and flew were far larger and complex than the '229 and required a different set of logistics to get them airborn reliably.

I understand the fancy of equating the Ho229 to the success of the B-2, but in reality there's very little connection to the two save for the basic shape and principles of each by virtue of the above mentioned reasons.

I think that each one of us here at the forums have unique perspectives and experiences to contribute to the discussion of the various aircraft, but unless Jack and his staff were here, or even the brothers and/or Lippisch, then we have to rely on the information and statistics that we have available, and come to a logical conclusion based on that.
 
Soren said:
Were you in the design team FLYBOYJ ?



I most certainly am not.

Various control systems, hook ups and aerodynamics features might very well have been partly copied or considered.
Click to expand...

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