drgondog
Major
True, but 'high' is relative.. out of the wake turbulence of the wing body is appropriate in more cases than a T tail
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
KK,
The Me-262's horizontal stabilizer isn't emersed in turbulent flow, that's the reason it is placed so high, to keep that from happening. The thing that is causing the elevator trim tabs not to work is the shockwave forming near the rear of the horizontal stabilizer, causing turbulent flow over the control surfaces, the elevator trim tabs, rendering them ineffective. That is why the all moving tail plane works and the elevator trim tabs don't.
Wrong on "the shockwave at the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizer"
A shockwave at the trailing edge only occurs when the ac is 100% supersonic in which case there would also be a shockwave at the leading edge.
In that case there is a corresponding shock wave at the leading edge of the nose, wing and tail, as well as a shock wave at the trailing edge of the wing and tail. In front of the leading shock wave(s) is subsonic flow, in between the leading and trailing shock waves is supersonic flow, aft of the shock wave is subsonic flow. The angle of the shock wave is proportional to the Mach.
You are a self proclaimed expert at ballistics are you not? The physics works perfectly for bullets travelling faster than sound.
The Me-262's stick never froze or became stiff, the control forces remained light throughout the speed range.
Lindner and others are very explicit regarding the enormous stick forces required (50kg at .86) as the 262 progressed from .82 Mach. He specifically notes his struggle with both hands on stick trying to prevent the nose down tuck until he was able to free one hand to retard the throttles - and survive.
So, it raises the question what do you consider 'light stick forces'??
True, again the reason for mounting the tail plane high. The reason for the all moving tail plane being used as the main control surface for pitch was to improve maneuverability in transonic supersonic flight.
Only ? Adler the gun cover panel on the Me-262 was large and if torn away would create a very large gap in the nose and as-well as a large blunt area directly facing the airstream.
Perhaps not, but it depends alot on its position compared to the incoming airstream.
Absolutely, but like I said much depends on its position in regards to how dangerous it is to loose it midflight.
Lets say the left gun cover comes off at Mach 0.86, that'd be pretty serious Bill. If wind is allowed inside a gap it will eventually, with increases in speed, increase the gap and lift the entire panel off.
Wrong on "the shockwave at the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizer"
A shockwave at the trailing edge only occurs when the ac is 100% supersonic in which case there would also be a shockwave at the leading edge.
Soren, more than likely it would not tear the aircraft apart. The pilot would have to lower the airspeed but he could fly the plane home and land. But what do I know? I am only trained and qualified to work on structures...
All you are doing speculating and making up your own facts and truth.
That is okay though, the forum is used to it after all these years.
BTW - with reference to yaw issues. I found references by LW test pilot Fey, RAF pilot Morrison, and USAAF Test report that the CONSISTENT yaw issue occurred at aft Cg - dominantly with a full aft fuel tank.. in other words Every 262 with that condition at speeds staring at 350mph + and particularly noticable at 400. All on the Xeno website you posted earlier.
Lindner and others are very explicit regarding the enormous stick forces required (50kg at .86) as the 262 progressed from .82 Mach. He specifically notes his struggle with both hands on stick trying to prevent the nose down tuck until he was able to free one hand to retard the throttles - and survive.
You are a self proclaimed expert at ballistics are you not?
The physics works perfectly for bullets travelling faster than sound.
Then how was elevator control lost at .84+ mach Soren?
Test me Bill, I think I know pretty much all their is to know about the subject.
Then why did you miss that little point about supersonic shock waves?
Pretty true, although there are variances.
Then why did you miss that little point about supersonic shock waves?
Your example might be? It is exactly true - not pretty true.
Mach 0.86, because of turbulent airflow over the control surfaces of the tailplane cause by the shockwave forming at the LE, like I said very early on in this discussion to Bill:
"I don't believe the entire 'horizontal stabilizer' was immersed in turbulent flow Bill, the elevators might have been because of the shockwave produced at the LE of the stabilizer, but not the entire stabilizer. So like Muthke one could trim the a/c out of the dive by utilizing the fully movable horizontal stabilizer, which is what he did."
LOL - go back to my earlier reply to your 'trailing edge shock wave boo boo' reply where you can't doctor your quote - you said TRAILING EDGE Soren.
I didn't, read my post. Infact read my last post.
The last post cleverly corrected the original post 198 - see below
Normal spitzer at 2,200 fps, large shockwave at the tip AND near the back.
Same with a/c, shockwaves form both at the LE AND the TE in supersonic flight.
LOL-You have a charming capability of parroting the comment blowing away your thesis - and claiming it as your own
.