Luftwaffe Secret Projects 1939-1945

[FLYBOYJ]

Sure, the Ta-183 may of had dimensional and minor lay-out differences over the Mig-15, but their is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Mikoyan and Mr. Gurevich looked at the Ta-183 platform, inspired by that configuration and began their design around the RR Nene.

[delcyros]

I have to agree that Mikoyan looked into some captured papers (as did the other allies). But under no circumstances the fuselage or the wing of the Project C (in our letters "S"), which led to the Mig-15 derivates directly from the Ta-183. There are much more differences than similarities and this is what makes me think, the MiG-15 is a genuine soviet design.You cannot simply declare the differences with stretching the fuselage, this is a mistake (spars and ribs are positioned on completely other points, the systems are completely differently positioned, the size and shape are two worlds).
By the way, Plan_D, i am far away from beeing communist. I was born in the eatern part of Germany, so I know, what I am speaking of in the politics. If you would have the experiances I do have with a communistic gouvernment (politization, is off-topic), than you would understand me here.
The P-86 wing originally was based on the Mustang, right. But the leading edge slats are not taken from the P-51 or aren´t they?
The soviets copied german planes and modified some of them (the I-270 is actually an elenghtened Me-263, the Su-9 a much modified Me-262, the DFS-346 and Ju-287 are one to one german planes in the SU), true. But to say that they depended completely on german jet tech is disrespectful at least. They had their own jet projects, also. The TR-1 jet engine is a genuine soviet design and not influenced by a german nor by a british design. The La-15 airframe is more close to the Ta-183 than the Mig-15 (tail design for example).

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by delcyros

Yes, but the thrust to weight factor is important for fighter planes.

Good point I did not think about that.

Originally Posted by Plan_D

And the P-86s wing was actually based off the P-51 Mustang's wing and then altered to swept when studying the swept wing designs from Germany.

Yes and look at the wings of the Messerschmitt P.1011 and compare it.

[plan_D]

The F-86 was swept like German designs. I don't think anyone can deny both the Soviets and Western Allies gained a lot of influence from German designs and designers.

To lengthen an airframe you don't just stretch it, of course the struts would have to be in a different place. Not only to hold the lengthened structure but to hold the new British engine. Anyway, I think the MiG-9 is more based off the Ta-183 than the MiG-15, the MiG-15 was development.

[dinos7]

do you think the soviets got that mig-15 desing from that jet fighter.

[plan_D]

They certainly were influenced by the German projects of the war years, as all nations of the world were. As you can see there is debate on the MiG-15 arriving from the Ta-183. I certainly believe the MiG-9 was derived from the Ta-183, with the MiG-15 just being developed from the MiG-9.

And del will say "...but the tail is completely different..."

[CharlesBronson]

And this....

[delcyros]

We are positive about the german influence in the aerodynamic department in postwar times, Plan_D.
Why you think the Mig-9 has anything to do with the Ta-183, I will never un derstand ...
The Pulqui-II is influenced more by the Ta-183 than the Mig-15. Actually the Pulqui-II turns out to be nothing special (unlike the Mig-15).
What is your point in the Mig-9? Almost ALL details in layout and configuration differ from the Ta-183, except maybe that the Mig-9 is a single seat fighter, also.
To be more concrete:
fuselage:
The Ta-183 has a barrel shaped fuselage with a single He-S011 (or Jum-004) engine mounted in the REAR, not uncommon to the fuselage of the Saab J-9 Tunnan or Pulqui-II. The Mig-9 has a box-shaped fueslage with two RD-9 or TR-1 engines mounted in the CENTER of the fuselage with the short engine exhaust directly behind and a longer beam with a (you are right) completely different tail design based on the I-220 with a higher set elevator. The Ta-183 fuselage contains the main wheel, the Mig-9 not. The armement is mounted in the splitted engine intake (which caused some flameouts until the introduction of the Mig-9 FR), while the Ta-183 has its wepons on the sides.
Wing: Virtually nothing common to the Ta-183, the later one has a 40-45 degrees swept back wing, while the Mig-9 has no sweep, The Mig wing has 3,5 degrees anhedral and contains the main wheel and some fuel tanks, while the Ta-183 wing has 0 anhedral and contains nothing. Aspect ratio is also different. A very general similarity is the mid wing configuration.I do not denie that the SU was influenced very much from german research in the post war period, but the degree of this influence in real designs might be a little overstressed, I should remind that the Su-9 fishpot wasn´t accepted for serial production because it looked quite similar to the Me-262. This was a reason to exclude this plane, which was- after all I know - the ultimate SU first generation fighter plane, beating all other contenders in performance, maneuverability, ease of maintenance, and low speed behavior.
In many ways the SU designers were keener in airframe designs (where they feel free to take notice from foreign designs) than in jet designs (the RD-9 and RD-20 as well as RD-45 and RD-500 have been direct copys of german and british jet engines)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to agree with Plan_D on this. The Mig-9 even looks more closely related to the Ta-183.

As for lengthening the aircraft you are correct, there has to be structural strengthening applied to it and things have to be rearanged as to affect the CG of the aircraft.

The Pulqui II was a direct evolution of the Ta-183. Didn't Tank himself go to Argentina and work on the design?

[cheddar cheese]

I agree with D here too.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Are you sure?

[cheddar cheese]

Yep. The MiG-9 really does look a lot like the Ta-183.

[CharlesBronson]

Der Adler wrote:

The Pulqui II was a direct evolution of the Ta-183. Didn't Tank himself go to Argentina and work on the design

Indeed, Towards 1947 ends, and after reuniting the ideas of the FMA designers, it was begun with a first draft denominated IA-33. As basic characteristics this airplane must have arrow wing, lodge a powerful engine, bubble cabin, low-mounted wing and i horizontal fin to half of the tail.

When is decided to display the project to the maximum authorities of the factory in the same meeting Professor Tank and his secretary Neuman was presented. In this same meeting, Tank did diverse considerations, being interested in the project. Here same he showed for the first time the planes of the Ta 183. This generate an interchange of ideas and reached the conclusion that the Tank project got greater maneuverability at 10,000 mts., and the one of the technicians and engineers of the FMA had greater speed at sea level.


Like result of this interesting meeting, engineer San Martín arranged that was formed two teams; one German, lead by Tank, and another Argentinean lead by the engineer Morchio. Each team had to elaborate a project, which was in consideration of San Martín. Finally was made the presentation of both projects. They were analyzed by parts: The wings and the empennage were practically identical, thus I do not generate discussion. However the main differences were in the fuselage and the undercarriage. The fuselage projected by the Argentine technicians was of smaller diameter, and this added to the best air inlet efficiency, towards of which this had better performance, but limited the fuel capacity. As far as the undercarriage the Germans anticipated the retraction of the same one towards the wings, by means of a complex mechanism. However the Argentine equipment anticipated the retraction towards the fuselage. Finally was decided by the German design for the fuselage, and for the Argentinean for the undercarriage. As we can appreciate, there was a strong competition between the two projects, being both solved through the smaller construction difficulty. Finally, and according to own words of the Argentine designers, not take the project of Tank Ta-183 as base of development, but on the contrary, was modify the prototype of the Argentine technicians that was the base of the project.

But, in my opinion the influence is more than this.

[plan_D]

The Pulqui II was unstable because Kurt Tank decided to move the tail plane. The Argentinian test pilot disliked the prototype and it was cancelled.

The MiG-15 developed from the MiG-9. The MiG-9 is widely based on the Ta-183 to learn lessons from the Ta-183 design, then the MiG-15 was developed to learn yet more lessons and ultimately create a fighter worthy of any combatant in the skies. The MiG-9 even flew with BMW 003 and Jumo 004 engines.
The MiG-15 was a development from the design, based even more so on German aeronautical engineering discoveries e.g swept wings. The fuselage was increased to hold the RD-45 (Nene V) engine. The tail plane was moved, as Tank had done to the Pulqui II and more modern equipment installed. Slight alterations of a design don't change the core basis, the Ta-183 and other German designs.

The MiG-9 was ordered in 1945, straight after World War II. At a time when German scientists were freshly captured. MiGs own design, I think not.

[delcyros]

And that´s what I disagree in.
The Pulqui-II was unsatble, surprise? No, because Kurt Tank wasn´t the chief designer for the Ta-183 project. This position belongs to Hans Multhopp, who never went to Argentinia. If Tank continued his Ta-183 project (which was the case in my mind) he would have it to do without the experiances of Multhorp and his careful tail design studies (the latest versions of the Ta-183, the Entwurf-III showed a new tail design with an F-86 like elevator positioned much deeper).For the Mig-9, resp. I-300 we have a similar problem: Not Multhopp worked for Mikoyan (indeed he went to Britain and later to the US) but Ernst Heinkel is said to have worked for Mikoyan in the post war period. If the Mig-9 would be based on the Ta-183 than in less tahn a two months (construction charts have been closed in june 1945, it can be excluded that the SU would have analysed the captured Ta-183 material in this timeframe)the fuselage, the tail and the wing would have been completely redesigned. The picture is showing an Mig-9 FR, the more advanced version with two RD-20F (afterburner modified BMW-003 B), where the guns are already moved to the side of the fuselage. This happened because of the flamouts and because german material was under investigation (construction charts for Mig-9 FR were closed in late 1946).
The original I-300 goes back in the stage of preliminary studies to february 1945, so I suppose that we barely see any influence from the Ta-183 in this design.
The project C ("S), I-310 (or Mig-15) was initiated in late 1946 parallel to the Mig-9 F (FR/FN/FL and FF) under the impressions the swept wing made at ZAGI windtunnel testings. This directly comes from german research.
However, the Mig-15 not directly derivates from the Mig-9, as I showed a parallel development of the later Mig-9F and the Mig-15. The Mig-15 was found so superior that the Mig-9F development was canceled. It was indeed an entirely new design, influenced more on german papers in the preliminary study stage but with acces to the RR Nene, the SU designers build a fuselage around an Nene with circular diameter, longer air intake. The components were positioned behind each other and the wing had to be designed on the ZAGI results for a moderatly swept back wing. The wing is much thicker than the Ta-183 wing, so it could contain main wheel and fuel tanks. Heinkels contributions to the Mikoyan program is the ejection seat of the He-162, which was from the Mig-9M and -UTI onwards.
The general layout similarities of Ta-183 and Mig-15 are not more striking than those of the Ta-183 and the F-86 but nobody says that there is a connection (with good reason because there isn´t much-alike the Mig).