Ta183 vs Vampire

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Waynos

Sorry, I don't understand what the first half of your last sentence means, how would you validate the function?

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

Originally Posted by Waynos

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.

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.

[lingo]

[QUOTE=FLYBOYJ;519830] 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.

[delcyros]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

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.

Given his statement and the context of it - and likely the limited knowledge of how the politics were involved- , I think it is probable. At least he couldn´t be sure that other solutions to the stability issue existed and Mr. Northrop certainly had the money and will to explore them. Judging from his inability to serve in England and other statements he likely was not the most charming charackter to deal with.
I don´t consider the B-35 or B-49 as unsuccessful, either.
However, there can be no doubt that leaving out Horten from the design process was at least one out of many failures for the entire program. His expertise in stability question of high aspect ratio flying wings certainly would have convinced me to get him in charge.

[delcyros]

Regarding to the original topic, Ta-183 vs Vampire, I would have to vote for the Ta-183.
The Ta-183 was one generation ahead of the Me-262 and the Me-262 and Vampire were pretty
comparable planes in most respects performancewise.

Whether or not the Ta-183 is practical as a fighter would have been an interesting question. Without LE-slats, wing fences and other high lift devices it would have been a challanging experience for test pilots.
The Messerschmidt P 1101 was probably superior in many respects to the Ta-183, including crit Mach, top speed, low speed behavior and stall sensitivity. In top of this, the P1101 V1 prototype was found almost finished, while construction of the Ta-183V1 prototype likely did not even begun until end of the hostilities. Quite possible that the "Experimentierflugzeug" replaces the vaunted Ta-183.

[Soren]

I agree completely Delcyros.

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

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]

Originally Posted by Waynos

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]

Originally Posted by Juha

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]

Originally Posted by 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;

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]

Originally Posted by delcyros

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.

Originally Posted by Soren

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.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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.

Originally Posted by Soren

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.

Originally Posted by vikingBerseker

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]

Originally Posted by Waynos

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]

Originally Posted by davparlr

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.