Ta183 vs Vampire

[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!

Originally Posted by delcyros

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]

Originally Posted by Graeme

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by davparlr

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

[Butters]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Thought not...

JL

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Butters]

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

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Butters

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

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.

Originally Posted by Butters

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.

And coming in the post war gives some credence of my last comment

Originally Posted by Butters

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

And the T tail?