Ta183 vs Vampire

[snafud1]

Originally Posted by Soren

Just a small correction:

The expected climb rate of the Ta-183 was 6,100 ft/min, not 4,100 ft/min, also seems reasonable considering the higher P/W ratio

And Adler is absolutely right, the Pulqui II & Ta-183 cannot at all be compared, they are two very different a/c. On the Ta-183 the fuselage is short & narrow and the wing is mid mounted, futhermore pitch was controlled with elevons. The Pulqui II featured a high mounted wing, long & wide fuselage (different engine nessicated a completely new design) with pitch being controlled with normal elevators on a high mounted horizontal stabilizer, and this caused deep stall problems which is what plagued the Pulqui II. The Ta-183 wouldn't have experienced this however and the design looks sound.

As for how the Ta-183 & Vampire would've done against each other, I can't really say, but the Ta-183's performance would've been higher, which is awlays a plus.

I think if you lok closely , the stats for Ta183 are on the left, Vampire right.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

IL Sturmovik is a game, but it did include some interesting information about the Ta-183 in the aircraft guide pdf document.

At a Glance: Engine: 1 x HeS 011 Power: 1,300 kg/s Armament: • 4 x MK 108 cannon Advantages: • High speed; • Ease of production. Disadvantages: • Low-speed control problems due to wing configuration

Pilot Notes:

A captured model of the Ta-183 was tested in the TsAGI wind tunnel post war, and immediately uncovered a fatal mistake in the design. Flutter and subsequent structural failure of the tail unit began at only 700 km/h. Therefore we’ve had to artificially strengthen the tail unit by a great amount, in order to allow for the design to reach specified speeds while still keeping the famous original shape.

In reality such a redesign would have been near impossible, and most likely the tail unit would have been radically redesigned instead (such as was the case with the historical Pulqui II fighter built by Kurt Tank after the war).

In general, the plane is modeled with several concessions that were possible to make only using the knowledge gained post the 1950s.


You can dismiss it as baloney but unless the wind tunnel was inaccurate, it's possible at high speeds the tail of the Ta-183 would have broken off. Lots of odd things happen at close to the speed of sound, and the tail of the Ta-183 does look a bit vulnerable, with it's rather long length.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by snafud1

I think if you lok closely , the stats for Ta183 are on the left, Vampire right.

I think if you go back and look closely, the Ta 183 was supposed to have a higher performance than the Vampire... Really go take a look...

Now having said that, I still stand by my original post that there is no way to compare these two aircraft. One never flew, so how can we base anything off of it?

Just for fun however, I will vote for the Ta 183. Why?

1. Much cooler design (that is about the only thing we can really compare...)
2. Projected performance was much better.
3. It was a more modern design, and therefore I think it would have better. This is just based off of my opinion however...

Originally Posted by Colin1

Thing is Adler
if the two flew in combat with each other, we'd have lots of hard data on which was best at what and overall, who was likely to come out on top - so no need for a poll. For a poll to be fun, surely a sprinkling of what-if can do no harm?

My point is, what are you going to use for comparison? There is no real data to compare.

Just for fun is fine though. For fun I voted for the Ta 183, it was a much cooler looking design...

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

Pilot Notes:

A captured model of the Ta-183 was tested in the TsAGI wind tunnel post war, and immediately uncovered a fatal mistake in the design. Flutter and subsequent structural failure of the tail unit began at only 700 km/h. Therefore we’ve had to artificially strengthen the tail unit by a great amount, in order to allow for the design to reach specified speeds while still keeping the famous original shape.

In reality such a redesign would have been near impossible, and most likely the tail unit would have been radically redesigned instead (such as was the case with the historical Pulqui II fighter built by Kurt Tank after the war).

In general, the plane is modeled with several concessions that were possible to make only using the knowledge gained post the 1950s.


You can dismiss it as baloney but unless the wind tunnel was inaccurate, it's possible at high speeds the tail of the Ta-183 would have broken off. Lots of odd things happen at close to the speed of sound, and the tail of the Ta-183 does look a bit vulnerable, with it's rather long length.

Not sure about the truth of any of that, but Tanks team was already looking at redesigning the aircraft. They actually had 3 different versions with different tails. They were all to be tested...

In the end the best choice obviously would have been chosen for production.

[Soren]

The Il2 team got it all wrong however as they thought that a horizontal stabilizer with ordinary elevators was used to control pitch. They didn't check the historical data and missed the fact that wing mounted elevons were used for controlling both pitch & roll. The horizontal stabilizer was there merely for trim purposes, in the game however it is used as the main control in pitch which is completely wrong.

Also I highly doubt that the tail section would've failed at 700 km/h, I simply can't see any reason for it. So wether TsAGGI really did find this is questionable at best, esp. since no reference is given to the supposed test document.

[Butters]

Many of the projected German jets were very imaginative and unconventional in design. And most of them were never emulated by other designers for some reason. The Ta 183 has no real analog so far as I know, whereas the fundamental design features of the Vampire can be found in a number of successful designs (SAAB J21R, Sea Venom, Sea Vixen)

While I'm aware that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, the absence of any actual a/c that share the essential design suite of the Ta 183 suggests that it may be inherently flawed in some way. It would be interesting to see how a large-scale, jet powered RC model of it would perform.

Does anyone know if any such model exists?

JL

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Butters

Many of the projected German jets were very imaginative and unconventional in design. And most of them were never emulated by other designers for some reason. The Ta 183 has no real analog so far as I know, whereas the fundamental design features of the Vampire can be found in a number of successful designs (SAAB J21R, Sea Venom, Sea Vixen)

There is nothing unrealistic or crazy about the Ta 183's design. In fact many post war aircraft had similiar designs, ie. Mig 15, F-86. The SAAB Tunnan and Mig-15 were indirectly influenced by the Ta 183. The Ta 183 was a much more modern design that Vampire, Sea Venom.

[snafud1]

DAIG , I was going by the projected stats myself. That's all we can do.

[Butters]

I didn't say it was crazy or unrealistic. I said it was unconventional -which it is. It's essentially a tailless design where the nominal 'tailplane' is essentially a trimming device. Pitch control was a function of the aileron/elevons.

While the Tunnan and MiG-15 bear a superficial resemblance to the Ta 183, they are in fact much more conventional in design. A planform comparison of the three demonstrates that quite clearly. The Me 163 is much closer in design philosophy to the Ta 183 than are the Tunnan and MiG. And if the Ta 183 were to exhibit the same handling qualities as the Komet, than perhaps it would be superior to the Vampire. But as you've said, there's no real way to know...

While the Ta 183 may have influenced those design of the other jets in certain aspects, that influence did not extend to the fundamental design philosophy they embodied. Which makes extropolating the performance of the Ta 183 from their's, problematic at best.

JL

[Soren]

Butters,

Please keep in mind that the shape of any a/c very much depends on what type of engine is used. Taking that into consideration the design of the Ta-183 isn't at all unconventional. Had a longer engine been used the look would've been very similar to that of post war jets. Also to say that a design was bad just because it wasn't directly copied after the war is about as incorrect as one can be.

Oh btw, the SAAB Tunnan is very similar to the Ta-183, and it was considered an excellent a/c btw.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by snafud1

I think if you lok closely , the stats for Ta183 are on the left, Vampire right.

He edited it after I wrote that snafud1

[snafud1]

Ok , I see.

[Waynos]

To compare the tail of the Ta 183 to the tail of aircraft like the J-29 or MiG 15 (and especially the F-86) seems to me to be missing the point by a wide margin. There is a superficial likeness in general layout but none at all in the specific tail geometry.

There can be no doubt that the design was more advanced that that of the Vampire, only a moron would argue otherwise, but that does not necessarily make it better.

I was interested to see Soren comparing the design of the Ta 183 with that of the Pulqui II and concluding that the Ta-183 was superior. I have to ask why is that? Would Tank really promote an inferior design? Why would he not progress from his wartime efforts? Or maybe (for I do not pretend to know) could the Pulqui II have been an advance on the Ta 183 but which was still not good enough? I tend towards the view that this is the case here.

The fuselage is extremely short, yes, and that means that in order to get the tail in the right place the fin has to double up as a boom. It is an ingenious idea compared to DH 's rather pedestrian solution but what are the bending forces on that fin during manouvering? They must have been horrendous surely? Even if it would not break it must surely have suffered from severe flexing which would have given the pilot a horrible fright.

All in my humble and uninformed opinion of course, but the design of that tail looks terribly flawed. I hope we are not just praising this aircraft because it is a very advanced German 1945 project? To me the Messerschmitt P.1101 always looked far more likely to result in a successful high performance fighter and I think is the closer influence to the SAAB Tunnan than the FW was.

It also not true that German wartime designs were not reproduced. The Me P.1101 was cloned into the Bell X-5 research aircraft, the X-4 was based on a Lippisch design and the Vought Cutlass was pure Arado in its design. There are many other examples including the the Gloster P.276, a rival design to the Hunter and Swift that was based very much on the Lippisch P.13a. With the postwar luxury of time and research funds the wheat was sorted from the chaff and dead end designs based on German projects such as the P.276, Martin B-51 and others were buried, so it is very telling that no Ta-183 clone was ever flown and I believe the tail design has everything to do with it.

[Butters]

Again, my words are being misinterpreted...I never said that the the Ta 183 is no good because it was not directly copied by others. I said that the fundamental design, ie; a tailless , swept wing jet fighter, was rarely emulated by other designers. The only one that comes to mind is the F7U Cutlass...

The tailplane on the Ta 183 is not the primary pitch control of the a/c. That function is served by the elevons. The Tunnan, OTOH, IS a conventional design, the rotund fuselage and tail boom notwithstanding. It has much more in common with other early post-war Western and Soviet jets than it does with the Ta I83.

Tank had the opportunity to recreate a fighter similar to the '183 in Argentina but instead chose a more conventional design (A flop as it happned. Maybe he should have built on the '183 design...) Why would he do so if the Ta 183 was such a promising a/c?

Perhaps the Ta 183 would have been an effective fighter, but then again, more likely not. A more convential design would have been a safer bet. Such a/c have proved themselves repeatedly, whereas the tailless, swept wing design has not. and the fact that the Vampire is less 'modern' or advanced, does not a priori make it less effective. To assume that is also 'incorrect'.

JL

EDIT: I guess this is what happens when you stop halfway thru writing to eat supper...

[FLYBOYJ]

The Ta 183 could not be considered tail-less. Despite the use of elevons the platform for fighter configuration for at least the next 10 years after its design was set in place. Here's some more influence...



One could speculate all day whether this design could have been a dog or a history maker but based what was flown in the preceding years I think Tank's team had it right.

[Waynos]

Butters, the Cutlass takes nothing from the Ta 183. As I posted earlier, it was taken from an Arado design. The Tunnan is also much closer in concept to the Me P.1101 than anything else. Otherwise I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet.

FlyboyJ - If Tank had it right with the design of the Ta 183 why did he himself never use that design again? The tail design of the Ta 183 is not the same as the Lavochkin you posted above, it is extremely unorthodox and, in my view, dangerously so. Look at how every high mounted tail (including your pic above) is mounted on a stiff, broad chord fin. Why would you expect the Ta 183 to be any different?