Ta183 vs Vampire

[Butters]

[QUOTE=Soren "I can actually tell you that B-2 bomber pilots brag a lot about their ability to outturn any fighter in US service. (Probably not a F22 though)"


Well, those Spirit jockeys can brag all they want, but before I'll believe that a B-2 can pull lead on an F-18 in a low-speed turning fight, I'm just gonna have to see it with my own eyes...

JL

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

I can actually tell you that B-2 bomber pilots brag a lot about their ability to outturn any fighter in US service. (Probably not a F22 though)

It ain't out turning a -16. I know that for a fact.

[Waynos]

Vulcan bomber pilots used to make similar claims back in the day and that was bollocks too. However I do accept that I may well have a bit of a knowledge gap regarding the agility of flying wings generally and wuill research it more.

[Glider]

A number of companies have tried to design a flying wing since WW2 and they all as far as I know, failed due to control problems. The B2 is of course a success but relies on electronics which couldn't have been dreamed of in the mid 40's.

I admit that I find it hard to believe that Germany would have cracked such a difficult subject and no one else could do it for another 50 years.

[Butters]

The Planes of Fame used to fly the Northrop N9M (a proof-of-concept test vehicle for their bomber project) and it seemed to handle fairly well, but I don't know of any flying wing design that has been put thru rigourous hi-G fighter manoeuver testing.

Most 4th generation fighters can perform sustained 7-G turns at 4-500 kts. I don't know the structural G-limits and T/W ratio of the B-2, but it seems unlikely that a long-range, hi-capacity stealth bomber would also be expected to perform like a close-in dogfighter...

Wayno's reference to the Vulcan reminds me an air display in the mid-70's. The sight of that huge cream and brown delta standing on its wingtip at low-level , trailing plumes of black smoke as it thundered thru a 180 turn was totally mind-boggling

They don't make airshows like that anymore...

JL

[lingo]

Originally Posted by Waynos

Vulcan bomber pilots used to make similar claims back in the day and that was bollocks too. However I do accept that I may well have a bit of a knowledge gap regarding the agility of flying wings generally and wuill research it more.

I don't know exactly what claims were made on behalf of the Vulcan, but in its early days I can tell you when at great altitude it was darn near invulnerable to fighters. The few fighters that could get to those heights were not able to do much as a turn of more than a few degrees would cause them to lose hundreds of feet of altitude. On the other hand the huge area of the Vulcans wing allowed it to remain up in the thin air.

[Soren]

The problem with a flying wing is the directional instability in jaw it features, which no doubt is why we dont see many flying wing fighters. But in terms of structural integrity a flying wing has it all over coventional a/c and will be able to take a lot more G's.

A flying wings strong side is its ability to turn on a dime and having a very low landing speed, the weak point is the directional instability in the lateral axis.

But a flying wing certainly doesn't need computers to fly, it can fly perfectly well without, it does however needs computers if it wants to achieve the same kind of lateral stability as a conventional a/c.

YouTube - Restored Vintage Northrop N9MB Flying Wing---Rare Sight !

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

The problem with a flying wing is the directional instability in jaw it features, which no doubt is why we dont see many flying wing fighters. But in terms of structural integrity a flying wing has it all over coventional a/c and will be able to take a lot more G's.

A flying wings strong side is its ability to turn on a dime and having a very low landing speed, the weak point is the directional instability in the lateral axis.

But a flying wing certainly doesn't need computers to fly, it can fly perfectly well without, it does however needs computers if it wants to achieve the same kind of lateral stability as a conventional a/c.

YouTube - Restored Vintage Northrop N9MB Flying Wing---Rare Sight !

It is also very efficient - you don't hear many people talk about range.



YB-35 - 8,150 mi

YB-49 3,155 mi (not bad for an early jet)

[vikingBerserker]

Good God, I had no idea it was that good.

[Soren]

Yeah another one of the advantages of the flying wing design is the much lower drag and therefore fuel efficiency.

[johnbr]

Dr Horten after the war is said to have solved the snaking on flying wings.He said the answer was in the design of the wing tips.

[Soren]

I doubt he could have cured it completely though.

[snafud1]

Originally Posted by Soren

The problem with a flying wing is the directional instability in jaw it features, which no doubt is why we dont see many flying wing fighters. But in terms of structural integrity a flying wing has it all over coventional a/c and will be able to take a lot more G's.

A flying wings strong side is its ability to turn on a dime and having a very low landing speed, the weak point is the directional instability in the lateral axis.

But a flying wing certainly doesn't need computers to fly, it can fly perfectly well without, it does however needs computers if it wants to achieve the same kind of lateral stability as a conventional a/c.

YouTube - Restored Vintage Northrop N9MB Flying Wing---Rare Sight !

THAT.......is a cool link! Thanks for posting it.

[Colin1]

Not QUITE the random post that it looks
Another aircraft with a high-T tail that is not particularly (in my opinion) broad-chord; it seems to have served successfully with WarPac airforces for a number of years so it can't have had that many problems. Why would the Ta183's have been so problematic?

JET FIGHTER PLANE,COLD WAR,AIRCRAFT,AVIATION,AIRFORCE. on eBay (end time 04-Jul-09 00:06:13 BST)

And no, I'm not in the market for a for a former Soviet-bloc jet trainer

[Waynos]

Are you kidding me Colin? The L-29 fin is almost as wide as it is high making it one of the lowest aspect ratio fin/rudder combinations you will ever see (after the F-104) and with only a modest sweep angle. It cannot be compared with the fin shape of the Ta 183, which is long, slender and very highly swept. A form not used by any successful aircraft ever.

However, under 20k for a jet? Mmmm, wonder what the wife would say