Ta183 vs Vampire

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by Soren

I doubt he could have cured it completely though.

I was reading the RAE report on the Ho IX the other day after our discussion and in there it stated that 'by applying the tip brakes simultaneously the aircraft could be held steady for shooting' which seems to address the skidding problem.

I do not share your, and others, enthusiasm for this aircraft as a fighter though. With so many flying wings demonstrated successfully before and since, and with all Hortens research (plus the men themselves) available after the war, no successful flying wing fighter of this form was ever deployed. The closest being the F7U and F4D which were both quite different and not that successful themselves. I just don't see where the confidence that seems to exist in the Horten as a service fighter comes from?

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by 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

Are you counting the rudder as part of the fin? I didn't think the fin added any structural rigidity to the assembly, being a control surface

[Waynos]

No, I thought it would just be clearer. I realise that was wrong because I added an irrelevant element (the rudder) to the discussion. The point still stands though for both types.

[Waynos]

As a further query along similar lines. Is there any aerodynamic data for the Me 262 HG/III? with its root mounted engines and highly swept wing it was clearly an advance over the original, yet it looks all wrong?

Yet if I slightly modify the design and move the cockpit up to the nose it looks perfectly acceptable. This is no doubt due to the fact that we are conditioned by experience to see that as the 'normal' position for a fast jet, but do any aerodynamiscists/engineers out there have an opinion on whetherthis would have improved the aircraft in reality, ruined it, or made no difference at all?

[davparlr]

The Ta-183 and the Vampire are not comparable as has been argued earlier. The Vampire was a generation 1 jet fighter and the Ta-183 was closer to a generation 2 aerodynamically with a generation 1 engine.

Without a doubt, the Ta-183 was an advanced aircraft and influenced future aircraft design. However, I think it would have required further development and test flights to be an effective fighter. To me, obvious modifications would include a redesign of the tail, which the Design III provided. I know of no successful fighter design that incorporated that type of tail design. It seems complex to build and has apparent structural weakness compared to a straight horizontal stabilizer design. I think it would have been late ’46 or early’47 for Germany to field an adequately tested Ta-183 and it would have evolved into the Design III configuration (which to me appears to be a nice design that is reflected in later aircraft).

As for the Horton 229, my opinion hasn’t changed- a very advanced design but with a lot of development required. Soren covered the plane quite well including the maneuverability. Lateral stability was close to zero and an engine stall or asymmetrical deformative weapons strike on the aircraft could easily cause the plane to “Frisbee” out of control (how about that for a new verb?) before the pilot could react. I think some vertical tail area would be needed. I would also add that the design has a very close pitch moment, and while it did not appear to be a problem in the B-35/49, may impact high speed maneuvering and stall characteristics and needed to be investigated an tested.

Here’s an article on the Horton 229 that should excite that all of you. I think it is of great interest.

Northrop engineers research Nazi flying-wing aircraft for TV documentary - The Daily Breeze

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by davparlr

The Ta-183 and the Vampire are not comparable as has been argued earlier. The Vampire was a generation 1 jet fighter and the Ta-183 was closer to a generation 2 aerodynamically with a generation 1 engine

Is that statement valid?
The Me262 and the P-51 were not comparable, the technological gulf between them was considerably greater than any perceived gulf between the two pollsters here but they ended up fighting each other.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Colin1

Is that statement valid?
The Me262 and the P-51 were not comparable, the technological gulf between them was considerably greater than any perceived gulf between the two pollsters here but they ended up fighting each other.

Well, I don't quite understand this. While the P-51 did meet the Me-262, the P-51, which was a superb propeller driven fighter, one of the best of the war, was a plane that it was made obsolete by the Me-262 and its ilk. Had the Ta-183 been developed properly and met the vampire in 1947, it would be similar to the combat of the F-80 against the Mig-15, in my opinion.

[Waynos]

Good link Davparlr, very interesting.

I don't think there can be much doubt thast it was stealthy, a more interesting question that I have seen posed before would be 'was it deliberately so?'

I believe not, but its shape, coupled with its wooden skinning would certainly produce that effect, even though from straight ahead its engine intakes would have allowed the fans to act as huge reflectors. But this cannot be called a failing as I do not believe the Hortens, as I said before, were particularly looking for stealth, so much as they wanted to produce as practical working flying wing design that could be adapted for various roles.

Colin, assuming just for the sake of argument that a working Ta 183 could be deployed in time to face the Vampire in air combat, what is the point of the comparison? If the question is 'would the Ta 183 represent a more advanced design than the Vampire with a higher performance - then there is no debate to be had, the answer is undeniably yes. Isn't the point of a comparison to measure the strengths and weaknesses as we percieve them of programmes that were broadly concurrent? This is how I would view it, hence my raising of the DH 107 earlier, and may be what Davparlr means too?

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by davparlr

Well, I don't quite understand this. While the P-51 did meet the Me-262, the P-51, which was a superb propeller driven fighter, one of the best of the war, was a plane that it was made obsolete by the Me-262 and its ilk. Had the Ta-183 been developed properly and met the vampire in 1947, it would be similar to the combat of the F-80 against the Mig-15, in my opinion.

Dave
the point I am making is that the Ta183 can hardly be penalised for being a technologically more advanced design if it and the Vampire came on-stream at the same time. Assuming WWII continued into 1946, the Ta183 would very likely have entered service by then against a Vampire that actually did enter service in that year, then they'd be facing each other.

[Waynos]

No, I disagree Colin if I may interject. In a continued war the Vampire would have deployed operationally before the end of 1945, by September of which year both Hawker and DH would have been making rapid progress with their swept wing DH 107 and P.1047. The Hawker would not have flown until the end of 1946, early47 by my own estimation, even if pressed, but the DH 107 would be flying by mid 1946 and first deployed around early 1947, assuming the transition to this relatively modest adaptation of the Vampire went ahead ok. Flight trials of the Ta 183 would have probably begun before the end of 1945, then there would have been the redesign (which Tank did have to do in real life to the Pulqui II) resulting in a deployment again in early 47. All purely by my guesswork of course.

[davparlr]

[QUOTE=Butters;518468][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[/QUOTE]

I have heard of some bombers outurning fighters and with the big wing of the B-2 it could possibly be done at some combination of airspeed and altitude. Some whiz could probably calculate some turn rates. I find it hard to believe that the B-2 would be trying to turn with a figter, or even get close to one. It is expensive!

[Soren]

davparlr,

The sole reason I believe that we aren't seeing many flying wing fighters around is the fact that such a design always will have issues with lateral stability. Furthermore since the power of engine these days often supercede the actual weight of the a/c there simply is no need for the huge amount of lift a flying wing provides. But there are ofcourse other factors which are considered, such as visibility from the cockpit and so on, and a flying wing design usually doesn't permit a lot of visibility to anything below the a/c.

Nevertheless, some interesting designs sometimes turn up :

[Soren]

[QUOTE=davparlr;519126]

Originally Posted by Butters

I have heard of some bombers outurning fighters and with the big wing of the B-2 it could possibly be done at some combination of airspeed and altitude. Some whiz could probably calculate some turn rates. I find it hard to believe that the B-2 would be trying to turn with a figter, or even get close to one. It is expensive!

Agreed. The B-2 most likely wont outturn any of the major US fighters in service atm, but the fact that the pilots believe it will says abit about the capabilities of the a/c. Most bomber pilots wouldn't ever dare make such a claim. But since the flying wing design provides so much more lift than any conventional design the turn performance of even a bomber will be much better than normal.

[lingo]

[QUOTE=Soren;519181][QUOTE=davparlr;519126]

Agreed. The B-2 most likely wont outturn any of the major US fighters in service atm, but the fact that the pilots believe it will says abit about the capabilities of the a/c. Most bomber pilots wouldn't ever dare make such a claim.


Not wishing to be rude but I very much doubt that the B-2 has ever exceeded the speed of sound so it is no faster than fighters from the 1950s. Its safety feature is its stealth. If radar can't find it (other than allegedly during precipitation) and it flies its missions during the nocturnal hours it simply can't be detected. If it can't be detected it can't be intercepted so it remains immune from enemy action.

[Soren]

lingo,

Where did I mention that the B-2 was ever supposed to be supersonic ? We were talking about turning, not speed