Ta183 vs Vampire

[Glider]

Looking at the way British Politicians forced our aerospace industries to merge with a spectacular lack of success this has the ring of possibility.

[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.

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

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.

[Soren]

I don't think he was envious, I think he might have been abit disappointed that he wasn't included in the project maybe. Flying wings was his passion after all, and the Northrop project was a big one

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

I don't think he was envious, I think he might have been abit disappointed that he wasn't included in the project maybe. Flying wings was his passion after all, and the Northrop project was a big one

Again no doubt.

Envious? Disappointed? Perhaps a bit of both.

[Waynos]

Thanks Delycross. While there is naturally no definitive proof, there is at least enough in there for me to now give the Ho IX the benefit of the doubt. Well persuaded. So the *balance of probability* for me lies as follows; the Ta 183, a bit of a dud without a redesign which would have cured it - , Ho IX, workable and practical in its existing form and a r4eal threat.

Now, whats next?

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Waynos

...the Ta 183, a bit of a dud without a redesign which would have cured it ...

Wayne
at what point in the thread did we actually confirm this? Cured what?

[Waynos]

It is something that is impossible to confirm. I merely said that it was the balance of probability for me. And maybe a few others who have posted share the view, but it is nothing any of us will ever prove definitively, all we can do uis form our own opinions.

Delycross (and Soren) have given me enough food for thought to revise my view of the Horten. Nothing in this thread has given me cause to revise my opinion that the Ta 183 would have suffered a severe flutter problem as built, until the modified tail was applied later on.

What has reinforced this view, from my position, are the facts that Tank, in Design III, was intending to try out a different tail design of a type we now know with experience would work, coupled with the Argentine glider that featured the Ta 183 tail as pictured earlier in the thread but was later redesigned, both versions are contained in the same image which was taken from a webage covering the history of the IAe 33. That's good enough for me.

Pulqui II

[vikingBerserker]

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.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Waynos

. Nothing in this thread has given me cause to revise my opinion that the Ta 183 would have suffered a severe flutter problem as built, until the modified tail was applied later on.

What has reinforced this view, from my position, are the facts that Tank, in Design III, was intending to try out a different tail design of a type we now know with experience would work, coupled with the Argentine glider that featured the Ta 183 tail as pictured earlier in the thread but was later redesigned, both versions are contained in the same image which was taken from a webage covering the history of the IAe 33. That's good enough for me.

Pulqui II

Remember this - the MiG-15 "fluttered" (among other things) when it reached critical mach. It was also not the most pleasant aircraft to land. That did not ruin its career. 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.

On the other end of the spectrum - as this flutter problem either been rectified or not materialized, you would an aircraft with MiG-15 performance in 1945/ 46.

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Remember this - the MiG-15 "fluttered" (among other things) when it reached critical mach. It was also not the most pleasant aircraft to land. That did not ruin its career. 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.

On the other end of the spectrum - as this flutter problem either been rectified or not materialized, you would an aircraft with MiG-15 performance in 1945/ 46.

I have considered it flyboyj. Indeed it has been a central part of all my posts on the subject. That flutter affected aircraft in the same performance bracket with empennages of more than twice the chord (and presumably much higher stiffness as a consequence) is my entire argument. The broad still fins that T tail aircraft have always needed is directly because of this problem and allowed them to get away with relatively modest improvements like acorns and fairings. It is my gut feeling that the Ta 183 tail was too slender to allow such an easy get out. Hence design III, or is everyone ignoring that?

Can anyone find just ONE aircraft in the entire world that flew with the same shape tail? I can't. I thought if there is one it might be Russian, did a trawl. Nopem, nothing. over to you.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Waynos

I have considered it flyboyj. Indeed it has been a central part of all my posts on the subject. That flutter affected aircraft in the same performance bracket with empennages of more than twice the chord (and presumably much higher stiffness as a consequence) is my entire argument. The broad still fins that T tail aircraft have always needed is directly because of this problem and allowed them to get away with relatively modest improvements like acorns and fairings. It is my gut feeling that the Ta 183 tail was too slender to allow such an easy get out. Hence design III, or is everyone ignoring that?

Perhaps - it also would have been interesting to see how the aircraft would have faired with fences or LE slats.

Originally Posted by Waynos

Can anyone find just ONE aircraft in the entire world that flew with the same shape tail? I can't. I thought if there is one it might be Russian, did a trawl. Nopem, nothing. over to you.

Are you talking the dihedreal, sweep or both?

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Perhaps - it also would have been interesting to see how the aircraft would have faired with fences or LE slats.

You say perhaps, I say probably, such is life. I tend to agree with the view that it would have quickly sprouted fences, I have always felt that the rest of the design was perfectly sound.

Are you talking the dihedreal, sweep or both?

if the sweep and/or dihedral can be found then fine, but its the narrow chord high aspect ratio that concerns me more on a T tail design like that.

edit, I'm still looking as I type and I've found something that relates to this subject, albeit in a way I had not considered. The Mikoyan I-360, a prototype along the road to the MiG 19, originally flew with a swept T-tail, albeit nothing like as extreme as the Ta 183 shape, and this was moved to the base of the fin as it interfered with spin recovery. Also English Electric, in wind tunnel tests later confirmed by the Short SB5 flying testbed, moved the tail of the P.1 (origin of the Lightning) from a high to a low postition as the high tail was found to be 'deeply unsatisfactory'. I wish some of this stuff was a bit more specific

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Waynos

You say perhaps, I say probably, such is life. I tend to agree with the view that it would have quickly sprouted fences, I have always felt that the rest of the design was perfectly sound.

I still have an open mind until I could see wind tunnel data, but agree, the fences would have sprouted.

Originally Posted by Waynos

if the sweep and/or dihedral can be found then fine, but its the narrow chord high aspect ratio that concerns me more on a T tail design like that.

Again in stead of judging appearances, I'd like to validate the function. More than likely you're correct but I go back to my original statement that we can't always judge a book by its cover.

[Waynos]

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