WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Nah, the Me-329 was designed by Dr. Hermann Wurster, at Messerschmit, not by Willy himself.

It was? Learned something new. What was he at the time, drunk, or doped up on happy pills?

H.

WIlly was probably busy at the time with the Me-210, the Me-410, and trying to get the Me-209 to behave, not to mention keeping the Me-264 sold. The design, like the similar but independently designed Me-265 (done by Dr. Alexander Lippisch) was worked up in the fall of 1942.


Eh, it's not as nose-heavy as it looks, most of the engines are aft of the CG, and neither DB-603s or Jumo-213s are really lightweights.

What do you think? the turbo-boosted 132 N for now? Cuts speed by about 3 mph I think and its in the German inventory.

Its either that, or a Pratt.

H.

The BMW-132N would be fine, though it's supercharged, not turbocharged. I'd be surprised if it doesn't reduce your speed by more than 3 mph, the nacelles are a fair bit bigger and draggier than mounts for Jumo-207s would be. Another option, if you wanted to be different and bury the engines in the wings, might be Continental 0-1430s.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
First:

Quoted

Henschel HS P-75.

The Germans went canard crazy.

The Ente was just the first.

Quoted

Second:

Quoted

Yeah HH, but the Me 329 [or was it the BF-329?] was a pusher prop flying wing death trap designed by the most overrated aircraft designer in history, "Pretty Boy" Willie.

I happen to dislike "Pretty Boy" Willie and his overrated crew. Junkers, Heinkel and Arado, generally produced better and cheaper. plus Heinkel and Jumkers were the innovators-not Messerschmidt.

Quoted

Quoted

THird:

Quoted

What was he at the time, drunk, or doped up on happy pills?

"Pretty Boy" Willie was more of a "party animal" [in both senses of the term] than an engineer.

Quoted

Quoted

Forth

Quoted

Jack Northrop was a genius

Anybody who can put a working powered flying wing into the air in 1940 and keep it from crashing is a genius. Lippisch is the other one. Northrop invented flapperons and primitive self correcting stabilization. That makes him the greater genius.

Quoted

etc.

You are a bit biased, aren´t you?

I sure am. Herman Oberth, Hugo Junkers, Walter Rethel, Alexander Lippisch, you've noticed I mentioned these guys or their work in passing in the last couple weeks? Not to mention Kurt Tank? Great bunch of "Americans".

Quoted

The Germans were in no way canard crazy. In fact, if the Germans had been Americans, I´m pretty sure you would call their designs trend-setting, inventive and ahead of their competitors back then.

Then why do I always turn to German or British designs?

Hmmmmm? This is the first "American" design I've floated.

Quoted

I don´t care if some of their ideas actually were stupid or inventive. But it remains a fact they introduced many design features to mass produced planes that were cutting edge and ahead of allied designs. Otherwise the allies would not have been so eager to get all the stuff and staff even before the fighting finally ended.

The Germans weren't exactly not doing the same thing. Italy and France were technology looted my friend. Ever hear of Marcel Dassault? The Germans looted his work.

Quoted

Some may call Messerschmitt a genius, some may not. He surely was a clever businessman given the options he had in Germany back in the 1930s. If it was wise to seek close ties with the Nazis remains a completely different story but should not cloud your judgement regarding the designs he brought to life and the team he build up.

Willie had the following problems:
1. He never paid enough attention to fuselage integrity. I don't think even Dornier had as many aircraft that had to be sent back after initial testing to have their tails strengthened because the !@#$%^ things broke off when you either rolled or inverted the plane. This happened with the 109, the 110, the 210 [repeat performance] and the 262.
2. He would overlook the simple and dumb stuff. The 262 came out after the Heinkel 178 and 180; if you look carefully at the two Heinkels, you will see the obvious. Poor old not politically connected Ernst Heinkel actually though about dumb things like thrust line and start power. Even the He 178, a tail dragger is stood on its landing gear so that the jet engine is more or less canted more horizontal to the plane of motion than the first 262.
Me-262 v3


They also had to send it back to get its tail fixed.
He 280 from the 180


And the tail didn't tear off at critical Mach.

Quoted

Northrop also may have been a genius - or may have not. It depends a lot on what you take to judge both engineers work. I saw his bird fly at the Planes of Fame airshow in 2005 and it impressed me a lot. Funny yellow thing which looks so different while airborne compared to a P-51 for example. Thing is, short of this little demonstrator, Northrops flying wings always caused troubles when airborne and it took until the B-2 and computer aided steering to handle the problems. On the other hand we had the Lippisch brothers in Germany which build very successful and easy to fly gliders of flying wing design which finally resulted in the first jet powered flying wing that successfully flew.

There was only one Lippisch. it was the Horten Brothers......
That was the Hortens who flew the first 'true' German jet wing also .......but;

Lippisch had even more trouble that Jack did. Seriously.

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Lippi…er_f3_wasp.html

Quoted

Delta IV - Fieseler F3 WaspDuring the early 1930's, Lippisch received an order from the Fieseler Aircraft Company in Kassel, for a sport monoplane with folding wings. The plane was intended to be an entry in the European Rally taking place in 1932. The resultant airplane, the Delta IV - Fieseler F3 Wasp, was quickly designed and did not fulfill the requirements.

Fieseler terminated the test flights in the fall of 1932. The elevators (canards?) in front of the wing were retarding stalling in the midsection of the wing, allowing the outer sections of the wing to stall at smaller angles of attack, and this led to dangerous instability. The center of pressure also shifted, making the airplane tail-heavy. Near the conditions of maximum lift, the controls were not sufficiently responsive to compensate for this shift, and at the end of the test flights the airplane was seriously damaged during landing.

Did you notice? Canard crazy.

Quoted

See, from the points above, I could say Northrop was a stupid idiot because he could not achieve what the Germans did. A still-borne argument as it has nothing to do with all the other Northrop projects. It´s just selective, it´s just the way you argue here many times.

I would seriously ask you which flew first, the N-1M or any powered Horten hashup?

I can tell you that Lippisch flew his first 'successful' powered glider around 1930.

As for the YB-49?



Horten never got a production line going.

Quoted

Finally - aircraft designers all over the world have put down to paper a lot of funny things, things we know today would never work. However, without the aerodynamical math and technical knowledge aircraft designers have at hand today ti was the only way they could invent new features - by trial and error. So it´s hardly fair to blame the Germans for their share of crazy designs...some of them design studies that never were meant to fly.

I think that the Germans were technologically desperate. That does not equal true innovation or genius in many cases. Cleverness is not genius.

Conceptual genius they had, [CREF above], some technical competence they had , [CREF above], but the engineering common sense ;of a Ed Heinenman or Kelly Johnson, or in the cases of Hugo Junkers and Ernst Heinkel who were repeatedly and consistently ignored when they yelped loidly about the things going wrong in the Liftwaffe and how to fix them-especially at the RLM? That the Germans never had.

Otherwise, I would be typing this in German.

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
As for tray slide out cannon, this was a common German design feature for many Luftwaffe aircraft-especially the later twin engined night fighters.

I probably missunderstood what "tray slide out cannon" actually is, what the term refers to. So would you please name me the planes you have in mind and direct me to your sources?

If it was a common (!?!) feature in German aircraft design I will have no problems to find more about it in my bookshelves.... The Do17/217, Ju88, Me110 or the purpose build He219 must have had it after all.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
The stats aren't too unrealistic. It just looks wrong. You don't really need the streamlined/blended look.

I'd definitely stay away from US inline engines. A decade and millions spent on the hyper engine program and absolutely nothing comes out of it, all the engines being unreliable.

Weapons backs are a good idea but what you propose is rather different. A detachable ventral blister mounting guns was more normal for the period. The MiG-15 pack like you are proposing is a lot more integrated into the airframe.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
The first linked site indicates the original was a 1939 design, and preliminary work had started on it in 1940. The second linked site says by the end of 1940 and that a formal proposal was made to the Army Air Corp in February 1942. The airframe never even prototyped by then.

Now, if the airframe is technically possible (not my field), you still need to work out a reasonable development time it should have take to produce what appears to be a departure from orthodox designs and get it service ready.

The HS P.75 was apparently never more than a windtunnel model. It is hard to say that something that never flew can be developed to the point it is acceptable for military service.

Taking another Lockheed for an example, the first P-38 won the contract in June 1937, was flying in January 1939, the first YP-38 did not get delivered until September 1940, and only 65 service versions by Sept 1941. A similar development schedule might see the 1942 proposal become a flying craft in mid 1944, and service versions in 1946. Deduct 3 years and you get 1943.

As such I am thinking 1937 service introduction is very optimistic



As for the weapons pallet, it is not hard to envision, but using the Me-262 as an example does not reassure that it is appropriate for 1936.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
This is the cannon bay of the Schwabe:

Still I´ve no clue what you will proof with that pic. I still don´t know what this "tray slide out cannon" is and why no fixed armament could be installed on your Bat design?

And why was it "common" when only used for the Me262?

Quoted

There was only one Lippisch. it was the Horten Brothers......
That was the Hortens who flew the first 'true' German jet wing also

Here I stand corrected. You´re right, I mixed Lippisch and the Hortons while writing.... I´m getting old...

Quoted

The Germans looted his work

Oh, those evil Germans! Where´s Indy when you need him? ;o)

Seriously - can you proof the looted it? What are your sources?

(Funny thing is Fyrwulf always tried to convince us too regarding the Germans just looting things. I remember that discussion about Whittle/Ohain well....)

Me wonders how the Germans could achive anything at all? They must have been the best tech thiefs of the world. However, I´m still curious to learn why all the Allied were so eager to get the Germand tech after WW2 when they had it all in their own garages.

Quoted

Lippisch had even more trouble that Jack did. Seriously.

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Lippi...er_f3_wasp.html

don´t understand what that link proofs.. It is common knowledge designers/engineers of that era only had the chance to test their concepts in practice as their was no computer aided design and testing. This is just one example.

To proof you rpoint you should consider how many aircraft designs were put together in general, how many of them used canards and compare the results with other countries. That would be a scientific approach allowing a proof of your theory. Using single examples is just selective at best and proofs nothing.

However, even if therer were more German canard designs it does not proof their were wrong. Such designs are still attractive today - see your Starship for example or the Eurofighter, the Rafael or others. All it proofs is the Germans (as all others in the world trying that stunt) were not up to the task.

You always try to proof your points mathematically, by science. Then you should know that failure is not always negative when testing new concepts. It allows to learn.

Finally:

Quoted

Italy and France were technology looted my friend

I´m not your friend and I don´t like that tone. You´ve used that phrase before and made no friends with it on our boards. Instead you´ve upset people which cannot be accepted. Take this as first and last warning.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Are you sure that is the correct link?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Did you read the Pratt & Whitney link?

Yes, and plenty of other information on the program. The engines didn't work. Pratt and Whitney didn't solve the sleeve valve problem with the Sabre. They created their own design to avoid patent conflicts. Whether it would have worked as well can't be told. The valve problems with the Sabre were manufacturing and not design anyway. Napier was a small company with limited manufacturing capability and expertise. Eventually Bristol stepped in to help out using parts from the Taurus.

I extremely doubt that the hyper engine program could be made to work. Historically it had a massive budget and over a decade to work on it without success. The coupled V-3420 would have been easier to adopt, it actually worked and produced more power.



I'm thinking something like this;