Matrix Games Forums

XB-36 in flight. [:D]

Oh, yeah. When I was a kid, we lived in Tucson and got an almost daily treat of B-36s flying at not much more than treetop height. It was the greatest memory of my young life until I discovered tits.

That is an earlier varient.... no jets

I guess we have a different definition of swept wing. If thats a swept wing than I guess later versions AT-6 Texan and Curtiss CW-21 had swept wings as well. I believe the definition of a true swept wing is both the leading and rear edge of the wing are swept.

To clarify I said the P-55 wing design was a failure, causing further swept wing design to be virtually abandoned and not incorporated in to US Jet designs until German test data was acquired. I do give credit to the US designers for solving the low speed deficiencies of the swept wing.

Both the leading and trailing edges of the XB-36 were swept. The US did not wait for cpatured German a/c or data in order to experiment with the swept wing design. The problem in deploying a swept wing design during WW2 was lateral airflow... a problem that the ME262 did not solve nor did any other German production or protoype model. That was the principle reason for the retention of the straight wing design of the P-80. The P-80 had far superior climb rate at high speed than the ME262 and was more maneuverable in small part because of the stright wing design.

ORIGINAL: Rendova

That is an earlier varient.... no jets

Yeah, those and the pusher turboprops were what made it such a bizarre sight to a seven-year-old kid. It was really an odd-looking aircraft, but somehow fascinating and beautiful at the same time. It looked big and powerful and, at 150 feet and around 200 knots, like something out of the old campy 50s sci-fi flicks.

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Rendova

That is an earlier varient.... no jets

Yeah, those and the pusher turboprops were what made it such a bizarre sight to a seven-year-old kid. It was really an odd-looking aircraft, but somehow fascinating and beautiful at the same time. It looked big and powerful and, at 150 feet and around 200 knots, like something out of the old campy 50s sci-fi flicks.

The B-36 didn't have turboprops, they were Pratt's 4360's I believe, which if you ever get to see one up close is the most complex recip you'll ever see

ORIGINAL: Rendova
The B-36 didn't have turboprops, they were Pratt's 4360's I believe, which if you ever get to see one up close is the most complex recip you'll ever see

Hey - I was seven years old standing barefoot in the middle of a trailer park. What do you want from me - knowledge?

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The US did not wait for cpatured German a/c or data in order to experiment with the swept wing design.

No but their expirementation did result in it being discounted for further consideration for fighter designs.

The problem in deploying a swept wing design during WW2 was lateral airflow... a problem that the ME262 did not solve nor did any other German production or protoype model.

I think specifically low speed instability. Your the last person I would expect championing low speed charachteristics over high speed charachteristics. Regardless as I said I give credit to the US designers for solveing the low speed problem with auto leading edge slots, but only after captured German researched demonstrated to much greater performance of the swept wing at speeds not previously envisioned by them gave them to impetus to solve it. That being said there were several ways to deal with the problem. The Russians came to the same conclusions when testing their version of the Focke Wulf TA183. They substituted with wing boundry fences that worked well enough. I dont think you would consider a P-80 superior to the MIG 15 and The MIG 15 was basically a FW TA183 with a Rolls Royce Engine and wing fences.

The P-80 had far superior climb rate at high speed than the ME262 and was more maneuverable in small part because of the stright wing design.

I would say that it had more to do with the drag caused by the wing mounted engines. But AGAIN I never said nor do I believe that the 262 was superior to the P-80. I would expect that a 1943 design would be superior to a 1940 design. As I said before, I was only giving some credit to the Germans for advanceing swept wing design. If you dont want to give them any credit for advanceing swept wing design, thats certainly your perogative.

To reiterate.... My initial post, simply credited the Germans for certain design concepts that carried thru well beyond WWII. The Walters Hull shape, MG 38 Lt MG, V1 Cruise missal, MP-42 Assault Rifle, FW 183 airframe, TOW ordnance.

And yes there were certainly many US design concepts that carried thru well beyond WWII as well.

MDIEHL!!!

You might be as popular a dev guy as myself. You have a big, yet lovable, attitude.[:D] You know your shit yet nobody cares for the most part. I am a big mouth arrogant puke myself, but the attitude fails in the long run. You should have a few beers when you post... I should not![;)]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I see only two uses for the late war scenarios, and as such am personally quite happy that they exist.

1. So that playtesters have an actual chance to test late war equipment for bugs, inaccuracies, etc.

2. To allow an occaisional, solo player the chance to enjoy some Allied a**-whupping on the Japanese after seeing the early war campaigns. After all, we are all probably going to start off a Dec 7 '41 scenario right from the start, n'est-ce pas?

There is another reason.

If I play such a scenario as the Allied side, there are many good players who will defeat me on the scoreboard - if not on the battlefield.

It is the scoreboard that defines the victor - nothing else.
-

My understanding is that the ME 262 received swept wings for stability - the Messerschmidt team needed to shift the engines aft to resolve a CoG issue, and it was judged easier to give the wings a moderate sweep than to redesign the entire fuselage. Certainly later German designs incorporated the swept wing for greater speed (though I can't think of any offhand that ever got beyond the prototype stage), but I don't think the ME 262 was one of them.

Also, while the MiG-15 certainly owed a great debt to the TA 183 aerodynamically, it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of the Rolls Royce engine to the success of the MiG. German TA 183s, with early German jet engines, simply were not going to be in the same class as Soviet MiG-15s with a much later engine.

ORIGINAL: CynicAl


Also, while the MiG-15 certainly owed a great debt to the TA 183 aerodynamically, it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of the Rolls Royce engine to the success of the MiG. German TA 183s, with early German jet engines, simply were not going to be in the same class as Soviet MiG-15s with a much later engine.

Agreed, the RR engine was extremely important, the Argentine version of the TA183 did not fare as well partly due to inferior engine but mostly due to a change in wing positoning I believe. Nevertheless the airframe design was well ahead of its time.

They substituted with wing boundry fences that worked well enough. I dont think you would consider a P-80 superior to the MIG 15 and The MIG 15 was basically a FW TA183 with a Rolls Royce Engine and wing fences.

The ME-262 was no MiG-15. The TA183 was no MiG-15. Not by a long shot. The P-80 was a better aircraft than either the ME262 or the TA183. And, incidently, no P-80s were shot down by MiG-15s in Korea. One MiG-15 was shot down by a P-80 in Korea. To be sure, that was a an F-80C doing the deed. Of course, the TA183 was no F-80C and the ME-262 was no F-80C. By then of course, the F-80s were being retired in favor of the F-86, because the F-86 was something again.

If you dont want to give them any credit for advanceing swept wing design, thats certainly your perogative.

Well, the US came up with the idea independently. The Germans didn't solve any of the problems incumbent to swept wing designs. The Germans fielded aircraft using the design that were inferior to the US best straight-wing design. The US built much better engines that Germany did (or at the time, could) hence produced designs that could take better advantage of swept wings. Frankly, given the many avenues of experimental wing configurations explored by the US going into WW2, during WW2, after WW2 and continuting through the present day, I do not think the presence or absence of an German design would have made a difference in the US aircraft inventory. If the Germans had never invented a swept wing design I still think the F-86 would have been deployed in Korea.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


The ME-262 was no MiG-15. The TA183 was no MiG-15. Not by a long shot. The P-80 was a better aircraft than either the ME262 or the TA183. And, incidently, no P-80s were shot down by MiG-15s in Korea. One MiG-15 was shot down by a P-80 in Korea. To be sure, that was a an F-80C doing the deed. Of course, the TA183 was no F-80C and the ME-262 was no F-80C. By then of course, the F-80s were being retired in favor of the F-86, because the F-86 was something again.

OK mdiehl you read into it what you want, but this habit of putting words in my mouth is getting tiresome. I never once compared a 262 to a MIG-15, but a MIG 15 airframe was basically a TA183's. We really dont know how the TA183 would have compared to the P-80 do we? We do know its closest incarnation fared favorbly. Regardless if you chose to read a little more carefully I was simply given credit to the TA183 "AIRFRAME" specifically NOT the theoretical performance of said a/c. The basic overall airframe design was superior to the P-80s. Just as the basic airframe design of the F-86 and MIG15 was superior to the P-80.

BTW the overall performance charactheristics to the MIG15 was superior to the P-80, This superiorty was more or less negated by superior US pilot skill, training, tactics and communications.

Finally.....One last time just to reiterate. NO, the TA183 even with a RR engine and wing fences or slats would NOT have won the war for Germany.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I do not think the presence or absence of an German design would have made a difference in the US aircraft inventory. If the Germans had never invented a swept wing design I still think the F-86 would have been deployed in Korea.

That may be true but the F-86 project was about to be cancelled when the strait wing design could not reach the 600mph benchmark. They attribute the German data in being instrumental in the decision to explore the swept wing concept for the project. I do think it probable that eventually the swept wing would have been adopted regardless.

I think even without the German data someone at Repubic would have swept the wing just to see wtf. All the German data did was indicate something that all the US manufacturers were on the verge of doing anyhow.

We do know its closest incarnation fared favorbly.

We do know that P-80s shot down better aircraft (MiG 15s) than the TA183 despite the fact that the MiG 15 had a similar airframe to the TA183. By the way, I have put nothing in your mouth. You're the guy backpedalling after suggesting that the MiG 15 was just a TA183 with a different engine and implying, therefrom, that the TA183 was better than the P-80. If you weren't grasping at straws, then why are we talking about the MiG-15 at all? Why are you muttering about "airframes" when the hijacked subject du juor was wing design? And if you are so concerned about not twisting others' words, then why did you stammer something about me being an advocate of low-speed flight properties when I specifically mentioned lateral airflow -- a problem that is exacerbated at high-speed and that the Germans never solved?

The TA183 was no MiG-15. The P-80 was better than either the theoretical TA183 or the ME262. US corporations were working with swept wing designs independently of German designs. They'd have gotten around to swept wings rather quickly with or without German data. I don't know enough about Soviet WW2 X-planes to know whether or not the USSR would have gotten as quickly to the MiG-15 without the TA183.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

By the way, I have put nothing in your mouth

Specifically, the seeming repeated implication that I somehow compared the 262 favorably first to the P-80 and then the MIG-15.

You're the guy backpedalling after suggesting that the MiG 15 was just a TA183 with a different engine and implying, therefrom, that the TA183 was better than the P-80. If you weren't grasping at straws, then why are we talking about the MiG-15 at all? Why are you muttering about "airframes" when the hijacked subject du juor was wing design

?

I believe I suggested that the MIG-15 was basically just a TA183 with a RR (better) engine AND wing fences. I stand by that opinion. Of course you are intitled to your own POV. I dont think its grasping at straws, absent head to head comparisons to make comparisons to its closest incarnation. As far has highjacking subjects. My initial post specifically put forth the opinion that a "LITTLE" credit should be given to germans for the ADVANCEMENT of swept wing design. This inocuous statement has been somehow overblown as some sort of indictment of US aircraft design.

And if you are so concerned about not twisting others' words, then why did you stammer something about me being an advocate of low-speed flight properties when I specifically mentioned lateral airflow -- a problem that is exacerbated at high-speed and that the Germans never solved?

Now this is New to me. I was under the impression that the drawback of swept wing design was instability caused by lateral airflow at low speeds. The US solved low speed instability adding auto slats on the leading edge of the wing. The USSR used wing fences. I am unaware of instability of swept wings at high speeds. Doesnt the swept wing resolve compressibilty, hence instability at high speeds? Correct me if I am wrong but I am truely unaware of any instability problems inherent in the swept wing at high speeds.

Fiinally, Any precieved stammering or muttering can be attributed to my admitedly inadequate writing ability to get my POV accross clearly. A disclaimer and apology as such should be considered permanently affixed at heading of all my post.

You're right, my mistake. The lateral airflow problem was primarily at slower speeds.

Mdiehl - you've got me struggling here....you state that the P80 wasn't even a glimmer in a designers eye until 43 - a year in which the 262 could easily have been in series production by the Germans. Yet you compare the two as contemporaries and state that if need be, the P80 could have been mass produced to fend off the P80. If this is true, then why when the US bomber crews (and fighter pilots) were screaming about the performance of of the 262 were P80s not flooded into the European theater? And if 262s were such average planes did the USAAF neef to catch them on the ground and refueling in order to destroy them? Please do not use 'the US was able to succeed with tactics (via numbers - generally)' arguments when comparing weapons platforms on a one to one basis. A Tiger is a better tank platform than any Sherman - arguments about the Shermans advantage at a 30 degree offset angle actually only reinforce the argument that it is an inferior design. A 262 is a better platform than a Mustang or T-Bolt - otherwise 262s would have fell in droves before the US designs - in the air - anything can kill anything else on the ground. Please enlighten me that US fighters downed more 262s than 262s shot down US aircraft - despite the numerical odds against them - in air combat conditions (not while landing). In short, if the Germans were fielding as many platforms as the Allies is the 262 a better platform than what the Allies were flying (unit for unit)? To TIMJOT's points - the Axis never could have won - it doesn't mean they didn't produce some good weapons. If you really want to hypothesize otherwise, please think of what you are saying about veteran's recollections of facts.

Regards,
Frank