Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Pilot's Lounge

Pilot's Lounge Members meetup

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old 06-15-2012, 01:40 AM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
So..

You are saying that you know more about the Me262 development than..
  • STORMBIRDS who build replicas of them..
  • Dennis Jenkins who has written more aerospace books that most people own..

And now your including the people who actually tested the Me262 after the war?

Interesting..

Again, don't take this personal

But Ill have to stick with what 'they' said wrt the reason the Me262 wings were swept over what 'you belive' the reason was the Me262 wings were swept.

That is to say we will have to agree to disagree that you know more about the Me262 development than those people know.

S!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
  #172  
Old 06-15-2012, 01:43 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Most if not all agree the 18.5 was too slight to achieve any real significant advantage in the mach number..
Who is most??



I guess Stormbirds never picked up a calculator and I am sure you are focusing on minutiae taking Jenkins out of context to fit your agenda.

In otherwords, if someone asked Jenkins if the ME-262 benefited from 18 degrees of sweep angle, he would pick up a calculator and say:

Our critical Mach number is raised by reciprocal of the cosine of the angle of sweep. So for 18 degrees of sweep we see a 1.05146 increase to critical mach.

So mach limit of Mach .8 becomes a new limit of .84.

Now at sea level that is represents a 30mph increase in speed!

Now the drag reduction is proportional to cos^2<angle of sweep>

Or a 9.5% reduction in drag.....

Not a bad call on the part of Mtt to add 18 degrees sweep based off their advanced knowledge of swept wing theory. By keeping the sweep moderate, they certainly avoided all the stability and control issues found with sweep angles and engine nacelles.

What is your opinion based on again?
  #173  
Old 06-15-2012, 01:45 AM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
I guess Stormbirds never picked up a calculator
So what part of ..

we will have to agree to disagree that you know more about the Me262 development than those people know

Are you still struggling with?
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
  #174  
Old 06-15-2012, 01:47 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

I will repost these for readers to access....
Attached Files
File Type: zip german Aerodynamic technology.zip (5.08 MB, 0 views)
File Type: zip German Swept Wing Research1.zip (4.07 MB, 0 views)
  #175  
Old 06-15-2012, 01:55 AM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

And I might as well repost these for readers to access....

Quote:
Originally Posted by STORMBIRDS
it is true (as some writers seem intent on repeating loudly and often) that the Me 262s swept wing design was due to the need to adjust the center of gravity for the aircraft
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis R Jenkins
The third prototype was the first Me 262 to fly on jet power alone, taking off on 18 July 1942 with two pre-production Jumo 004A-0 engines. The 12-minute flight reached an altitude of just over 6,000 feet and a speed of 375 mph. A second flight later the same day lasted 13 minutes and reached 11,000 feet and 450 mph. One problem that was immediately evident was that, in a bank, the airflow broke away early from the wing center section. A small fillet was added between the fuselage and engine nacelle, increasing the root chord and continuing the leading-edge sweep angle of the outer panels across the entire center section. This completed the change necessary to give the appearance of a truly swept wing.
Note not my opinion.. Just agreeing with what they said
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.

Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 06-15-2012 at 01:58 AM.
  #176  
Old 06-15-2012, 01:57 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Here is some good infomation on flying wings too.....

Quote:
You are saying that you know more about the Me262 development than..
Not at all. I am saying what the AIAA relates from the scientist and engineers involved.

I am also demonstrating the benefits as per what is now accepted performance calculations for swept wing aircraft. You know, the stuff Von Karman talks about in his letter?

Quote:
They are ahead of us on a few items which I will mention. The Germans have been doing extensive work on high speed aerodynamics. This has led to one very important discovery. Sweepback or sweepforward (sic) has a very large effect on critical Mach No.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=155

I am saying:

You are focusing on minutiae and twisting it fit your agenda.

Our critical Mach number is raised by reciprocal of the cosine of the angle of sweep. So for 18 degrees of sweep we see a 1.05146 increase to critical mach.

So mach limit of Mach .8 becomes a new limit of .84.

Now at sea level that is represents a 30mph increase in speed!

Now the drag reduction is proportional to cos^2<angle of sweep>

Or a 9.5% reduction in drag.....

Not a bad call on the part of Mtt to add 18 degrees sweep based off their advanced knowledge of swept wing theory. By keeping the sweep moderate, they certainly avoided all the stability and control issues found with sweep angles and engine nacelles.

What is your opinion based on again?
Attached Files
File Type: zip Flying wings.zip (3.42 MB, 0 views)
  #177  
Old 06-15-2012, 01:59 AM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Not at all.
Ah good so you agree with what STORMBIRDS and Jenkins said wrt the reason the Me262 wings were swept

Better late than never!

Anyway, it's late

Glad to see you comming around!

S!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
  #178  
Old 06-15-2012, 02:10 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
The third prototype was the first Me 262 to fly on jet power alone, taking off on 18 July 1942 with two pre-production Jumo 004A-0 engines. The 12-minute flight reached an altitude of just over 6,000 feet and a speed of 375 mph. A second flight later the same day lasted 13 minutes and reached 11,000 feet and 450 mph. One problem that was immediately evident was that, in a bank, the airflow broke away early from the wing center section. A small fillet was added between the fuselage and engine nacelle, increasing the root chord and continuing the leading-edge sweep angle of the outer panels across the entire center section. This completed the change necessary to give the appearance of a truly swept wing.
Where does this saying anything about Mtt not understanding swept wing theory or the Me262 not benefiting from its 18 degrees of wing sweep over a straight wing??

You do know there are other methods of fixing this problem, don't you? It could have easily been fixed with twist.

Mtt did not have add the filet and increase the sweep.

Mtt was already flying the Me163 and started the design work on the P1101 variable geometry wing.

You certainly can make some great leaps of logic off a few lines of text.
  #179  
Old 06-15-2012, 10:21 AM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Mtt was already flying the Me163 and started the design work on the P1101 variable geometry wing.
First flight of the Me 163A V4 in 1 September 1941.

Only nine days after the specification was issued by the RLM (July 24, 1944), the first Me P.1101 had taken shape on paper.

Me262 pg 66 Smith/Creek
"By Feb 1940, the design of the P1065 had been modified to have the outer wings swept back some 18 degrees. Originally this was done to solve problems that heavier engine weights estimates were causing with the positioning of the aircraft's center of gravity."

It would seem someone has trouble with dates.
  #180  
Old 06-15-2012, 01:30 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Where does this saying anything about Mtt not understanding swept wing theory
Ah I see where you are confused..

As far as I know, nobody in this thread has stated the Germans knew nothing about swept wing theory..

About the only thing that was pointed out on that subject is the Germans did not fully understand swept wing theory..

As you your self admited when you said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Nobody fully understood swept wing theory until after the war.
Hope that helps!

S!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.