![]() |
#171
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
So..
You are saying that you know more about the Me262 development than..
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
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I will repost these for readers to access....
|
#175
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
And I might as well repost these for readers to access....
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Here is some good infomation on flying wings too.....
Quote:
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:
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? |
#177
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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 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. |
![]() |
|
|