Horton

[bongodriver]

Still, "berg" in connection with another native english word is rather odd.

isn't ice simply an anglicised version of eis?

Nope, "appreciated" would be the wrong word here for sure.

Appreciation is not always a positive acceptance but more a simple understanding of the way things are.

Avro is an agent Provocateur with a passion. Much bigger complexes over the war then you (or me) appear to show at times. The responses are mostly in kind.

However, the Versailles treaty was a humilation in more ways then most british realize. It was not just the financial conditions and lost territories, it also had to do with some very odd plebiscits in the east, rape on a massive scale during the occupation in the Rhineland by the French. The fact that Germany agreed to the Armistice based on Wilsons 14 point plan which was utterly trashed later in the negotiations. The fact that all war guilt was pushed on Germany, despite the Kaiser actually trying to attempt demobilisation in his letters with the Russian Csar. There are fair treates, and there are treaties especially aimed and kick an opponent already on the ground. This behaviour was expected from the French, not from the british.
The Versailles treaty was the latter and though I do not approve of the Nazis, I actually DO understand why people voted for them back then, also in connection with the Great Depression.

Ok but even if the treaty was a humiliation did it justify war? and why exactly did the Polish get hammered on that basis?
In times of depression a massive drive toward civil engineering could work just as well as military development....there was another option.

Are you judging from todays moral POV, or the historical one? There is a huge difference there.

Not sure......just my POV

About bringing civilisation to other parts of the world....would you accept being swallowed by China? Or Germany? Despite them willing to develop your industries?

Depends how good their 'fire water is'

Still does not justify why german innovations back then and there defense warrents such comparisons. Germany has been an innovative area right throughout it's history, with the printing press or the automobile as some prominent examples.

I'm surprised you missed my point, the V2 was an innovation no? but solely for the purpouse of war, and this is a forum about a period of war.
any innovation outside of periods of conflict have not been particularily remarkeable by comparison to other nations, what I mean to say is that every developed nation have invented and innovated something it's not a capability unique to Germany but it is accepted Germany have been in the top of the list.

We also may have some cultural misunderstandings here. In Germany there is a lot of pride in achievements and knowledge and that is widely displayed. Lack of education or downplaying what you managed is rather frowned upon. That may be what you understand as "bragging".

Yes....to a degree, it's less vulgar to brag about admirable qualities like hard work, but modesty is practically a virtue in the UK.

That said, I never percieved or got the impression of "plucky undersdg" when it comes to the UK

Well during WWII thats exactly what Britain was.

[tools4fools]

you will see that very little 'NEW' weight was added ahead of the cg

Disagree. Think logic.

If the engine would have mounted same way as the BMW, then it would have added 160kg in front of CoG.
It needs to be moved backward and have weight in the back, ohterwise you gonna have a shift in CoG forward. So some weight will have to be added in the back. Perfect balance, no need for anything else.
Not a single source supports your claim anyway.

Radinger and Schick, page 18

March 21, 1940, ...., and swept back outer wings for a shift of CoG due to heavy jet engines....

Before it ever had engines on the wing.

It mentions elsewhere, later in the development, that there was a problem with airflow over the inner wing and hence the sweep was continued.

About the V3, which got this inner sweep first:

this aircraft role in the test program was mainly high-speed trials and aerodynamic investigations (pressure deistribution, the influence of Mach number, etc)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

Think logic.

Maybe another picture will help you see what I am saying?

In that the top view picture I showed you before appears to have confused you a little

So allow me to post a side view of the BMW P.3302 vs Jumo 004 (see attached)

Looking at the attached picture you can see I lined up the wings..

From the picture you can see the Jumo and BMW both start at the same point ahead of the cg.
From the picture you can see the Jumo extends out behind the cg much further than the BMW.

That is that 'red' area I showed in my last drawing

This additional mass that extends out behind the cg will have to be compensated for to maintain the cg.

And just to be crystal clear here.. I am not saying this is the reason the inner wing was swept forward! All I am saying is if this is the reason, it agrees with what STORMBIRDS said or didn't say, as in it could explain why STORMBIRDS did NOT come out on record and say the reason the inner wing was swept forward was to take advantage of swept wing theory

Hope that helps!

[tools4fools]

Maybe another picture will help you see what I am saying?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...5&d=1339124183

It clearly shows JUMO 004 with inner wing not swept.

I posted this image above btw.

As explained that if you put additional weight on the plane and you put it ALL forward you have a shift CoG forward.
So you will need to put some of that extra weight behind as well, just logic.
Anbd looking at the image you posted you will see that the Jumo is much fatter engine as well and has much more bits and pieces in front - it does put a lot of additional weight in front as well.
You try to make it look like only weight in the rear was added, which is false.

The books I quoted above say in their short introcductions the same as Stormbirds does - wings swept to correct CoG.
In their short overviews.
In their detailed development history they state 'inner wings' for CoG early in development and inner wings for said aerodynamic problems with airflow later, much later in development, using V3 which was used for high speed testing, with Jumo 004 already, as seen on the link posted above.

The reason why Stormbirds does not go into he detail is likely that they write about 'plagiarism' in that article - and not about developmnt history.
++++

[Crumpp]

Lot of nonsense in this thread.

The German contributions to swept wing research:

1) German AVA/LFA/DVL wind-tunnel data gave proof in 1940
that Busemann’s 1935 supersonic swept-wing theory is also applicable
for subsonic compressibility effects.
2) The beginnings of area ruling can be traced back to Junkers’
patent in 1943.
3) Artificial stability (philosophy, Heinkel; theory, Fischel, 1940)
was first demonstrated by DVL’s rate gyro controlled yaw damper
(1944).
4) The existence of LFAVoelkenrode came as a complete surprise
to the Americans and British after WWII.
5) Only after von Karman and his scientific advisory team arrived
in Germany was the totality of the German aeronautical research and
design effort revealed.
6) German swept-wing wind-tunnel data dispelled U.S. doubts
regarding the validity of R. T. Jones’ theoretical work.
7) To preserve that scientific picture of LFA and AVA, every
hardware and technical data were boxed up and shipped off mainly
to Wright Field and to Bedford, United Kingdom.
Fairly extensive German wind-tunnel data were used for future
swept-wing designs in the United States, Russia, United Kingdom,
France, and Sweden.

[Crumpp]

It is clear from the literature and available data, that Germany has led the development of the flying wing concept. The work of Lillienthal, Lippish, and the Horten brothers is impressive by all measures. The contributions of the English, Dunne and Hill, while not as diverse as the German influence is extremely notewothy in the area of stability and control. Contributions by Burnelli and Northrop of the United States focused on the maturation and commercial development of the flying wing concept.

The German pioneers did contribute to Northrop's flying wing designs.

[Crumpp]

Me 262 CG blah blah blah

The aerodynamic center moves under compressibility increasing the stability margin.

Two common methods of handling this are:

1. Add drag to slow the aircraft down below compressibility
2. If the CG is within limits<for that condition>, the aircraft will recover.

If you want to make the elevator effective enough to recover the aircraft, it must not violate the forward CG.

The forward CG limits defines the point you can raise the nose.

Under compressibility, behind the normal shock, the dynamic pressure is greatly reduced and the flow subsonic.

I am sure Mtt was aware of this fact.

[Crumpp]

What happenend to your reply, Tagert?

If the Germans fully understood swept wing theory..

Nobody fully understood swept wing theory until after the war. As the history notes, even Jones work in the United States was viewed with skeptism and far from mainstream.

Nobody fully understood the transonic and supersonic realms either.

German swept-wing wind-tunnel data dispelled U.S. doubts
regarding the validity of R. T. Jones’ theoretical work.

What the Germans were, is far ahead of anyone else during the war. Their research became the foundation others like Northrop built upon.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Nobody fully understood swept wing theory until after the war.

Bingo!

Now maybe tools will belive me?

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

isn't ice simply an anglicised version of eis?

Bah, I give up ; )

Ok but even if the treaty was a humiliation did it justify war? and why exactly did the Polish get hammered on that basis?
In times of depression a massive drive toward civil engineering could work just as well as military development....there was another option.

Most certainly not.
As in regards to german polish interwar history, just some of the more important bullet points.

-Access to East Prussia (cut off from Germany after WWI). The Weimar Republic made several proposals, all rejected.
-Attempts by polish nationalists to attack Germany after WWI to gain even more land
-Mistreatment of german nationals that were left in now polish areas. (Never saw any real sources over this, though)
-Some very odd plebiscits in the Region of Krakow. The result was 60-40 in favor of staying in Germany, instead the region was just split 60-40.
-The situation around the Free City of Danzig, which was under official supervision by the league of nations, but practically under polish rule.

During the Weimar Republic days, these issues led to a lot of tensions and a gradual build up of bitterness and almost hate towards the Poles, which probably explains the treatment of Poland in WW2.

(note: "explains", not "justifies")

The Poles probably have their own side of the story, the whole topic is only very sparsley covered in Germany, I yet have to find a comprehensive and encompassing source.

In regards to engeneering, absolutely. During that time period the autobahns were built, for example. Massive infrastructure all over the country took place. Unluckily the folks in power did not deem that enough and had their own ideas.

I'm surprised you missed my point, the V2 was an innovation no? but solely for the purpouse of war, and this is a forum about a period of war.
any innovation outside of periods of conflict have not been particularily remarkeable by comparison to other nations, what I mean to say is that every developed nation have invented and innovated something it's not a capability unique to Germany but it is accepted Germany have been in the top of the list.

For von Braun it was a step towards spaceflight. He wilingly sold his soul to achieve that. Agreed to the rest of your post but one fact.

Everybody accepts the americans inveting the airplane, the british the steam engine, juust as a couiple examples. But when it comes to german inventions the debates are endless.

Yes....to a degree, it's less vulgar to brag about admirable qualities like hard work, but modesty is practically a virtue in the UK.

Nothing wrong with that. Just different.

Well during WWII thats exactly what Britain was.

I dare say that is what Britian did become eventually. It was not the case in 1939 when Germany faced the most powerful army on the continent, the French, and the British Empire at the climax of it's power.