Pragmatic Wunderwaffe
- Thread starter ArmchairSamurai
- Start date
-
- Tags
- world war ii wunderwaffe
Deleted member 1487
Not even than, though the E-series tanks above the E-25 were monstrosities, but just have them not build the Pz III chassis at all pre-war and standardize on the Pz IV chassis:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/germans-adopt-the-pz-iv-as-their-mbt-in-1938.292512/
McPherson
Banned
????
I used to think that way, but then I dialogued with an engineer who educated me about track laying systems and how man-hours and materials wasted it was to have lots of little wheels and more bogies than necessary to lay a length of track. Up to a certain size per tonne, larger roadwheels (tires) are more manufacture hours and vehicle operationally efficient at speed. Look at the Russians and the British. They figured this out on their "cruisers". (about 1-1.25 meters diameter tires) This means of course some kind of bell crank suspension at some point, and that is manifestly the PZKW III (torsion bar) for the Germans. It could be Horstmann if the Germans figure it out; but the crap interleaved wheel nonsense they came up with later is the equivalent of asking an engineer to design the worst possible track laying system to use on a tank for a march on Moscow.
What the Germans needed was a Comet/Cromwell but with German tweaks.
Last edited:
Deleted member 1487
I don't know who you talked to, but the interweaved torsion bar issue was a function of the metal alloys they had available and the stable gunnery platform they used, which is why everyone today uses torsion bars...they just have quality enough metals to handle the weight load. BTW the Soviets were about to adopt torsion bar suspension for the T-34M, but Barbarossa got in the way of the conversion, so they were stuck with Christie suspension for the war and moved away from it with the T-44.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-44
Yeah turns out that system sucks and everyone realized torsion bars were superior. The rough ride Christie suspension gave was very wearing on the crew, especially given the lack of creature comforts in the T-34. The only time anything but torsion bars are used now is to give the crew extra side protection, like with the Merkava, which also uses the weird engine in the front system. The M26 Pershing also was the first US tank with torsion bar, so they too didn't want to stick with their older technologies.
The Brits even finally dumped the Horstman suspension, which wasn't something unknown to the Germans either, they just went for superior performance.
Hello.
Firstly, I'm definately not an aviation expert.
So I'd like to better understand your reasoning for dismissing a german equivalent of a jet powered 'Mosquito'?
The Horten brothers had been refining their designs, heck, effectivly since before the war when they were teenagers. It was their glider experience which saw them both successfully enlist in the Luftwaffe.
That they were both engaged fulltime in the Luftwaffe while at the same time developing thier aircraft designs shows how giving them the time and resources to pursue their ideas qith out interruption would ahve seen the Ho quite probably flying sooner.
McPherson
Banned
It involves tail control and lateral yaw moment. It's easy to stabilize a frisbee in yaw. it has angular momentum to keep it planar stable. BUT try that with a plank. If you don't have a transverse shove vector force to keep it stable it will either change aspect to present minimum drag profile or it will roll on you. probably both. So, you wind up with the wings sticking out of a cylinder and 2-d yaw and pitch control (drag surfaces) to keep the cylinder front end pointed. Screw up your tail control and your nose starts to figure 8 (Dutch roll) and you DIE.
Modern wedge shaped flying wings use tip control (flapperons) to replace rudder and elevons (2-d tail control) and need a computer to operate the steer flaps fast enough. No human, not even the great Captain Brown or Chuck Yeager, would be good enough to keep the thing from skidding across the sky like an oiled hockey pock on ice, though they could steer it in a crazy s-loop fashion. Makes for a lousy fighter and an even worse bomber. Murphy if THIS does not clue in a human being about tail control, then what kind of a 5 cm x 10 cm x 100 cm length of wood is needed?
Last edited:
It involves tail control and lateral yaw moment. It's easy to stabilize a frisbee in yaw. it has angular momentum to keep it planar stable. BUT try that with a plank. If you don't have a transverse shove vector force to keep it stable it will either change aspect to present minimum drag profile or it will roll on you. probably both. So, you wind up with the wings sticking out of a cylinder and 2-d yaw and pitch control (drag surfaces) to keep the cylinder front end pointed. Screw up your tail control and your nose starts to figure 8 (Dutch roll) and you DIE.
Modern wedge shaped flying wings use tip control (flapperons) to replace rudder and elevons (2-d tail control) and need a computer to operate the steer flaps fast enough. No human, not even the great Captain Brown or Chuck Yeager, would be good enough to keep the thing from skidding across the sky like an oiled hockey pock on ice, though they could steer it in a crazy s-loop fashion. Makes for a lousy fighter and an even worse bomber. Murphy if THIS does not clue in a human being about tail control, then what kind of a 4 cm x 8 cm length of wood is needed?
*Nods*
So, are you aware of the Horten brother's solutions to the problems you've detailed?
As I've previously mentioned. The one reported issue (Admittedly after rather limited flight time due to tragic incidents) would seem to be that th H0-229 might have suffered from 'Dutch roll'. A slow, lsight oscillation on the horizonal plane of the aircraft's heading.
As I've previously made comment on. Have the Horten brothers cross paths with Professor Lippisch.
His knowledge of delta wings and such similar platforms would be invaluable. His 'leading edge slots' in particular would seem to be a good fit for the H0-229.
Again, as others have noted. Rationalize the whole R&D endeavour to help both informatio flow and cut back on 'Doubling up' of things.
So.... other than perceived stablity issues your comments on a German 'Mosquito'?
McPherson
Banned
1. The Germans built one. It came unglued and was a pilot killer.
2. Have you heard of Mister Jack Northrop? He proved (B-47) it, leading edge gas differentiation would not work as a drag control. You use flapperons and train your pilots hard and then you stick a rudder on it at some point and cross your fingers that your jet engine nacelles take the place of the cylinder as the "air keel".
By the way: Professor Lippisch was well aware of 2 d tail control, himself.
http://www.modelairplanecollectors....he-rocket-propelled-fleas-2of3-in-development
Even so, this monstrosity wobbled across the sky like a 600 pound drunk gorilla on oiled roller skates skidding across a fresh Zambonied ice rink. It could not be pointed or follow a horizon line with any stability even under thrust.
Uhm... no. The working protoype did not 'Come unglued'.
That was a Mosquito thing caused by poor quality control and blamed on tropical weather.
From my (Admittedly) limited sources it was an engine failure.
With the pilot, while experianced, not retaining control. Indeed, there is reported that something else may have incapacitated the pilot leading to the crash (Possible fumes from the 'Out engine'?).
The Horten's 'Double curve' wing planform made their design 'reasonably' stable. As I previously mentioned, the only quirk reported was the 'Dutch roll'.
For the equivalent horizontal stabilizer controll a series of 'drag brakes' above and below the wings were utilized.
Later Gotha would implement a subtly different arraingment on their iterations of the Horten's work. The Gotha designers adding in a feature which would have allowed their control s=urfaces to act as an 'Air brake' as well as horizontal control system.
Again, there seems to be nothing to indicate that Mister Northrop was ever made aware of the Horten machines brought back from the war. Northrop's work proceeded along his own development during all of his and his companies developments of the flying wing platform.
I do not want to seem to be comming across 'The wrong way'. Am just seeking to share ideas on the forum.
Also of note, with you providing a link to the Me-163.
What about dispencing with the rocket motor and going with the Me-334 idea instead?
Put Lippisch's wooden shape to good use with the earlier engine of the Bf-109's engine still in production?
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
The glue used failed. 14 production aircraft crashed (wings came apart). This was the FW TA 154's history.
The British had that problem and they accepted it as war exigency. This means it was expected and accepted when the Mosquito went to Australia. I don't see where it was a fault. The plane was not expected to survive the war.
During the Moskito flight test program, it is my understanding that the Jumo 211F engines worked quite well.
Not aware of it. Where can I source it?
Dutch roll is a yaw/pitch control that is kind of fatal in a pusher configurations. F-100 Super Sabre is the classic example.
It is called a flapperon. That was what Northrop invented.
Ibid.
I do not want to seem to be comming across 'The wrong way'. Am just seeking to share ideas on the forum.[/QUOTE]
Uhm.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160201-the-wwii-flying-wing-decades-ahead-of-its-time
So...yeah he was quite aware of their work.
Please share your ideas. I love discussion. BTW were you thinking of the Horton Ho229 when you explained that the pilot was killed by an engine out? I was discussing the Moskita when I suggested the Germans built one. Sorry if I introduced confusion.
Best wishes;
McP.
At work.
The only (Again, my very limited knowledge) of wood wing delamination was in a He 162 at an air show after the war and the afore mentioned British Mosquito problem.
The British problem was traced back to poor materials production "However" at the time it was officially reported as being caused by tropical climate issues.
Possibly a political face saving issue.
My Horten source is the (Probably now dated) 'Monogram' publications book on the history and development of the Ho-229.
While Northrop may indeed have created the 'Flapperon' the Horten brother's solution was completely diffetent in style and execution.
Paired 'Spoilers' were mounted flush within the wing. Raised and lowered in tandem on each wing to produce a net 'Drag' effect. Thus performing the function of horizontal tail surface controls.
I've read literature in regards to Northrop's early flying wing developments; as well as the Monogram book I have, with both publications mentioning the other. Both sources (Again, now going from aging memory) making the comment that neither Northrop nor the Horten's were ever aware of the others works.
The only tale I heard/read is of many years (Decades) later when the Northrop company was developing the B-2 that the Ho-229 in storage (The center fuselage and a pair of wings) was brought to their attention.
As I mentioned. The Horten's never crossed paths with Lippisch either. Some of his aerodynamic insights quite possibly might have helped them in their developments.
The Horten's works after the war culminated in an 'Otto' engined (Two or four.... the exact number escapes me atm) , flying wing transport which gave a demonstration flight once before the South American dictatorial political system (Corruption) saw it languish and rot to destruction.
Cheers for now.
The only (Again, my very limited knowledge) of wood wing delamination was in a He 162 at an air show after the war and the afore mentioned British Mosquito problem.
The British problem was traced back to poor materials production "However" at the time it was officially reported as being caused by tropical climate issues.
Possibly a political face saving issue.
My Horten source is the (Probably now dated) 'Monogram' publications book on the history and development of the Ho-229.
While Northrop may indeed have created the 'Flapperon' the Horten brother's solution was completely diffetent in style and execution.
Paired 'Spoilers' were mounted flush within the wing. Raised and lowered in tandem on each wing to produce a net 'Drag' effect. Thus performing the function of horizontal tail surface controls.
I've read literature in regards to Northrop's early flying wing developments; as well as the Monogram book I have, with both publications mentioning the other. Both sources (Again, now going from aging memory) making the comment that neither Northrop nor the Horten's were ever aware of the others works.
The only tale I heard/read is of many years (Decades) later when the Northrop company was developing the B-2 that the Ho-229 in storage (The center fuselage and a pair of wings) was brought to their attention.
As I mentioned. The Horten's never crossed paths with Lippisch either. Some of his aerodynamic insights quite possibly might have helped them in their developments.
The Horten's works after the war culminated in an 'Otto' engined (Two or four.... the exact number escapes me atm) , flying wing transport which gave a demonstration flight once before the South American dictatorial political system (Corruption) saw it languish and rot to destruction.
Cheers for now.
Last edited:
... without knowing the circumstances how and why the Ho-229 crahsed ... a rather a 'cheap' statement.
But ... if US-boys like
an't wrap their heads around ... ofc noone else can ... (the necessary computer-control of todays flying wings has to a large degree its origin in the otherwise for the (damned (?)) 'stealth'-worthiness oddly formed wings and fusalage).
You might not know it but ... the Horton actually had well working tailless, motorized planes flying since 1936/1937 (Horten VbVc, VII)
Aha ... what's your source for this rather determined statement ? ... its final crash due to the miss-shift of center-of-gravity by someone loading it without much knowledge of the planes peculiarites ?
McPherson
Banned
For all of my statements, I have the historical record. (^^^) And I have given enough examples. By the way, if one underestimates Jack Northrop and then attributes my frank admiration for him to American fanboiism, then one has not read my output in toto. I have a rather sour view of American fanboiism or those who invoke it on either side of an argument.
Mine is Alexander Lippisch. What's yours ? .. for almost every part you your statement above
The Horton debate again...
Its a marble, the physics explains serious problems and a non-specialist would be wise to conclude it was difficult.
Impossible? The aircraft were flying around! Horton H.VII was used as a trainer aircraft.
Its true that many designers failed, but that doesnt prove anything except that it was difficult when you can go and look at a flying aircraft instead.
For what its worth, Horton is still in business: https://www.horten-aircraft.com/en/
Its a marble, the physics explains serious problems and a non-specialist would be wise to conclude it was difficult.
Impossible? The aircraft were flying around! Horton H.VII was used as a trainer aircraft.
Its true that many designers failed, but that doesnt prove anything except that it was difficult when you can go and look at a flying aircraft instead.
For what its worth, Horton is still in business: https://www.horten-aircraft.com/en/
Didn't know that either of them participated in testing of the DFS 40 you depicted . ... as well as the Ho V or Ho VII ... or Ho/go 229 for that ...
So : where the money is there's the (even scinetific) 'truth' ?
McPherson
Banned
You are kidding?
https://www.northropgrumman.com/CAREERS/Pages/default.aspx
By the way the DFS40 crashed because Lippisch or someone screwed up the CG measurement when it was built. It was test flown and in flight testing it flat spun out and crashed. Drunken gorilla on roller skates syndrome was evident. It could not hold a horizon line or keep nose point as I wrote.
This was the end result of the DFS40. I note it is in the historical record as an usual for a lot of the Lippisch and Horton flying wing and tailless aircraft work. The planes were unstable and needed a lot of refinement. This work never happened until a lot more work was accomplished by other designers (namely Convair, Dassault, and Saab aircraft designers.
Lippisch "succeeded" with the Me163? How many crashes and dead pilots again due to operational, not enemy caused losses?
To be fair, the Northrop X-4 (a almost concurrent mirror copy) was also a turkey; being a "nose hunter" like the Me163 proved to be at high Mach.
Where there are other results though... and we have RTL history for this...
there are other "results".
QED. Jack Northrop's heirs, using his methods, (flapperons in video) are landing robot flying wing aircraft on aircraft carriers. Note that achievement?
Lippisch is not that relevant anymore.
Last edited:
Sinde you were quoting me....
That DFS40 has an accident doesnt prove that Ho VII is not flying (as a trainer aircraft.....)
Difficult (My term) vs. “Needed a lot of refinement (your term). Not that different.
McPherson
Banned
The Ho VII was built in 1 iteration and not beyond that, so it was not really a trainer aircraft for anyone. It was a one-off that was supposed to be the trainer for the other future Horton allwings and 20 were scheduled for the purpose, but none delivered. The other allwings? Example; Ho IX test vehicle for the eventual Ho229? One of the two prototypes had an engine out incident. The pilot tried a dive restart four times and he went right into the ground. End of pilot and end of that test plane. Lateral instability and inlet intake stall? You betcha, those were present and were probable contributors to the loss of mission. Why? Someone screwed up the wind tunnel tests. Happens in war time stressed conditions. Northrop had his own bolo, the N1M which had engine cooling problems. It's derivative, the N9M killed at least 1 pilot. (lateral instability problems); so its endemic to ALLWING designs and a primary cause for a lot of those crashes in that class of aircraft (like 1 of the 2 B-2 losses to date.)
Shrug.