Re: He-100 Part II- He P.1079 vs Me 509

Arndt the asslicker wrote:
Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Rob Arndt" <B44Thunder@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157335031.725800.53550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Rob Arndt" <B44Thunder@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157321824.906642.166890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Eunometic" <eunometic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157204599.682037.22620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

max wrote:
"Eunometic" <eunometic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157031940.933101.218940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

P.1079 would have been a beautifull aircraft; its awesome
expected
speed of 560mph with a Jumo 213J or DB603L would surely have been
near
the limit for any piston fighter.

Could this speed really have been achieved? When I first saw it I
read
it
as manufacturer's overclaim.

I think its quite realistic. The Germans had access to a 14 inch
supersonic wind tunnel since 1934. The first US unit wasn't built
in
the US till 1942 and it was smaller and suffered from condensation
problems. It was built by Eastman Jacobs using unauthorised
funding.
Jocobs was the man that gave the world the NACA 4 and 5 digit
airfoils
and invented the laminar flow wing.

big snip>>>

Consider that in the late '80's and early '90's, a group which
included
Lockheed Skunkworks aerodynamicists designed an unlimited racer known
as
Tsunami. At their disposal, these engineers had all the aerodynamic
knowledge generated before, during, and for 45 years after WWII. The
result
of their design looked like a slightly smaller, cleaned up Mustang.
Even
without armor, weapons, self sealing tanks, external antennae, and the
dozens of other performance compromises built into production
fighters,
the
Tsunami was essentially a 500 mph airplane at Reno altitudes. And
that's
with an engine in racing tune, running far closer to the margins than
anyone
would operate an engine that had to perform day in and day out.

Look at the other competitive unlimited racers. The aircraft are
stripped
of military equipment. The canopies are cut down. The engines are run
at
ridiculous power settings, and are guaranteed to come to a bad end if
the
induction cooling system so much as burps. Again, these are 500 mph
aircraft. Rare Bear, arguably the fastest of these aircraft holds the
FAI
record for speed for a piston engined aircraft. 528 mph, using ~3,800
hp.
A modified mustang (modifications not specified, but the engine was
rated
at
3,000 hp), holds a 15/25 km straight course record at 516 mph.

Without HUGE horsepower increases, a much smaller airframe, or
tremendous
sacrifices in other performance characteristics, 560 mph isn't
possible
for
a piston engine fighter.

KB


Utter BS. The Me Bf 109 latter models, including up to the 509 would
have had DB 605N engines at some point and the speed would have jumped
into the mid 500s. The Supermarine Spiteful Mk.XVI reached either 504
or 509 mph in one unofficial test in 1945. It's regular max. speed was
490 mph and could have been raised with upgraded engine. Even the
Australian CAC-15 Kangaroo of the early postwar years reached 502mph
with a Griffon 2,305 hp engine. Both Allied and German/Japanese late
war engines and project engines were to be in the 3-4,000 hp range....
so how do you arrive at your absurd conclusions. Germany had the He-100
@ 464 mph and the Me-209 @ 469 mph PRE-WAR. By war's end Germany had
normal armed fighters of 472 mph (Fw Ta 152) and 477 mph (Do-335). That
mystery Espenlaub on another thead may also have been a 500 mph fighter
as well as the other Luftwaffe X-Plane there- which incidentally has a
mid-fuselage mounted Deutz Dz-710 16 cylinder 3,100 hp engine,
aerodynamic spinner/nose with a 4-bladed prop. Another possible 500 mph
contender.

Rob

p.s. Even that scavenged part circular Sack A.S.6, if reworked by
Messerschmitt and given the K-4's DB 605ASCM of 2,000 hp could have
been brought up to 500 mph.

Power required increases in proportion to the cube of the "after" speed
divided by the "before" speed. So, to go from a 500 mph prop driven
aircraft, which seems to be the practical maximum, to a 560 mph aircraft
would take 40% more horsepower ((560/500)^3) = 1.4. Even then, at those
speeds, it'll take far more power than the calculations show, because the
prop blades are going transonic along much of their span and are
supersonic
at the tips, resulting in a huge efficiency loss. The unlimited racers
work
very hard to minimize those effects and they are at 500 mph down at 5k
feet
where the air is thick and the speed of sound is relatively high.

Going beyond the aerodynamics, propeller and reciprocating engine
technology
matured in WWII. The only way to reliably produce more power was a
bigger
engine. That bigger engine required a bigger airframe, which eliminated
most
or all of the speed advantage that might have been gained through
increased
power. There is a reason a very immature technology (jets) replaced a
very
mature technology (piston/prop's) in the mid '40's. The mature
technology
was at its limits. The engineers realized this.

Dig up all of the paper airplanes and wunderweapon websites you'd like,
but
the physics don't change.

KB


The Germans had supersonic wind tunnels and had already tested a wide
array of prop a/c with the data available. I don't remember reading
anywhere in the detailed Projekt a/c books where a prop threshold was
established.

Here are just some of the 500+ prop projects:

He Lerche I 500 mph
Fw w/As-413 509 mph
Bv P.170.01 510 mph
Do P.273 518 mph
Fw Flitzer I 525 mph (turboprop)
He P.1076.01 534 mph
Do 435 537 mph
He P.1076.03 546 mph
Fw Flitzer II 549 mph (turboprop)
He P.1068.01 565 mph

SNIP

How many of them ever flew at these speeds

ZERO

What does that tell you about the value of your vaunted wind tunnel
data and the understanding of contemporary German engineers of the
problems they were facing...most of these projections are probably
based on methods which are fine for lower speeds but break down (like
the physics governig propoellor efficieny and power) at higher speeds


Paper weapons. When you transition from paper to an actual flying airframe,
physics takes over and pipedreams go bust.

The claimed speeds prove that either:

A) German designers were willing to make wildly optimistic performance
projections in order to get funding/approval for their projects.

B) There were plenty of German designers who didn't have a good
understanding of the issues they faced in trying to squeeze additional
performance out of a technology that was at its limits.

Again, consider that unlimited racers are hard pressed to reach 500 mph,
much less exceed it by a meaningful margin. What does that tell you about
500 mph + performance projections for operational aircraft?

KB

Maybe they should just get a German to build a racer then! Why not
since the He-100 and Me-209 held the records pre-war!

SNIP

Did either one of them go 500 plus MPH

I DON'T think so


You know, people that used science said man could not fly
- Lilienthal proved them wrong with his gliders and Count Zeppelin with
his airships

SNIP

Lillienthal failed to realize the importance of control of a flying
machine - the essential contribution of the Wrights to aviation
technology - and paid for it with his life

But in any case, Sir George Cayley beat Lillienthal by something like
half a century and his glide was further than anything Lillienthal ever
made.

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/cayley.html

He was the first to identify the four aerodynamic forces of
flightùweight, lift, drag, and thrust and their relationship and also
the first to build a successful human-carrying glider

After having built several models (with an interruption to explore the
possibility of an Aerial Carriage of 1843), Cayley concentrated on
experiments with full-size gliders. He built his first full-size glider
in 1849 and initially carried out trials with ballast. Later that year,
the ten-year-old son of one his servants became the first person in
history to fly when he made a short flight in a Cayley glider.

Four years later, in 1853 and fifty years before the first powered
flight was made at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, Cayley built a triplane
glider (a glider with three horizontal wing structures) that carried
his coachman 900 feet (275 meters) across Brompton Dale in the north of
England before crashing. It was the first recorded flight by an adult
in an aircraft

Count Z was also beaten by half a century or so by a Frenchman

"But it would not be until 1852 that another French, steam engineer
Henri Giffard, ordinarily regarded as the airship inventor today, built
the first practical airship and flew it. At an impressive average speed
of 6.7 miles per hour (10.8 km/h), he demonstrated powered flight, on
September 24, 1952, flying from Paris to Trappe in an airship fitted
with a suspended gondola and a 3 horsepower steam engine of his own
design, for a total of 27 km (17 miles). The gas bag was 44 m (144
feet) long and 12 m (39 feet) in diameter, inflated with 2,500 m3
(88,000 cubic feet) of coal gas. Control was minimal and the engine
very heavy."


then people said it was impossible to build heavier than air craft
- Gustav Weisskopf proved them wrong in 1901 with his GW No.21

SNIP

The only people who belive that pack of lies are the "Scheisskopfs" of
the world

"Unfortunately, the evidence to back up any of these rather
extraordinary claims is sketchy, at best. The most ardent believers in
Whitehead's accomplishments did not publish any of their claims until
over 30 years after they are alleged to have occurred. By this time,
only one eye witness could be found to corroborate the stories, and
this individual had a financial interest in a book being written about
Whitehead. A number of local newspaper articles describing the flights
and written at the time they occurred have also been used to support
Whitehead's claims, but a close inspection of these publications
reveals details that are simply impossible to believe. Among these are
stories about the plane being flown at night to avoid crowds and
unmanned flights being conducted using sand bags as ballast. In
addition, the articles are replete with phrases like "It was reported
that..." which imply that the authors never actually witnessed any of
the events they wrote about. Furthermore, not a single photograph of
Whitehead in flight has ever been found, despite the numerous
opportunities that should have been available to take one given his
frequent flights detailed above. Whitehead's rather ridiculous defense
in this regard was his contention that his planes flew up to 70 mph
(115 km/h), which was so fast that no camera could photograph him!
Perhaps the most telling evidence of all is the fact that his wife
could not remember any instance of seeing her husband flying in one of
his planes."

IF he did fly, he was beaten into the air by at least Hiram Maxim

"Although the machine was never intended to fly, the test rig did
become airborne on 31 July 1894 during its third run. The apparatus,
with Maxim and three other crew aboard, generated so much lift that it
actually broke away from the restraining rails and careened
uncontrolled for some 600 ft (185 m). The rig reached altitudes of up
to 3 ft (1 m) before it crashed and damaged the vehicle. It was
estimated that a force of 10,000 lb (45 kN) was probably generated to
pull the rig off the track and keep it airborne.

The rig was later repaired, but used only to raise funds for charities
and never again for aviation experiments. Despite his noteworthy
accomplishment, Maxim lost interest in the project and the test rig was
dismantled sometime in 1895. Maxim's test rig does deserve credit for
achieving flight while under power, but the aircraft could not be
controlled and the flight was not sustainable."

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0159.shtml


then people said that all-metal a/c could not be built effectively

SNIP

Give us citations on who claimed that and where


then there was the idea only prop aircraft could fly

SNIP

ABSOLUTE BULL*** - considering that any Goddamn fool - bur not aren't
- could see a rocket could fly and they had been doing so hundreds of
years


- Opel proved them wrong with solid rockets in the late 1920s

SNIP

He might have a claim if he started work in 1220....You might be aware
of an obscure ethnic group called the Chinese? I think they got there
first

"1232 AD - Rockets ("arrows of flying fire") used at the siege of
Kai-fung-fu."


along
with Espenlaub
- followed by hybrid prop/liquid rocket

SNIP

Invented by the American Robert Goddard


a/c He-112, He-118, Fw-56, even
a Ju-88 testbed

SNIP

Beaten by those pesky Russians with whta may have been the world's
first mixed propulsion aircraft

"Also in 1931 an amphibious version (AGOS) of I-4 fighter was designed
but was not finished until the summer of 1932, when the I-4 AGOS
aircraft was first flown with six 82-mm RS-82 solid-fuel rocket
boosters installed in the upper wing grouped in two arrays. Each
booster had a weight of 5 kg, which included 1.3 kg of propellant and
allow the booster to develop 250 kgf of thrust each during a 2.5-second
burn time. Later thrust of each booster was increased to 450-500 kgf
each, providing the 1500-kg fighter with over 2:1 thrust-to-weight
ratio. The RS-82 rocket booster was widely used by a variety of Soviet
aircraft during the Second World War."



- followed by the He-176 rocketplane

SNIP

Which made all of....count 'em....THREE flights before the RLM told
Heinkel to stop playing around and do something useful

- followed by the Me-262 jet fighter

SNIP

Beaten into operational service by the Meteor (June/July 1944)


- followed by the Me-163 rocket fighter

SNIP

Beaten into the air by the Soviet Bereznyak-Isaev BI.

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/Monino/mon94js_bi1.jpg

and a dead-end (for many of its pilots, literally)


- followed by 11,000 tons of German documents and windtunnel data at
Wright Field

SNIP

Joining the even more immense piles of US generated data there


today they still can't get an ornithopter to fly
- Schmid flew his during WW2 in 1942

SNIP

Despite all your protests, it wasn't an ornithopter, it was a
conventional aircraft with an additional set of flapping wings - as far
as an inefficient mode of flight, it takes some beating....

"Adalbert Schmid developed a motorized, human-carrying aircraft
propelled by a set of small flapping wings and sustained with a large
fixed wing, which reportedly made extended flights in 1942"

http://www.homestayfinder.com/Dictionary.aspx?q=ornithopter


Nothing is impossible when Germans are involved.

SNIP

Except arent being able to truly report on what was actually
accomplished without resorting to totally assinne, long since refuted
claims, being "economical" with the truth and outright lies


Even the 1940 Mercedes
T80 LSR car with a 3,000 hp DB 603 engine installed was to be able to
hit 469 mph on land!

SNIP

Oh, those crucial, little, oh so painful words

"was to be able to hit..."


The war cancelled the annual event but the car
survived. If a car on land in 1940 could attain 469 mph on land

SNIP

It couldn't

I doubt it ever even made 1 mph....


, then
by late 1945/early 1946 an a/c certainly could go 560 mph.

SNIP

1) Totally different vehicles, totally different conditions - in the
car power is being applied to a road via friction (and those rubber
makers can make some damn gooey tires - ask any drag racer) versus
applying power via a propellor with transonic and supersonic losses as
speed increases

2) Sorry, but proving one class of vehicle can do something says
NOTHING about what another class can do

3) If we were on the verge of transonic propellor driven aircaft in
1945, where did they all disppear to in the past six decades? If, as
you believe, it's just a matter "more power!" to quote "Home
Improvement", why do we NO supersonic propellor driven aircraft?


Please provide undeniable evidence that there is a prop a/c threshold
speed that cannot be broken... like that "sound barrier" thing!!!

SNIP

Theoretically you can pile onn the power and successfully blast through
Mach 1 with a prop, however due to the practical limitations of prop
technology the amount of power needed makes the power curve climb like
the proverbial homeisck angel. You need a bigger and bigger engine,
which creates more drag, so you go to a bigger engine which creates
more drag, flying in ever decreasing concentric circles until arent
flies up his own fundamental; apperture (many would say that his head
is already there)


Also,
please reference the Martin Baker M.B.7 Blackbess proposed a/c of 1947.

SNIP

Tell us how many flights it made and the records it set

Oh yes, it was CANCELLED

Mind telling us why?



It's in my last book.

SNIP

The one you paid a vanity house to publish and are now desperately
trying to flog to recoup some of your losses, because no one gives a
damn about your fantasies?

.

Loading