Re: Me P.1110 Ente Art

<eunometic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:081c957d-d9d6-4561-a4a7-38ed78c69529@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 9, 1:30 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<eunome...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:75f7a9b8-5c5f-4f7c-a0d9-c664856c7221@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Luftwaffe and German aerodyanamicists had a problem in developing
a new "light weight emergency fighter" (which is not to be confused
with the volksjaeger or peoples fighter program)

Main problems, time and reliable engine power.

They were being addressed by better fuel and throttle control system,
generally referred to an ?accelerator valve? to prevent temperature
surges, better fabrication and better alloys.

The better fabrication is a joke, given the work force quality.

Being addressed is another Eunometic term, meaning solutions will
be found as needed by Eunometic.

German metallurgists
had succeded in advancing their alloys substantially for improved life
and temperature. Well documented, you can even find some info on
google books.

It is known the German engine jet reliability and lifetimes were going up,
from a joke to a good joke. For Eunometic "substantially improved" is
preferred to the actual figures.

The Luftwaffe wanted an aircraft that could carry out frontal attacks
and not have its engines vulnerable as well it needed something with
great range. Rocket fighters were one solution.

This is an interesting definition of long range.

Rocket fighters were one solution to the problem of avoiding exposure
of a fighters engines to return fire from a bomber during an attack.

Eunometic is really into the German mindset in 1945, the idea a glider
would be an overall better bet because its rocket engine would be
out of fuel when it attacked is rather fun, given it still has to make a
good landing.

Rockets were course not a solution to providing long range. That
was obvious and easily inferred but go ahead and show yourself
prepared to be a hair splitting idiot by focusing there .........

Try the fact the rear engines idea as a wonder improvement for head
on attacks is a joke, the higher closing speeds meant attacks from the
front were even less viable than with the standard Bf109 or Fw190.

The P.1110 "Ente"
had side intakes which however were virtually flush with the sides of
the fueselage. This didn't expose the engine to gunfire.

Is the idea the air intakes provided bullet guides?

Intake ducts provided impact points, probably bullet guidelines as you
say, more likely hits in and on the ducts would generated debris that
would be ingested into the engine.

I like the idea the ducts are so strong the average 50 cal will bounce
along them instead of penetrating and so be guided into the engine.

One reason the HeS 011 engine had a diagonal or mixed flow first stage
compressor was to provide combat ruggedness against debris generated
by the disintegration of the target and the occasional hit on the
attacking aircraft itself.

Yes folks, if it is a German design Eunometic will find something
good to say about it. About 19 built by the way. Should ensure
lots of engineless airframes if it became the preferred Luftwaffe
engine in 1945.

Meantime the design was tried, because it was a solution, not
because it was a combat related solution.

And only the aircraft
under attack head on would be shooting? And of course the higher closing
speeds mean head on attacks become more difficult, the advantage of the
Me262 was a high closing speed from behind.

What happens when the allied aircraft shoots from behind?

The initiative was to make the new generation of German jet fighter
faster than any allied jet fighter so that allied opportunities for
allied tail attacks were limited to suprise dive attacks.

Amazing we are firstly told it is all about safety in head on attacks,
then comes the oh no, it is all about making sure no one is on
your tail.

Meantime the problems of fuel consumption at high speeds make
the idea the German jets were running around at high speed all
the time a big joke. As does the overall fuel situation.

This was the problem for the Me262s, if they used the speed to
outrun the P-51 they had to land quickly otherwise the P-51
was back in the hunt.

In this the German aerodynamicists would almost certainly have
succeeded by late 1945 perhaps early 1946.

The Eunometic people would have succeeded in 1841, the real
Germans were of course going to make it later than Eunometic
decides.

They had over several years of research developed a superior
knowledge in the area of supersonic and transonic aerodynamics.
They had having knowledge of swept wing, swept wing sections,
the high lift leading edge devices needed to make these wings
practicable and also having knowledge of the 'area rule' so as to
reduce shock drag.

In summary of the above if one German had an idea about the
subject, all Germans did and Eunometic will announce the idea
is correct, not requiring real life testing. In reality the "knowledge"
was more limited, the 1945 designs were going to explore the
effects on real aircraft, if they could decide which ones were going
to be built.

In essence Eunometic simply exaggerates the German knowledge
and reduces the time for them to apply the enhanced knowledge.

Allied aircraft such as the Meteor and P.80 would have been Mach
limited to a little over Mach 0.8 to Mach 0.85 while the German
aircraft from Mach 0.9 to Mach 0.95. All other things being equal
there would have been tactically significant 10%/60mph advantage in
speed for the German aircraft.

Of course Eunometic forgets the Miles M.52, it was going to be
around under Eunometic rules, a supersonic allied fighter under these
junk rules.

Compressibility drag becomes onerous at Mach 0.75, a swept wing is
free of the problem entirely.
http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/drag/cdcintro.html
http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/drag/dragrise.html

Well it shows Eunometic does not read or understand the URLs
Eunometic uses, again.

For a start the drag rise speed depends on CL, it is not a
simple declaration.

Similarly the swept wing is not free of the problem, it delays it.

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/drag/sweepncdc.html

What they has working against them, something they shared with the
British engines, was the low thrust level of their engines. Only the
united states had perceived in time that thrust levels of well over
4000lbs were needed. Rolls Royces reaction was to scale up the
Derwent to produce the Nene though they had no airframe to take it.
In effect they really copied the big GE and Allison engines.

Well the Eunometic version of jet engine development is simply
ignoring reality.

Like the Nene first ran in October 1944, with Pratt and Whitney
licensing it as the J42.

Eunometic will now tell us which GE and Allison jet engines were
copied given the early US engines were based on the Whittle work.

Specifications of the P-80C:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_6.html

You will note that at sea level, where the speed of sound is 750mph,
the P80C, an advanced development ordered in 1947 and that flew during
the Korean war, can manage 594mph which is Mach 0.792. Contrastingly
by the time the P-80C is at 25,000ft where the speed of sound (Mach 1)
is 660mph its speed is only 494mph or Mach 0.75.

Note the text actually says 543 mph at 25,000 feet, which is mach
0.82 if you believe the Eunometic speed of sound.

Personally I go with the White Sands rocket launches, 690 mph at
33,000 feet (310 metres/sec at 10 km) for the speed of sound,
ambient temperature 230 degrees Kelvin.

You need to drop the air temperature about 20 degrees centigrade
(Kelvin) to drop the speed of sound to 660 mph. So it must be a very
cold atmosphere Eunometic is using at 25,0000 feet given the pressure
difference and normally warmer atmosphere.

That it is no faster
than the Me 262 of WW2 and aircraft which weighted more and had less
thrust. At sea level the Me 262 was vastly slower at 494mph vs 594
for the P80C but at altitude the speed difference narrowed.

You see folks in the Eunometic world the Germans will have
wonder aircraft in quick time, the allies will of course go through
the post war slow down of development. The sad thing is Eunometic
thinks the Germans needs this sort of junk.

You know none of the allied paper aircraft count, nor those with
mock ups of part of the airframe and so on. Only the German
types count.

Also P-80C, "Weights were 8420 pounds empty, 12,200 pounds
gross, and 16,856 pounds maximum takeoff"

Me262 empty 8,378, empty equipped 9,742, normal fuel 14,101
maximum fuel 15,720.

P-80 thrust 4,600 or 5,400 pounds, Me262 around 4,000 pounds.

The Me 262 wing had a very thin wing and very advanced wing cross
section, more interestingly the slight leading edge sweepback of 18
degrees (about 16 degrees at the quarter chord line) would have
delayed compressibility by 5% of Mach which is probably why the Mach
limit was set at Mach 0.85.

Note by the way the top speed in level flight is mentioned, not the
P-80 limiting mach number. Nor the wing thickness of the P-80.

The P80, like the Gloster Meteor, was Mach limited by its subsonic
aerodynamic design contrastingly the Me 262 was thrust limited by its
underpowered engines.

The best way to describe this is to note mach snaking was the big
problem of this generation of jets, not mach limits. The snaking cut
in first.

Once at high altitude Mach limit issues
progressively begin to predominate over thrust concerns.

Given the problems the German jets had with altitude the
difference is again over stated for these designs.

And of course the P-80 could climb about several thousand feet higher
than the standard Me262.

This is why during the Korean war RAF/RAAF Meteors and were
operated in the ground attack role: below 10000ft their high thrust to
weight ratio gave the meteor superior climb and their Mach limitations
did not come seriously into play.

Alternatively it was realised the F-86 was superior.

Allied technology had no hope of getting past Mach 0.85 swept wing
technology had the potential of getting to Mach 0,95 without the
criplling increase in drag.

This is a Eunometic term that basically gives the Germans all the
answers and ignores allied efforts.

More importatanty German aerodynamacists had discovered the 'area
rule' and by not having ducts sitcking out they would eliminate shock
drag.

You can look at the various paper projects being developed and note
the gap between Eunometic and reality.

Let me aquaint you with reality and disabuse you of your idiotic
rhetoric.

Ah good laugh time.

Let me repeat a FACT:

Ah capital letters, time for big lie.

German aerodynamicists had discovered 'area
rule' for reducing shock drag of the fuselage by distributing the
cross sectional area so as to make area changes gentle.

And people can look at the various paper designs and note the
gap between the Eunometic view and reality in this area (rule).

The many configurations the Germans tried at this time period go down
to a need to minimise surface area (wetted area) keep duct lengths
short, keep fuel tanks protected and conform the the area rule.

Area rule is a Eunometic addition, given the designs, the idea a high
performance aircraft is the biggest engine in the smallest airframe was
hardly new in 1945.

This rather idiotically and deliberately over looks what I have
repeatedly and clearly been saying.

Eunometic has been repeatedly and clearly saying nonsense.

The Germans were not just ?scaling? the size of their aircraft down to
produce a ?big engine? in a ?small airframe?, they were trying unique
configurations to minimise critical parameters such as wetted area,
frontal area, shock drag, intake duct pressure losses and to
incorporate swept wings.

You know folks apparently no one else had figured out the airframe
area and frontal area had real effects on performance

As for the rest, the Germans were clearly trying lots of things, the
Eunometic approach is to credit all those unflown aircraft with
success, and very early.

More than just scaling.

No. Not as first stated.

First of all let me make note that P.1110 "Ente" was one of several
design evaluations made by Messerschmitt. The series would include P.
1106, P.1110 "ente" and P.1110 'conventional' as well as P.1111 and P.
1112 S1, S2 and the final settled on configuration P.1112 V1 for which
full scale mockups were built.

P.1101 variable sweep design, butterfly or standard tail. Influences of
this design, or a continued use of the basic design features can be seen
throughout the sequence. Butterfly tails were common.
P.1102 bomber version of P.1101
P.1104 rocket propulsion, Ba 349 was the winner
P.1106 butterfly tail development of P.1101
P.1107 Heavy bomber design, two variants
P.1108 the Messerschmitt entry in the 1,000 x 1,000, x 1,000 contest
P.1110 based on the P.1101, two major variants, also a canard version.
P.1111 almost delta wing tail less design
P.1112 development of P.1111
P.1116 development of P.1106

The thing to note here is that there is no lineal engineering
connection between most of these 'project numbers' and that many of
these designs were paper studies primarily conceived to provide
insight into the effect and inherent tradeoffs of various configurations.

One day Eunometic will work out all those paper projects are a way
of slowing new production, not enhancing it. The above is a basic list
for Messerschmitt alone.

And no, full scale mock ups of the P.1112 were not built.

http://www.luft46.com:80/mess/mep1112.html

So we have a wooden cabin mockup that hadn't progressed to the rear
fueselage.
Fussing over little details such as cabin and instrumentation layout
rather supposes and intention to build.

Ah yes, first Eunometic claims a full mock up was done, then comes the
it does not matter bit, and yes apparently a cockpit mock up is proof
it was going to be built.

As you can see with Eunometic a cockpit mock up becomes a full
aircraft mock up, it was a German design you see. This sort of
exaggeration is standard Eunometic.

P.1112 V1, with the active boundary layer suction, was to be built and
flown.

Possibly. It is clear few of these decisions were set. This German
design
phase was simply lots of paper aircraft, allowing people to pick and
choose
what looks right based on later aircraft that actually flew.

What was set was that Ta 400 got production orders, BV.211.03 got 3
prototype orders and Me P.1112. V1 and Ju EF.128 got support for
further development with the intention that they would become an
optimal solution to Luftwaffe requirements.

As noted by many people the situation was so bad saying "would be"
ignores the way the different designs were pushed then discarded.

These later two
aircraft were clearly superior in range, reduced vulenerabillity to
gun fire but needed more work.

Amazingly in he Eunometic world the work was going to take
very little time.

Messerschmitt P.1011 which was built
and just about ready to fly was to be used as test bed and a possible
backup.

80% complete is defined as built, and just about to fly.

And of course the idea the research data from flying prototypes might
be needed is generally discarded to grant the Germans the wonder
designs by the end of 1945 or early 1946.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.


.

Loading