If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EMW A6 Comparison to X-15
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
robert arndt wrote: http://www.germanvtol.com/a6folder/a6.html Rob A pretty weak connection. Also, keep in mind that the very late war projects were largely make work and fantasy fuel for the Furher rather than anything that could be promptly realized. In the case of a ramjet mount on the X-15, the lower fin would have been the only place it could have been fitted, having nothing to do with anything the Germans did. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
steve gallacci wrote in message ...
robert arndt wrote: http://www.germanvtol.com/a6folder/a6.html Rob A pretty weak connection. Also, keep in mind that the very late war projects were largely make work and fantasy fuel for the Furher rather than anything that could be promptly realized. In the case of a ramjet mount on the X-15, the lower fin would have been the only place it could have been fitted, having nothing to do with anything the Germans did. SNIP: Every designer's scratch pad had advanced designs - still do, for that matter. I was designing better rocketships than Buck Rogers flew when I was in grade school before Pearl Harbor. Didn't do my grades any good, but sure helped my day dreams. Why not cite Dr. Sanger's designs - they were a lot more advanced than any A6,9 or 10. And there's a lot of work and time between a pretty picture and the first flight. Walt BJ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"robert arndt" wrote in message m... The EMW A6 does bear a strong resemblence to the X-15 though in basic configuration... In the same way that most every airplane resembles all other airplanes. What dose not ring true about the drawing is that the fuze is beautifully "area-ruled". That is, the fuze is made smaller where the wings and tail attach in an attempt to keep the total area constant. I was under the impression that the "area rule" came from postwar research. Am I wrong? Vaughn Rob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think the image shows any aspect of "area rule". It looks more like
relatively thick wings with a serious anhedral. This still doesn't lend any credence to the drawing's authenticity--I don't know either. "Vaughn" wrote in message ... "robert arndt" wrote in message m... The EMW A6 does bear a strong resemblence to the X-15 though in basic configuration... In the same way that most every airplane resembles all other airplanes. What dose not ring true about the drawing is that the fuze is beautifully "area-ruled". That is, the fuze is made smaller where the wings and tail attach in an attempt to keep the total area constant. I was under the impression that the "area rule" came from postwar research. Am I wrong? Vaughn Rob |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article
, "Vaughn" wrote: "robert arndt" wrote in message m... The EMW A6 does bear a strong resemblence to the X-15 though in basic configuration... In the same way that most every airplane resembles all other airplanes. What dose not ring true about the drawing is that the fuze is beautifully "area-ruled". That is, the fuze is made smaller where the wings and tail attach in an attempt to keep the total area constant. I was under the impression that the "area rule" came from postwar research. Am I wrong? It came out of research at Langley done by Richard Whitcomb and others from 1949-51. He was awarded the Collier Trophy for the work in 1954. Work there on transonic airflow and drag began around 1943, but Whitcomb's contribution was critical, and began in 1948. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Dennis" wrote in message .. . I don't think the image shows any aspect of "area rule". It looks more like relatively thick wings with a serious anhedral. This still doesn't lend any credence to the drawing's authenticity--I don't know either. Yep, I believe you are right, I fell for an optical illusion and I should have known better. If you look at the side view, it is obvious that the fuze is straight. The next, obvious question is "why is the wing so thick if this is really to be a hypersonic plane"? One possible answer is materials, the wing simply needed to be that thick to house the smallest spar needed to handle the weight of the airframe. There are additional possible answers, but I am getting into unfamiliar ground and it is time to shut up. Vaughn |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:27:14 -0700, Steve Hix
wrote: It came out of research at Langley done by Richard Whitcomb and others from 1949-51. He was awarded the Collier Trophy for the work in 1954. Work there on transonic airflow and drag began around 1943, but Whitcomb's contribution was critical, and began in 1948. Hardly known, but in fact the area rule is a Messerschmitt patent from 1944. The Messerschmitt engineers Hertel, Frenzel and Hempel received the German patent no. 932410 in 1944. Look at Messerschmitt projects P1110 and P1112 - they already show the area rule (they both had a clearly visible coke-bottle shape of the fuselage). The 262 design was not considered to be worth further development because it did not permit a clean re-design according to the area rule and therefore no transsonic speeds (which 1110 and later fighter designs were designed for). Bye Andreas |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Performance Comparison Sheet | Ed Baker | Home Built | 6 | December 2nd 04 02:14 AM |
Aerobatic engine IO-360 AEIO-360 comparison | Jay Moreland | Aerobatics | 5 | October 6th 04 01:52 AM |
spaceship one | Pianome | Home Built | 169 | June 30th 04 05:47 AM |
Best Fighter For It's Time | Tom Cooper | Military Aviation | 63 | July 29th 03 03:22 AM |