Re: Me262 over Korea
 

I agree (impossible not to!) that the F-14 and Flanker are much more sophisticated aerodynamically than a simple podded design such as the 262 or Yak 25/27/29. However, I see them as still being "threebody" designs rather than having the engines fully integrated into the fuselage. The design as a whole is integrated, yes, but clearly a different configuration to that of an F-15 or Tornado, which I would describe as having fully integrated engines and fuselage.

So not a simple wing mounted nacelle, no, but my original purpose was just to suggest that you were being a little too dismissive of three-body solutions in general.

Re Mdd: sorry if I was teaching you what you already knew, but I hope it added something for most users.

Re: Me262 over Korea
 

Graham - I got 'out of' the airframe biz as a designer in the 70's (F-15 was last 'touch') and on to greater glory in Software and Services. Miss it but financially much better off.

I have a great deal still to learn and sure I will learn some more from you.

I could have been clearer about MY definition lol - but I would have stated jet engines totally encased in a pod/module separate from airframe but would have accepted imbedded in wing like Vulcan, B-45 or SR-71..

Warm Regards,

Bill Marshall

Re: Me262 over Korea
 

It is all politics. A good example is Hawker Tornado, which when equipped with a new engine, was renamed Typhoon. It was followed by Tempest (which I think was initially called Typhoon II) but here various engine installations were noted only by Mark designations. This is only a sample of such practice, another aircraft being Halifax II/III, Spitfire/Victor, etc.
It depends on ordering side. If they want to buy a new aircraft, the name is changed. If they are allowed to acquire only old types, th name is retained. This was the case of eg. Airacobra.
Best regards

Re: Me262 over Korea
 

I would imagine the heavy podded engines on the wing would have a fairly vicious gyroscopic effect whilst rolling in dogfights. The Me 262 was basically designed for speed over slower adversaries and not for dogfights.

Also the Soviets captured at least two intact Me 262s and test flew them, plus several dismantled examples. If they were so good why did the Soviets field the Mig-15 rather than a reverse enngineered Me-262. The answer is self evident that the Mig-15 was superior to the Me-262.

By implication the Me-262 would be cannon fodder for a Sabre.

The Mig was based on the similar German, Focke Wulf Ta-183 design, so the luftwaffe was already thinking of a second generation after the Me-262

Re: Me262 over Korea
 

me 262 over Korea. ;)
next thread is about "sabres over vietnam 1966 " ?

" By implication the Sabres would be cannon fodder for a Mig 21 .

btw, why do you mean the Mig 15 was based on the Ta 183 ?

Re: Me262 over Korea
 

That's the first I'd heard that Chuck Yeager flew an Me 262. Can someone confirm this with a source?

Regards,
Richard

Re: Me262 over Korea
 

The drag penalty of outboard jet engines is an interesting topic. But I would think that structural integrity rather than drag is the main strike against underwing engines. Simplicity and ease of maintenance might be the best reasons to use outboard engine pods.

It prompts me to wonder what sort of violent test pilot maneuvers that a multi-engine jet can withstand before the turbines were pulled off the wings (Me 262, Ar 234, SR-71, B-52, B-58, B-1, etc).

Re: Me262 over Korea
 

You're mixing different structural designs there. The engined mounted in pods on pylons would be likelier to break long before the more integrated designs such as the B-1, or even the 262/234. But it's an irrelevance on the later types, as failure would occur elsewhere first.

The main benefit of the engines on pod is the clean wing, with the pods providing bending relief so permitting a lighter design. But this is for low-g aircraft.

I'd like to step back to Franek's older posting about names. It has not always been a matter of politics, although that certainly was true at times in the US on the 40s and 50s. In the UK, aircraft names depended upon roles, so that the Vickers Vincent general-purpose type was the Vildebeeste torpedo bomber. The Fury went to sea as the Nimrod, the Hart as the Osprey. The bomber Hart became the army co-operation Audax, renamed Hartbees for export to South Africa. In both the US and the UK, it was normal to rename/renumber a type if the engine was changed, the Merlin engined P-51 becoming (initially) the P-78, the Allison-engined B-17 becoming the B-38. Something that was only reduced - not altogether forgotten - in the 40s. So having the Tornado/Typhoon with the same name is rational. The Tempest may have shared the engine and most of the fuselage with the Typhoon, but it had a very different wing. As one designer said, it is the wing that makes the aircraft, the fuselage being just a matter of packaging. (Not true since the need for area ruling, but true enough for the 30s and 40s.) Hence the suggestion that the 20-series Spitfires should have been renamed.

But I don't understand the reference to the Airacobra. There were no significant changes to the P-39 design throughout its life. There was a version for the USN as the Airabonita, but this had a tailwheel and other changes. The P-63 Kingcobra was a significantly different aircraft, with a two-stage engine and a "laminar" flow wing.

Re: Me262 over Korea
 

Graham, please note Tempest II and Tempest V or Beaufighter family. It was certainly dependant on government/parliament's policy, either willing to invest in new types or rather to rely on old ones. Concerning Airacobra, after the turbo-compressor was canceled, a new designation had been considered but not implemented after it had been realised there is no money in the budget for new types.

Re: Me262 over Korea
 

[quote=Franek Grabowski;42132]Graham, please note Tempest II and Tempest V or Beaufighter family.


You could also add Wellington, or Sunderland, and I suspect others, to your list but by the start of WW2 it had stopped being the British habit to change the name of an aircraft just because the engine type changed. Given the rate of spend during WW2, economic/political influences were totally irrelevant on the choice of name, if it ever had been. Later, the Hunter, Buccaneer and Victor changed engines without a name change.

I can't think, offhand, of a single example of a British aircraft where the name was kept the same for economic/political reasons. The British system just doesn't work in that manner. It is much more an American habit, because of the US system of annual budget reviews passing through Congress and the Senate. Which might perhaps point the finger at the Harrier II, where a new name would indeed have been justified, but there the pressure would have been to go with the US name - it was 1942 when the British stopped giving aircraft different names than the US. And besides, the name Harrier had a particularly special cachet; perhaps like the Spitfire there was a popular/"political" reason but little to do with our democratic representatives.