Graham - As`a simple aerodynamics (and later structures) engineer I agree 100% with your tutorial on Mach Crit.
I would however suggest you are splitting hairs on discussion of F-14 and Flanker engine housing as 'podded' versus integral to fuselage on the basis of the engine nacelles being 'separate' (for both boundary layer and shock wave considerations)...
The entire discussion centering around the Yak 25/Me 262 'pods' versus F-14 and Su 27 engine mounts philosophy has at least two performance factors, including rolling moment and drag, plus one structural and at least one aerodynamic factor (clean leading edge - SR-71 notwithstanding but that is a completely different discussion) in the favor of the F-15, F-14, Su 27, etc.
Why would you continue to advance the notion of 'podded engines' for the F-14 and Su 27? Help me understand your definition of engine pods in the context of similarities between the 262 and Yak 25 to the F-14/Su 27...
Graham I think the original poster originally postulated an Me 262 'fully developed' (which I interpreted future designs already on the board like the HG II and III with more acute swept wing) and better engines, to ask the question "how would it compete with F-86 and MiG 15, did he not? I have no problem with your argument regarding difficulties posed by sweeping a 262 back to say the 35 degrees planned for the 'HG III' version.. but it was certainly contemplated by uncle Willy.
Intellectually I also agree the original Thud was certainly a different airplane from the F-84A-G variants.. but didn't the 262 outer wing sweep back about 15 degrees making the jump to 35 less of a series distinction rather than new airframe designation altogether?
I will see if I can dig up a respectable source for the Pitch trim deficiency for the 262 dive problems beyond .86 mach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_262
Cheers Graham for your knowledge even though we have some disagreements on this intersting subject.
21st January 2006, 02:29
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode