It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

3 planes that changed the world

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by galm 1

1.) Me-262
It provided the allies a new design for jets. The idea of swept wing fighters came from Germany. Today, almost every fighter has swept wing. Swept wings allow for faster speeds and more manuverability.

2.) B-29
It was the first bomber that dropped the atomic bomb in anger. It also influenced the design of Tu-4 bomber.

3.) This one is a tie between the MiG-15 and the F-86 saber
These 2 jets marked the begining of a whole new type of dog fighting.

This seems like an essay from school. NOOOO!!!


Sorry to rain on your parade, but were you aware, for instance, that the De Havilland Tiger Moth had swept wings? (the Me 262 had swept wings for the same reason actually - centre of gravity vs centre of lift problems. And a swept wing is actually less maneuverable than a straight wing due to tip stalling.

How so Mig-15 and Sabre changed dogfighting, do you think?

The Winged Wombat




posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

So what, you're saying is that it should have changed the world - but it didn't, because ultimately it wasn't successful, because it didn't change air travel.


Actually I disagree, Concorde for all its financial faillings did change air travel and certainly pushed the technology envelope. Apart from the A380 and 787/A350, what is the thing that is is on everyones lips for the last few years? When will there be a "son of Concorde" and will I be able to afford a ticket? Putting aside more leg room, bed seats and stand up bars, the ONE thing the public would love to see is those long haul flights made less of a long haul. So if nothing else Concorde's real effect was to put in peoples minds that it IS possible to build something other than a sardine can that takes 15-20 hours to get you from Sydney to London or across the Pacific.




er... re the X-1 and the sound barrier - it was Miles actually


Ah yes, I knew someone would save me having to remember
Although Iam sure that at least one of the other two was also involved in similar work around that time. I seem to remember this being raised by waynos in one of his many historical threads a few months back.

LEE.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   
OK. I think that the MiG-15 and the F-86 changed dog fighting because the F-86 eventually would carry the sidewinder missle. This changed dog fighting.

Anyway, I didn't know that swept wings created less manuverability.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Originally posted by Harlequin




Whats interesting is that the XP-86 Sabre protoype is reported to have broken the sound barrier - twice , before the X-1.



Yes that is what is reported but the truth is the X-1, while still in contractor status, and with Slick Goodlin at the controls broke the sound barrier several times during airspeed calibration tests before the airplane was turned over to the miitary after the last contractor flight on May 29, 1947. The calibration tests apparently still exist but are sealed away forever. Slick passed away October 20, 2005.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

the Me 262 had swept wings for the same reason actually - centre of gravity vs centre of lift problems


Absolutely correct, though I think the Nazi propaganda machine put out the myth about it being for speed. Again I was discussing this very thing with waynos a few months back. And as for those terrible early axial flow engines "ahhhg". Funny how everyone raves about the Me-262 being (incorrectly) the first jet fighter, but the Meteor was actually a far better aircraft, far safer, and continued in production and use well after the 262.

LEE.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
thebozeian,

May I respectfully suggest that to have changed the world, the situation must have changed pre and post the (in this case aircraft) event. Yes, people's perception of what 'should' or 'could' be possible has changed, but I see little difference in air travel before Concorde existed and after it existed - we still travel about at Mach 0.75 to Mach 0.85 in big troothpaste tubes, and the aircraft manufacturers are not rushing about designing a replacement because the hordes in the streets are demanding it.

So I'll stick with 'The Concorde should have, but didn't'

galm 1,

And then they went back to carrying guns post Vietnam, because the missiles (including sidewinder) didn't do the complete job.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 19/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Wow, this thread has really sprung to life again.

Actually, it coming back like this has thrown up some arguments I tried to avoid, see also my thread three planes that should have changed the world, where I included planes like the Harrier and Concorde as aircraft that were expected to have changed everything, but ended going down a cul de sac.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
waynos, I brought it back to life. I was bored and was looking through old threads of yours. I'm trying to get back into the aircraft threads. Got any other good threads waynos?



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Guys,

For a branch of history little more than a hundred years old, there is soooo much mythology surrounding (heavier than air) aviation, probably because many of the advances have been initiated by, or for, the military and that opens the door to propaganda.

Not to mention all those wonderful weapons that didn't really work - but then you can't let your enemy know that, can you?


Here's a laugh for you - In a single issue of Air Enthusiast (somewhere about issue 100, I seem to recall) there were two articles both claiming the distinction of the first jet VTOL transition and back again
- (Bell X-14 and Shorts SC.1 for memory - X-14 wins by a considerable margin, by the way)

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 19/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   


Got any other good threads waynos?


Well, modesty precludes but, yeah, loads




By the way, has it not entered people minds that perhaps Britain's greatest fighter designer - Sir Sydney Camm - never built a supersonic aircraft?



Thats an amazing but true fact Wombat, though it wasn't for want of trying, check out the P1154 (which probably wouldn't have worked in reality) and the even earlier P1121 (which definitely would have, and would have been superb)





1.) Me-262


It is one of aviations greatest myths that the 262 gave us swept wings, it was no more swept for speed than the DC-3 was. Originally designed with straight wings it was found to have a problem with its cg being too far forward and the simplest fix for this was to angle the wings back, obviating the need for any structural redesign on the fuselage.

Changing them at the root presented a major change, meaning more time needed, so they are simply angled back from outboard of the engine nacelles, leaving the inboard section containing the engine mounts and undercarriage unaffected. If you look at the 262 wing in detail this is also plain to see. The Me 262 was no faster with swept wings than it would have been without them, as testified to both in Messerschmitts own papers and later confirmed by testing at the RAE Farnborough where it was found that in a dive the 262 was slower than the Spitfire and the P-51.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by galm 1


Anyway, I didn't know that swept wings created less manuverability.


The concept of the swept wing (for speed) is to delay the onset of the massive drag rise encountered approaching M 1.0 (this is why airliners don't go faster than about M 0.85), and you need masses of excess power to pass through that transonic drag rise.

You can reduce that drag rise by reducing the thickness to chord ratio, and that means making a thinner wing for the same wing area. That has structural problems, as the thinner the wing the more difficult it is to make it strong. So by turning a thicker wing to an angle to the airflow, the air has to travel further over the wing surface presenting a lower thickness to chord ratio. However, this also induces part of the airflow to travel spanwise to the tip (or to the fuselage with a forward swept wing) which creates handling problems, especially at low speed and high G (called tip stalling). The early answers to the spanwise flow problem included wing fences, leading edge cuts, and sawtooth leading edges (the latter two creating vortices to keep the airflow in line with the direction of flight).

The Delta wing solves the structural problem because of the very long root chord, allowing a wing with a low thickness to chord ratio to be quite thick at the root.

But, it's not the only solution - straight wings can be made extremely thin, for instance the Bell X-1, Lockheed F-104, Northrop F-5, but there is a limit - just have a look at the wings of a B-52 in flight (even though it is swept).

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 19/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
waynos, you know me, I would never suggest that Sir Sydney wasn't trying - I'm sure there were lots of people who found him quite trying at times.


The Winged Wombat

[edit on 19/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Well I have to say that Concorde DID change the world - we aren't talking about aviation here remember (see the OP!)

Concorde made transatlantic travel routine and a damn site more convinient time wise for those who could afford it - and those people just happened to be the movers and shakers of major businesses, which in turn helped pull the UK out of the recession in the 80's and bought added investment to the economies of both the US and the UK.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
So, in what way did it change Australia, Africa, Asia and the rest of the world? Here in Australia, the only thing it did was provide an exciting sight when it paid an (very) occasional visit (Especially when one lost a rudder [lower, I think] somewhere along the way). What did it do for South America, since the French flew it there?

And now that it's gone, will the US and UK slip back into recession? Movers and shakers will always find a way, that's why they're called movers and shakers.

Hey, I'm not knocking the Concorde. It was an amazing technological advance that logged more supersonic time for British Airways and Air France than the USAF and RAF combined, and it was a beautiful aircraft. But just because it had beauty and technology doesn't necessarily change the world (eg:- Elle McPherson sitting at a computer). To change the world it had to change your world and my world and everyone else's world as well.

I would even go as far as to say 'it changed a few peoples world, temporarily' - further than that we'll have to agree to disagree.

The Winged Wombat



[edit on 19/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
To change the world it had to change your world and my world and everyone else's world as well.
[edit on 19/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]


Considering it linked two of the worlds biggest Financial hubs in London and Wall Street, I would say it had a fairly global impact, but everyones entitled to their opinion and I can see where you are coming from


To answer your other point though, Concordes place as a commercial tool was replaced at the end of the 80's by something faster that boosted commerce even more.

The Internet.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
On the issue of anything in particular ending a recession, I would make the point that if a recession doesn't end, then it is the end of 'life, as we know it, Jim', and history shows that recessions are cyclic.

So to say that a particular item (or in this instance, an aircraft) ended a recession would need a far better understanding of economics than I possess, that's for sure.

Well off topic here, but since the provision of broadband services in Australia happens to be a hot potato at the moment, what is the importance of broadband (other than the slower rate frustrating my instant gratification gene) - it doesn't cancel out the time zone differences around the world, so I don't see why the slower internet rates are not just as effective.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 19/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
helped pull the UK out of the recession


I didn't say it ended it and we're sooooo far off topic now that I wish I'd never posted at all



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Yes, Please lets get back on topic for this thread.



Thanks
Fred




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join