Talk:Focke-Wulf Ta 183/Archive 1

Tank?

I presume Tank was a designer? There are only references out of the blue to him as a surname only - 'Tank' needs to be better referenced at the first appearance in the article.91.108.71.161 (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah - Found a reference to Kurt Tank down near the bottom of the page and expanded the first occurance of the name near the start - I presume it's him referred to throughout the article...91.108.71.161 (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision to MiG-15 development history.

I deleted a part of the history that asserted the MiG-15 was a version of the MiG-9 and closely resembled that aircraft to the point where many of the MiG-15s shot down over Korea were really MiG-9s. That's absurd, no MiG-9s were ever deployed to Korea and the aircraft looks completely different. Yefim Gordon's book on the MiG-15 gives an excellent account of the development of the MiG-15.Stuart Slade 14:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Connection to the MiG-15

It is generally accepted that German aircraft designs affected all post WWII fighter designs. However, I have seen countless things saying that the MiG-15 is a DIRECT descendent from the ta 183. The Soviets captured complete plans of the ta 183 as well as several prototypes. Numerous sources also stated that the Soviets made prototypes of the ta 183 and then modified the design to create the MiG-15. I have also read a few things saying that this has been discredited, but I have never seen any real evidence. Even if there is evidence, wouldn’t you think that it would be biased for the sake of soviet sovereignty? Now, logically, if the Soviets capture plans and prototypes of a fighter ten years ahead of its time, do you think that it will affect their fighter program?? I posted this on the MiG-15 discussion as well, I am interested in seeing what people think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.190.58.109 (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

There are only so many ways of designing jet aircraft using the technology available in the late 40's and early 50's (placement of engines, the need for swept wings, bubble canopys etc.). It can be argued that some of the design elements used in Ta-183 would inevitably show up in post war jet designs given the technological constraints that all the engineers faced. The thing is, how much of an influence did the German designs (not only Ta-183) have on post war allied aeronautical designs? To claim that ALL technological innovations stem from German engineering captured post-war would be patently untrue as would the other extreme that NOTHING was taken from German expertise. The truth is of course somewhere in between.

There is evidence of at least ONE allied post-war jet design was derived nearly 100% from a German design. The Bell X-5 was derived almost entirely from the Messerschmitt Me P.1101 design of the German Messerschmitt company that was captured by the Americans. The initial plan was to actually fly the German plane after the war, but the original German prototype was damaged - hence the Bell X-5 was an Americanized rebuild of the P.1011 with real swing wings (the German plane could only change wing angles on the ground). A lot of American engineers were VERY unhappy at the prospect of using the German plane as the basis of an American experimental plane(ref Jay Miller, The X-Planes: X1 to X15). I would imagine, given the prospect of copying a German design like Ta-183, a lot of Russian engineers would be similarly unhappy too. My WP:POV gut feeling is that national pride within Mig would preclude having the Ta-183 having any significant influence over the Mig-15.

PS: I believe Stalin vetoed the Sukhoi Su-9 (1946) because it looked to much like the Me-262

--Eqdoktor 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The TA-183 had no real "offspring" so to speak. I believe Yefim Gordon has definitively discounted any connection between Mig-15 (and the LA-15) and TA-183. Even the Pulqui II cannot really be counted as a direct offspring, even though Kurt Tank ran off to Argentina with a set of TA-183 engineering blueprints - The resulting Pulqui II was more of Tank's interpretation of the TA-183 design without any input from Hans Multhopp (the true "father" of TA-183). The Pulqui II was a disaster by the way, Tank never fully managed to iron out the performance issues, by which time - the US was selling surplus Korean War F-86 Sabres for 1/20th the price of the Pulqui (ref the Myhra book). By the time Multhopp arrived in America, the design elements for the Sabre was already fixed at North American. One could argue that the German aeronautical engineers should get a lot of credit for getting so many of the TA-183 design elements "right" (swept wing, T-tail, bubble canopy, jet intake etc.). However, the Ta-183 never flew and the later similarity in design of the post-war jets is actually the result of engineering "Convergent evolution". Your mileage may vary. --Eqdoktor 07:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

DISAGREE with ...The Pulqui II was a disaster by the way,.... This comment sound a bit derogatory to me, and it does not concur with what is stated in the Pulqui II article (in english or spanish) nor with what is said on the sources cited in that article. The demise of the Pulqui II was both political (Peron's government fall) and economical (the offer of under-priced, second-hand Sabres). Can you please provide your source for the comment cited? Thansk & regards, DPdH (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Su-9. Lol, the article for the su-9 also says that is bears a superficial resemblance to a German aircraft (me-262) but is not related... BS. Sounds familiar... At least the Americans can admit where they get their stuff from while the Soviets have to deny it. Could you please show me the evidence that discounts the connection between the MiG-15 and ta 183? I have yet to see any. As I said before, there is no way the Soviets have prototypes and blueprints for a really advanced fighter and do not use them at all, at least a reference. The connection between the me-262 and Su-9 strengthens my belief of the connection of Soviet and German jet design. Also, the Germans were the ones to come up with the swept-wing design, so it is save to say that German engineering affected pretty much all post-war fighter development.

Actually the burden of proof lies with the contributing editor. If you are going to make allegations, back them up with some credible references. Swept-wing research was going on in the US and USSR at same time, although Germans were perhaps farther along. None of the nations fielded an operational swept-wing fighter during the war (Me 262 does not count, it had the sweep for the same reasons as DC-3 -- positioning CL relative to CM). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The design history of the MiG-15 is available from the Mikoyan OKB Archives. English-language secondary sources include Mikoyan OKB by Bill Gunston, Soviet Secret Projects (Fighters) by Tony Buttler and MiG-15 by Yefim Gordon. All the authors are internationally respected and authoritative sources and all have concluded that the Ta-183 and MiG-15 are not related. Incidently in Tony Buttler's book he reveals that one rejected layout for the MiG-15 had forward-swept wings.

To deal with some other points you raise. It is not "generally accepted that German aircraft designs affected all post WWII fighter designs". In fact most reliable and reputable aviation historians (see those quoted above) are quite firm that the impact of German aviation design is vastly overstated. The Soviets did not "capture complete plans of the Ta 183 as well as several prototypes." There were no prototypes for them to capture, one prototype was in the early stage of construction when the Focke-Wulf plant was overrun. Whether anybody thinks evidence "would be biased for the sake of soviet sovereignty?" or not is quite irrelevent. If anybody disputes the material in the archives of the Mikoyan OKB it is up to them to produce counter-evidence that shows those archives to be in error. Otherwise any accusations are groundless. The Ta-183 was not "a fighter ten years ahead of its time". It was, at best, comparable with aircraft at the same stage of development in the US, UK and Russia at the same time. Arguably given the low thrust from its engine, it was substantially inferior to those aircraft. Furthermore, the Germans appear to have had no idea of the problems inherent in swept wings (such things as spanwise drift and the tendancy for swept-wing aircraft to go into flat spins due to assymetric aerodynamic forces - see Gordon and Buttler for more details on this). What anybody thinks about whether "it will affect their fighter program??" is irrelevent; the question is evidence for such an effect and in any case is immaterial since the Ta-183 did not have the advanced performance you claim. There are not "numerous sources also stated that the Soviets made prototypes of the ta 183 and then modified the design to create the MiG-15." There is one source. Christian Zentner's 1977 book, Lexikon des Zweiten Weltkriegs which has been discredited as being largely a work of fiction - for example, the author claims that 50 B-17s were shot down in a single day by Wasserfall missiles. His claims on the Ta-183 were picked up by the Luft '46 website and repeated for a while but the author of that site has now deleted them due to Zentner's discredited status. Finally, the suggestion that "Germans were the ones to come up with the swept-wing design, so it is save to say that German engineering affected pretty much all post-war fighter development" is a gross oversimplification. In fact, the NACA in America were also working on swept wing design and it was their work that led to the XP-86 being redesigned with swept wings. Ironically, the German contribution to the XP-86 wasn't swept wings but the installation of leading-edge slats that were subsequently deleted from later-production versions since the reduction in performance they caused was too great for any benefit for they conferred.

I have to disagree with many parts of this post.

To start with, you suggest that the German swept-wing data was not necessarily an influence on the MiG, and to underline this point you suggest that the XF-86 was based on NACA data. In both cases this appears to be close to the truth, but misleading anyway.

For one, the German data absolutely most certainly did lead directly to the XF-86's swept wing. Specifically, a copy of a 1940 report of extensive wind-tunnel testing was made available to L. P. Greene in August 1945, and it was he that suggested that the planform be incorporated. You can refer to the German paper and NA's use here, here and here, among hundreds of others. The NACA work you refer to, by Robert T. Jones, was carried out on paper only in January 1945 and had not yet been tested. It saw zero interest until the German reports appeared. Additionally, the Germans had already discovered the handling problems due to spanwise flow and progressive stall, something that is not mentioned in Jones' purely theoretical work.

The same data, along with others from the various German sources, was also widely distributed around the world. It led directly to the cancellation of the Miles M.52 project, and redesigns of aircraft as far afield as Sweden's Saab Tunnan. There is no reason to suspect that the Russians were not aware of this work, and I personally feel it was. I am not alone in this, of course, as can be seen here, here and here.

Whether or not the MiG-15 was directly influenced by the Ta-183 is another issue entirely, but I believe it is safe to say that the historical record is very clear that the German swept-wing research did influence the MiG, and if the official MiG history does not record this it makes me extremely suspect of it all. Of course self-published official histories are rarely accurate anyway it seems, ever read Stormy Life?

You also claim It was, at best, comparable with aircraft at the same stage of development in the US, UK and Russia at the same time.. I beg to differ. The Ta-183's design, with numerous wave-drag reducing features, was considerably more advanced than anything the allies had. The low power of the testbed engine has no bearing on this statement. If you can name a counterexample, please, feel free.

Maury 21:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your information here is nearly all incorrect.

Your statement that "The NACA work you refer to, by Robert T. Jones, was carried out on paper only in January 1945 and had not yet been tested. It saw zero interest until the German reports appeared." is wrong. I quote form the official NACA history.

"In January 1945, Robert T. Jones, a NACA aeronautical scientist, formulated a swept-back-wing concept to overcome shockwave effects at critical Mach numbers. He verified it in wind-tunnel experiments in March and issued a technical note in June. His findings were confirmed when German files on swept-wing research were recovered and by German aerodynamicists who came to the United States at the close of the war."

In short, his work was already confirmed by wind-tunnel research before any data was received from the Germans. Your statement that it received no interest is contradicted by NACA documentation. See the NACA History published by the US Cenetnnial of Flight Commission.

Your statment that "Additionally, the Germans had already discovered the handling problems due to spanwise flow and progressive stall, something that is not mentioned in Jones' purely theoretical work." is only marginally true. The Germans were aware of progressive stall and they incorporated leading edge slats to handle it (the one real controbution of German research to the F-86). It appears they were not aware of the problems caused by assymetric construction or spanwise flow and their design show no means of accommodating those problems.

Your statement that "It led directly to the cancellation of the Miles M.52 project." is flat wrong and is contradicted by the Cabinet papers at the time. There is a long discussion of the cancellation of the Miles M.52 in "Project Cancelled" by Derek Woods based on the original documentation. In it, it is very clear that the decision to cancel the M.52 was taken on grounds of economy (the UK was completely broke at the time) and on the perception pushed by Dr Barnes Wallis that the necessary research program could be carried out more cheaply and with less risk by using rocket-powered scale models. Swept wing information from Germany is not mentioned in any of the documents relating to this decision.

Your statement that "redesigns of aircraft as far afield as Sweden's Saab Tunnan" is grossly misleading. The original Tunnan design had a mildly swept wing and this degree of sweep was increased as the design was refined. SAAB deny this was the result of German influence and there is not a shred of documentary evidence to suggest any German input.

Your statement that "There is no reason to suspect that the Russians were not aware of this work, and I personally feel it was." Is utterly irrelevent. What you personally feel is of no significance or interest. The only thing that matters is evidence and all the documented evidence is against you.

Your statement that "I believe it is safe to say that the historical record is very clear that the German swept-wing research did influence the MiG." is a deliberate lie. As has been quoted, the official records of tyhe Mikoyan OKB clearly prove otherwise.

Your statement that "if the official MiG history does not record this it makes me extremely suspect of it all." translates to a claim that since you "feel" one thing and the documented evidence proves something else, obviously the documented evidence is wrong. That completely destroys your credibility right there. Say again what you "feel" is irrelevent.

Your statment that "The Ta-183's design, with numerous wave-drag reducing features, was considerably more advanced than anything the allies had." is preposterous and verges on a another deliberate lie. Prove it with proper documentation and comparison with similar-era (ie 1946/47) allied aircraft.

Your statement that "The low power of the testbed engine has no bearing on this statement." is another absurdity. raw engine power is a vital contributor to fighter performance (check Boyd for that). The Ta-183 had barely 40 - 50 percent of the raw power available from comparable Allied jets. That makes it an underpowered dog.

You know, I really don't take too kindly to being repeatedly called a liar. I recommend you immediately read the official policy on personal attacks. Repeated behavior of this type will result in a block. I have provided several sources, including the official history, stating that the XF-86 did indeed use the German 1940 wind tunnel research in their decision to use a swept wing on the XF-86. Reverting that note again, as you did recently, will be considered edit warring. Maury 16:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And I have provided other sources that state otherwise including the official NACA history that contains information that specifically contradicts yours. However, be that as it may (and I can quite accept that evidence can be contradictory), The crus here though was your statement that the "the historical record is very clear that the German swept-wing research did influence the MiG." The historical records, the design history contained within the archives of the Mikoyan OKB as used the sources I specified earlier, are quite clear that the German reserach did not have any impact on the MiG-15 design. In contrast, there is not one shred or iota of evidence that supports the opposite conclusion - that's been pointed out by EMT145 and by our friend from Rolls Royce. So perhaps you need to rethink the emphasis with which you made that statement.

If you suggested that German design art was one of many contributors to an overall design pool exploited by post war designers, then the statement would be much more acceptable and accurate. That I would have no problem with. Perhaps that is what you emant and your comment was worded in an unfortunate manner?

My statement was, as you correctly quoted the first time, "I believe' it is safe to say...". You called me a liar for stating my opinion; astonishing in of itself. Now to add insult to that injury, you are misquoting me to make your point? And what is your point? It seems to be picking nits at my first post, re-arranging your argument to continue disagreeing with me, and then using that as an excuse to call me names.

So let's discuss the original point. It is my opinion that the Soviets were very much aware of German swept-wing research prior to the design of the MiG-15. How do I know this? Because they were in possession of a German swept-wing research aircraft at the time. I refer, of course, to the DFS 346, which was completed in Russia by the German designers. The aircraft was wind-tunnel tested by TsAGI prior to the first design efforts on the MiG-15, which was based on data on swept wings provided by TsAGI. Do you deny any of these points?

The linkage is clear, yet you "counter" this by stating the MiG history does not mention it. Merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case. Unless the histories explicitly state they did not know of this research, you are unable to say anything at all one way or the other. And given the rest of the evidence the claim that they were unaware of this is the one that is the most difficult to believe and thus requires the best evidence.

As to the data itself, you first stated that the Germans were unaware of the negative effects of a swept wing. When I provided direct evidence to the contrary, you changed your complaint, parroting the specific quote in the reference I gave, to claim "It appears they were not aware of the problems caused by assymetric construction or spanwise flow and their design show no means of accommodating those problems." However, the DFS 346 included wing-fences, which directly contradicts your statement. Are you going to change your claim again now? Perhaps they were unaware of some other issue?

You also claimed that the F-86 was based on US research, and not the German research. I pointed out that even North American freely admits the design was based on German data, and then went on to state that Jones had only produced paper in January. You quoted the same source, and claim that it somehow invalidates my statement that Jones' work was purely theoretical in January. Even though the source you quoted clearly agrees with my statement, you called me a liar! You then go on to state that this source contradicts my claim about the F-86, but it doesn't say anything of the sort, in fact it doesn't mention the F-86 anywhere but in a photo caption. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that contracts the stated references that US designs were directly influenced by the German data.

When I pointed out that the SAAB Tunnan was also influenced by the same data, you denied this as well. Every published source I have seen, including ones written and published in Sweden, all state that the German data was obtained in Switzerland and led directly to a redesign. Do you have a single shred of evidence to refute this? You claim you do, but you have not provided anything at all.

But by far the one that makes me laugh out loud is this one: Your statment that "The Ta-183's design, with numerous wave-drag reducing features, was considerably more advanced than anything the allies had." is preposterous and verges on a another deliberate lie. Prove it with proper documentation and comparison with similar-era (ie 1946/47) allied aircraft.

Let me make sure I get this right: I stated the Ta 183 was ahead of its time when compared to contemporary allied designs of 1944, which you say is "preposterous and verges on a another deliberate lie", and to demonstrate this you want me to compare it to designs from two to three years later? I'm being preposterous? I'll let the other readers decide that one.

I am the first to admit that the concept of swept wings is, in the end, something that everyone was bound to discover eventually. And, moreover, that it was in fact independently discovered on several occasions. The same is true of almost any advance in aeronautics, whether it be the jet engine or the delta wing. But in the end, someone actually ends up being first.

And in this case there is absolutely doubt that the Germans were the first to do real research into the swept wing and its advantages and disadvantages. They are also the first to apply it to real aircraft for the purpose of wave drag reduction. Nor is there any doubt that it was that data that was the primary influence on a wide variety of swept-wing aircraft that followed immediately after that data's release onto the market. If you really want to deny this, you're going to need something more than the astonishingly poor arguments above.

Maury 21:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

Huckebein or Hückebein? Drutt (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I.Ae.33 Pulqui II - Variant or Related aircraft?

As it can be seen in both this article and the one about the FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II, these two aircaft are obviously related but it cannot be said that the Pulqui II is strictly a variant of the Ta 183. Hence, I suggest removong that statement from this article's infobox.
Unless somebody has a good reason for not doing so, I'll remove the before mentioned link by the end of next week.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read both articles carefully, it is clearly a derivative version. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Celling out

Did the Ta-183 have rubber-layered fuel cells (like NASCAR uses)? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Tail section and the Pulqui

I propose that should be mentioned the aerodynamical study carried on by the makers of the game Il-2 Sturmovik 1946, wich showed that the Ta-183 had a serious design faliure in the tail section wich would cause heavy flutter after 700 Km/h, wich explains the different tail arrangement of the Pulqui II.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpalaces (talk)

Removal of Fact tags

When several experienced editors remove facts tags as unneeded, menaing that they don't appear "particularly dubious" to them, the proper response is not to keep restoring the tag without trying to explain the issue. You state that this is "a particularly dubious claim - if so, your first move should have been to com to the talk page and explain why you believe this. Simply reverting continuoulsy puts you in danger of being blocked for edit warring, and that does you no good. You've vbeen asked repeatedly on your talk page to explain your edits, so you can't claim ignorance on that point. So, what about the item you're tagging is "a particularly dubious claim"? Do you even know? Because a refusal to engage in discussion leaves the impression that you don't. - BilCat (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be an actual dispute in facts emerging in the article, but starting an editwar is not the proper response. State all the alleged critiques here first before going to the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

The section under dispute has been amended as the original statements made were actually not verifiable with the following changes made: "Reflecting the dilemma of a shortage of strategic materials, the first option of using aluminum in the construction of the main spar consisting of two tapered I-beams attached together on the top and bottom with thin steel sheeting, led to a reappraisal. Multhopp chose to use wood instead of metal throughout the wing structure with wooden ribs were attached to the front and back of the I-beams to give the wing its overall shape, and then covered with plywood. The box-like structure contained six fuel cells, giving the aircraft a total fuel load of 1,565 L (413 US gal).{Myhra 1999, p. 7.}."

Since the IP user never bothered to explaine his issues, we have no idea if you solved it or not. He may still object to your changes, and add another tag! - BilCat (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You have to read the edit comments as that seems to be the method used to explain issues, and one of the comments directed the reader to an error in stating that metal was used in the wing structure when all other evidence showed that wood was used due to a lack of strategic materials available to the aviation industry. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

Sorry, I quit reading them after the 8th revert! This seems to be a pattern with this user, per the long discussions on his talk page. It needs to stop, or he'll find his time limited on WP. - BilCat (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Description

I was just wondering if it is really correct to say in the first sentence "The Focke-Wulf Ta 183 Huckebein (Hunchback) was a jet-powered fighter aircraft..." I mean, it wasn't. It was a design for an aircraft that never got beyond the most basic modelling, as it says later in the paragraph. --Mat Hardy (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparable Aircraft?

Would the Ta-183 really have been comparable to the "famous" jet fighters of the Korean war, the MiG-15 and Sabre? They each have at least 5 more years of development under their wing then the -183, not to mention the state of Nazi jet engines. 70.78.13.133 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)