Talk:Lippisch P.13a

Comments

How the hell did that design get such speed with such gigantically thick wings? AVKent882 (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Mach 2.6" is a reference to the mach number the shape was tested to in a wind tunnel, not the speed of the airplane. But also, generally, copious thrust has the potential to overcome even the most draggy-looking things, especially if you point the nose down. Additionally, "draggy looking" doesn't always equal "draggy" just as "Streamlined" or "Aerodynamic looking" doesn't always equal "low drag". -- Gummer85 (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This yet another "what if". The information in the article doesn't give us a lot to work from, other than that it had good stability into the M2.6 range. That is actually pretty meaningless. All it says is that it was tested that far. The wing thickness would have been a factor for critical drag rise and Mcrit. It also does not say what the rest of its characteristics were like. To fly supersonic would have required far more thrust than what that ramjet was capable of. Flanker235 (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that Germany had a wind tunnel capable of simulating M2.6. You would need either a cryogenic tunnel, or a pretty impressive jet engine to get up to that sort of Mach number. The reference given is of low value: it just states stability at M2.6 without giving any references. Scottwh (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

XP-92

Is the XP-92 really a "variant" of the P.13a? Some accounts claim Convair designed their plane and after encountering problems, they looked at Lippisch's work and consulted with him. To me, the designs do not seem that similar, the P13 is stubby and very thick winged. DonPMitchell (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The huge importance of this project is missing

This aircraft, which never flew and the development work halted by the end of the war, is one of the most important in the future development of the Cold War supersonic fighter aircraft. Aircraft to to swiftly shoot down incoming bombers with nuclear weapons. Planes such as the Swedish Saab 35 Draken, French Dassault Mirage III, Convair F-102 Delta Dagger in the USA and ultra-fast reconnaissance planes such as the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird are designed according to principles developed through this project.

Lippisch went to the USA and Convair.

Lippisch mathematician Hermann Behrbohm was engaged in 1946 by the French BEE (French Aerodynamic Research and Development Institute) within the framework of the Franco-German research institute Saint-Louis (ISL), where France developed the Dassault Mirage III. In 1951, however, he emigrated with his family to Sweden and was employed by Saab in Linköping, where he worked until his retirement in 1972, including the development of the Saab 35 Draken and later the Saab 37 Viggen. The design basics come from this project. It is as important for air fighter development as the V2 is for the Apollo rides rocket development.

Then I think deleting my intro I wrote is just a sign that someone does not want to see it in its context. It would have been better to update the text in a desired way.

If my text is not good enough could someone else write it?

--Zzalpha (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Sadly this Internet myth has little foundation. The P.13a was only one of several abortive design studies by Lippisch, to feature a pure delta wing. At that time Lippisch still believed in the thick delta wing. But all the later types you mention had thin wings, which arose directly from parallel research carried out in the US. Only the subsonic Avro Vulcan ever brought the Lippisch concept into production. Then again, the delta wing was a feature of several 19th century and early 20th century patents; Lippisch gave it its name and undertook key theoretical and experimental studies, but claiming originality for other aspects is more dubious.

Thank you for drawing Hermann Behrbohm to our attention. I will try to follow that up in slower time. However I do note that in his Erinnerungen (memoirs), Lippisch does not mention Behrbohm at all. Behrbohm was principally employed by Messerschmitt, however Lippisch was given an independent design team and there was much rivalry between his and the main one. So what did Behrbohm have to do directly with the P.13a? The Dassault Mirage III was inspired principally by the Fairey Delta 2, a thing-wing delta, and not by Behrbohm's influence. Then again, how far had Saab got with their delta concepts by the time Behrbohm joined them? Their designer Sason had sketched the basics of such an interceptor, Projekt LX, during the war. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your edit for several reasons. Bad grammar was just one. You also tended to wander off-topic and repeat far too much stuff that belongs in other articles. Your citations for your claims were too few (see WP:CITE) and your sources were mostly not reliable (see WP:RS). You contradicted yourself, saying in one place that the P.13a was constructed and in another that it was never built. And some statements I knew to be false anyway.

You are obviously keen on this design, perhaps even more than I am, and there is no doubt that it deserves proper treatment here. But we must be careful to stick with the material which is well attested in the literature and is not just fan fancies. And boy, do these German secret projects attract some "wunderwaffen" fantasies! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)