" 

 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 yo