Henk
Master Sergeant
Well Iwonder if they ever fired it and tried it out.
Henk
Henk
Advanced designs
- Thread starter Twitch
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #122
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
How about this:
DEUTCHES FORSCHUNGSINSTITUT FUR SEGELFLUG- DARMSTADT
A little-known chapter in high altitude reconnaissance aircraft began with the 1940 concept from Deutches Forschungsinstitut fur Segelflug (German sailplane company) of the DFS 228.
The 34.7-foot long, 57.6-foot wing spanned craft was intended to be towed like the sailplane it was to 33,000 feet where the 3,630 lb. thrust Walter rocket motor was lit. Using the boost, it would climb to between 75-83,000 feet and use the motor on and off to maintain altitude for about forty-five minutes. It would then commence a long glide during which infrared recon photos were to be taken. By the time 39,400 feet was reached, it would have traveled 465 miles. A further 185 miles would be covered back to the ground. Of course the use of thermals would increase these ranges. A speed of 565 MPH at sea level was envisioned.
The pilot compartment was temperature controlled with an electrical unit and pressurized. The whole compartment could be jettisoned if need be. At a pre-determined altitude the pilot seat would disconnect and the parachute would open.
The DFS 228 would have been flying shortly though its impact on the war would have been miniscule.
Though gliding trials were accomplished in 1944, no powered flight had been undertaken at the time of Germany's collapse. Ten were under construction at that time.
Since the only remaining DFS 228 was shipped the U.S. after the war you can draw your own conclusions on the later U-2.
DEUTCHES FORSCHUNGSINSTITUT FUR SEGELFLUG- DARMSTADT
A little-known chapter in high altitude reconnaissance aircraft began with the 1940 concept from Deutches Forschungsinstitut fur Segelflug (German sailplane company) of the DFS 228.
The 34.7-foot long, 57.6-foot wing spanned craft was intended to be towed like the sailplane it was to 33,000 feet where the 3,630 lb. thrust Walter rocket motor was lit. Using the boost, it would climb to between 75-83,000 feet and use the motor on and off to maintain altitude for about forty-five minutes. It would then commence a long glide during which infrared recon photos were to be taken. By the time 39,400 feet was reached, it would have traveled 465 miles. A further 185 miles would be covered back to the ground. Of course the use of thermals would increase these ranges. A speed of 565 MPH at sea level was envisioned.
The pilot compartment was temperature controlled with an electrical unit and pressurized. The whole compartment could be jettisoned if need be. At a pre-determined altitude the pilot seat would disconnect and the parachute would open.
The DFS 228 would have been flying shortly though its impact on the war would have been miniscule.
Though gliding trials were accomplished in 1944, no powered flight had been undertaken at the time of Germany's collapse. Ten were under construction at that time.
Since the only remaining DFS 228 was shipped the U.S. after the war you can draw your own conclusions on the later U-2.
Henk
Master Sergeant
That wis a great one and it is only a shame that it does not exsist any more. It is for me a death trap, but still a great thing.
Henk
Henk
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
they did, i heard it blew the nose offHenk said:
carpenoctem1689
Airman 1st Class
- 285
- Sep 10, 2005
Just as i figured it would. Ive heard about the BK 7.5 75mm cannon in the ju-88s crumpling noses and propellers, and the recoil problems on the B-25 along with the structural damage firing of the cannon caused. Its no wonder that a 102mm cannon would completely destroy the aircraft, and with italian aircraft production, it wouldnt be made of the best grade of metals or woods.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
If so then why didn't two High velocity 37mm cannons Firing at the same time blow a Stuka or an IL-2, or a Hurricane with 40mms?
- Thread starter
- #127
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
Since there's been some interest in the He 162 have a look at the Focke Wulf version of the same concept
Straight swept wing versions
FW VOLKSFLUGZEUG
The submitted design for the Volkfluzeug or "people's airplane" was this one. Instead of the above-the-fuselage engine mount, this featured a cleaner shape with the BMW 003 enclosed in the lower aft 28.75-foot fuselage mounting a high, swept tail and house the requisite pair of 30 mms in the lower nose. Two wings were possible and swept and straight were shown both measuring 26.5 feet across.
At 6,723 lbs. loaded the jet was to be capable of 509 MPH at 20,000 feet with an endurance of 42 minutes at 32,800 feet. With the He 162 winning the competition almost before it began this plane is just another footnote in history.
Straight swept wing versions
FW VOLKSFLUGZEUG
The submitted design for the Volkfluzeug or "people's airplane" was this one. Instead of the above-the-fuselage engine mount, this featured a cleaner shape with the BMW 003 enclosed in the lower aft 28.75-foot fuselage mounting a high, swept tail and house the requisite pair of 30 mms in the lower nose. Two wings were possible and swept and straight were shown both measuring 26.5 feet across.
At 6,723 lbs. loaded the jet was to be capable of 509 MPH at 20,000 feet with an endurance of 42 minutes at 32,800 feet. With the He 162 winning the competition almost before it began this plane is just another footnote in history.
Henk
Master Sergeant
I did not know Fw had such designs.
Wich one works the best, the He-162 or the Fw design/
Henk
Wich one works the best, the He-162 or the Fw design/
Henk
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
Most here know of this but for those that don't, site http://www.luft46.com/
Henk
Master Sergeant
I know about them, but I do not trust everything those guys says.
Henk
Henk
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
nor do i, most of you know my thoughts about planes like that, few of them were any more than doodles on a designer's scrap of paper, yeat through the wonders of sites like this these scraps of paper are all, single handedly, prolinging the war for several years, by cruising around with their 4x 30mm (200+rpg, naturally) at 600 mph with their Jumbo 003s, with enough reliability and internal fuel to keep them on station for upwards of 5 hours at a time, that's even with that 10,000kg internal payload, not that it needs all that, not much's gonna reach them at 60,000ft, but if it does no doubt each of these wonder weapons would be able to turn inside it, no matter what it was, not bad for a scrap of paper 
Henk
Master Sergeant
Yes, but some of them does look real for me.
Henk
Henk
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yeah i know some of them are, and don't get me wrong i know their designers were smart and knew what they were doing, i just can't help but be a bit suspect of some of their figures, especially when i see the words "projected performance" ..........
Henk
Master Sergeant
Yes, I know what you mean. I always use to get info from them, but when I got my Jane's I double checked them and found that some things had wrong names and were totally off with their stuff. I also love these stuff, but they do have their problems, but why don't they double check their stuff?
Henk
Henk
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
You may dress it in words: DON´T TRUST SCHIFFER BOOKS.
The performance of those paper projects are questionable but not in general. Recent views stress more the date of the calculations. If You note carefully when these estimations were made You may be able to lower reliability in some cases. Much has to do with the mathmatical background and related difficulties to extrapolate the performance correctly in transsonic speeds. It wasn´t until late february 1945 (!) that a math. sloution was finally found. So those MeP 1101 and related designs, closed well before turn 1944/45 are somehow questionable, others aren´t. Another concern never factored properly is stability of these designs.
The performance of those paper projects are questionable but not in general. Recent views stress more the date of the calculations. If You note carefully when these estimations were made You may be able to lower reliability in some cases. Much has to do with the mathmatical background and related difficulties to extrapolate the performance correctly in transsonic speeds. It wasn´t until late february 1945 (!) that a math. sloution was finally found. So those MeP 1101 and related designs, closed well before turn 1944/45 are somehow questionable, others aren´t. Another concern never factored properly is stability of these designs.
- Thread starter
- #136
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
Any "doodles" were far more than idle time killing in time of war while working for the top suppliers of aircraft to the Luftwaffe. Anything we might see from the era was done as an extension of a legitimate RLM- Reichsluftfahrtministerium (Air Ministry) directive. And these designs were done by men that had previous experience designing aircraft that proved successful in actual combat. So don't be so quick to discount something that may seem fanciful. Most of the design features of the late war designs have been utilized in real postwar aircraft.
As for engineers' slide rule calculations of projected performance it is unclear why all the world's previous aircraft's performance was generally predicted well but advanced German designs are not? If the Soviet BOROVKOV-FLOROV project with a projected 520 MPH speed had actually reached 495 MPH what would we say? Would any aircraft's projected speed of 621 MPH be inflated maliciously if it actually hit 587 MPH?
Since the Air Force requim for the B-26 was a speed of 350 MPH was it bogus since it never surpassed 283 MPH in service? How about the B-29 that came from a 307 MPH requirement but actually maxed out at 357 MPH?
All aircraft are developed in stages through flight testing when issues are proved or disproved and modifications made, be it in stability or ease of maintence. Never has there been a plane that evolved from mind's eye concept to technical drawing to prototype without changes.
God Lancaster what have you been smoking? Nowhere has those completely unrelated comglamoration of empty statistics ever been touted to be a singluar aircraft.
The above-mentioned FW Volkfluzeug is quite modest in that it was on par with a plane that did exist, the He 162 so I fail to understand the rhetoric.
Frankly it's of no matter whether anyone believes anything about advanced designs from Germany, the US or Russia. This thread is simply a place to show those designs without prejudice as to political dogma.
As for engineers' slide rule calculations of projected performance it is unclear why all the world's previous aircraft's performance was generally predicted well but advanced German designs are not? If the Soviet BOROVKOV-FLOROV project with a projected 520 MPH speed had actually reached 495 MPH what would we say? Would any aircraft's projected speed of 621 MPH be inflated maliciously if it actually hit 587 MPH?
Since the Air Force requim for the B-26 was a speed of 350 MPH was it bogus since it never surpassed 283 MPH in service? How about the B-29 that came from a 307 MPH requirement but actually maxed out at 357 MPH?
All aircraft are developed in stages through flight testing when issues are proved or disproved and modifications made, be it in stability or ease of maintence. Never has there been a plane that evolved from mind's eye concept to technical drawing to prototype without changes.
God Lancaster what have you been smoking? Nowhere has those completely unrelated comglamoration of empty statistics ever been touted to be a singluar aircraft.
The above-mentioned FW Volkfluzeug is quite modest in that it was on par with a plane that did exist, the He 162 so I fail to understand the rhetoric.
Frankly it's of no matter whether anyone believes anything about advanced designs from Germany, the US or Russia. This thread is simply a place to show those designs without prejudice as to political dogma.
Henk
Master Sergeant
Do not worry Twitch I was just talking about Luft 46 and what they say were really designed and what not. Yes, the designer never actually knew how the aircraft would react after it has been tested, some can go over their expectations and others does not perform as expected.
Well guys lets stop fighting over shit and lets go on posting some cool designs.
Henk
Well guys lets stop fighting over shit and lets go on posting some cool designs.
Henk
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
You still factored the maths not properly, Twitch.
A serious problem for all Luft-46 designs was that each company used it´s own mathematical systems to describe the somehow not fully understood rapid increase in drag for transsonic speeds (depending on wingsweep, area-rule, altitude and other factors). Prof. A.W. Quick and Dr. P. Höhler from the DVL institute were orderedto find a mathematical solution (december 1944). They already had developed the right idea in the past months but needed more wind tunnel tests (transsonic and supersonic ones) to verify and fix minor problems. Until mid february they finally solved the matter. Remember, the drag doesn´t increase lineary or exponentiary bur far over-exponentiary if the plane reaches it´s individual Mach limit! So far a comparison of speed differences with a soviet plane doing Mach 0.75 is not valid for these designs hitting Mach 0.9...
I will give a sample: The Messerschmidt P 1101 (from 30th of august 1944) using Messerschmidts company maths was estimated to reach 1080 Km/h (Mach 0.95) in 7.000 m (671 mp/h @ 23.000 ft) and sustain the speed at this altitude for 51 min. with 1.827 lbs of fuel (take off weight: 8.940 lbs; thrust: 1* 2.826 lbs).
These datas are tooo high for many reasons but the most striking is the use of unproper maths.
Eventually the Me-P1101 V1 design was revised on 22th of february 1945 and the use of new maths following Höhler and Quick gave the following performance figures for virtually the same plane (thrust, airframe and weight identic) :
600 mp/h @ 23.000 ft (Mach 0.85), sustainable for 30 min. at these altitudes with 1.827 lbs of fuel.
You notice the difference? 71 mp/h, same design with proper maths used.
Not all designs are affected in such a drastic way, I must admit.
The Focke Wulf company and Henschel in particular used a system which was little in distance to Höhlers conclusive works
A serious problem for all Luft-46 designs was that each company used it´s own mathematical systems to describe the somehow not fully understood rapid increase in drag for transsonic speeds (depending on wingsweep, area-rule, altitude and other factors). Prof. A.W. Quick and Dr. P. Höhler from the DVL institute were orderedto find a mathematical solution (december 1944). They already had developed the right idea in the past months but needed more wind tunnel tests (transsonic and supersonic ones) to verify and fix minor problems. Until mid february they finally solved the matter. Remember, the drag doesn´t increase lineary or exponentiary bur far over-exponentiary if the plane reaches it´s individual Mach limit! So far a comparison of speed differences with a soviet plane doing Mach 0.75 is not valid for these designs hitting Mach 0.9...
I will give a sample: The Messerschmidt P 1101 (from 30th of august 1944) using Messerschmidts company maths was estimated to reach 1080 Km/h (Mach 0.95) in 7.000 m (671 mp/h @ 23.000 ft) and sustain the speed at this altitude for 51 min. with 1.827 lbs of fuel (take off weight: 8.940 lbs; thrust: 1* 2.826 lbs).
These datas are tooo high for many reasons but the most striking is the use of unproper maths.
Eventually the Me-P1101 V1 design was revised on 22th of february 1945 and the use of new maths following Höhler and Quick gave the following performance figures for virtually the same plane (thrust, airframe and weight identic) :
600 mp/h @ 23.000 ft (Mach 0.85), sustainable for 30 min. at these altitudes with 1.827 lbs of fuel.
You notice the difference? 71 mp/h, same design with proper maths used.
Not all designs are affected in such a drastic way, I must admit.
The Focke Wulf company and Henschel in particular used a system which was little in distance to Höhlers conclusive works
- Thread starter
- #139
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
Yeah Henk I ain't gonna fight with anyone. To each their own!
Delcyros- yeah see my data for the P.1101 projects nothing like 671 MPH. Messerschmitt figured 550 MPH by my info. !!??
Delcyros- yeah see my data for the P.1101 projects nothing like 671 MPH. Messerschmitt figured 550 MPH by my info. !!??
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
There are several datasheets for P1101. If You check the dates of them (27.7.44; 30.8.44(I); 30.8.44(II); 14.12.44 and 22.2.45) in Your books, You may well find different figures, making the matter more foxy. I used to compare design charts from 30.8.44 (II) and the one proposed on 22.2.45. There may be even more design charts once existed.
They are used for W. Schicks I. Meyers Geheimprojekte der Luftwaffe. Jagdflugzeuge 1939-1945 (Stuttgart 1994), page 196ff. (compare there)
I used both charts because nothing changed on the plane except for the maths.
550 mp/h is a figure too low for the P1101 (except maybe at sea level?). The more advanced airframe (40 degrees wingsweep, crit Mach 0.96) and the more powerful thrust output (1.300 Kp instead of 923Kp) would secure a significant better performance compared to the 562 mp/h He-162.
They are used for W. Schicks I. Meyers Geheimprojekte der Luftwaffe. Jagdflugzeuge 1939-1945 (Stuttgart 1994), page 196ff. (compare there)
I used both charts because nothing changed on the plane except for the maths.
550 mp/h is a figure too low for the P1101 (except maybe at sea level?). The more advanced airframe (40 degrees wingsweep, crit Mach 0.96) and the more powerful thrust output (1.300 Kp instead of 923Kp) would secure a significant better performance compared to the 562 mp/h He-162.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
