# ZEPPELIN-STAAKEN R-XVII



## delcyros (Aug 31, 2008)

While writing down a booklet for a friend, I was wondering about the Zeppelin Staaken R-VI successor.
The original Zeppelin Staaken R-VI is well known for it´s unparalleled size, beeing the first bomber with enclosed cockpits and supercharged engines.
What perhaps is less well known is that Zeppelin-Staaken was working on a number of modifications to the plane (R-XII to R- XVI) until it started a general new conception in 1918, whiches resulting Zeppelin-Staaken R-XVII was nothing short than a quantum leap in bomber design in general appearance. The end of world war one closed the files but Zeppelin Staaken was eager to modify the R-XVII into a purely civil version. Small parts construction on the so called "1000 hp" plane started in may 1919 at Berlin-Staaken.
Designed by Baumann and Rohrbach, who favored thick-wing cantilever monoplanes, but unlike Junkers, who used tubes and ribs covered with corrugated sheet, Rohrbach used dural stressed skin employing a single torsion-box spar running from wingtip to wingtip, its smooth top and bottom serving as the wing’s upper and lower surfaces. Leading- and trailing-edge ribs, attached to the front and back faces of this box and covered with thin dural sheet, gave the wing its shape. His E.4/20 of 1920 was a streamlined, all-dural design powered by four engines, weighing 18,700 pounds loaded. Only large wheels and landing gear struts marred its lines, and its high-placed, tapered, cantilever wing spanned 102 feet. It had a cabin that seated up to 18, as well as a lavatory and generous mail and luggage space. 
The fuselage was completed in june, 1920 and the allied controll commission allowed testflights under supervision of french and british officers with Maybach IVa-engines. The maiden flight was on sept. 30th with Carl Kuring.
At its first flight, in 1920, both its design and performance—cruising more than 130 mph at less than full power, and ranging nearly 850 miles—were a good dozen years beyond what any other airliner had attained.
The allied controll commission regarded the legend performance as to high to be considered as a civil plane (top speed in excess of allied fighter top speeds) and Zeppelin had to deliver the engines back to ILÜK while it could keep but was forbidden to sell the fuselage and wings.
But though never itself produced, many of its features—stressed skin, torsion-box spar, leading edge engines, and gracefully tapered wing—became standard elements of long-range aircraft, as did its general configuration.
The USA sent two engeneerers to Zeppelin in order to negotiate with and perhaps buy licenses from Zeppelin Staaken but Reinhart and Deeds arrived only to be informed that the plane had to be scrapped by orders of the allied controll commission.

The ILÜK decision to scrap the prototype has to be seen in relation with early allied high altitude trials, such as the french Villacoublay trials of 1918 where the max. speed of a turbocharged fighter was 205 Km/h @ 4.500m (very comparable to the 205 Km/h at this altitude of the actual performance projection for the E4/20).

Further reading:
*A. K. Rohrbach*, “Das 1000-PS Verkehrsflugzeug der Zeppelin-Werke, Staaken,” Zeitschrift für Flugtechnik und Motorluftschiffahrt, vol. 12, no. 1 (15 Jan. 1921); 
*E. Offermann, W. G. Noack, and A. R. Weyl*, Riesenflugzeuge, in: Handbuch der Flugzeugkunde (Richard Carl Schmidt Co., 1927). 
*Peter W. Brooks*, article in Air Pictorial (June 1986). [thanks, Graeme!]


----------



## delcyros (Aug 31, 2008)

The performaces were considered to be:

official designation: E4/20 (designation given by ILÜK)
company intern designation: 1000PS plane

engines: four Maybach IVa supercharged 6 cyl. engines (245 hp each), rated altitude: 8.275 ft. / 2.500m
Crew: 3
passengers: 12-18
max. payload: 3.970 lbs / 1.800 Kg (incl. passengers, 628 Kg fuel)
payload at max. range: 2.600lbs / 1.180 Kg (incl. passengers, 1.250 Kg fuel)
take of weight: 18.740 lbs / 8.500 Kg
structure weight: 9.540 lbs / 4.372 Kg 
span: 101.8ft
wing area: 1141 ft^2
aspect ratio: 9.08
length: 54.6ft.
height: 14.9ft.

range: 740 mls (design)
speed: 140 mp/h / 225 Km/h at Sea level
cruise speed: 130 mp/h / 200 Km/h at Sea level
stall speed: 68 mp/h / 110 Km/h -at 7.500 Kg-gross weight
Cl-max: 1.20
service ceiling: 19.500 ft.

statistics (NACA TM 5):
50 ltr. needed for 100 Kg payload (design)
1000 Km distance may be covered with 300 Marks (design, 1922 state german currency)

performance estimation (see below for details):
best speed: 152 mp/h / 245 Km/h @ rated altitude (2.500m)


The wings were of a particluarely thick airfoil, which allowed the construction of access tunnels to the engine nacelles to be embedded into the wings structure. The planform was slightly tapered to the ends with a very high -esspeccially for the 20´s- aspect ratio, allowing for an unpredecented low induced drag which in return significantly improved the performance. Not all of these figures may have been design intentional but the combination of a thick airfoiled but braceless and struttless wing construction in combination with a high aspect ratio, a large span and tapered planform must be considered as a radical and progressive departure from earlier Zeppelin-Staaken giant wing conceptions.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 31, 2008)

If it is a Bomber why does it need passengers? or was that before it got converted into the bomber


----------



## delcyros (Aug 31, 2008)

Germany was not allowed to build military planes in accordance to the Treaty of Versailles. The only possibility to try to continue running aircraft companies was in the civil sector. Zeppelin tried in this case and the plane eventually was transformed into a civil plane but as with many other companies (LVG, Hansa Brandenburg, Albatros), the allied controll commission prevented civil certification until the companies went into liquidation.

The military version sure would have less payload but the documentation for this is lost. Just for those of You who want to know how a strategic bomber in 1920 might have looked like.


----------



## Graeme (Sep 1, 2008)

Thanks Delcyros. Interesting aircraft.

It had a novel passenger entrance...







delcyros said:


> the allied controll commission prevented civil certification until the companies went into liquidation.



Bill Gunston points out that the Inter-Allied Control Commission disallowed the E-4250 but deemed the Junkers F13 (developed at the same time) "to have no military potential" and so construction was allowed. Lucky for Junkers.


----------



## delcyros (Sep 6, 2008)

Thank You, Graeme.

I have traced down the original image for Gunstons drawing:
(source: Booklet from Zeppelin exhibition Friedrichshafen 2006, Deutsches Museum, Ulf Essers, Peter M. Grosz)



> Bill Gunston points out that the Inter-Allied Control Commission disallowed the E-4250 but deemed the Junkers F13 (developed at the same time) "to have no military potential" and so construction was allowed.


The Inter-Allied Controll Commission allowed construction and test flights of this plane. But once they realised after test flights that only two fighter-types could reasonably match the speed of this giant they
demanded the plane to be scrapped. Junkers was clever enough not to quest for extreme performances.

Another novel figure was the washing room in the stern and the bord toilet.


----------



## Graeme (Sep 7, 2008)

delcyros said:


> But once they realised after test flights that only two fighter-types could reasonably match the speed of this giant they
> demanded the plane to be scrapped.



Hi Delcyros.

There is a very detailed assessment of the E.4/20 in an issue of Air Pictorial (June 1986) by Peter W. Brooks. Brooks points out that there was also Allied resentment at rumours of a possible trans-Atlantic attempt with the aircraft that hastened its demise. The 'planned' flight was to be piloted by Captain Hesse and Lieutenant Lehmann. Since the E.4/20 burned about 1 Kg of fuel per Km it was estimated that 3,500kg of fuel would be enough to make the flight against the prevailing winds. With a projected production gross weight of 9,180kg this was considered "just possible".

In late 1920 there was a projected scaled down version (effectively half size) of the E.4/20 called the E.2/21, designed to carry six passengers with two leading edge engines it was abandoned in late 1921.

Compared to the Handley Page 0/10 and DC-2...





More characteristics...









(Profile from "Conquerors of the Air" by Carlo Demand abd Heiner Emide - 1968)


----------



## delcyros (Sep 7, 2008)

Graeme,

I owe You a beer if You can shed more light on this plane! That´s fantastic info, indeed.
Brooks article was unknown to me I will try hard to get a copy but I am afraid that Air pictorial isn´t aviable in central europe libraries.
I am still searching for a fuel consumption curve of the Maybach IVa engine. I am somehow surprised by the legend performances. Just questioning because it even compares with the four engined Armstrong Withworth A.W. XV (maiden flight 1932) and Fokker F XXXVI (maiden flight 1934), altough both enjoy the advantage of more advanced engines as well as more streamlining.

There is an excellent picture of the scrapping works on the prototype E 4/20 from the collection Koos in the recent issue of Flieger Revue extra, showing the cockpit and the acess tunnels in the wingroots. I may post it later (have to ask firstly).

best regards many thanks!


Edit: The lower profile drawing is likely in error wrt the nose. I can make a good case of it with the Koos photo. The profile shows the state of the E4/20 from the very first picture (compare above), where the cockpit is covered by textiles to prevent excessive cockpit heating caused by direct sun exposure. This artificial textile cover makes the nose looking that smooth. The nose curve is a bit deeper, on about the line of the lower spinner.

Other details of interest are the undercarriege and the camouflage pattern. The undercarriege consisted of four (not two!) main wheels, each 1600mm diamter. Two of the wheels were paired each. The load carrying capacity must have been considerable (Staakens 800 mm tires had a load taking capacity of 4000 Kg per wheel). A half embedded nose wheel and a sporn completed the gear system (compare picture below).

Not all of the plane was left in silver-metallic. The outer wings indeed were produced partly in wartimes and still showed the typical night bomber camouflage (compare details).


----------



## HoHun (Sep 7, 2008)

Hi Delcyros,

>I am still searching for a fuel consumption curve of the Maybach IVa engine.

Hm, I don't have any curves, but here is some data from Kroschel/Stützer's "Die Deutschen Militärflugzeuge 1910 - 1918":

Maybach
Friedr.-
hafen
Mb IVa
1917
6ZylR
Wasserkühlung (water cooling)
245 PS Nennleistung (rated power)
245 PS bis 2,5 km (up to 2.5 km)
1400 U/Min Nenndrehzahl (rpm rated speed)
165 mm Bohrung (bore)
180 mm Hub (stroke)
23 L Hubraum (displacement)
1:4,94 Verdichtung (compression)
1759 mm Länge (length)
554 mm Breite (width)
993 mm Höhe (height)
403 kg Gewicht (weight)
215 g/PS/h Verbrauch Benzin (consumption gasoline)
10 g/PS/h Verbrauch Öl (consumption oil)

Maybe it's a beginning ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## delcyros (Sep 7, 2008)

Thanks HoHun, that helps.

The question is whether or not 215 gPsh (ca. 277 l/PS/h) specific fuel consumption are related to cruise or max poweroutput?

It would compare well with

*Argus AS III* (6 cyl. inline, 1916):
0.229 l/hp/h @ 140 hp (78% powerload out of 180 hp max)
or 177 g/PS/h @ 140 hp -rated power is at sealevel

*BMW IIIa* (6cyl. watercooled, 1917):
0.225 l/hp/h @ 160 hp (86% powerload out of 185 hp max)
or 174 g/PS/h @ 160 hp -rated power is from sealevel to 2000m

*Benz IV* (6 cyl. watercooled, 1916):
0.230 l/hp/h @ 200 hp (87% powerload out of 230 hp max)
or 178 g/PS/h @ 200 hp -rated power is sealevel

*Maybach IVa *(6cyl. watercooled 1917):
0.277 l/hp/h @ ??? hp (out of 245 hp max)
or 215 g/PS/h @ ???hp -rated power is from sealevel to 1800 (early) and 2500m (late) altitude, respectively.
also:
0.258 l/hp/h @ ??? hp
or 0.200 g/PS/h @ ???hp

More datas are necessary to draw a specific fuel consumption curve related to power but the suggested datas are at least in the same ballpark.
The most economic power is usually on the left side of the curve, this means that a more economic flight is able at higher specific fuel consumption but lower power, one reason why multi engined planes are significantly more fuel efficient than single engined ones.

best regards,


----------



## HoHun (Sep 7, 2008)

Hi Delcyros,

>More datas are necessary to draw a specific fuel consumption curve related to power but the suggested datas are at least in the same ballpark.

Hm, I believe your figures for the rest engines are somewhat on the low side - are you sure that there is not some accidental confusion between L and g in the original source?

Do you have von Gersdorf et al.'s "Deutsche Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke", by the way? It might be worth checking for consumption figures, too ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## delcyros (Sep 8, 2008)

I admit that I have only limited information of period propulsion. The figures derive from the virtual aircraft museum and are correlated between "Reiseleistung" and "Reiseverbrauch" (but You are right that they appear to be in the range of automobile rather than aircraft specific fuel consumptions):

Das Virtuelle Luftfahrtmuseum - BMW III a

I would not be surprised to see a figure of 215 g/PS/h at ca. 90-95% or 30-35% powerload.
The Maybach IVa was also rated at 200 g/PS/h specific fuel consumption (again without respective powerload) in: 
Peter Kleinheins, Wolfgang Meighörner (Hrsg.), Die großen Zeppeline (2004), p. 94. 

Kyrill v. Gersdorf also has some figures in his progresses in aeronautical research articles.

Only about 810 hp (82.6% powerload) are necessary to establish the suggested cruise speed of 200 Km/h at sea level. The trial speed of 200 Km/h continous 225 Km/h max derive from sea level conditions, where the Maybach IVa delivered about 235PS at 1400 rpm according to Gersdorf. The Maybach IVa was overcompressed and could deliver the max. nominal (for 1400 rpm) outptut of 245 PS at 8.275ft., which would be the altitude for best performance most economical cruise, too.
The most economical flight regime cannot be fixed without a proper specific fuel consumption curve of the engine in question. I have pretty well curves for Hispano and Merlin but none for Maybach.
These curves are often quite similar for each family but significant changes might occur when compression rate and fuel quality changes.
An often repeated mistake is to use the figure for specific fuel consumption for all powersettings as a fixed value. 

From the aforementioned datas I have tried to compile a performance chart. The speed curves are estimations, but they appear to be reasonable (top speed at rated altitude is 152 mp/h / 245 Km/h @ 250+ PS under the assumption that best speed at about Sea level was 225 Km/[email protected]), the poweroutput curve for the Maybach is a correlated projection from performance drop of various Benz, Daimler and BMW engines from NACA-reports and might be subject to errors above rated altitude. The service ceiling with the geometrical method is quite high, ca. 5.780m. Gross weight was assumed to be G(f)= 7.500Kg.

best regards,


----------



## delcyros (Sep 8, 2008)

Another interesting find unearthed in W.G. Noacks NACA technical note 48, dating to may 1921. The appendix includes the original barographic readings of the E4/20 testflights with without supercharger from late 1920.

The service ceiling of this airplane appeared to be 3.800m (ca. 12.600 ft.) without supercharger and 5.900m (ca. 19.500ft.) with in the service ceiling trials. Heureka! That is pretty close to my guessed figures.

Note that only the graph with "II" (supercharged) is actually a flown barographic reading. The graph with "I" (without supercharger) appears to be a projection without supercharger (the Maybach IVa was "supercharged" by overcompression).

best regards,


----------



## HoHun (Sep 8, 2008)

Hi Delcyros,

Looks like a really good estimate! Did you actually extrapolate it graphically (outstanding job then!), or did you calculate it? 

My calculated result is generally in quite good agreement, though I'm not sure about all of the parameters - for example, were the Maybach engines direct drive? I noticed that Kroschel/Stützer mention a geared version with one of the Zeppelin-Staaken bombers. What was the propeller diameter? (I can only calculate constant speed propellers anyway, so my results are not so accurate. If you have an idea how to approach constant speed props, I'd like to learn how it's done - I'm always looking for help! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## delcyros (Sep 9, 2008)

Hi HoHun,

I happen to use a program for stall speeds for the estimates (it includes, Cl-max, air density, wing area, weight and g with the simpliefied formula developed in NACA-reports) There was some kind of back fore correlation necessary but stall speed, altitude (and thus air density), Cl-max and weight was aviable from the datas provided by Graeme´s valuable excerpt from the Air Pictorial Series. In this way I matched the figures and calculated the change rate at increasing altitude (I used standart atmossphere conditions for air density). The rest was done graphically as to few inforamtions are aviable (basically only the power at rated altitude) for computation.

The Maybach IVa was used in connection with 3.20m and 3.60m props. The latter were typically used for R-planes, while the former was used on G-planes (except floats). My cdr- measurements adjusted from a more detailed picture give two values for the prop diameter: Compared via wheel diamter (1600mm) I get a prop diamter of 3.67m and compared with height (4500mm) cdr gives a prop diamter of 3.60m. Both figures are in good agreement with the aforementioned 3.60 m standart prop diameter for R-planes

I cannot say whether or not the engine was geared (a simple reduction gearing would be desirable for large props) and have forewarded the question to the Zeppelin Museum in Friedrichshafen. They had a quite accurate scale model of the E4/20 on display . It misses the auxilary nose wheel has single main wheels instead of twins but otherwise it´s very good, note the fully closed cockpit.
[this picture has bee posted here
RC-Network Modellbau Magazin
]



hope this helps,


----------



## HoHun (Sep 9, 2008)

Hi Delcyros,

>In this way I matched the figures and calculated the change rate at increasing altitude (I used standart atmossphere conditions for air density). The rest was done graphically as to few inforamtions are aviable (basically only the power at rated altitude) for computation.

Effective method, way to go!  

I checked von Gersdorff et al. and found no hints for a reduction gearing on the Maybach IVa. The book notes 245 PS at sea level, 250 PS at 1.8 km, and a full throttle height of 2.5 km. The 1.8 km figure is owed to the altitude of the Maybach engine test stand on the Wendelstein mountain  The 245 PS and 250 PS figures appear to be for 1400 U/min. Short-term power at sea level was even 280 PS @ 1500 U/min, and the book also quotes a 235 kW @ 2.5 km at 1600 U/min maximum power. Minimum specific fuel consumption is given as 215 g/PS/h.

(Minimum specific fuel consumptions for the Bz IV and the BMW IIIa are 228 g/PS/h and 185 g/PS/h respectively, which I think is amazingly low at least for the latter figure. They don't match your figures exactly, though.)

>The Maybach IVa was used in connection with 3.20m and 3.60m props. 

Ah, thanks! I had gussed something like the 3.6 m figure - for once, a lucky guess 

>I cannot say whether or not the engine was geared (a simple reduction gearing would be desirable for large props) and have forewarded the question to the Zeppelin Museum in Friedrichshafen. 

That's one I still have to visit! My father was there and liked it quite well, though he was a bit disappointed that they didn't actually explain how to control an airship in flight 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## delcyros (Sep 11, 2008)

> I checked von Gersdorff et al. and found no hints for a reduction gearing on the Maybach IVa. The book notes 245 PS at sea level, 250 PS at 1.8 km, and a full throttle height of 2.5 km. The 1.8 km figure is owed to the altitude of the Maybach engine test stand on the Wendelstein mountain  The 245 PS and 250 PS figures appear to be for 1400 U/min. Short-term power at sea level was even 280 PS @ 1500 U/min, and the book also quotes a 235 kW @ 2.5 km at 1600 U/min maximum power. Minimum specific fuel consumption is given as 215 g/PS/h.




I have read that overcompressed engines such as the Maybach BMW-series could be pushed at alitudes below rated altitude. And as the name inplies, the compression ratio was increased from nominal 4.6- to over 8.2. With such high ratio´s of compression, spontanous combustion occurs even below 2000m so that the engine has to be throttled in order to avoid spont. combustion and associated cylinderhead temp. risings. Basically, this is some type of engine supercharging. It was one of four approaches to altitude engines under discussion by then (the other three are: I-increasing the manifold pressure by some multiplication gear coupled to the engine shaft (also known as "supercharger"; II-increasing the manifold pressure by an exhoust driven turbine compressor (also known as exhoust driven turbocharger); III-increasing the manifold pressure by an compressor driven by a slave engine, the so called Brown&Boveri turbo). 
For example, the BMW-IIIa ww1 185 hp engine was about as powerful as the hispano 250 hp engine -at rated altitude above. It was essentially a 250 hp class engine, which could not be throttled to full power unless a considerable altitude was reached. The advantage in this approach was that the engine could be designed to a lower factor of safety and therefore lighter. The BMW-III could be pushed at lower altitudes - but only at risk of detonation, the cylinderhead temp rising dramatically in such an event! Surviving benchtests give a max. of 264 hp @ 1600 rpm short time power at Sea level.

This complicates the aforementioned performance projection. I assumed power to be equal in between sea level rated altitudes.
Now two things are possible:
*A)* The power was not equal at both altitudes but increased from ca. 235 PS to 245 PS at rated altitude (both a 1.400rpm)
*B)* The power was not equal at both altitudes but reduced from ca. 280 PS at sea level to ca. 245 PS at rated altitude. (from pushed 1.500 rpm at SL to normal 1400 rpm at 2.500m)
I will ignore the 1600 rpm figure because it would overstress the engine at the given altitude and a max. speed figure couldn´t be established with this powersetting without danger that one of the four engines fails (it takes time to work up for speed).
Whish I knew the answers. Have to think about it.

I have tried to make a profile drawing, showing a hypothetical dutch E4/20 on an overclouded day (in details different to the prototype). Others may follow if I find time.


----------



## delcyros (Sep 11, 2008)

I have tried posibility A) and B) with my aforementioned performance projection. 
A) remains in good agreement with the curves -top speed and service ceiling are affected positively by a negliable margin: 245 Km/h @ 2500m 5.780m max. altitude before the plane stalls at G(f)=7.500 Kg). It would be reasonable to say that the prototype had the potential to hit 150 mp/h at rated altitude.
B) does not work at all. Assuming the engine was forced to 280 PS at sea level (possible by overthrottling below rated altitude), the max. ceiling would drop to 2.720m, only, which is ca. 1000m short of the barographic readings for projected ceiling of the prototype had it not been overcompressed (by definition, 280 PS at sea level are about the degree of power which an engine with normal compression would have). I might be wrong but this possibility appears to be unconvincing.

However, my main concern was whether or not the prototype could make the east-west transatlantic flight. I assume the min. spec. fuel consumption to be 230 g/PS/h at rated altitude and 215g/PS/h at sealevel, both for ca. 220 200 Km/h and an identic powersetting of ca. 82-84% respectively. While the figure for powersetting is a raw guess, judging from other engines, the figure for cruise speed and altitude as well as fuel consumption is not, enabling me to cross correlate the figures.
The difference in altitude is negliable for range as long as the altitude is below 2.500m -the increased specififc fuel consumption is in good agreement with NACA reports on altitude consumption of Maybach and BMW engines dating to 1921.
I calculate 185 Kg fuel consumption for one hour at rated altitude (~220 Km/h) or ca. 165 Kg fuel consumption for one hour at sea level (~200 Km/h), in both cases the theoretical total range at 1250 Kg fuel is ca. 1.470 1.550 Km and the practical range appears to be 1.250 Km max. in both cases (with fuel for warming up the engines, taxiing, take off, acceleration, climb to altitude and unusable containerrestfuel taken into account)-without windfactors.
Now without freight or passengers but 3.500 Kg tankage instead the theoretical range increases to beyond 4.150 Km at rated altitude (2.185 mls), which would just allow transatlantic crossing from Ireland to New Foundland as long as the headwindfactor is less than 50 Km/h at cruise altitude altitude (fuel for warming up the engines, taxiing, take off, acceleration, climb to altitude and unusable containerrestfuel taken into account).
Longer range figures are possible at slower cruise speed even when the specific fuel consumption increases (reducing the speed by one quarter (=165 Km/h) does require only half the power (= 122.5 PS at rated altitude) -everything else beeing equal, which would translate into a endurance of more than 27 hours and a _practical range_ of 4.460 Km at 245 g/PS/h specific fuel consumption for the given fuel tankage of 3.500 Kg). 
Fascinating if true, but does this approximation appear to be correct?


----------



## delcyros (Sep 22, 2008)

I have compiled another graph of the E4/20, see below.

From what the Friedrichshafen museum people could tell me, the Maybachs were usually adopted with a reduction gear in world war one giant aircrafts.

There is a report entitlet:

_AIR MINISTRY
DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH

H.706
Enemy Engine Report 16

Reduction Gears used on Five engined Giant-Gotha Bomber
_
dating to june 1919, covering the details.

Obviously, these are not Gotha- but Zeppelin-Staaken bombers. I attach two figures out of the report with the reduction gear on Maybach IV engines.

P.S. Hohun, I am still working through Your work. Takes time.

Best regards,


----------



## HoHun (Sep 22, 2008)

Hi Delcyros,

>I have tried posibility A) and B) with my aforementioned performance projection. 

It's a bit difficult (for me) to calculate performance exactly as the aircraft does not have constant-speed propellers. The problem is that the propeller is designed for some specific working point, like for example top speed at nominal rpm and power at full throttle height. 

Below that design altitude, the air density is greater, meaning that the power requirement for the propeller to be turned at nominal rpm is greater than nominal power ... but if nominal rpm is not reached, neither is nominal power.

Above full throttle height, the opposite is going to happen - due to the lower air density, the propeller can't transfer the engine power without overspeeding, meaning you have to throttle back to sustain nominal rpm while decreasing power.

In reality, the working point might not have been chosen for top speed, but probably rather for efficient cruise speed, but the principle remains the same.

I guess it would be possible to approximate the actual figures for rpm and thus power with some degree of accuracy from the propeller parameters, but I haven't figured out how to do this so far.

>Now without freight or passengers but 3.500 Kg tankage instead the theoretical range increases to beyond 4.150 Km at rated altitude (2.185 mls), which would just allow transatlantic crossing from Ireland to New Foundland as long as the headwindfactor is less than 50 Km/h at cruise altitude 

Interesting ... quite an achievement. On the other hand, the considerably less sophistacated Vickers Vimy made the West-East trip on 3900 L of fuel, so it seems reasonable that the aerodynamically clean Zeppelin should have done better.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## ombre99 (Apr 19, 2009)

when could i fly


----------



## ombre99 (Apr 19, 2009)

wissup


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 24, 2009)

hi?


----------



## c1951 (Oct 6, 2022)

delcyros said:


> Thank You, Graeme.
> 
> I have traced down the original image for Gunstons drawing:
> (source: Booklet from Zeppelin exhibition Friedrichshafen 2006, Deutsches Museum, Ulf Essers, Peter M. Grosz)
> ...


The main problem was the engines which exceeded treaty limitations. They were told to remove them and they did. With no engines the aeroplanes were broken up and that included the twin-engined version. The Allied Control Commission inspected two Staaken aeroplanes. The last one had an enclosed cockpit. The commission also had the belief the aircraft would have been used as a bomber with a load of 500kg. The aeronautical press were livid at the loss of such a modern airframe

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 17, 2022)

Interesting aircraft, the E 4/20. The Deutsches Technikmuseum as an interesting wee display on the type, including a mock-up of its wing, from which a Maybach engine as fitted to the aircraft, is mounted.





Staaken 




Engine

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 17, 2022)




----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 17, 2022)

Very cool!


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 23, 2022)

Nice shots!


----------



## c1951 (Nov 9, 2022)

The Entente Inspection team records Two Staaaken airliners. The one with the cockpit must be the second one. What a waste destroying them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 9, 2022)

c1951 said:


> The Entente Inspection team records Two Staaaken airliners. The one with the cockpit must be the second one. What a waste destroying them.



There was only one E 4/20 built, so it's possible that the inspection team referred to one of the existing airframes from the concern at the site. It might have been the incomplete remains of the third R XVI, two of which were built and flown as bombers during the war, but a third, partially completed was investigated for conversion into a civil transport. Staaken was the name given to the Zeppelin company's operation at the Berlin airfield of Staaken, where it had an airship shed and extensive facilities for the construction of the big Riesenfluzeuge during the war. Unfortunately, the staff destroyed a lot of paperwork at the end of the war, so records on exactly what went on at Staaken are incomplete, outside of what was actually built.

These photos were taken at Staaken in 2019, this is the rear of the Zeppelin main offices built during the Great War, now derelict on a featureless industrial site.




Europe 368 

This is the Staaken control tower that was originally attached to a big hangar, within which those big R aircraft were built and stored, now long gone. Oddly, Staaken has its own MacDonalds, where my friend and I, snooping around derelict sites of interest around Berlin had lunch!




Europe 371

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## c1951 (Nov 9, 2022)

The problem is that cockpit canopy, when was it fitted? There are photographs with the destroyed Staaken with that cockpit. and the inspectors mentioning two Staakens. They also mention the twin engined Staaken, there are images of the aeroplanes in contemporary magazines. Since I've seen the reports by the inspectors I'll have to go with what they say. Seemingly the twin engine Staaken received enquiries from America where they wanted to put it into production, but the design was butchered by the Entente inspectors.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 9, 2022)

c1951 said:


> The problem is that cockpit canopy, when was it fitted? There are photographs with the destroyed Staaken with that cockpit. and the inspectors mentioning two Staakens. They also mention the twin engined Staaken, there are images of the aeroplanes in contemporary magazines.


I don't think I denied there was another Staaken airliner, but there was only the one E 4/20 built, so whatever the other aircraft was it was a twin-engined airliner, which the E 4/20 was not. Photos showing the E 4/20 under construction display its four engine cradles mounted on the wings, so whatever the inspection team saw it wasn't a second E 4/20 if it were twin-engined. Regarding the cockpit canopy on the E 4/20, it certainly wasn't completed with it as contemporary images in 1920 show it without one, but when it was fitted, who can say precisely as it was scrapped two years after it was finished. Like I said, documentation and pertinent information was destroyed after the war...


----------



## c1951 (Nov 15, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> I don't think I denied there was another Staaken airliner, but there was only the one E 4/20 built, so whatever the other aircraft was it was a twin-engined airliner, which the E 4/20 was not. Photos showing the E 4/20 under construction display its four engine cradles mounted on the wings, so whatever the inspection team saw it wasn't a second E 4/20 if it were twin-engined. Regarding the cockpit canopy on the E 4/20, it certainly wasn't completed with it as contemporary images in 1920 show it without one, but when it was fitted, who can say precisely as it was scrapped two years after it was finished. Like I said, documentation and pertinent information was destroyed after the war...


I have pictures of the second one's cockpit being fitted and the twin engined one being built,. Contemporary press reports give full coverage to the types and certainly the inspector's reports have supporting drawings. The fuselage windows are completely different in the second Staaken. There are photos of it engineless and then shown broken up. Certainly the inspectors say there were two four engined types and one tin engined type


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 17, 2022)

c1951 said:


> I have pictures of the second one's cockpit being fitted and the twin engined one being built,. Contemporary press reports give full coverage to the types and certainly the inspector's reports have supporting drawings. The fuselage windows are completely different in the second Staaken. There are photos of it engineless and then shown broken up. Certainly the inspectors say there were two four engined types and one tin engined type



so, what you are saying is that there were two E 4/20? If that is the case, then that is quite a significant historic find. Firstly, however, you need to prove that what you are saying is true and verifiable. If you cannot, then it is simply presumption on your part. Let's see the evidence.


----------



## c1951 (Nov 30, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> so, what you are saying is that there were two E 4/20? If that is the case, then that is quite a significant historic find. Firstly, however, you need to prove that what you are saying is true and verifiable. If you cannot, then it is simply presumption on your part. Let's see the evidence.


Its all coming out in a book called, German aircraft in the Great War." Hopefully February 14, publishing date, all the facts are in that


----------

