loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
ach double post
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
- #62
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
One thing we need to recognize is that the aero engineers in the employ of the major German aircraft companies were for the most part experienced members of teams that had already produced successful combat designs that proved themselves in actuality.
That said, it doesn't mean there weren't some fanciful designs that made their way to paper. This was not unique to Germany. Every country's designers had all sorts of "radical" layouts on paper and in prototype stage at times. Every see what the original Lockheed concept for their jet was? Pure 2nd generation Luftwaffe jet!
We need to realize that in those days when a concept was put on paper projected performance was approximated by using all the normal factors in play- drag, thrust, weight and so on. It was all slide rule. No computers. Sure estimates coulda, woulda been off but that is what development and testing are for. Designs morphed at times as initial flight data was recorded. Modifying a design is/was no sign of weakness.
Often when an Air Ministry requirement came down specifying, say 4- Mk 108s, that doesn't mean preliminary designs put on paper would have always accomodated them. Perhaps an initial layout would have only had space for 2. Perhaps the RLM would have compromised. Most certainly there was little doodling on the company's time. For the most part if we see a layout with the slimmest amount of estimated performance data that concept was something that was a direct result of an RLM spcification workup or the company's directive to conceive a viable craft.
All country's governments and military institutions laid down conceptual specifications for aircraft and other weapons they conceived. We must remember those details are arrived at by comittee. A lot of "wishes" are ultimately encompassed in them. While they say "we want a bomber that can travel 300 MPH with a range of 6,000 miles. Yeah depending on the time in history relative to the known technological data base it was easier said than done. So XYZ Aircraft company laid their best design and it was accepted yet the prototype did 280MPH and only hit 4,900 miles range. Was it a failure? Were the original performance estimates bogus? No. The estimates were made with the best information available at the time. When adjacent tech actually exceeded expectations a resultant aircraft would exceed the expected performance. That might be due to something as simple as a breakthrough in engine tech.
While we sit 65+ years hence and carp at the validity of what was then state of the art engineering it is easy to lose perspective. We must remember these guys had already been part of teams that produced planes like the Bf 109, FW 190, Ju 88, Me 262 and so on. Simply because someone with a smattering of aero engineering today discounts a WW 2 design as frivilous we need to assign weight ot that comment. How many successful modern combat aircraft has this person worked on? Yeah, none.
The advanced German aero designs varied in their feasibilities relative to their estimated performance. Simply because a certain design was not tangibly possible in 1945 doesn't mean it wasn't validated as production technology, metalurgy and powerplants caught up years later. The Russian aircraft industry in post war times was built on the backs of Germans from designers to production workers that were spirited away to the USSR for a decade or more forced to produce what the Russkies demanded.
Humongous amounts of prototypes, blueprints, production tooling, whole factories and people were taken to Russia. While the Soviet aero industry had their own stars we need to realize that the wealth of caputured German information and hardware made the rounds of all the design bureaus in the USSR. They got the Lion's share compared to the other Allies. We acknowledge that the F-84 and F-86 designs were modified at the urging of "our" Germans to employ swept wings for now obvious reasons. Yet many of us refuse to imagine stand out designs like the MiG 15 were not influenced in some degree by "their" Germans.
We must remember an artist concept is no more than a wishful fantasy. It's artwork. A designer concept is the result of envisioning a layout envelope based on input from a source like the Reichs Air Ministry and creating an initial workable idea.
Every plane ever came from a conceptual drawing based on desired requirements for performance. Drawings with projected performance based on the basics of power, weight, drag and such become blueprints that evolve through to until metal is cut. Even then modifications took place until the best plane could be produced given all factors involved.
Germany had no monopoly on radical designs considering the bizarre stuff to come out of other countries over the years either.
That said, it doesn't mean there weren't some fanciful designs that made their way to paper. This was not unique to Germany. Every country's designers had all sorts of "radical" layouts on paper and in prototype stage at times. Every see what the original Lockheed concept for their jet was? Pure 2nd generation Luftwaffe jet!
We need to realize that in those days when a concept was put on paper projected performance was approximated by using all the normal factors in play- drag, thrust, weight and so on. It was all slide rule. No computers. Sure estimates coulda, woulda been off but that is what development and testing are for. Designs morphed at times as initial flight data was recorded. Modifying a design is/was no sign of weakness.
Often when an Air Ministry requirement came down specifying, say 4- Mk 108s, that doesn't mean preliminary designs put on paper would have always accomodated them. Perhaps an initial layout would have only had space for 2. Perhaps the RLM would have compromised. Most certainly there was little doodling on the company's time. For the most part if we see a layout with the slimmest amount of estimated performance data that concept was something that was a direct result of an RLM spcification workup or the company's directive to conceive a viable craft.
All country's governments and military institutions laid down conceptual specifications for aircraft and other weapons they conceived. We must remember those details are arrived at by comittee. A lot of "wishes" are ultimately encompassed in them. While they say "we want a bomber that can travel 300 MPH with a range of 6,000 miles. Yeah depending on the time in history relative to the known technological data base it was easier said than done. So XYZ Aircraft company laid their best design and it was accepted yet the prototype did 280MPH and only hit 4,900 miles range. Was it a failure? Were the original performance estimates bogus? No. The estimates were made with the best information available at the time. When adjacent tech actually exceeded expectations a resultant aircraft would exceed the expected performance. That might be due to something as simple as a breakthrough in engine tech.
While we sit 65+ years hence and carp at the validity of what was then state of the art engineering it is easy to lose perspective. We must remember these guys had already been part of teams that produced planes like the Bf 109, FW 190, Ju 88, Me 262 and so on. Simply because someone with a smattering of aero engineering today discounts a WW 2 design as frivilous we need to assign weight ot that comment. How many successful modern combat aircraft has this person worked on? Yeah, none.
The advanced German aero designs varied in their feasibilities relative to their estimated performance. Simply because a certain design was not tangibly possible in 1945 doesn't mean it wasn't validated as production technology, metalurgy and powerplants caught up years later. The Russian aircraft industry in post war times was built on the backs of Germans from designers to production workers that were spirited away to the USSR for a decade or more forced to produce what the Russkies demanded.
Humongous amounts of prototypes, blueprints, production tooling, whole factories and people were taken to Russia. While the Soviet aero industry had their own stars we need to realize that the wealth of caputured German information and hardware made the rounds of all the design bureaus in the USSR. They got the Lion's share compared to the other Allies. We acknowledge that the F-84 and F-86 designs were modified at the urging of "our" Germans to employ swept wings for now obvious reasons. Yet many of us refuse to imagine stand out designs like the MiG 15 were not influenced in some degree by "their" Germans.
We must remember an artist concept is no more than a wishful fantasy. It's artwork. A designer concept is the result of envisioning a layout envelope based on input from a source like the Reichs Air Ministry and creating an initial workable idea.
Every plane ever came from a conceptual drawing based on desired requirements for performance. Drawings with projected performance based on the basics of power, weight, drag and such become blueprints that evolve through to until metal is cut. Even then modifications took place until the best plane could be produced given all factors involved.
Germany had no monopoly on radical designs considering the bizarre stuff to come out of other countries over the years either.
Henk
Master Sergeant
Nicely said Twitch. I agree.
Henk
Henk
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
yup
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Good reading, Twitch.
I need to underline that the "Lions Share" as You said, did not always helped to bring out mass produced designs for the soviet air industry. We still have to keep in mind that the captured german personal was forced labour and suffered from shortcomings typical for forced labour, especial when employed to design and construction. The blueprints, however, can be analyzed by soviet designers but this also takes time (in the US it wasn´t until the mid 60´s that comprehensive studies of captured german tech docs were closed).
The MiG-15 for example, never was based directly on the Ta-183 (different wing, fuselage, engine, armement, gear, controlls) as we may read in some Schiffer books or Myrrha ones. The La-15, however, was (exactly the same wing, same gear construction, same controlls, different fuselage to contain the british jet engine). But the MiG got the main contract, not the La-15. The Mig-9 and the Yak-15 got contracts despite a somehow lower performance, not the Su-7 Fishpot (because the later was based too much on the Me-262?). Not the german build Jumo-012 got the contract for mass production in Russia but the Nene and Dervent V. Exception are given for the PTL variant of the Jumo-012 which drove the early Bears and Il14.
But still there cannot be a doubt that the soviet air industry benefitted from the knowledge taken over from the germans.
I need to underline that the "Lions Share" as You said, did not always helped to bring out mass produced designs for the soviet air industry. We still have to keep in mind that the captured german personal was forced labour and suffered from shortcomings typical for forced labour, especial when employed to design and construction. The blueprints, however, can be analyzed by soviet designers but this also takes time (in the US it wasn´t until the mid 60´s that comprehensive studies of captured german tech docs were closed).
The MiG-15 for example, never was based directly on the Ta-183 (different wing, fuselage, engine, armement, gear, controlls) as we may read in some Schiffer books or Myrrha ones. The La-15, however, was (exactly the same wing, same gear construction, same controlls, different fuselage to contain the british jet engine). But the MiG got the main contract, not the La-15. The Mig-9 and the Yak-15 got contracts despite a somehow lower performance, not the Su-7 Fishpot (because the later was based too much on the Me-262?). Not the german build Jumo-012 got the contract for mass production in Russia but the Nene and Dervent V. Exception are given for the PTL variant of the Jumo-012 which drove the early Bears and Il14.
But still there cannot be a doubt that the soviet air industry benefitted from the knowledge taken over from the germans.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
The Yak-15 was a Yak with an engine, the trycicle landing gear one was the Yak-17, both were very rudimentary and had low performance, max speed was below 500mph and they were made from wood (i think) jut like the Yaks were
- Thread starter
- #67
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
Sorry I got into a stream of consciousness thing there but just some rambling thought on the subject.
I mentioned the Lockheed ship and here it is-
L133
Before the famous P-80 Shooting Star came this radical design from Clarence "Kelly" Johnson and Hall J Hibbard at Lockheed in 1939. By 1940 Lockheed was working on a axial-flow turbojet of there own design, the L-1000, which was intended to power the project fighter designated Model L-133-02-01. It was a single-seat, canard design powered by two L-1000 engines. Think of the Curtiss XP-55 canard design on steroids.
At that time the Air Force showed no interest in the project and lost the opportunity to, perhaps, have the world's first jet in service. So without Air Force support in the form of money, the L-1000 and L-133 research ended. Two years later in 1942 after hearing about German and British advances in jets the Air Force wanted in and called on the Lockheed jet guys. This culminated in the development and deployment of the P-80.
There are no known estimates of power, dimensions or performance for the L-133 other than a proposed four .50 caliber armament.
I mentioned the Lockheed ship and here it is-
L133
Before the famous P-80 Shooting Star came this radical design from Clarence "Kelly" Johnson and Hall J Hibbard at Lockheed in 1939. By 1940 Lockheed was working on a axial-flow turbojet of there own design, the L-1000, which was intended to power the project fighter designated Model L-133-02-01. It was a single-seat, canard design powered by two L-1000 engines. Think of the Curtiss XP-55 canard design on steroids.
At that time the Air Force showed no interest in the project and lost the opportunity to, perhaps, have the world's first jet in service. So without Air Force support in the form of money, the L-1000 and L-133 research ended. Two years later in 1942 after hearing about German and British advances in jets the Air Force wanted in and called on the Lockheed jet guys. This culminated in the development and deployment of the P-80.
There are no known estimates of power, dimensions or performance for the L-133 other than a proposed four .50 caliber armament.
JonJGoldberg
Airman 1st Class
Henk
Master Sergeant
Nice info and great research Twitch.
Henk
Henk
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
The L-1000 was to have produced 5500lb of thrust @ SL. In 1943 it was given the designation XJ-37. In Oct 1945, Lockheed gave the design to Menasco which in turn gave it to Wright. The project was terminated in 1952.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The L-1000 would NEVER work properly. The whole jet engine project was repeatedly handed over from one company to another because all failed to produce the thrust necessary to operate a jet, not to speak of the 5000 lbs intended design thrust! It was terminated because it had too much design flaws and wrong expectations.
JonJGoldberg
Airman 1st Class
Figured I'd share some that caught my 'fancy'... As be sure that I avoid confusion, the P-40 should not be considered as included 
. Some are scary how 'modern' they are after "some 65 years".
. Some are scary how 'modern' they are after "some 65 years".Attachments
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
delcyros said:
The wing was used on the P-80. Just look at the model...
- Thread starter
- #74
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
Jon- yeah some curious stuff. Those XP-54 pics are great! Here's some more on it
VULTEE
XP-54
Vultee Aircraft's streamlined entrant for the 1940 proposal resulting in the XP-55 and XP-56 was the XP-54. An un-supercharged Allison was the preliminary power but the P W X-1800 was then planned but its discontinuation called for the use of a Lycoming XH-2470-1h 2,300 HP.
The XP-54 flew in January 1943 but the cancellation of Lycoming's engine then had engineers figuring to use the 3,000 HP Allison V3420-11/13 24-cylinder engine used in the XP-58. This would have been a straightforward swap but it was never undertaken and the sole example was delivered to the A.A. F. in May 1944 and the program was terminated.
Though a good jet engine looks as though it would work nicely in this twin-boom pusher, the 2,300 HP Lycoming turned a four-blade prop for only 381 MPH at 28,500 feet and 290 MPH at sea level. Initial climb was 2,300 FPM with a ceiling of 37,000 feet. Weight and/or insufficient power were the keys to performance lag. Weighing 18,233 lbs. normally and 19, 337 lbs. maximum, the plane was big with the wing spanning 53.9 feet while it was 54.75 feet long. Armament installed was two 37 mm T-12/T-13 cannon with 60 RPG and two .50 calibers with 500 RPG.
Would any of these planes been viable if they'd reached production and ultimately combat? Some perhaps, but that's difficult to estimate. Like most combatants in WW II, the U.S. manufactured tried and true fighters of known quality. To pursue another six new aircraft would have diluted resources from the booming production lines.
I have a bit more on the Heinkel too-
P.1079
This all-metal plane was in the night fighter Zerstörer (Destroyer) category designed by Siegfried Günther of Heinkel. Ernst Heinkel loved the project, which called for a pair of HeS 11 turbojets to propel it at up to 621 MPH and have a 1,771-mile range during a proposed three-hour mission. Ceiling was to be 32,810 feet. Four 2,205 lb. solid rockets were to assist a rapid takeoff and undisclosed fast climb to intercept.
The engine arrangement placed them faired into each side of the slim 44.0-foot fuselage. The 35-degree swept wings spanned 39.4 feet. This plane would have had heavy armament the four Mk 108s each with 300 rounds firing from the nose and a further pair of MG 151 20 mms with 200 RPG firing rearward. Aiming for the rear guns was via a radar binocular operated by a second crewman who plotted intercept coordinates to the forward target as well. The craft sat on a tricycle landing gear.
The shape is obviously copied and validated by the post-war Supermarine 508 jet right down to the butterfly "V" tail, though the 508 sports straight, stubby wings it proves the validity of Günther's design. A tailless version was also drawn up.
I'll have to look for the pic of the V tail.
VULTEE
XP-54
Vultee Aircraft's streamlined entrant for the 1940 proposal resulting in the XP-55 and XP-56 was the XP-54. An un-supercharged Allison was the preliminary power but the P W X-1800 was then planned but its discontinuation called for the use of a Lycoming XH-2470-1h 2,300 HP.
The XP-54 flew in January 1943 but the cancellation of Lycoming's engine then had engineers figuring to use the 3,000 HP Allison V3420-11/13 24-cylinder engine used in the XP-58. This would have been a straightforward swap but it was never undertaken and the sole example was delivered to the A.A. F. in May 1944 and the program was terminated.
Though a good jet engine looks as though it would work nicely in this twin-boom pusher, the 2,300 HP Lycoming turned a four-blade prop for only 381 MPH at 28,500 feet and 290 MPH at sea level. Initial climb was 2,300 FPM with a ceiling of 37,000 feet. Weight and/or insufficient power were the keys to performance lag. Weighing 18,233 lbs. normally and 19, 337 lbs. maximum, the plane was big with the wing spanning 53.9 feet while it was 54.75 feet long. Armament installed was two 37 mm T-12/T-13 cannon with 60 RPG and two .50 calibers with 500 RPG.
Would any of these planes been viable if they'd reached production and ultimately combat? Some perhaps, but that's difficult to estimate. Like most combatants in WW II, the U.S. manufactured tried and true fighters of known quality. To pursue another six new aircraft would have diluted resources from the booming production lines.
I have a bit more on the Heinkel too-
P.1079
This all-metal plane was in the night fighter Zerstörer (Destroyer) category designed by Siegfried Günther of Heinkel. Ernst Heinkel loved the project, which called for a pair of HeS 11 turbojets to propel it at up to 621 MPH and have a 1,771-mile range during a proposed three-hour mission. Ceiling was to be 32,810 feet. Four 2,205 lb. solid rockets were to assist a rapid takeoff and undisclosed fast climb to intercept.
The engine arrangement placed them faired into each side of the slim 44.0-foot fuselage. The 35-degree swept wings spanned 39.4 feet. This plane would have had heavy armament the four Mk 108s each with 300 rounds firing from the nose and a further pair of MG 151 20 mms with 200 RPG firing rearward. Aiming for the rear guns was via a radar binocular operated by a second crewman who plotted intercept coordinates to the forward target as well. The craft sat on a tricycle landing gear.
The shape is obviously copied and validated by the post-war Supermarine 508 jet right down to the butterfly "V" tail, though the 508 sports straight, stubby wings it proves the validity of Günther's design. A tailless version was also drawn up.
I'll have to look for the pic of the V tail.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
cheddar cheese
Major General
Henk
Master Sergeant
Nice, realy nice guys. I wonder where luft26 get there info from.
Henk
Henk
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
there was no luftwaffe in 1926 right?
Not officially.
I think he means Luft46 anyway.
I think he means Luft46 anyway.
Henk
Master Sergeant
Oh, so sorry, a typing mistake. I were in such a hurry.
I meant I wonder where the website luft46 get their info from.
Henk
I meant I wonder where the website luft46 get their info from.
Henk
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
