Copying advances

[Gixxerman]

I hope this 1 interests people

Almost everyone interested in WW2 knows at least some of the tale of the German reaction to the Russian T 34 tank and I have read here recently (thanks guys) of the positive effect of Russian 'swirl' super-chargering inlet manifolds on some German designs (Junkers mentioned especially).
So, it made me wonder, are there (m)any other obvious examples of new ideas being rapidly taken up by the opposing side from captured aircraft?
I've seen pics of an early P 51 P 47 in German markings and a P 51D crated up on a railway car, but was the intention just for touring their airfields or were they learning implementing some allied advances into their own designs?
Similarly we know the USA copied the V1 (to late to see service) but what else?

 

[T Bolt]

The Russians reverse-engineered the B-29 creating the Tu-4 from 4 B-29s that landed in Siberia and were interned after attacking Japan.
The first of 847 Tu-4s flew in may 1947 and were almost exact copies of the B-29

 

[Gixxerman]

Ah yes, the Tu-4, nice one T Bolt.

 

[Shortround6]

Everybody was always examining captured equipment to see what they could learn from it. Not only from a tactical sense ( where the armor was located or thickest/thinnest or what the turning circle was) but mechanical ideas and even metallurgy (different bearing materials, etc).
In some cases it was to see if the enemy was running short of certain materials.

Coping something often depended on complicated it was and what the advantages might be. Coping the Sten gun was relatively quick and simple, but since the MP-40 was already made out of stampings and was pretty cheap the Germans didn't copy the Sten until things got really desperate.
Copying an aircraft engine could take a couple of years and rather obviously the domestic engine makers are ALL going to claim that their new model XXX will beat the captured engine by the time the captured engine could be put into service.

The Japanese had shifted to using a large number of Browning type machineguns/cannon by the end of the war but when exactly they started may be hard to pin down and the basic Browning had been on the world scene since 1917 so they started copying when?
They also "copied" it in calibers the US never tried to use.

 

[pbehn]

Everybody was always examining captured equipment to see what they could learn from it. Not only from a tactical sense ( where the armor was located or thickest/thinnest or what the turning circle was) but mechanical ideas and even metallurgy (different bearing materials, etc).
In some cases it was to see if the enemy was running short of certain materials.

Coping something often depended on complicated it was and what the advantages might be. Coping the Sten gun was relatively quick and simple, but since the MP-40 was already made out of stampings and was pretty cheap the Germans didn't copy the Sten until things got really desperate.
Copying an aircraft engine could take a couple of years and rather obviously the domestic engine makers are ALL going to claim that their new model XXX will beat the captured engine by the time the captured engine could be put into service.

The Japanese had shifted to using a large number of Browning type machineguns/cannon by the end of the war but when exactly they started may be hard to pin down and the basic Browning had been on the world scene since 1917 so they started copying when?
They also "copied" it in calibers the US never tried to use.

Easy to examine a metal and get its chemical analysis but figuring out the manufacture and heat treatment is much more difficult. Does anyone know how the Tu-4 performed?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

North American "copied" the L/E slat carriage from the Me 262 and used it on the F-86 from what I'm told. There have been members who stated that the actual German-made assemblies were used on production aircraft, I've called total BS to that.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Easy to examine a metal and get its chemical analysis but figuring out the manufacture and heat treatment is much more difficult. Does anyone know how the Tu-4 performed?

AFAIK The Tu-4 performed just as good as the B-29. The Soviets used their own engines which were probably a lot more reliable than the 3350s used on the -29. It is still used by the Chinese with turbo-prop engines

 

[pbehn]

North American "copied" the L/E slat carriage from the Me 262 and used it on the F-86 from what I'm told. There have been members who stated that the actual German-made assemblies were used on production aircraft, I've called total BS to that.

Was that anything like the 109 LE slat?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Was that anything like the 109 LE slat?

Don't know...

 

[GrauGeist]

Was that anything like the 109 LE slat?

Similar, but each were unique in both physical and application terms.

There are rumors floating around out there, like Joe mentioned, where people believe that the slats from Me262s were transferred directly to the F-86. It was the concept that was incorporated into the design, not the physical equipment. This would be like saying the MiG-15 and F-86 were copies of the He178 just because both types had thier engine buried in the fuselage...

 

[pbehn]

Similar, but each were unique in both physical and application terms.

There are rumors floating around out there, like Joe mentioned, where people believe that the slats from Me262s were transferred directly to the F-86. It was the concept that was incorporated into the design, not the physical equipment. This would be like saying the MiG-15 and F-86 were copies of the He178 just because both types had their engine buried in the fuselage...

All I can find is from modelling forums saying they were out while the plane was on the ground. These type of slats were not really unusual although invented by Gustav Lachmann the patent was shared with Handley Page. I believe Messerschmidt payed to produce under license until hostilities broke out. Maybe the designers of the F86 got some tips but that is what engineers do.

I believe capturing an FW 190 gave Hawkers some help in cooling a radial encased in a cowling, or is that a myth?

 

[tomo pauk]

We might ask whether the BMW-801A installation on the Do-217 gave the British some tips? It featured fan cooling of a tightly-cowled radial, also featuring individual exhaust stacks. The 'Aeroplane' published a pretty detailed article about the 801A in November and December 1942, the officials circles were informed weeks, or more likely, months earlier? The British never copied the oil cooler layout. We also don't know how well the British were informed about NACA and P&W efforts with a fan cooled radial, from winter on 1941/42?
The Grumman engineers were impressed by two things from the captured Fw-190, namely with Kommandogeraet and the exceptional visibility from cockpit. At least going by the book from the series 'Naval fighters' that dealt with the F8F. Kommandogeraet was never copied by Allies?
Was the fuel injection in the R-3350 a copy of any of German systems?

 

[GregP]

The Bf 109 slats are NOTHING like F-86 slats ... except for being slats.

The Bf 109 slats are about 3.5 feet long, are of one surface, and move in out by about an inch to an inch and a half. They are narrow, being of something like a 4-inch chord or so.

The F-86 slats are four surfaces loosely joined together with floating pins (so they tend to help drag one another in and out) and move in out by about 4 - 5 inches. They are wide, having something like a 12 - 14 inch chord.

These are from memory and are not specs.

Anyone who says they used German slats on production F-86's (from the Bf 109) has obviously never seen them side by side. Once you do, you cannot make such a claim. I'll get pics this week and post in here for all to see.

The similarities are that they are both slats that are unpowered and operate by air pressure alone. Technically they may both be called "Handley-Page slats," but that is about the only thing that is similar between them.

There are five wings for the F-86 family. There is the original wing and the 6 - 3 wing. The original wing is on the XP-86 through the F-86E. The 6 - 3 wing is on the F-86 and later birds. It has 6 inches more chord at the root and 3 inches more chord at the tip. There are four kinds of 6 - 3 wings. There are the long and short wings and there are wings, with and without slats. The short wings are easy to recognize since the aileron goes all the way out to the wingtip. If there is a wingtip and the ailerons stops before it reaches the wingtip, then it is a long wing. It is simple to see if it has slats or not. If the plane is parked, then they might have retracted the slats and put in the slat locking pins, but an inspection will easily tell the difference, especially looking underneath for the slat edge lines.

 

[GrauGeist]

...Similarly we know the USA copied the V1 (to late to see service) but what else?

The British, U.S. and the Soviet Union tested captured A4 (V-2) rockets. They were mostly assembled from components although the Soviets built and tested their own as the R-1 and the U.S. developed a copy called the RTV-G-4.

Some of these tests were done as late as 1952 (19 September 1952 - White Sands, New Mexico).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Anyone who says they used German slats on production F-86's (from the Bf 109) has obviously never seen them side by side. Once you do, you cannot make such a claim. I'll get pics this week and post in here for all to see.

A former member made the claim about the -262 slat carriages and got the quote from a book, the author wording his text in such a manner as if actual -262 slat carriages were placed on early production F-86s - putting it mildly, IMO both of these gentlemen were (are) idiots!

A pic...

 

[Shortround6]

The Americans tried to copy the MG 151 ( or at least major features) and the MG 42.

There may be some debate about the Germans coping the Bazooka (they certainly enlarged it).

 

[pbehn]

The Bf 109 slats are NOTHING like F-86 slats ... except for being slats.

The Bf 109 slats are about 3.5 feet long, are of one surface, and move in out by about an inch to an inch and a half. They are narrow, being of something like a 4-inch chord or so.
Anyone who says they used German slats on production F-86's (from the Bf 109) has obviously never seen them side by side. Once you do, you cannot make such a claim. I'll get pics this week and post in here for all to see.

The similarities are that they are both slats that are unpowered and operate by air pressure alone. Technically they may both be called "Handley-Page slats," but that is about the only thing that is similar between them.

Greg I want saying that they were the same at, all just they were similar and as you say may be termed Handley Page slats. For a slat designed for a 1936 prop fighter to work on a 1949 jet would be a miracle. The point I am making was that these type of slats wern't unique to the 262 or to Messerschmidt, in fact they were common on many aircraft and covered by a British patent. I am sure Boeing looked at the 262 may even has seen some thing useful about it and copied it to incorporate into the Sabre but they wernt waiting for one to be captured, in fact the Sabres design was helped more by looking at captured data on swept thin wings than the 262 itself

 

[GrauGeist]

The engineers of the F-86 did look at design and performance data of the Me262, as it had battle-tested characteristics that they were interested in. They also looked over information the Germans did have, regarding test data on Mach airflow over true swept wing designs.

 

[nuuumannn]

A bit on the development of slats from wiki, which mentions Lachmann and Handley Page - I'd never heard that the Me 262 was the inspiration for the F-86 slats before.

Slats were first developed by Gustav Lachmann in 1918. A crash in August 1917, with a Rumpler C aeroplane on account of stalling caused the idea to be put in a concrete form, and a small wooden model was built in 1917 in Cologne. In 1918, Lachmann presented a patent for leading-edge slats in Germany. However, the German patent office at first rejected it as the office did not believe in the possibility of increasing lift by dividing the wing.[4][5]

Independently of Lachmann, Handley-Page Ltd in Great Britain also developed the slotted wing as a way to postpone stall by reducing the turbulence over the wing at high angles of attack, and applied for a patent in 1919; to avoid a patent challenge, they reached an ownership agreement with Lachmann. That year a De Havilland D.H.9 was fitted with slats and flown.[6] Later, a D.H.4 was modified as a monoplane with a large wing fitted with full span leading edge and back ailerons (i.e. what would later be called flaps) that could be deployed in conjunction with the leading-edge slats to test improved low speed performance.[7] Several years later, having subsequently taken employment at the Handley-Page aircraft company, Lachmann was responsible for a number of aircraft designs, including the Handley Page Hampden.

Licensing the design became one of the company's major sources of income in the 1920s. The original designs were in the form of a fixed slot in the front of the wing, a design that was found on a number of STOL aircraft.

During World War II, German aircraft commonly fitted a more advanced version that pushed back flush against the wing by air pressure to reduce drag, popping out when the angle of attack increased during slower flight. Notable slats of that time belonged to the German Fieseler Fi 156 Storch. These were similar in design to retractable slats, but were fixed non-retractable slots. The slotted wing allowed this aircraft to take off into a light wind in less than 45 m (150 ft), and land in 18 m (60 ft). Aircraft designed by the Messerschmitt company employed automatic, spring-loaded leading-edge slats as a general rule, except for the Alexander Lippisch-designed Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet rocket fighter, which used fixed slots in the wing panel's outer leading edges instead.

The Bf 109 slats could be pulled out of the wing by hand; I've done it myself!

As for the B-29, that had enormous influence on Russian aviation; the Tu-4 was a considerable undertaking and a reflection of the quality of what the Russians could do when pressed, literally, under duress (!) Nevertheless, such innovations as forged undercarriage legs - a major headache for the Russians, pressurised cabin, advanced radio aids etc were introduced to the Russians and Tupolev applied derivatives of the same technology in all its post war bombers, the Tu-16, Tu-95 etc, these aircraft benefitted hugely from the research Tupolev did into building the B-29 under licence.

I did read a rumour once about the closely cowled BMW 801 have some influence on the design of the Centaurus installation in the Hawker fighters, but I can't find anything in any of the books I have on the subject. In fact, Hawker installed a Centaurus in one of the Tornado prototypes in 1940 and this is credited as being from where the research into closely cowled raidals comes from after wind tunnel tests by Hawker, by Mason in Putnam's Hawker Aircraft. No mention of the BMW 801 influence by Thomas and Shores in The Typhoon and Tempest Story either.

Further to the thread, the influence that Helmuth Walther's rocket motors had on British rocketry post war was significant, to the extent that the Brits used the same colour coding of fuel and oxidant lines and their designations on their experimental liquid fuelled motors at the Rocket Propulsion Establishment at Westcott. I've examined a British prototype HTP powered motor in a museum with yellow fuel lines and the legend "T-Stoff inlet" stamped on a union! Walther's closed cycle submarine motor technology was also applied to two experimental British submarines, HMS Explorer and Excalibur. From wiki:

HMS Explorer was an experimental British submarine based on the captured German high test peroxide (HTP) powered U-boat U-1407. U-1407 had been scuttled following the German collapse at the end of the Second World War, was salvaged and eventually commissioned into the Royal Navy as HMS Meteorite. Her recovery was the impetus for a British research programme which resulted in the construction of two experimental submarines, HMS/m Explorer and HMS Excalibur. Built for speed trials, they were unarmed. Their HTP engines were essentially steam turbines, with the steam being generated by the interaction of HTP with diesel oil and a catalyst.

Explorer suffered from so many teething troubles that her first captain never took her to sea. When these initial problems were conquered, however, she turned out to be impressively fast, achieving submerged speeds of 25 knots (46.3 km/h), aided by her streamlined hull and retractable fittings.

Both Explorer and her sister ship were fitted with the latest underwater escape technology, including a one-man escape chamber, and equipped with up to date escape breathing apparatus.

Explorer and Excalibur were popularly known as the 'blonde' submarines because of their hydrogen peroxide fuel and they served a useful purpose as high-speed targets for the Royal Navy's anti-submarine forces. Their main use, however, was to finally prove that HTP was impractical as an air-independent propulsion for submarine use. The volatile HTP was carried in special bags outside the inner pressure hull, and were prone to exploding unexpectedly. Additionally, the engine room (which was not manned while under way) would often be the scene of flames appearing on the top of the combustion chamber, and on at least one occasion the crew were forced to evacuate the pressure hull and stand on the upper casing to avoid fumes which had suddenly filled the boat. The HTP fuel proved to be so troublesome that the boats quickly became known as Exploder and Excruciator.

Further on from the Walther influence, the Me 163 was the basis of a post-war British specification for a rocket powered interceptor, F.124T and OR.301. Although none of the designs to either of these specs bore any physical resemblance to the Me 163, its performance was the key. The Saunders Roe SR.53 was built and flown, but not put into production.

 

[parsifal]

Straight copies were relatively rare, but new designs based on the basic research undetaken by an opponent were more common.

Advances in artillery, small arms, vehicle design were all very common.