Unknown german ww2 wing. Aircraft? Flying bomb? Rocket?

[ThomasP]

I tried but could not find an image of an experimental guided glide bomb package that was developed by Blohm & Voss (I think) during WWII. If my memory is correct, the wing and tail assembly were one unit in the form of an add-on 'back pack' that could be attached to a normal bomb body hung under it. It was intended to be an in-the-field add-on for use against ships (primarily). The wings were short and rectangular and looked similar to the V1 wings, with all directional control provided by the tail surfaces.

 

[warbooklover]

Well, the plot thickens... I am definitely having second thoughts on the Hs.117 now that I have some additional information.

One of the reasons I love this forum is the combined knowledge that we so gladly share. I am on the road five days a week and one of the first things I do when I get home is check this forum to see what has come up in the few days I am away. I love the new things I learn every week. I feel like a dog with his (or her) head out the window enjoying the experience. Thanks everyone. I think we're getting closer to solving this riddle.

WBL

 

[CATCH 22]

I tried but could not find an image of an experimental guided glide bomb package that was developed by Blohm & Voss (I think) during WWII. If my memory is correct, the wing and tail assembly were one unit in the form of an add-on 'back pack' that could be attached to a normal bomb body hung under it. It was intended to be an in-the-field add-on for use against ships (primarily). The wings were short and rectangular and looked similar to the V1 wings, with all directional control provided by the tail surfaces.

Are you thinking of L.10 Friedensengel? The torpedo glider?

 

[ThomasP]

Hey CATCH 22,

No, but it is similar in layout, maybe another variant of the idea? The weapon I am thinking of was smaller, although the 'backpack' part looks similar to what I remember. There were no end plates or control surfaces on the main wings, and it had a cruciform tail - not a twin tail. The weapon slung under the 'backpack' on the weapon I am thinking of was definitely a bomb (probably a PC type), as it did not extend much forward or behind the 'backpack' module. The similarity of the wing in the OP immediately made me think of the wing in the picture I saw many years ago, which reminded me of a modern 'backpack' module with the flip-out main wings deployed. I would say that the wing span was between 6 and 8 ft, as in the picture I saw it was mounted under a Fw190 and the wing span was significantly less than the wheel track.

Thanks for the info, I did not know that the Germans were working on a gliding air-dropped torpedo.

 

[Crimea_River]

Going back to my earlier post (and someone else mentioned this as well) are we barking up the wrong tree to assume that this this is a "wing" - as in airfoil? To generate lift a wing is usually has an asymmetrical cross section. This thing doesn't. Nor does it have any control surfaces.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Going back to my earlier post (and someone else mentioned this as well) are we barking up the wrong tree to assume that this this is a "wing" - as in airfoil? To generate lift a wing is usually has an asymmetrical cross section. This thing doesn't. Nor does it have any control surfaces.

The entire thing may be a control surface. It could be an horizontal stab/elevator where the entire "wing" moves. Kind of like the wing of a V-1.

V1 Missile - Description

 

[GrauGeist]

My impression, is that this is a horizontal stabilizer - and in looking at the Hs239's horizontal stabilizers, it's real close.
If we look closely at the assembly, there are "notches" where the hardware meets on either side of the center "hole" which indicates that the two halves went over a subframe, most likely an articulating assembly that moved making this both a horizontal stabilizer and an elevator like modern combat jets have (and the Hs239 had).

The Germans had a wide range of guided munitions, some active and some in the development stage.

I've looked at their torpedoes, mini subs, emergency fighters and so on, but keep coming back to their guided weapons (glide/powered) as the design (meaning shape/dimensions) is so close to the ones on the V-1, Hs239 plus ones on Junkers EF.126 and EF.127, etc.

 

[MiTasol]

Going back to my earlier post (and someone else mentioned this as well) are we barking up the wrong tree to assume that this this is a "wing" - as in airfoil? To generate lift a wing is usually has an asymmetrical cross section. This thing doesn't. Nor does it have any control surfaces.

AFAICR a lot of early missiles, like the V-1 for example, did not have control surfaces on the wing but depended purely on the tail for control.

I would also go with it being a wing because the inboard end is designed to fit against parallel "fuselage" section whereas a tail control surface usually fits against a tapering section.

One other option may be a ventral fin of some aircraft but I certainly cant think of any such aircraft.

I thought briefly that it could be Bv40 wing but that would have been far longer and probably had ailerons.

 

[xylstra]

I cannot access the first four of the links in Post # 31 but only the fifth. From the drawing it is apparent that there are control spoilers on the trailing edge of the tail surfaces (in common with the wings and fin) which are absent from the object under discussion. However they could conceivably be an addition. The text describes the structure of the flying surfaces as cast magnesium sheeted in aluminium. That is a positive but the span is wrong.

You can't automatically conclude that the span is wrong because to do so excludes the possibility of an early prototype whose dimensions were subsequently changed.

 

[CATCH 22]

One strong point AGAINST the wing/tail surface theory, beyond the fact that this part has no wing profile but a symmetrical section, is IMHO the fact that the two halves of this part are green. There is no visible difference between top and bottom.
Looking at the first two photos of the part one can see traces of something around the mounting holes (second photo below) - Old Geezer mentioned this already:

I think these are scratches from a drill/driver. They are visible only on the side where the heads of the bolts are. See for example the bottom-right hole from the above photo:

Which means that this part was opened and closed resp. attached/detached many times. I don't recall a flying body where the wings have been constructed in this way. On the other hand if you think of a rocket/missile/flying bomb etc. they were used one time only. This part looks like being used many times.
Another point of interest is that the end cap is not a separate part, but consisting of two halves, riveted to the halves of the assembly part.

Wings or tails usually have their ends as a separate part.

I still believe this is a part which was not horizontal during its use (like a wing) but vertical or under some angle. Some fairing like this:

Cheers!

 

[Truffle Pig]

One strong point AGAINST the wing/tail surface theory, beyond the fact that this part has no wing profile but a symmetrical section, is IMHO the fact that the two halves of this part are green. There is no visible difference between top and bottom.
Looking at the first two photos of the part one can see traces of something around the mounting holes (second photo below) - Old Geezer mentioned this already:

I think these are scratches from a drill/driver. They are visible only on the side where the heads of the bolts are. See for example the bottom-right hole from the above photo:

Which means that this part was opened and closed resp. attached/detached many times. I don't recall a flying body where the wings have been constructed in this way. On the other hand if you think of a rocket/missile/flying bomb etc. they were used one time only. This part seems like being used many times.
Another point of interest is that the end cap is not a separate part, but consist of two halves, riveted to the halves of the assembly part.

Wings or tails usually have their ends as a separate part.
View attachment 607228
I still believe this is a part which was not horizontal during its use (like a wing) but vertical or under some angle. Some fairing like this:
View attachment 607229
Cheers!

Hi catch 22, very impressive. I never have had a thought about the same color on both sides and the other observations.
But in one point I have to disagree. The srews are in reality covered with the same thin layer of green color - and so I do not believe they have ever been opened in the past. I apologize for the bad picture.

 

[AMCKen]

About symmetrical airfoils not having lift - note that the B-17 has a symmetrical airfoil (NACA 0018 root tapering to NACA 0010 tip)

 

[CATCH 22]

But in one point I have to disagree. The srews are in reality covered with the same thin layer of green color - and so I do not believe they have ever been opened in the past. I apologize for the bad picture.

Hi there!
I see only what you have posted. When you say screws do you mean the heads, the nuts or the thread, visible between the two parts? Because the head in the photo I copied above was obviously forced (and not only one time) to open the part. You mentioned you are afraid to do this so maybe somebody else did it before. If the threads are pristine (I can't see this in detail) and covered with paint I wonder when did they paint them - after the assembly of the part?

Are the threads inside of the part painted as well?
Anyway maybe somebody of the forum members with knowledge in aviation and manufacturing can answer questions like:
- Can we have a wing with a joint/gap in the leading edge (in this case in the trailing edge as well)?
- There are no connections between the ribs and they are, what, 230mm apart, which makes the aluminum sheet between them the only structural component. Is this a stable wing section?
- How was this part attached to a body? Only relying on the friction between a possible central spar and the holes in the ribs?
BTW what are the small "things" on the bottom of the part (with a hole in the middle) - I see two of them in the above photo? Are they visible on both sides? Could this be a possible attachment point?
Whatever this is it is probably not in the Novarra books.
Cheers!

 

[ThomasP]

Hey CATCH 22,

re "Can we have a wing with a joint/gap in the leading edge (in this case in the trailing edge as well)?"

Yes. Many of the V-1s were equipped with leading edge cable cutters and had a similar gap in the leading edge to accommodate the 'blade'. In this case though I suspect the gap is just for ease of manufacture. If there was an aerodynamic need for the gap to be sealed it would be easy enough to use 'speed tape' or putty to do so.


re "There are no connections between the ribs and they are, what, 230mm apart, which makes the aluminum sheet between them the only structural component. Is this a stable wing section?"

Yes, conditionally. It would depend on the dynamic forces encountered during flight. If it is a main wing or fin for a relatively low speed aircraft (the airfoil is too fat (~25%) for anything over 350-400 mph), the (presumably) tubular main spar could supply more than enough spanwise stiffness. This combined with the short wingspan would allow a relatively rigid stressed skin structure, enough to resist any torsional stress resulting from flight as long as the wing is not rotated significantly away from the direction of flight.

The V-1 wing is of similar light construction, with pressed steel(?) 1-piece ribs instead of 2-piece cast aluminum(?), but with light fore and aft wing spars in addition to the tubular main spar. This may be required in combination with the pressed steel ribs, as the overall wing span of the V-1 is 5.8 m and the chord is 1.06 m.


As to how it is attached, I have no idea. There are too many possible methods that could be used, and not enough information for me to say one way or another. It is quite possible that there are more pieces that are not still attached to the wing (obviously) that would indicate the method.

 

[CATCH 22]

Hi Tom,
thank you for your input!
I asked questions I couldn't answer alone, based on what I have read or seen. I believe your explanations are helpful hints for everybody here looking for answers.
Cheers!

 

[MiTasol]

I think these are scratches from a drill/driver. They are visible only on the side where the heads of the bolts are. See for example the bottom-right hole from the above photo:
Which means that this part was opened and closed resp. attached/detached many times. I don't recall a flying body where the wings have been constructed in this way. On the other hand if you think of a rocket/missile/flying bomb etc. they were used one time only. This part looks like being used many times.

Or, far more likely, has suffered damage in the last 75 years from being moved around with no love, often because it got in the way. 75 years of storage rash

Another point of interest is that the end cap is not a separate part, but consisting of two halves, riveted to the halves of the assembly part.
Wings or tails usually have their ends as a separate part.
Cheers!

Yes normally wing tips are separate because they often suffer hangar rash so must be changed. On a missile or other single use device that is not a consideration and ease of manufacture becomes a much higher priority. It would not surprise me to find that, once the part is identified, the final assy instructions include taping the leading edge and tip seams to improve aerodynamics

I still believe this is a part which was not horizontal during its use (like a wing) but vertical or under some angle. Some fairing like this:
Cheers!

That is why I was looking for aircraft with dorsal or diagonal fins. Given the wings on a glide bomb or guided missile are more for stability than lift I do not dismiss this as being a wing. Look at the V1 wing. Pretty much the same profile.

Don't forget that you only have to include a small angle of incidence to produce lift from that shape.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Has anyone thought to open it up and see if there is a secret toy surprise inside?

 

[MiTasol]

Has anyone thought to open it up and see if there is a secret toy surprise inside?

These days you can buy a cheap borescope with video display that allows you to see inside without removing anything

 

[GrauGeist]

These days you can buy a cheap borescope with video display that allows you to see inside without removing anything

Where's the fun in that??

 

[Snautzer01]

If is was ww2 german it would have partnumbers .