V-1 Design Info
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #2
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
airminded88
Airman 1st Class
Nice article! 
A good example of the Fiesler Fi 103 or V1 achieved 650km/h or 404 mph at 600m altitude after launch, the speed of 645kmh achieved by the development teams in the summer of 1944. This was beyond any allied aircraft. Some However only dawdled at only 340 mph. German radar tracks showed that the the missiles were flying 80kmh or 50mph below the anticipated speed. This was due to the fact that after 20 minutes of flight a gradual disintegration of the pulse jet vanes reduced the speed of many to most.
It was this problem that gave the interceptors a chance. I don't know how successful the engineers were in improving reliability, whether it was a design problem or a material problem.
A few experimental versions with high pressure fuel systems and other modification were reaching 485mph, this was achieved with a high pressure fuel system. Aerodynamic improvements drove this to 830km or 505 mph beyond the speed of the early allied jets. Ten test launches in Jan/Feb achieved this speed.
- Thread starter
- #5
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
In the final analysis, the V-1 was a much better weapon than was the far more advanced V-2. The Doodlebug delivered more or less the same explosive power to the target, was cheaper and easier to produce, and dangled the possibility of interception in front of the Allies. It's performance was such that only the most advanced fighters could intercept it, which drew away those fighters from being available for combat over Europe, something the whole rest of the Luftwaffe could not accomplish. And it led to the weapon of the future, the UAV
On the other hand, had we not the V-2 we would not have developed space boosters and thus would not have the UAV today.
Shooting down a V-1 at night with a fighter was a special challenge, since figuring out the range to the target was difficult, using only that pulsing light to locate it. They put a tail warning radar like an APS-13, in a Typhoon, looking forward, and found that could tell the pilot when he was in gun range at night. This approach worked but I don't think it was used more than experimentally.
As for the air launches, one RAF pilot described the effort of trying to intercept the V-1 carrying He-111's as horrifying, being low and over the sea at night. I think it was he that said that with the RAF and USAAF nightfighters, the German bombers, the German intruders, the German nightfighters, the RAF intruders, the RAF bombers, the V-1's, the ECM aircraft and the special mission aircraft supplying agents and the resistance that it was a good thing it was dark because if they could seen all that it would have been "bloody terrifying."
On the other hand, had we not the V-2 we would not have developed space boosters and thus would not have the UAV today.
Shooting down a V-1 at night with a fighter was a special challenge, since figuring out the range to the target was difficult, using only that pulsing light to locate it. They put a tail warning radar like an APS-13, in a Typhoon, looking forward, and found that could tell the pilot when he was in gun range at night. This approach worked but I don't think it was used more than experimentally.
As for the air launches, one RAF pilot described the effort of trying to intercept the V-1 carrying He-111's as horrifying, being low and over the sea at night. I think it was he that said that with the RAF and USAAF nightfighters, the German bombers, the German intruders, the German nightfighters, the RAF intruders, the RAF bombers, the V-1's, the ECM aircraft and the special mission aircraft supplying agents and the resistance that it was a good thing it was dark because if they could seen all that it would have been "bloody terrifying."
