A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old September 15th 09, 11:13 PM posted to sci.space.history
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
I hadn't thought of this until just tonight, but the design of the
Typhoon* class missile sub puts the missiles in two side-by-side rows
that are located between twin small diameter pressure hulls and only
attached to them via a single inspection hatch on each tube.
During submerged operations the missile tubes are surrounded by water in
a free-flooding section of the sub's interior.
This could well have been due to the realization that a missile
explosion inside of the main pressure hull ("hulls" in the case of
Typhoon, there are four separate pressure hulls inside of the exterior
hull connected by hatches) could doom the whole sub.


This was probably mostly to keep the weight of the missiles on/near
the centerline and to minimize the effects of the rapid weight shifts
was the missile was ejected and the tube subsequently backflooded from
the sea. Had they been located on the centerline of the pressure
hulls, they would have had a much longer lever arm and consequently
induced higher loadings and motions.

I doubt there position would have made much difference in the event of
accidental ignition and the subsequent explosion.


I'm wondering if the area around the tubes in the forward outer hull is
free-flood or filled with stainless steel buoyancy balls like we us in
similar areas outside the pressure hull in ours.


Except we don't use any such things.

I assumed it was free-flooding, but there don't seem to be any limber
holes visible above water when surfaced to let the air out on diving,
unless it comes out of the hinge end of the missile doors.


ISTR there being a number of vents topside on the missile decks...
But keep in mind two things; A) the Soviets did use doors on limber
holes sometimes, and B) modern [nuclear] submarines don't crash dive
or crash surface. You don't need the big honkin' limber holes
characteristic of the diesel boats.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #42  
Old September 16th 09, 12:05 AM posted to sci.space.history
Rick Jones[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.history message ,
Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:38:24, Derek Lyons posted:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In sci.space.history message ,
Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:18:12, Derek Lyons posted:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

For a solid, assuming that the case bursts, rather than the propellant
actually detonating, the initial bang may be no more than a warship
should be designed to accept from enemy munitions.

You have utterly no fecking clue what you are talking about - that
'initial bang' [that a warship is capable of enduring] is equivalent
of a solid motor roughly big enough to toss a potato the length of a
football pitch... I.E. insignificiant.

Evidently you have only served in shoddy ships. The HMS Vanguard which
I have been on was much more solidly built.


Note that HMS Victorious took three successive kamikaze hits, and was
launching planes within the hour. A certain other Navy was less robust.




I exaggerate some, but the essence of there - no ship can (or ever
had) been able to take the internal detonation of any but the smallest
range of militarily useful solid rocket motors.


It was with that possibility in mind that I wrote, as you quoted,
"assuming that the case bursts, rather than the propellant actually
detonating".



Once you get above
1klb equivalent, which isn't a big motor, you're talking ship killers.



--
(c) John Stockton, near London.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036)


--
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #43  
Old September 16th 09, 01:49 AM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
Note that HMS Victorious took three successive kamikaze hits, and was
launching planes within the hour. A certain other Navy was less robust.


Well, the next time the Germans send out a super battleship to destroy
the Royal Coast Guard, don't come looking to us if you want to borrow a
Catalina or two, limey. ;-)

Pat
  #44  
Old September 16th 09, 01:54 AM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951

Rick Jones wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:
When we saw the pictures (and I'm not certain they've ever been
declassified) the general opinion was that the crew was damm lucky the
K-219 surfaced at all. For a couple of years afterwards, we kept the
unclassified pictures posted on the doors of the DC gear lockers as a
reminder.


The ones of the sub on the surface with the launch hatches blown off?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...-87-07261.JPEG
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...rine/k-219.jpg


Is it "normal" for the planes on the sail to be like that?


Only when you are surfacing through ice.
I don't know if they put them in that position to make the sub more
visible for surface rescue force ships and radar, or they lost all
hydraulic pressure and they just pivoted down under their own weight.
I suspect the former, and that the intention was to use them to reflect
radar in case the rescue forces arrived at night.

Pat
  #45  
Old September 16th 09, 05:37 AM posted to sci.space.history
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In sci.space.history message ,
Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:38:24, Derek Lyons posted:

I exaggerate some, but the essence of there - no ship can (or ever
had) been able to take the internal detonation of any but the smallest
range of militarily useful solid rocket motors.


It was with that possibility in mind that I wrote, as you quoted,
"assuming that the case bursts, rather than the propellant actually
detonating".


That's a difference without a distinction.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #46  
Old September 16th 09, 06:03 AM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951

Derek Lyons wrote:

ISTR there being a number of vents topside on the missile decks...
But keep in mind two things; A) the Soviets did use doors on limber
holes sometimes, and B) modern [nuclear] submarines don't crash dive
or crash surface. You don't need the big honkin' limber holes
characteristic of the diesel boats.


Want to see one crash dive with air flying out over the missile deck?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfMxcNvJKEo
Apparently they crank up the stern, flood the forward ballast tanks and
use the bow planes and its screws to force it underwater, using its wide
hull to shove it under even though it still was positive buoyancy.

Pat
  #47  
Old September 17th 09, 07:08 PM posted to sci.space.history
Rick Jones[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951

Derek Lyons wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:
I've also since gotten a reply from a museum in the UK who were
kind enough to send along a cut-away drawing of a Polaris showing
how it was one large chunk of propellant with the separate nozzles.
If I am reading the drawing correctly, it says there were four
holes in the propellant at the bottom, perhaps aligned with the
nozzles, and the star pattern was in the top portion of the
propellant. I've asked their permission to redistribute the
diagram and will do so when I get their permission if folks would
like.


I'd be very interested in seeing it.


As I've gotten permission to share the diagram, and I happen to have a way to do so broadly:

ftp://netperf.org/polaris_1st_stage003.jpg

For purposes of attribution, this came to me courtesy of the Cosford
(?) RAF Museum in the UK.

After looking at it further, it looks like the four holes converge a
little ways up the stage at a point where the star pattern in the fuel
begins.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #48  
Old September 18th 09, 01:07 AM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951

Rick Jones wrote:

As I've gotten permission to share the diagram, and I happen to have a way to do so broadly:

ftp://netperf.org/polaris_1st_stage003.jpg


Now, that's _odd_.
The base looks like a oversized primer on a artillery shell cartridge.
I wonder if the little cone shaped chunk of propellant at the base gets
ignited from below and serves to keep water out of the nozzles till the
missile gets airborne and the main section of the grain ignites from the
top of the central bore, like is usual in a solid motor.
It also looks like some other type of fuel mixture is used near the base
and inside the grooves of the star-shaped bore.
The drawing doesn't show any details of the fluid injection system of
the nozzles though, nor where the freon for it is stored.

Pat
  #49  
Old September 18th 09, 04:31 PM posted to sci.space.history
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951

Pat Flannery wrote:

Rick Jones wrote:

As I've gotten permission to share the diagram, and I happen to have a way to do so broadly:

ftp://netperf.org/polaris_1st_stage003.jpg



As I indicated to Rick in email, that diagram is a standard Navy one.
The Navy, at least back then, tended to have one diagram for one
concept ('Polaris first stage motor' in this instance) and then reused
it widely. The style is unmistakable once you've seen, as I have,
enough of them.

I probably even have that very diagram somewhere in my collection.

The drawing doesn't show any details of the fluid injection system of
the nozzles though, nor where the freon for it is stored.


The diagram shows the first stage, which used jetavators or rotating
nozzles. Fluid injection was used on the second stage.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #50  
Old September 18th 09, 07:08 PM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951

Derek Lyons wrote:

The drawing doesn't show any details of the fluid injection system of
the nozzles though, nor where the freon for it is stored.


The diagram shows the first stage, which used jetavators or rotating
nozzles. Fluid injection was used on the second stage.


My slip.
Was there some sort of ignition system at the base mounted in the center
of the four nozzles? The diagram seems to show a central hole down there
under the odd cone-shaped chunk of propellant at the base of the fuel grain.

Pat
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ÐÂÎÅ:¹Å¶­£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ¹ú´É²èºø528°Ñ¡¢´ÉÆ÷400¼þÇë¹ÛÉÍ£¡News,Antique (1912-1949) Porcelain Teapot 528 Chinaware 400,Invitation Visit! [email protected] Misc 0 November 1st 07 04:03 AM
¹Å¶­£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ‡ø´É²è‰Ø528°Ñ¡¢´ÉÆ÷400¼þ£¬ÑûÕˆÓ^Ùp£¡Antique (1912-1949) Porcelain Teapot 528 Chinaware 400,Invitation Visit ! [email protected] Misc 0 October 12th 07 06:46 AM
¹Å¶­£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ¹ú´É²èºø528°Ñ¡¢´ÉÆ÷400¼þ£¬ÑûÇë¹ÛÉÍ£¡Antique (1912-1949) Porcelain Teapot 528 Chinaware 400, Invitation Visit! [email protected] Misc 0 September 24th 07 05:23 AM
¹Å¶­£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ¹ú´É²èºø528°Ñ¡¢´ÉÆ÷400¼þÇë¹ÛÉÍ£¡Antique 1912-1949 Porcelain teapot 528 chinaware 400 invitation visit xjx588[_3_] SETI 0 September 17th 07 09:11 AM
¹Å¶­£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ¹ú´É²èºø528°Ñ´ÉÆ÷400¼þ£¬ÑûÇë¹ÛÉÍ£¡Antique(1912-1949)Porcelain Teapot528 Chinaware400,invitation visit! 456 Misc 0 September 17th 07 03:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.