US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951

Joseph Nebus wrote:

Dean writes:

On Sep 4, 10:27=A0am, Pat Flannery wrote:

Unlike the V-1, which needed its fixed catapult for launching, the V-2
could be launched from any site within a few hours once it had been
surveyed to determine its exact longitude and latitude - as the whole
launching infrastructure was road-mobile. So the only way to stop
attacks on England by it was to capture all territory that would have
allowed it to get in range of its targets (its range was 234 miles).

Quite a few V-1s were also airlaunched from carrier aircraft.

I seem to have a faint memory of attempted V-2 launches from the
decks of carriers, at least in the postwar experimental project, although
these were not wholly successful owing to the action of the waves on the
propellant. Or have I started imagining corners of space history again?


They did, but Dean is referring to the Luftwaffe using He 111 bombers
as launch platforms for V-1s as the launching sites in France became
unusable.
Consider it the first use of Air Launched Cruise Missiles.
It sort of worked, except with the state of German aerial navigation at the
time, the bombers never really know where they were when they released the
missile, and the missile never knew where it was going.
Since they had to light off the V-1's pulsejet before they launched didn't
help teh survival rate much, either - the RAF had a lot of nightfighters
patrolling over the North Sea, and the flame from the pulsejet was like a
neon sign.

B-7s were used as launch platforms for the U.S. JB-2 Loon V-1 copy, as sell.
--
Pete Stickney
The better the Four Wheel Drive, the further out you get stuck.

In sci.space.history message ,
Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:13:40, Derek Lyons posted:
(Joseph Nebus) wrote:
I seem to have a faint memory of attempted V-2 launches from the
decks of carriers, at least in the postwar experimental project, although
these were not wholly successful owing to the action of the waves on the
propellant. Or have I started imagining corners of space history again?

One attempt (Operation Sandy [1]), which was successful. However, the
results of Operation Pushover [2] convinced the Navy that they wanted
no further part in having big liquid fueled rockets shipboard.


[1] http://www.cv41.org/photos/gallery/m...2_itemId=17451 &
http://www.postwarv2.com/usa/sandy/os.html

[2] http://www.cv41.org/photos/gallery/m...2_itemId=17459


Operation Sandy launched a V2 from USS Midway on 6th September 1947 (to
a disappointingly short distance); I don't know when Pushover was.

USS Norton Sound was converted to a missile ship in 1948; she launched
some Aerobees (*) in 1949/50, and Viking 4 to record altitude on
1950-05-11, according to Milton W Rosen.


(*) : nitric acid/aniline sustainer

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In sci.space.history message ,
Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:13:40, Derek Lyons posted:
(Joseph Nebus) wrote:
I seem to have a faint memory of attempted V-2 launches from the
decks of carriers, at least in the postwar experimental project, although
these were not wholly successful owing to the action of the waves on the
propellant. Or have I started imagining corners of space history again?

One attempt (Operation Sandy [1]), which was successful. However, the
results of Operation Pushover [2] convinced the Navy that they wanted
no further part in having big liquid fueled rockets shipboard.


[1] http://www.cv41.org/photos/gallery/m...2_itemId=17451 &
http://www.postwarv2.com/usa/sandy/os.html

[2] http://www.cv41.org/photos/gallery/m...2_itemId=17459


Operation Sandy launched a V2 from USS Midway on 6th September 1947 (to
a disappointingly short distance); I don't know when Pushover was.

It's not well known, that's why I provided a link.

D.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Peter Stickney wrote:

They did, but Dean is referring to the Luftwaffe using He 111 bombers
as launch platforms for V-1s as the launching sites in France became
unusable.

I'd have to check in my books, but I'm pretty sure the concept and use
of the He-111 launch planes for the V-1 went back to before the
advancing Allied forces took the French launch sites.
The carrier aircraft gave the V-1 the ability to reach targets in
northern and western Britain that were beyond its normal ground-launched
range from the fixed catapults.

Consider it the first use of Air Launched Cruise Missiles.
It sort of worked, except with the state of German aerial navigation at the
time, the bombers never really know where they were when they released the
missile, and the missile never knew where it was going.

The launch planes used to fly at low altitude over the Channel till they
reached their launch points to avoid radar and night fighters, then
climb to release altitude, launch the V-1 and immediately dive down low
again for the flight home.
All launchings were at night, and the He-111's were painted black on
their bellies and had gray splotches over their normal green/dark green
top camouflage to make them less visible in the clouds and fog over the
Channel at night.

Since they had to light off the V-1's pulsejet before they launched didn't
help teh survival rate much, either - the RAF had a lot of nightfighters
patrolling over the North Sea, and the flame from the pulsejet was like a
neon sign.

Time between Argus pulsejet ignition and launch wasn't much, but of
course once a launch had been seen by anyone in the area the night
fighter Mosquitoes and Beaufighters would have had an easy time tracking
the plane with their radars and destroying it, particularly given that
the gunners on the He-111 would have probably never have seen them coming.
A Mosquito might have had a good chance of catching up with the V-1 and
shooting it down after launch also.
With the pulsejet flame behind it, it certainly would have made a
darn-ideal target at night except in really foggy weather.
Although the B-17 could carry two of our JB-2's, I've never heard of any
JB-2's being used operationally during the war in either the European or
Pacific theater in any launch form.
Ford Motor company was ready to start mass production for the attack on
Japan prior to our invasion (free of charge at that!*), but the atomic
bomb ended the war prior to that occurring.

* Why free of charge? Because besides the great press that would
generate, the sooner the war was over, the sooner Ford could get back
into car production...and after that being shut down during the war and
with all the troops coming home, the immediate post-war car market was
going to be a monster of a profitable thing for them and their low-cost
cars.
That production shutdown during the war was responsible for hoards of
Ford Model A's being dumped on the market shortly afterwards at almost
junk-metal prices, and the development of all those great Hot Rods by
teenagers based on the Model A in the 1950s.
Try that on for size, Adolf and Tojo!
We aren't only going to kick your ass, we're going to drive over your
corpse in some scary black thing with the Devil's head and Hell's flames
painted on it. :-D

Pat

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
USS Norton Sound was converted to a missile ship in 1948; she launched
some Aerobees (*) in 1949/50, and Viking 4 to record altitude on
1950-05-11, according to Milton W Rosen.

Considering the horrible record of the Vikings (they actually thought of
making that into a operational missile BTW), they were again lucky no
one got killed.
But for real fun on ship-launched rockets, head for the solid-fueled
ones with live nuclear warheads used during Operation Argus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Argus
Nifty bit of US government fabrication he
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce0-AuLmSkQ
That shows them going up on Vikings... they actually went up on modified
Lockheed X-17's that were normally used to test RV designs for ICBMs.
They turned the third stage, which was normally used to drive the RV
test vehicle back into the atmosphere at ICBM velocities, into a stage
to drive the nuclear payload higher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_X-17
I imagine that any mention of using solid fuel to get that sort of
performance was a no-no, as it would be giving away classified info on
the Minuteman and Polaris programs that were going on at the time.

Pat

In sci.space.history message , Fri, 4
Sep 2009 23:51:52, Rick Jones posted:
Pat Flannery wrote:
No they did indeed launch a V-2 off of a carrier (the Midway), they
did it only once as it was very unstable on launch, and another test
where a fully-fueled V-2 was purposely exploded on a section of
simulated aircraft deck put them off on the idea of liquid fueled
rockets on Navy ships.

Aren't solids purported to have less "gentle" failure modes than
liquids?

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. Chunks of propellant
will go in all directions, most ending in the sea either directly or, if
rubbery, after bouncing. There's a good chance of the warhead going
overboard, too.

For a liquid, failure may tend to lead to a comparatively gentle rupture
of the tanks, so that the whole energy of the fuel is likely to be
liberated on the spot, in the presence of the warhead.

Perhaps.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)

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. Chunks of propellant
will go in all directions, most ending in the sea either directly or, if
rubbery, after bouncing. There's a good chance of the warhead going
overboard, too.


Watch the Polaris failure at the beginning of this YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNSn0Qo4H2Y
This was anything but benign.
All the failures on that video are interesting to watch, particularly
the way the failed first stages continue to emit pulsed blasts of flame
like Roman Candles.
The failed submerged launch starting at the 7:20 mark has to be seen to
be believed, as does the premature staging at 9:30.

Pat

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In sci.space.history message , Fri, 4
Sep 2009 23:51:52, Rick Jones posted:
Pat Flannery wrote:
No they did indeed launch a V-2 off of a carrier (the Midway), they
did it only once as it was very unstable on launch, and another test
where a fully-fueled V-2 was purposely exploded on a section of
simulated aircraft deck put them off on the idea of liquid fueled
rockets on Navy ships.

Aren't solids purported to have less "gentle" failure modes than
liquids?

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.

Chunks of propellant will go in all directions, most ending in the sea
either directly or, if rubbery, after bouncing. There's a good chance
of the warhead going overboard, too.

ROTFLAMO.

For a liquid, failure may tend to lead to a comparatively gentle rupture
of the tanks, so that the whole energy of the fuel is likely to be
liberated on the spot, in the presence of the warhead.

ROTFLMAO.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:

For a liquid, failure may tend to lead to a comparatively gentle rupture
of the tanks, so that the whole energy of the fuel is likely to be
liberated on the spot, in the presence of the warhead.

ROTFLMAO.

I'm still laughing over some of those Polaris failures on the YouTube
video I found - particularly the one where the missile gets launched,
the motor doesn't ignite, it falls back into the water, there's a big
commotion under the water, and then the second stage comes flying out of
the water at around a 45 degree angle with its engine firing.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

For a liquid, failure may tend to lead to a comparatively gentle rupture
of the tanks, so that the whole energy of the fuel is likely to be
liberated on the spot, in the presence of the warhead.

ROTFLMAO.

I'm still laughing over some of those Polaris failures on the YouTube
video I found - particularly the one where the missile gets launched,
the motor doesn't ignite, it falls back into the water, there's a big
commotion under the water, and then the second stage comes flying out of
the water at around a 45 degree angle with its engine firing.

I suspect the range safety system may be the cause of the
'commotion'...

It's interesting however just how much the 2nd stage displayed a
tendency towards independent flight.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL