Advanced versions of the V-2 rocket

On Jul 22, 1:25?pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:03:40 -0700, in a place far, far away, Rob
Arndt made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Around 34,000 V-1s were produced by Fieseler, VW, and the Mittelwerke
and were very cost effective at 5000 Marks, even though only 20
percent reached their targets out of 18,000 launched. Still, 6,200
people were killed plus 18,000 injured. Compare this to 10,000 V-2s
produced of which 4,000 were fired and 90 percent hit their targets.
They killed over 4,000 people and wounded 22,000 more with extensive
damage to London and Antwerp.

10,200 killed plus 40,000 wounded and lots of city damage done doesn't
exactly make these weapons useless.

Compared to a long-range bomber, or atomic bombs, or other potential
weapons that could have been built with the available resources, they
were.

I agree with you to the extent that the money and resources should
have been used to build 20,000 fighter aircraft instead and the slave
labor force diverted over to digging underground aircraft facilities,
immune from Allied bombers.

Rob

hi dan !

Dan wrote:

You need to read your history. Germany had allies too. Remember
Romania, Finland, Italy, Switzerland...etc?

switzerland as germany ally during ww2? that IS an interesting
interpretation .. would you care to elaborate on this?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

servus

markus

Markus Baur wrote:
hi dan !

Dan wrote:

You need to read your history. Germany had allies too. Remember
Romania, Finland, Italy, Switzerland...etc?

switzerland as germany ally during ww2? that IS an interesting
interpretation .. would you care to elaborate on this?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

servus

markus


Switzerland was an ally, but not in the military sense. Gold stolen
from occupied territories, gold from the teeth of murdered people, etc
was laundered through Switzerland with the Swiss fully complicit. After
the Italians quit the Swiss allowed military, deportation and POW trains
to transit and stop. There are other examples, but Swiss behaviour after
the war should provide a hint. To this day they haven't fully returned
seized assets or admitted their complicity.

Nazi Germany would probably folded economically well before 1945 had
the Swiss decided not to profit from the war. Individuals around the
world profited from the war, but Switzerland is the only nation that did.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Rob Arndt wrote:
On Jul 22, 11:29?am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hi Pat, normally I'm a lurker to this group, but I jumped
in on this thread. Enjoy reading the regulars though.

On Jul 22, 10:51 am, Pat Flannery wrote:





Ken S. Tucker wrote:
The V2 was designed for a step into space exploration,
it was a crumby military rocket. A good cheap and fast
military missile would have used solid propellant, and
staging.
And they made one of those, called the Rheinbote:http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rhenbote.htm
But accuracy was poor, and the warhead very small.
What makes Rheinbote fascinating is the insight it gives into how things
worked in Nazi Germany.
The government didn't know that Rheinmetall was developing it! In fact
they were against the development of solid-fueled bombardment rockets
because the used up propellants that were considered better used for
artillery and small arms ammunition.
So Rheinmetall did it all on their own and only revealed it when it was
finished.
One big problem with the multiple stages was that they would come
tumbling out of the sky at various points along its trajectory, which
meant that launching it over an area that had friendly troops in it
could be dangerous to them, as the spent stages descended over their heads.
Na, the chances are it lands on a farmer cow,
it's just a metal tube.





A single stage liquid fueled military missile is NUTZ.
In most cases it only makes sense with a nuclear or at least
chemical/biological warhead on it, and if you are going to use a
conventional warhead of V-2 size, you are going to need a lot greater
accuracy for attacking a point target than a V-2 ever had. Scuds can be
used to attack targets with conventional warheads, and even in the
improved Scud B variant, CEP is around 450 meters, so point targets
with a single missile are out for it also.
(In the original Scud A variant, CEP was around 3,000 meters, but it had
a nuclear warhead.)http://www.missilethreat.com/missile...missile_detail...
Given the V-2s terrible accuracy, even a fairy small nuclear warhead may
not destroy the intended target all the time if it was armored or
underground.
With its conventional warhead, your first notice that you were under
attack might be a "whump" noise from several miles away.
This is fine for bombarding a city, but not good enough for strategic
attack on your enemy's military assets.
Pat
It doesn't matter whether you're using solid or liquid fuel
rockets, where guidance is concerned.
Fortunately the dumb-****ed nazi's didn't know that, the
a-holes where awd, in more ways than one.

Today we can target an outhouse at t=time when biden
laden is taking a ****, but what the nazi's failed to know
was that nobody would provide them with a guidance
system.
You can fin guide a re-entering warhead with a half-assed
guidance system even with chinnsy OBe, H2s type systems,
but the nazi's were out of their league, good thing nobody
told them how to do it, cuz the damn *******s could have
exploded bombs over our bases if they knew how.
Good thing most of the Germans were on our side.
Ken
PS: My reference is Hogan's Heroes!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your mentality is "Hogan's Heros".

Rob

And yours is of a child.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Jul 22, 2:24?pm, Markus Baur wrote:
hi dan !

Dan wrote:
You need to read your history. Germany had allies too. Remember
Romania, Finland, Italy, Switzerland...etc?

switzerland as germany ally during ww2? that IS an interesting
interpretation .. would you care to elaborate on this?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

servus

markus

Switzerland was neutral as was Sweden and Spain and yet all three
covertly helped the Nazis during WW2 behind the scenes. In S America
it was Argentina- the postwar haven for escaped Nazi war criminals and
technology (which is another story).

Dan is technically wrong in naming Switzerland, but for all intents
and purposes the Swiss were very active processing all the loot from
occupied Europe and all Jewish monetary assets as well as Reich
assets. In the end, some of the German technology also came across the
border like the Zuse Z-4 computer that was used by the Swiss banking
industry. Sweden provided raw materials for Germany to wage war and
Spain offered up its ports for secret U-boat storage and re-supply.
Argentina re-supplied through Tierra del Feugo and was only pressured
by the US and Britain to declare war on Germany in March 1945 in order
for them to get their hands on German technology smuggled out of the
Reich by U-boat. This had little effect on the German colonies in
Argentina or postwar harboring of both Nazi war criminals and their
technology. Argentina warmly welcomed German aeronautics specialists
and scientists into their nation but the Germans could do little w/o
propery industry so no productive continuation of Horten and Tank
designs and no Richter fusion weapon (although in that case it is now
suspected of being a cover for continued Bell device experimentation)*
Argentina also turned a blind eye to Odessa operations.

*See "Reich of the Black Sun" and "SS Brotherhood of the Bell" by
Farrell and Rollins fiction novel based on fact "Black Reich".

Rob

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
ALL ICBM's are solid multi-stage, sub or land based,
didn't you get the memo? :-)


The majority of the Soviet/Russian systems (even the earlier SLBMS) were
liquid fueled, using hypergolic propellants.

If von Braun wanted to join the nazi fanatics he could
have got a mini-Minute-Man off the board in months,
hell I could do that, easy to mass produce.



Not that easy by a long shot; solid fuel formulas were very primitive
until the post-WW II years, and prone to cracking and decomposition,
particularly in weather conditions with temperature extremes. The
Soviets didn't get really competent with solid fuel till the mid 1960s.
The only thing that got Minuteman into service so fast was the Navy's
decision to build the solid-fueled Polaris, which made the Air Force's
Atlas and Titan bases look way too expensive and involved by comparison.
At first, the British though the Germans might be building a big
single-stage solid-fueled rocket to attack England, but after they did
the math on it the thing came out as huge to carry the same warhead
weight as the V-2, and maybe not even possible to build from a
performance versus weight viewpoint.

Pat

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Na, the chances are it lands on a farmer cow,
it's just a metal tube.



Going like a bat out of hell.
Due to their streamlining and aft fins the two middle stages would come
out of the sky at near the speed of sound even in freefall, and besides
that they might have velocity left from their engine burns.
By the time the top stage burned out in the four stage variant, it was
traveling at Mach 5.5.

Pat

Bill Shatzer wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:

-snip-

And if it was such a failure, then why did the Allies (especially the
non-bombed continental US) have nothing like it? Where is your
British, US, or Soviet solid fuel rival?

The allies had nothing like the Bachem Ba.349 "Nadder".

In the original rocket-powered version, the Northrop XP-79/XP-79B was
envisioned as possibly ramming aircraft as well as firing at them with
its guns.(The Ba-349 Natter was also supposed to ram bombers after
firing its nose rockets in the original conception)
After the war, Northrop said that never was the intention, and the
nickname "Flying Ram" had nothing to do with it actually ramming things
in flight...then a wartime Northrop drawing surfaced showing it doing
just that.
This is about the only time the Air Corp got into Nazi-league crazy
ideas...until Nazi scientists came over after the war, and started
designing oddball stuff on this side of the Atlantic also.
Like parasite fighters, asymmetrical atomic-powered airplanes, and
three B-36s joined together wingtip-to-wingtip.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Bill Shatzer wrote:
Rob Arndt wrote:

-snip-

And if it was such a failure, then why did the Allies (especially
the non-bombed continental US) have nothing like it? Where is your
British, US, or Soviet solid fuel rival?

The allies had nothing like the Bachem Ba.349 "Nadder".

In the original rocket-powered version, the Northrop XP-79/XP-79B was
envisioned as possibly ramming aircraft as well as firing at them
with its guns.(The Ba-349 Natter was also supposed to ram bombers
after firing its nose rockets in the original conception)
After the war, Northrop said that never was the intention, and the
nickname "Flying Ram" had nothing to do with it actually ramming
things in flight...then a wartime Northrop drawing surfaced showing
it doing just that.
This is about the only time the Air Corp got into Nazi-league crazy
ideas...until Nazi scientists came over after the war, and started
designing oddball stuff on this side of the Atlantic also.
Like parasite fighters, asymmetrical atomic-powered airplanes, and
three B-36s joined together wingtip-to-wingtip.

Pat





"Nadder" sounds like a non-lethal infantry weapon.


Be afraid, be very afraid.....






--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

Rob Arndt wrote:
By the end of the war, Rheinmetall-Borsig had also proposed a VTOL a/
c!
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/RHEINMETALL.htm

Interestingly, this design doesn't show up on Luft 46: http://www.luft46.com/
Because it's fabricated out of whole cloth.
Because of the position of the engine under the body, its center of thrust doesn't pass through the center of mass of the fuselage and wings, particularly given the huge vertical fin.
So on takeoff it's going to flip on its back as soon as it rises from the ground.
The non-retracting gear is also odd, as is the lack of any wingtip skids for horizontal landing. In fact it is going to have to be dragged off the runway like a Me-163 after landing, which proved to be disastrous in practice due to allied strafing on airfields, which is why the Me-163D/Ju-248 ended up with conventional landing gear.
The big question though is: "If you have a runway to land on after the mission, why aren't you taking off from it also?"
Note it lands on wheeels, not on the skids the Germans were using on the aircraft they designed to land on grass like the Me-163 or early Ar-234.
People into the structural end of things might want to consider how the landing gear is supposed to be attached to the bottom of the engine pod in a robust manner and the pilot's lack of visibility. One can also speculate on the airflow over the nose ventral fin, and what it's going to do when it goes into the jet intake. This is where things like compressor stalls and flame-outs come from.
Other than Rob's website, does this thing show up anywhere else on the web?
Why, yes it does!
It shows up where Rob stole his pictures and text from: http://fantastic-plastic.com/Rheinme...aloguePage.htm
http://fantastic-plastic.com/Rheinmetal-BorsigVTOL.htm


Pat