EMW A6 Comparison to X-15

[robert arndt]

http://www.germanvtol.com/a6folder/a6.html

Rob

[steve gallacci]

robert arndt wrote:
>
> http://www.germanvtol.com/a6folder/a6.html
>
> Rob

A pretty weak connection. Also, keep in mind that the very late war
projects were largely make work and fantasy fuel for the Furher rather
than anything that could be promptly realized. In the case of a ramjet
mount on the X-15, the lower fin would have been the only place it could
have been fitted, having nothing to do with anything the Germans did.

[WaltBJ]

steve gallacci > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
> >
> > http://www.germanvtol.com/a6folder/a6.html
> Rob
> A pretty weak connection. Also, keep in mind that the very late war
> projects were largely make work and fantasy fuel for the Furher rather
> than anything that could be promptly realized. In the case of a ramjet
> mount on the X-15, the lower fin would have been the only place it could
> have been fitted, having nothing to do with anything the Germans did.

SNIP: Every designer's scratch pad had advanced designs - still do,
for that matter. I was designing better rocketships than Buck Rogers
flew when I was in grade school before Pearl Harbor. Didn't do my
grades any good, but sure helped my day dreams. Why not cite Dr.
Sanger's designs - they were a lot more advanced than any A6,9 or 10.
And there's a lot of work and time between a pretty picture and the
first flight.
Walt BJ

[robert arndt]

(WaltBJ) wrote in message >...
> steve gallacci > wrote in message >...
> > robert arndt wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.germanvtol.com/a6folder/a6.html
> > Rob
> > A pretty weak connection. Also, keep in mind that the very late war
> > projects were largely make work and fantasy fuel for the Furher rather
> > than anything that could be promptly realized. In the case of a ramjet
> > mount on the X-15, the lower fin would have been the only place it could
> > have been fitted, having nothing to do with anything the Germans did.
>
> SNIP: Every designer's scratch pad had advanced designs - still do,
> for that matter. I was designing better rocketships than Buck Rogers
> flew when I was in grade school before Pearl Harbor. Didn't do my
> grades any good, but sure helped my day dreams. Why not cite Dr.
> Sanger's designs - they were a lot more advanced than any A6,9 or 10.
> And there's a lot of work and time between a pretty picture and the
> first flight.
> Walt BJ

Good point as Dr. Sangers design has been modified and still lives
under the German TAV 2-stage space project. But the point is that many
of the "paper projects" being made fun of here on this NG actually
influenced postwar design to the point of being built/tested. I'm not
saying the X-15 is directly derived from the EMW A6, only that the
design of the German project was seriously considered by the US and
many of their rocket projects certainly influenced postwar US rocket
programs- both manned and unmanned. The EMW A6 does bear a strong
resemblence to the X-15 though in basic configuration...

Rob

[Vaughn]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...

>The EMW A6 does bear a strong
> resemblence to the X-15 though in basic configuration...

In the same way that most every airplane resembles all other airplanes.

What dose not ring true about the drawing is that the fuze is
beautifully "area-ruled". That is, the fuze is made smaller where the wings
and tail attach in an attempt to keep the total area constant. I was under
the impression that the "area rule" came from postwar research. Am I wrong?

Vaughn


>
> Rob

[Mike Dennis]

I don't think the image shows any aspect of "area rule". It looks more like
relatively thick wings with a serious anhedral. This still doesn't lend any
credence to the drawing's authenticity--I don't know either.


"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> >The EMW A6 does bear a strong
> > resemblence to the X-15 though in basic configuration...
>
> In the same way that most every airplane resembles all other
airplanes.
>
> What dose not ring true about the drawing is that the fuze is
> beautifully "area-ruled". That is, the fuze is made smaller where the
wings
> and tail attach in an attempt to keep the total area constant. I was
under
> the impression that the "area rule" came from postwar research. Am I
wrong?
>
> Vaughn
>
>
> >
> > Rob
>
>

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
"Vaughn" > wrote:

> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> >The EMW A6 does bear a strong
> > resemblence to the X-15 though in basic configuration...
>
> In the same way that most every airplane resembles all other airplanes.
>
> What dose not ring true about the drawing is that the fuze is
> beautifully "area-ruled". That is, the fuze is made smaller where the wings
> and tail attach in an attempt to keep the total area constant. I was under
> the impression that the "area rule" came from postwar research. Am I wrong?

It came out of research at Langley done by Richard Whitcomb and others
from 1949-51. He was awarded the Collier Trophy for the work in 1954.

Work there on transonic airflow and drag began around 1943, but
Whitcomb's contribution was critical, and began in 1948.

[Vaughn]

"Mike Dennis" > wrote in message
.. .
> I don't think the image shows any aspect of "area rule". It looks more
like
> relatively thick wings with a serious anhedral. This still doesn't lend
any
> credence to the drawing's authenticity--I don't know either.
>
Yep, I believe you are right, I fell for an optical illusion and I
should have known better. If you look at the side view, it is obvious that
the fuze is straight. The next, obvious question is "why is the wing so
thick if this is really to be a hypersonic plane"? One possible answer is
materials, the wing simply needed to be that thick to house the smallest
spar needed to handle the weight of the airframe. There are additional
possible answers, but I am getting into unfamiliar ground and it is time to
shut up.

Vaughn

[Andreas Maurer]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:27:14 -0700, Steve Hix
> wrote:


>It came out of research at Langley done by Richard Whitcomb and others
>from 1949-51. He was awarded the Collier Trophy for the work in 1954.
>
>Work there on transonic airflow and drag began around 1943, but
>Whitcomb's contribution was critical, and began in 1948.

Hardly known, but in fact the area rule is a Messerschmitt patent from
1944. The Messerschmitt engineers Hertel, Frenzel and Hempel received
the German patent no. 932410 in 1944.

Look at Messerschmitt projects P1110 and P1112 - they already show the
area rule (they both had a clearly visible coke-bottle shape of the
fuselage). The 262 design was not considered to be worth further
development because it did not permit a clean re-design according to
the area rule and therefore no transsonic speeds (which 1110 and later
fighter designs were designed for).



Bye
Andreas