Mustang with Ramjet Pic

[robert arndt]

Ran across it while looking for something else:

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/NorthAmericanP51/Enforcer.htm

Interesting...

Rob

[Seraphim]

(robert arndt) wrote in
om:

> Ran across it while looking for something else:
>
> http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/NorthAmericanP51/Enforcer.
> htm
>
> Interesting...

It is interesting, but I can't say that I am too suprised, the US had a
few crazy things like that durring and after WWII. I recall that the USN
did something similar with a F6F Hellcat that had a turbojet engine in
it.

[Gordon]

>
(robert arndt) wrote
>> Ran across it while looking for something else:
>>
>> http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/NorthAmericanP51/Enforcer.
>> htm
>>
>> Interesting...

I have a cool 8x10 of this jet Mustang, with 15' flames roaring out of each
wingtip pod. I had several people on RAM insist I was mistaken and it was
really wingtip fuel tanks! :)

Neat bird - this is the first time I have seen a photo of it sitting on the
ground.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[steve gallacci]

Gordon wrote:
>
> >
> (robert arndt) wrote
> >> Ran across it while looking for something else:
> >>
> >> http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/NorthAmericanP51/Enforcer.
> >> htm
> >>
> >> Interesting...
>
> I have a cool 8x10 of this jet Mustang, with 15' flames roaring out of each
> wingtip pod. I had several people on RAM insist I was mistaken and it was
> really wingtip fuel tanks! :)
>
> Neat bird - this is the first time I have seen a photo of it sitting on the
> ground.
>
Not only was the ramjet tip tried, but wing tip radiators that looked a
bit like ramjets on a racer, and a pair of pulse jets hung off the
underwing hard points were tired too.

[IBM]

Seraphim > wrote in
:

[snip]

> It is interesting, but I can't say that I am too suprised, the US had a
> few crazy things like that durring and after WWII. I recall that the USN
> did something similar with a F6F Hellcat that had a turbojet engine in
> it.

Not perchance the Ryan Fireball?

IBM


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Alan Minyard]

On 29 Oct 2003 06:13:54 GMT, IBM > wrote:

>Seraphim > wrote in
:
>
> [snip]
>
>> It is interesting, but I can't say that I am too suprised, the US had a
>> few crazy things like that durring and after WWII. I recall that the USN
>> did something similar with a F6F Hellcat that had a turbojet engine in
>> it.
>
> Not perchance the Ryan Fireball?
>
> IBM
>
Yes, that is it. I do not know who these guys are, and they are certainly
welcome, but (at least for now) they really do not have much aviation
knowledge.

Al Minyard

[Peter Stickney]

IBM > wrote in message >...
> Seraphim > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
> > It is interesting, but I can't say that I am too suprised, the US had a
> > few crazy things like that durring and after WWII. I recall that the USN
> > did something similar with a F6F Hellcat that had a turbojet engine in
> > it.
>
> Not perchance the Ryan Fireball?

Nope. The Navy and Westinghouse used an F6F as a flight test
platform for the Model 19X (J30) and 9.5X (J32) turbojets in
1943/44.
The 9.5X was a really neat thing - a fully functional
turbojet 9.5" in diameter - almost model airplane sized - intended
for use in guided missiles. It's an indication of the disparity of
resources, talent, and wealth that existed in 1945 vis-a-vis the
Allies and the Axis. While they'd been struggling to productionize
the Jumo 004 and BMW 003, we were taking the time and effort to build
turbojsts that were intended to be thrown away. Another example, that
ties in well, is a comparison between the Fritz-X and Hs 293 antiship
missiles to the U.S. Navy Bat. The Germans weren't ever able to dope
out stuff like feedback control systems. This meant, among other
things, that they were never able to match the Allies in the
development of things like AA Fire Control Systems - they never had
anything that matched the Army SCR-584 autofollow radars and M-9 Gun
Predictors, which pointed and trained the guns automatically by Remote
Power Control, and performed the fuze setting functions as well. (In a
U.S. Army AAA Gun Battery (The 90mm guns) in late 1944, the crew at
the gun mount did no aiming or firing at all - their job was to stuff
rounds in the breech as fast as they could. The engagement was run
from the radar
trailer - The radar crew would lock on to a target, and the engagement
was automatic after that.) U.S. Navy systems for guns from the 1.1"
AA gun on up, were the same. That menat more accuracy and
effectiveness in shooting, and
far better Economy of Force. Anyhow, while the Fritz-X and Hs 293
were
remote-controlled by a human in the launching airplane, twiddling a
joystick to match either the flares on the missile's tail with the
target,
or trying to interpret a fuzzy and grainy TV picture with the outside
world, the Bat was an autonomous active-radar seeeking, self-homing
launch and leave weapon. With the addition of the Westinghouse 9.5
engine
(proposed but not ready during the war), it wouldn't have been far
short
of the Harpoon in terms of raw performance. (The guidance systems,
of course, got much smarter in the intervening 30 years between Bat
and
Harpoon.)

Pete Stickney __________________________________________________ _____________________________

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Peter Stickney) writes:
> IBM > wrote in message >...
>> Seraphim > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > It is interesting, but I can't say that I am too suprised, the US had a
>> > few crazy things like that durring and after WWII. I recall that the USN
>> > did something similar with a F6F Hellcat that had a turbojet engine in
>> > it.
>>
>> Not perchance the Ryan Fireball?
>
> Nope. The Navy and Westinghouse used an F6F as a flight test
> platform for the Model 19X (J30) and 9.5X (J32) turbojets in
> 1943/44.
> The 9.5X was a really neat thing - a fully functional
> turbojet 9.5" in diameter - almost model airplane sized - intended
> for use in guided missiles. It's an indication of the disparity of
> resources, talent, and wealth that existed in 1945 vis-a-vis the
> Allies and the Axis. While they'd been struggling to productionize
> the Jumo 004 and BMW 003, we were taking the time and effort to build
> turbojsts that were intended to be thrown away. Another example, that
> ties in well, is a comparison between the Fritz-X and Hs 293 antiship
> missiles to the U.S. Navy Bat. The Germans weren't ever able to dope
> out stuff like feedback control systems. This meant, among other
> things, that they were never able to match the Allies in the
> development of things like AA Fire Control Systems - they never had
> anything that matched the Army SCR-584 autofollow radars and M-9 Gun
> Predictors, which pointed and trained the guns automatically by Remote
> Power Control, and performed the fuze setting functions as well. (In a
> U.S. Army AAA Gun Battery (The 90mm guns) in late 1944, the crew at
> the gun mount did no aiming or firing at all - their job was to stuff
> rounds in the breech as fast as they could. The engagement was run
> from the radar
> trailer - The radar crew would lock on to a target, and the engagement
> was automatic after that.) U.S. Navy systems for guns from the 1.1"
> AA gun on up, were the same. That menat more accuracy and
> effectiveness in shooting, and
> far better Economy of Force. Anyhow, while the Fritz-X and Hs 293
> were
> remote-controlled by a human in the launching airplane, twiddling a
> joystick to match either the flares on the missile's tail with the
> target,
> or trying to interpret a fuzzy and grainy TV picture with the outside
> world, the Bat was an autonomous active-radar seeeking, self-homing
> launch and leave weapon. With the addition of the Westinghouse 9.5
> engine
> (proposed but not ready during the war), it wouldn't have been far
> short
> of the Harpoon in terms of raw performance. (The guidance systems,
> of course, got much smarter in the intervening 30 years between Bat
> and
> Harpoon.)
>
> Pete Stickney __________________________________________________ _____________________________

Bet then again, you did identify in another post as a Fireball.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[robert arndt]

Anyhow, while the Fritz-X and Hs 293
> were
> remote-controlled by a human in the launching airplane, twiddling a
> joystick to match either the flares on the missile's tail with the
> target,
> or trying to interpret a fuzzy and grainy TV picture with the outside
> world, the Bat was an autonomous active-radar seeeking, self-homing
> launch and leave weapon. With the addition of the Westinghouse 9.5
> engine
> (proposed but not ready during the war), it wouldn't have been far
> short
> of the Harpoon in terms of raw performance. (The guidance systems,
> of course, got much smarter in the intervening 30 years between Bat
> and
> Harpoon.)
>
> Pete Stickney

Yeah, right. How good was the BATs wartime success compared to the
Fritz X and Hs 293? What did it sink? One Japanese destroyer?
BTW, several Hs 117 test missiles used radar guidance and the Bv 246
Hagelkorn tested an anti-radar homing device as well.
And what exactly is the BAT compared to the the entire German missile
program in WW2 that revolutionized warfare ever since? The Germans had
entire categories of missiles that had no Allied equivalent. The US
didn't even need missiles to win the war- just strength in numbers.
The Germans OTOH were forced to pioneer new technologies in an effort
to stem the Allied tide.

Rob __________________________________________________ _____________________________

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(robert arndt) writes:
> Anyhow, while the Fritz-X and Hs 293
>> were
>> remote-controlled by a human in the launching airplane, twiddling a
>> joystick to match either the flares on the missile's tail with the
>> target,
>> or trying to interpret a fuzzy and grainy TV picture with the outside
>> world, the Bat was an autonomous active-radar seeeking, self-homing
>> launch and leave weapon. With the addition of the Westinghouse 9.5
>> engine
>> (proposed but not ready during the war), it wouldn't have been far
>> short
>> of the Harpoon in terms of raw performance. (The guidance systems,
>> of course, got much smarter in the intervening 30 years between Bat
>> and
>> Harpoon.)
>>
>> Pete Stickney
>
> Yeah, right. How good was the BATs wartime success compared to the
> Fritz X and Hs 293? What did it sink? One Japanese destroyer?
> BTW, several Hs 117 test missiles used radar guidance and the Bv 246
> Hagelkorn tested an anti-radar homing device as well.
> And what exactly is the BAT compared to the the entire German missile
> program in WW2 that revolutionized warfare ever since? The Germans had
> entire categories of missiles that had no Allied equivalent. The US
> didn't even need missiles to win the war- just strength in numbers.
> The Germans OTOH were forced to pioneer new technologies in an effort
> to stem the Allied tide.
>

One Destroyer, and several Merchantmen. You can only sink what's out
there, after all. It wasn't the Bat's fault that U.S. Navy Submarines,
Land and Carrier based airplanes, and the B-29 mining campaign in the
Inland Sea sank so many before they got there.
Or, in teh words on Ensign George Righards, U.S.N,R. of Portsmouth, NH,
who'd been keeping a Box Score in his 1942 _Jane's_Fighting_Ships_,
"There's no use marking them all, they're all sunk." Yes, the Fritz-X
and HS 293 had some notable successes on their inital use, but the
guidance system was primitive at best, and was easily jammed. After
the end of 1943, they were no longer effective weapons. The Germans
were _not_, repeat _not_ able to field an effective autmatic guidance
system for _anything_, let alone their ASMs. If they'd advanced so
much, why were they trying to use the Fritz-X guidance system in the
Wasserfall SAM? If using a marginal guidance system, and one known to
be compromised at that, is Teutonic Ingenuity, then bring it on. AS a
side note, it should be pointed out that the Allies wouldn't field
sensor or guidance system unless they were sure that they would be
able to handle any countermeasures. This included the SCR-720/AI.10
Airborne Radars, the APQ-13 bombing radar, the SCR-584 AAA Fire
COntrol Radars, Oboe, and GEE. (The fact is, the Royal Canadian Air
Force did more to hinder the Allied Radar effort than the Germans ever
did - An RCAF Spitfire shot down the Beaufighter carrying the prototype
AI.IX radar, and the designer adn chief engineer with it, stalling the
project for months. These things happen in war.)

What was Bat compared to the German effort? Part of a complrehensive
series of weapons that would have achieved practical results in the
field. This included the Lark, Bumblebee and Little Joe SAMS, when
led to the Terrier/Talos/Tartar/Typhon family of Naval SAMS, the
Gorgon AAM, the various Jet Bombs (One of which was, indeed, a
restring of the Fiesler Fi 103, albeit with a more reliable launcher
and a guidance system evolved from GEE/Loran, so that it could, at
least, hit the proper Postal Code. Of course, it didn't hurt that
each airpframe was enough like the others that they'd all fly the
same, too)

You have, by the way, completely misunderstood the magnitude of
American production. It wasn't merely that we could produce great
amounts of equipment, it was that we could produce great amounts of
equipment to precise standards. The Germans, and to a lesser extent,
the British, could do one, or the other. An excellent, but little
known example is Naval Chronometers. Every U.S. oceangoing ship, be
it a Naval Combatant or Auxiliarry, or from the Merchant Marine,
carried a chronometer. (Mass produced by Waltham, Hamilton, and, I
think, Gruen) This meant that all ships were capable of independant,
precise navigation. Now, that may not sound like much, but the
presicion needed to produce a clock capabel of keeping to the accuracy
required over an extended period of time, in environmental conditions
ranging from the Artic to the Sahara to New Guinea, was beyond anybody
else. I won't bring up the fact that by 1944, the Germans had fallen
bahind in jet engine development and weren't going to ever be able to
catch up.

The early German introduction of Wunderwaffen wasn't an example of
better German technology, it was a symptom of greater German
desparation. But then again, the idea that a last-second "hammer
blow" is somehow going to pull their fat from the fire had been a
German conceit throughout the first half of the 20th Century. Witness
the foolish waste of the Kaiserschlact in 1918, or the various Last
Stands of the Luftwaffe in late 1944. Perhaps it come sfrom listening
to Wagner too much.

And yes, I'll be around in 2005, and 2015, and 2025, and as long as I
can be after. And I'll see exactly as many Nazi Flying Discs as I
have in the last 45 years.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster