London Blitz vs V1 [Archive]

Eugene Griessel

December 28th 03, 01:02 PM

Bernardz > wrote in message news:<MPG.1a593408a1392c869897ea@news>...
> In early December 1944, General Bissel produced a paper which argued
> strongly in favour of the V1.
>
> The following is a table he produced
>
> Blitz (12 months) vs V1 flying bombs (2 3/4 months)
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 1. Cost to Germany
> ...........................Blitz.................. ..V1
> Sorties...................90,000.................8 025
> Weight of bombs...........61,149 tons............14,600 tons
> Fuel consumed.............71,700 tons.............4681 tons
> Aircrafts lost............3075....................0
> Men lost..................7690....................0
>
> 2 Results
> Houses damaged/destroyed...1,150,000............1,127,000
> Casualties.................92,566...............22 ,892
> Rate casualties/bombs tons...1.6...............4.2
>
> 3. Allied air effort
> Sorties......................86,800............44, 770
> Planes lost..................1260...............351
> Men lost.....................805...............2233
>

For the cost of 1 uncrewed, unrefuelled and unbombladen Lancaster the
Germans were getting more than 300 V1s. Furthermore they made little
demand on skilled labour or strategic materials. On the negative side
they had all the inherent problems of a fairly slow unaimed weapon.
Of around 10000 launched at Britain only about 2400 reached the vague
proximity of their target area. And many fell fairly harmlessly -
aided by British manipulation of intelligence. But as an economic
weapon they made much sense and if they had arrived on the scene some
months earlier in far greater numbers, when proximity fuzed, radar
guided AA was not yet available they would undoubtedly have had a
proportionately much larger effect on the prosecution of the war.
Thanks to Hitler's intervention this did not happen.

Eugene Griessel

robert arndt

December 28th 03, 04:59 PM

Bernardz > wrote in message news:<MPG.1a593408a1392c869897ea@news>...
> In early December 1944, General Bissel produced a paper which argued
> strongly in favour of the V1.
>
> The following is a table he produced
>
> Blitz (12 months) vs V1 flying bombs (2 3/4 months)
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 1. Cost to Germany
> ...........................Blitz.................. ..V1
> Sorties...................90,000.................8 025 (error: 8892)
> Weight of bombs...........61,149 tons............14,600 tons
> Fuel consumed.............71,700 tons.............4681 tons
> Aircrafts lost............3075....................0 (error: 80, from air launches)
> Men lost..................7690....................0
>
> 2 Results
> Houses damaged/destroyed...1,150,000............1,127,000
> Casualties.................92,566...............22 ,892 (error: figure is dead plus wounded, based on 6,184 dead/correction to 12,000 dead= close to 29,000 total)
> Rate casualties/bombs tons...1.6...............4.2
>
> 3. Allied air effort
> Sorties......................86,800............44, 770
> Planes lost..................1260...............351
> Men lost.....................805...............2233
>
>
> Any comments!

34,000 V-1s were produced by Fiesler, Volkswagen, and the Mittelwerke.
Unit cost was RM 5000. Of all those produced only around 5000 found
their targets in the UK and Belgium. That makes it 20% effective of
those launched, the remaining number found stockpiled. It was a cost
effective weapon compared to a Mark IV tank (RM 100,000) but
militarily of little value. As a psychological/nuisance weapon it did
well but did not in any way deter the Allies from bombing Germany and
grabbing land. The Germans would have done better to replace the
amatol warhead with a radiological warhead. London and Antwerp would
have then been contaminated and abandoned.

Rob

Cub Driver

December 28th 03, 06:41 PM

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:08:29 +1100, John Campbell >
wrote:

>Given the cost of the things probably not, IIRC UK manufacturing cost was
>estimated at less than UKP 100 when a Spit was over 10K.

The V-1 cost a hundred quid? You could get five V-1s for the price of
a Piper Cub? That would be the all-time bargain in terror weapons.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Wayne Allen

December 29th 03, 05:55 AM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> The Allies weren't completely ignorant on the dangers of fission
> material. The US constructed a giant collector called the "Dumbo" to
> collect plutonium debris in case the test A-bomb blew up in NM. I
> think "Dumbo" still survives. If NYC was hit similar large Dumbo-type
> containers would have been used to collect the debris and the
> radiation levels would have been studied.

Jumbo wasn't designed for collecting debris. It was a huge 200 ton
pressure
vessel. The bomb was to be put inside prior to the test, if the silly
thing fizzled
the pressure vessel was to prevent anything from getting out.
Moving a tub that big through a population site gathering up bits and
pieces would
have caused even more contamination. Better a group of trained people with
man-portable
gear.

Eugene Griessel

December 29th 03, 06:01 AM

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...

> The V-1 cost a hundred quid? You could get five V-1s for the price of
> a Piper Cub? That would be the all-time bargain in terror weapons.

A British commission (RAE) just after WW2 concluded that the cost of a
V1, fuelled and armed (including the 200 pounds of Hydrogen Peroxide
needed for the launch) came to about 115 pounds. But that figure also
included a percentage of R&D and the cost of building Peenemunde.
They concluded that the raw cost of materials and manufacture was
around 87 pounds sterling. The average price the German government was
billed by the Volkswagen Fallersleben plant came to around 125 quid.

Wayne Allen

December 29th 03, 06:28 AM

Afternoon all,

I've been trying to do a little research on this General Bissel and his
paper
on the V1 attacks, I have to admit defeat so-far. Does anyone have any
information on him? I take it this is not the American General because the
name
is incorrect and he would have had his hands full out in the Asian Theater
at the time.
There are a few things I don't get with these figure either, the
numbers I get
from British sites claim only over 1000 homes destroyed, a difference of
over a
multiple of a thousand!
I also don't get the 351 planes and 2233 crew lost by the allies in
defense. Lost
how? Other than getting too close when shooting a ton of explosives
(weekend-spoiler)
what was the problem? 351 planes lost in 2 1/2 months is either a nutty
misprint or
criminal negligence.
Anyone have a contact or copy of the original report?

> > In early December 1944, General Bissel produced a paper which argued
> > > strongly in favour of the V1.
> > >
> > > The following is a table he produced
> > >
> > > Blitz (12 months) vs V1 flying bombs (2 3/4 months)
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > 1. Cost to Germany
> > > ...........................Blitz.................. ..V1
> > > Sorties...................90,000.................8 025
> > > Weight of bombs...........61,149 tons............14,600 tons
> > > Fuel consumed.............71,700 tons.............4681 tons
> > > Aircrafts lost............3075....................0
> > > Men lost..................7690....................0
> > >
> > > 2 Results
> > > Houses damaged/destroyed...1,150,000............1,127,000
> > > Casualties.................92,566...............22 ,892
> > > Rate casualties/bombs tons...1.6...............4.2
> > >
> > > 3. Allied air effort
> > > Sorties......................86,800............44, 770
> > > Planes lost..................1260...............351
> > > Men lost.....................805...............2233
> > >
> >

Dave Eadsforth

December 29th 03, 09:13 AM

In article >, Eugene
Griessel > writes
>Cub Driver > wrote in message news:<4j8uuv4648rrmgp
>...
>
>> The V-1 cost a hundred quid? You could get five V-1s for the price of
>> a Piper Cub? That would be the all-time bargain in terror weapons.
>
>A British commission (RAE) just after WW2 concluded that the cost of a
>V1, fuelled and armed (including the 200 pounds of Hydrogen Peroxide
>needed for the launch) came to about 115 pounds. But that figure also
>included a percentage of R&D and the cost of building Peenemunde.
>They concluded that the raw cost of materials and manufacture was
>around 87 pounds sterling. The average price the German government was
>billed by the Volkswagen Fallersleben plant came to around 125 quid.

Astonishingly low materials cost - and I guess that the workers were not
paid union rates...

When the first couple of V1s fell on Britain on the 16th of July, the
immediate reaction of the authorities was:

1. These items must be costly to built - the Germans really have taken
a wrong turning here.

2. We don't know how they are guided - but in case they happen to home
in on radio signals, perhaps we'd better stop the BBC from transmitting
when we detect some incoming...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Dave Eadsforth

December 29th 03, 09:29 AM

In article >, robert
arndt > writes
>Bernardz > wrote in message news:<MPG.1a593408a139
>2c869897ea@news>...

SNIP
>>
>> Any comments!
>
>34,000 V-1s were produced by Fiesler, Volkswagen, and the Mittelwerke.
>Unit cost was RM 5000. Of all those produced only around 5000 found
>their targets in the UK and Belgium. That makes it 20% effective of
>those launched, the remaining number found stockpiled. It was a cost
>effective weapon compared to a Mark IV tank (RM 100,000) but
>militarily of little value. As a psychological/nuisance weapon it did
>well but did not in any way deter the Allies from bombing Germany and
>grabbing land. The Germans would have done better to replace the
>amatol warhead with a radiological warhead. London and Antwerp would
>have then been contaminated and abandoned.
>
>Rob

The Germans conducted many nuclear experiments with minimal shielding,
so they would probably have not considered it a useful weapon. But if
they did consider it viable, could they have laid their hands on enough
material to use it in warheads?

Even if they had been able to, I don't think the allies would have
abandoned these cities - ignorance of radiation sickness reigned supreme
until the long-term effects of it were found some time after the
Hiroshima raid.

Not to say there had not been some good opportunities to find out:

People used to drink Radium cocktails for the alleged benefits in the
1920/30s, but the only person who was known to have suffered the
horrific effects was an American millionaire who used to drink about a
pint a day. He simply disintegrated.

Pierre Curie handled so much Radium in his life that his hands began to
look like reptilian claws.

Miners in areas with rocks bearing a high fissile content often
developed lung cancer due to the Radon.

But still no-one sounded the alarm bells. If any muck had been dropped
on these cities the people would have been advised to wear gas masks
when passing an impact area, and if no gas mask available a damp
handkerchief would do...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Bernardz

December 29th 03, 10:11 AM

In article >,
says...
> Bernardz > wrote in message news:<MPG.1a593408a1392c869897ea@news>...
> > In early December 1944, General Bissel produced a paper which argued
> > strongly in favour of the V1.
> >
> > The following is a table he produced
> >
> > Blitz (12 months) vs V1 flying bombs (2 3/4 months)
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > 1. Cost to Germany
> > ...........................Blitz.................. ..V1
> > Sorties...................90,000.................8 025
> > Weight of bombs...........61,149 tons............14,600 tons
> > Fuel consumed.............71,700 tons.............4681 tons
> > Aircrafts lost............3075....................0
> > Men lost..................7690....................0
> >
> > 2 Results
> > Houses damaged/destroyed...1,150,000............1,127,000
> > Casualties.................92,566...............22 ,892
> > Rate casualties/bombs tons...1.6...............4.2
> >
> > 3. Allied air effort
> > Sorties......................86,800............44, 770
> > Planes lost..................1260...............351
> > Men lost.....................805...............2233
> >
>
> For the cost of 1 uncrewed, unrefuelled and unbombladen Lancaster the
> Germans were getting more than 300 V1s. Furthermore they made little
> demand on skilled labour or strategic materials. On the negative side
> they had all the inherent problems of a fairly slow unaimed weapon.
> Of around 10000 launched at Britain only about 2400 reached the vague
> proximity of their target area. And many fell fairly harmlessly -
> aided by British manipulation of intelligence. But as an economic
> weapon they made much sense and if they had arrived on the scene some
> months earlier in far greater numbers, when proximity fuzed, radar
> guided AA was not yet available they would undoubtedly have had a
> proportionately much larger effect on the prosecution of the war.

Agreed. By the way I am in the process of writing a fictional story
based on such a scenario

WWW.bernardz.20m.com

> Thanks to Hitler's intervention this did not happen.

I am not so sure Hitler was wrong! The V1 could probably have come on-
line in 1943 only at a terrific price and a very limited target -
Britain. At that time Britain was a minor part of the war. The major war
was in the East and he needed resources against Russia. Before 1943,
when it looked like Hitler could win the war those resources required
could be far better spent on things that mattered like tanks and planes.

After 1943, he needed to gain time for a miracle. Maybe the Allies would
split. To do that he needed to give the German people hope and vengeance
that they could still fire back. That is what these weapons provided.

>
> Eugene Griessel
>

--
A terrorist kills for publicity.

24th saying of Bernard

Eugene Griessel

December 29th 03, 02:52 PM

Bernardz > wrote in message news:<MPG.1a5aa8ed3b4d2ccc9897f3@news>...

> I am not so sure Hitler was wrong! The V1 could probably have come on-
> line in 1943 only at a terrific price and a very limited target -
> Britain. At that time Britain was a minor part of the war. The major war
> was in the East and he needed resources against Russia. Before 1943,
> when it looked like Hitler could win the war those resources required
> could be far better spent on things that mattered like tanks and planes.

The flying bomb offensive, from 12th June 1944 to 1st September 1944
cost Britain almost 48 million pounds in lost production alone. In a
report by the Air Ministry dated 4th November 1944 it is stated: "The
main conclusion is that the results of the campaign were greatly in
the enemy's favour, the estimated ratio of our costs to his being
nearly four to one." Move this back 18 months when the Allies had no
fighters fast enough to shoot down these weapons and no effective
low-level AAA and a grim picture begins to emerge. I'm not saying
that the campaign would have brought the allies to their knees but
speculation is that D-Day would have been postponed for at least a
year and costs and casualties would have been high. If the A4 project
had been abandoned and the flying bomb project given top priority it
would have meant more than 30000 of these beasts arriving over Britain
a month - with Britain largely impotent to stop them. A fearful
thought.

robert arndt

December 29th 03, 04:06 PM

> >34,000 V-1s were produced by Fiesler, Volkswagen, and the Mittelwerke.
> >Unit cost was RM 5000. Of all those produced only around 5000 found
> >their targets in the UK and Belgium. That makes it 20% effective of
> >those launched, the remaining number found stockpiled. It was a cost
> >effective weapon compared to a Mark IV tank (RM 100,000) but
> >militarily of little value. As a psychological/nuisance weapon it did
> >well but did not in any way deter the Allies from bombing Germany and
> >grabbing land. The Germans would have done better to replace the
> >amatol warhead with a radiological warhead. London and Antwerp would
> >have then been contaminated and abandoned.
> >
> >Rob
>
> The Germans conducted many nuclear experiments with minimal shielding,
> so they would probably have not considered it a useful weapon. But if
> they did consider it viable, could they have laid their hands on enough
> material to use it in warheads?

Actually, the Germans were constructing two such spherical devices in
1945 which relied on spaced uranium plates, a detonator held in a
crushing mechanism, and the entire sphere filled with kerosene. The
idea was to place the radiological sphere inside an SC-series bomb and
drop it from the Sanger bomber (a project which was reactivated in Feb
'45). Upon impact the crusher would force the detonator material into
the smashed plates of uranium and cause fission while the kerosene
blew the fission material all over the place. The target was NYC. This
could have also been placed in a V-2 launched by a Type XXI sub-towed
Prufstand XII launch container of which 3 were completed by war's end.
But the war ended before any of these plans came to anything. The
French captured the two radiological weapons under construction and
destroyed them. The Prufstand XII containers were discovered at
Stettin. And the Sanger bomber was discovered at a plant in Lofer in
the bare mock-up stage.
A more advanced radiological weapon would have been detonated over the
target cities making the weapon more effective. See Schiffer's book on
the Sanger bomber for more details.

>
> Even if they had been able to, I don't think the allies would have
> abandoned these cities - ignorance of radiation sickness reigned supreme
> until the long-term effects of it were found some time after the
> Hiroshima raid.

The Allies weren't completely ignorant on the dangers of fission
material. The US constructed a giant collector called the "Dumbo" to
collect plutonium debris in case the test A-bomb blew up in NM. I
think "Dumbo" still survives. If NYC was hit similar large Dumbo-type
containers would have been used to collect the debris and the
radiation levels would have been studied. I think the cities would
have been abandoned because we would have investigated any attack
against us more thouroughly and intensely than those conducted in
Japan after Aug 6/9.

Rob

robert arndt

December 29th 03, 05:07 PM

Correction to last post. I mentioned the US has a fission materials
container called "Dumbo". It was actually "Jumbo" and can be seen
here:

http://www.nps.gov/whsa/adhi/fig39.jpg

Rob

John Campbell

December 30th 03, 03:39 AM

Wayne Allen wrote:

<snip>
> I also don't get the 351 planes and 2233 crew lost by the allies in
> defense. Lost
> how? Other than getting too close when shooting a ton of explosives
> (weekend-spoiler)
> what was the problem? 351 planes lost in 2 1/2 months is either a nutty
> misprint or
> criminal negligence.

From early 1944 onwards there was a concerted effort to knock out the
launching sites which required precision bombing ie medium/low/dive
bombing. The flak did the rest

--
regards
jc

Eugene Griessel

December 30th 03, 07:53 AM

John Campbell > wrote in message >...
> Wayne Allen wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I also don't get the 351 planes and 2233 crew lost by the allies in
> > defense. Lost
> > how? Other than getting too close when shooting a ton of explosives
> > (weekend-spoiler)
> > what was the problem? 351 planes lost in 2 1/2 months is either a nutty
> > misprint or
> > criminal negligence.
>
> From early 1944 onwards there was a concerted effort to knock out the
> launching sites which required precision bombing ie medium/low/dive
> bombing. The flak did the rest

IIRC they tried radio-controlled bombers (obsolete marks of B17 rings
a bell) on the ski-sites? A vast effort was expended trying to knock
these out and perhaps an even greater one on the modified sites.
Something over 60000 bombing sorties and over 100000 tons of bombs.
I'm speaking from a poor memory now - that may include the bombing of
the concrete V2 bunkers and even the V3 site.

Bernardz

December 30th 03, 09:13 AM

In article >,
says...
> Bernardz > wrote in message news:<MPG.1a5aa8ed3b4d2ccc9897f3@news>...
>
> > I am not so sure Hitler was wrong! The V1 could probably have come on-
> > line in 1943 only at a terrific price and a very limited target -
> > Britain. At that time Britain was a minor part of the war. The major war
> > was in the East and he needed resources against Russia. Before 1943,
> > when it looked like Hitler could win the war those resources required
> > could be far better spent on things that mattered like tanks and planes.
>
> The flying bomb offensive, from 12th June 1944 to 1st September 1944
> cost Britain almost 48 million pounds in lost production alone. In a
> report by the Air Ministry dated 4th November 1944 it is stated: "The
> main conclusion is that the results of the campaign were greatly in
> the enemy's favour, the estimated ratio of our costs to his being
> nearly four to one." Move this back 18 months when the Allies had no
> fighters fast enough to shoot down these weapons and no effective
> low-level AAA and a grim picture begins to emerge. I'm not saying
> that the campaign would have brought the allies to their knees but
> speculation is that D-Day would have been postponed for at least a
> year and costs and casualties would have been high. If the A4 project
> had been abandoned and the flying bomb project given top priority it
> would have meant more than 30000 of these beasts arriving over Britain
> a month - with Britain largely impotent to stop them. A fearful
> thought.
>

This is very similar to a fictional work that I am in process of
writing.

Draft version 1 is available at

www.BERNARDZ.20m.com

Note there are quite a few mistakes that I am currently fixing in
version 2.

--
A terrorist kills for publicity.

24th saying of Bernard

Bernardz

December 30th 03, 09:23 AM

In article >, ex401
@freenet.carleton.ca says...
> Afternoon all,
>
> I've been trying to do a little research on this General Bissel and his
> paper
> on the V1 attacks, I have to admit defeat so-far. Does anyone have any
> information on him? I take it this is not the American General because the
> name
> is incorrect and he would have had his hands full out in the Asian Theater
> at the time.

Bissel was an American general.

Part of the report from which this table was taken is available in a
book.

Hitler's terror weapons

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0007112629/qid=
1072775679/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4381301-5271121?v=glance&s=books

> There are a few things I don't get with these figure either, the
> numbers I get
> from British sites claim only over 1000 homes destroyed, a difference of
> over a
> multiple of a thousand!

I just quoted the figures as stated. The figure quoted was damaged or
destroyed. It more then likely that this figure is heavily inflated.
Part of the reason is that the British government gave money to people
who put claims in for damages. So people put in claims. Another issue is
that a V1 tends to explode on the roofs of houses. So the explosive
force is shot in the air and comes down on many other houses. This may
cause many more houses to be hit superficially.

> I also don't get the 351 planes and 2233 crew lost by the allies in
> defense. Lost
> how? Other than getting too close when shooting a ton of explosives
> (weekend-spoiler)
> what was the problem? 351 planes lost in 2 1/2 months is either a nutty
> misprint or
> criminal negligence.

It seems very large. I am wondering if that includes the allied bombers
trying to blow up the V1 and V2.

> Anyone have a contact or copy of the original report?

Yes please!

The report itself was done in 1944. I am sure that better figures are
available now.

>
>
>
> > > In early December 1944, General Bissel produced a paper which argued
> > > > strongly in favour of the V1.
> > > >
> > > > The following is a table he produced
> > > >
> > > > Blitz (12 months) vs V1 flying bombs (2 3/4 months)
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > > 1. Cost to Germany
> > > > ...........................Blitz.................. ..V1
> > > > Sorties...................90,000.................8 025
> > > > Weight of bombs...........61,149 tons............14,600 tons
> > > > Fuel consumed.............71,700 tons.............4681 tons
> > > > Aircrafts lost............3075....................0
> > > > Men lost..................7690....................0
> > > >
> > > > 2 Results
> > > > Houses damaged/destroyed...1,150,000............1,127,000
> > > > Casualties.................92,566...............22 ,892
> > > > Rate casualties/bombs tons...1.6...............4.2
> > > >
> > > > 3. Allied air effort
> > > > Sorties......................86,800............44, 770
> > > > Planes lost..................1260...............351
> > > > Men lost.....................805...............2233
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>
>

--
A terrorist kills for publicity.

24th saying of Bernard

Cub Driver

December 30th 03, 11:01 AM

>paper
>on the V1 attacks, I have to admit defeat so-far. Does anyone have any
>information on him? I take it this is not the American General because the
>name
>is incorrect and he would have had his hands full out in the Asian Theater
>at the time.

Clayton Bissell, beloved of the Flying Tigers?

He became Marshall's intelligence officer toward the end of the war,
and postwar the air attache in London, so it's possible that he had
something to do with a V-1 study.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

The Enlightenment

December 30th 03, 01:05 PM

"Bernardz" > wrote in message
news:MPG.1a5aa8ed3b4d2ccc9897f3@news...
> In article >,
> says...
> > Bernardz > wrote in message
news:<MPG.1a593408a1392c869897ea@news>...
> > > In early December 1944, General Bissel produced a paper which
argued
> > > strongly in favour of the V1.
> > >
> > > The following is a table he produced
> > >
> > > Blitz (12 months) vs V1 flying bombs (2 3/4 months)
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > 1. Cost to Germany
> > > ...........................Blitz.................. ..V1
> > > Sorties...................90,000.................8 025
> > > Weight of bombs...........61,149 tons............14,600 tons
> > > Fuel consumed.............71,700 tons.............4681 tons
> > > Aircrafts lost............3075....................0
> > > Men lost..................7690....................0
> > >
> > > 2 Results
> > > Houses damaged/destroyed...1,150,000............1,127,000
> > > Casualties.................92,566...............22 ,892
> > > Rate casualties/bombs tons...1.6...............4.2
> > >
> > > 3. Allied air effort
> > > Sorties......................86,800............44, 770
> > > Planes lost..................1260...............351
> > > Men lost.....................805...............2233
> > >
> >
> > For the cost of 1 uncrewed, unrefuelled and unbombladen Lancaster
the
> > Germans were getting more than 300 V1s. Furthermore they made
little
> > demand on skilled labour or strategic materials. On the negative
side
> > they had all the inherent problems of a fairly slow unaimed
weapon.
> > Of around 10000 launched at Britain only about 2400 reached the
vague
> > proximity of their target area. And many fell fairly harmlessly -
> > aided by British manipulation of intelligence. But as an economic
> > weapon they made much sense and if they had arrived on the scene
some
> > months earlier in far greater numbers, when proximity fuzed,
radar
> > guided AA was not yet available they would undoubtedly have had a
> > proportionately much larger effect on the prosecution of the war.
>
> Agreed. By the way I am in the process of writing a fictional story
> based on such a scenario
>
> WWW.bernardz.20m.com
>
>
>
> > Thanks to Hitler's intervention this did not happen.
>
> I am not so sure Hitler was wrong! The V1 could probably have come
on-
> line in 1943 only at a terrific price and a very limited target -
> Britain. At that time Britain was a minor part of the war. The major
war
> was in the East and he needed resources against Russia. Before 1943,
> when it looked like Hitler could win the war those resources
required
> could be far better spent on things that mattered like tanks and
planes.
>
> After 1943, he needed to gain time for a miracle. Maybe the Allies
would
> split. To do that he needed to give the German people hope and
vengeance
> that they could still fire back. That is what these weapons
provided.

The term "V" used in the "V" weapons was firstly so as to confuse
alllied intelligence. The term "V" meant "Veruchs" or experimental.
Thus when the Germans made a new aircraft type eg the Arado 234 they
might have a V1,V2,V3...V20.... to represent the prototypes and test
vehicles 9for variuous engines and armanments) similar to the way the
United States uses the term X for its experimental designations. The
official RLM (Reichs Luftfahrts Ministerium) designation for the V1
was Fi 103. (A4 for the V2)

When the term Vertiedigung was applied it represented the word
"Reprisal or Retaliation" rather than the more emotional "Vengence".

It has to be remembered that the Germans regarded the bombing of their
cities as "Terror bombing" and it was the term they used. Few would
rationaly argue against it since the bulk of the casualities were
civilian women,children or seniors. W.G.Sebald in his book "on the
natural history of destruction" mentions that the allies destroyed
records and photogrpahs of the effects of phosphorus because they were
so horrific.

The Germans also began development of a turbojet engine RLM
designation 109-005(TL) for the Fi 103 (V1). The Chief Engineer was
Dr Max Adlof Mueller (who had designed succesfull torbojets at junkers
and heinkel) and Porsche was given the contreact. With this engine
the range of a V1 with full sized warhead was extended from 240km to
700km and speed and altitude also increased. The range of the V1
variant with the smaller warhead was also expected to increase
proportionatly out to 1000km or so I expect. Speed and altitude also
improved.

Such an engine would not have been expensive at all as the engine only
needed to opperate for 1.2 hours so alloy steel with a high refractory
alloy content would not be required.

The normal Argus 109-014 pulse-jet was continiusly tweeked by Argus
and would have been capable of 494 mph if its final form if they had
of been fitted and would have been harder to destroy.

With the fall of France and launch positions the turbojet was needed
since air launch of V1s by German bombers was very dangerous due to
interception and becuae it was inaccurate.

There appear to have been efforts to develop guidence systems for
flying bombs: one based in comparing strips of film with a image of
the ground using basic TV and electro-optical and electro-mechanical
methods. The Germans also succesfully tested a long range air
launched glide bombs (BV246) with a radar homing warhead
http://www.luft46.com/missile/bv246.html and I wonder if they would
have fitted it to the V1? (Probably not the BV246 is a better
platform as it is stealthy)

I suspect when the Germans began opperations of their jet bombers and
jet reconaisence over the British Isles they would have increased V1
accuracy. One of the big problems the Germans had was that they
could not opperate succesfull reconaisence over the British Isles
untill they had jet aircraft so they could not check they accuracy of
their V1s.

The German jet bombers (eg Ar 234 ) were capable of using accurate
computing bomb sights such as the Lofte 7 and the Egon blind bombing
system.

So in any future bombing campaigne I think the V1 would have been an
area bombing (OK terror weapon) and irritation weapon with the jet
bombers being used where accuracy was required. The most sensible use
of the Jets however would have been to harras RAF bombers all they way
back to their bases.

The 466mph Ar 234B was capable of opperation over the UK and could
avoid interception (just) but versions such as the Ar 234C (4 x
BMW003A engines in lieu of the 2 x jumo 004B4) was capable of 566mph
(mach not thrust limited) and thus beyond anything that could
reasonaly intercept the aircraft including a F80 starfighter or
developed meteor . The other versions with Jumo 004D, BMW003C,
BMW003D or HeS 11 engines were also difficult to intercept.

>
> >
> > Eugene Griessel
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> A terrorist kills for publicity.
>
> 24th saying of Bernard
>

The Enlightenment

December 30th 03, 01:12 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Bernardz > wrote in message
news:<MPG.1a593408a1392c869897ea@news>...
> > In early December 1944, General Bissel produced a paper which
argued
> > strongly in favour of the V1.
> >
> > The following is a table he produced
> >
> > Blitz (12 months) vs V1 flying bombs (2 3/4 months)
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > 1. Cost to Germany
> > ...........................Blitz.................. ..V1
> > Sorties...................90,000.................8 025 (error:
8892)
> > Weight of bombs...........61,149 tons............14,600 tons
> > Fuel consumed.............71,700 tons.............4681 tons
> > Aircrafts lost............3075....................0 (error: 80,
from air launches)
> > Men lost..................7690....................0
> >
> > 2 Results
> > Houses damaged/destroyed...1,150,000............1,127,000
> > Casualties.................92,566...............22 ,892 (error:
figure is dead plus wounded, based on 6,184 dead/correction to 12,000
dead= close to 29,000 total)
> > Rate casualties/bombs tons...1.6...............4.2
> >
> > 3. Allied air effort
> > Sorties......................86,800............44, 770
> > Planes lost..................1260...............351
> > Men lost.....................805...............2233
> >
> >
> > Any comments!
>
> 34,000 V-1s were produced by Fiesler, Volkswagen, and the
Mittelwerke.
> Unit cost was RM 5000. Of all those produced only around 5000 found
> their targets in the UK and Belgium. That makes it 20% effective of
> those launched, the remaining number found stockpiled. It was a cost
> effective weapon compared to a Mark IV tank (RM 100,000) but
> militarily of little value.

It was of the same miliary value as the city flattening population
targeting raids of Bomber Command. (I know that the RAF had the
possibility of accuracy due to H2S etc latter in the war however the
amount of collateral damage, the million plus killed and the type of
munitions gives these the character of city flattening raids )

A V1 however did not (yet) have the possibility of accuracy which
required a more developed guidence system. No doubt that sort of
system would evenutally have evolved, several systems were under
consideration, and these would been used for special missions.

> As a psychological/nuisance weapon it did
> well but did not in any way deter the Allies from bombing Germany
and
> grabbing land.

There were several points of technical decision which may have won
Germany the war, at least untill the atomic bomb.

1 Not abandoning their microwave and magnetron research team which had
produced low power but stable magnetrons. Even if they failed to
produce a full powered radar the team would have rapidly been able to
respond to the discovery of the British Magnetrons. Hell the Japanese
beat the Brtish to multicavity magnetrons by 1 year (but failed to
realise the significance or tell the Germans)

2 The Type XXI u-boat needed to be advanced by at least 1 maybe 2
years. This is not inconceivable since officers had warned Doenitz
directly from the dangers of radar to submarines in 1934 when
experimental radars had detected u-boat conning towers. At this point
a focus on tactics and technology to produce greater underwater
emphasis on subamarines could have been undertaken. The older
u-boats were designed to attack on the surface and use their
underwater abilities to hide. The type XXI had the speed and range to
penetrate convoys and retreat almost unnoticed. Its passive sonar
allowed it to track and range targets and evade hostile destroyers.
While opperating its creeper motors at 6 knots it was effectively
undetectable.

3 The jet engine needed to be advanced by 6-12 months. This is a
little more hard to immagine as the German Jet engine program was
fairly well thought through (in the sense that unlike the British they
had one) however they did spread their resources rather thinly at
heinkel.

4 When their "Duppel" or chaff experiments showed the vulnerability
of German radar to foil strips "Window" they could have stared
countermeasure work and dispersed their frequencies immediatly rather
than get obsessively secret and thus prevent the development of jam
resistance.

> The Germans would have done better to replace the
> amatol warhead with a radiological warhead. London and Antwerp would
> have then been contaminated and abandoned.

I doubt it. That assumes that the Germans or Nazis did not have any
moral or ethical limitations which they did. In anycase such actions
would have lead to reprisals: the Germans would have assumed that the
allies were capable of delivering similar attacks either immediatly or
given a few months time and the Grmans were capable of working this
out. The germans had nerve gas but did not use it.

>
> Rob

Steve Hix

December 30th 03, 08:59 PM

In article <MPG.1a5bef243ceb08659897f9@news>,
Bernardz > wrote:

> In article >, ex401
> @freenet.carleton.ca says...
> > Afternoon all,
> >
> > I've been trying to do a little research on this General Bissel and his paper
> > on the V1 attacks, I have to admit defeat so-far. Does anyone have any
> > information on him? I take it this is not the American General because the
> > name is incorrect and he would have had his hands full out in the Asian Theater
> > at the time.

Major General Clayton Bissel had become head of Military Intelligence in
Europe by March of 1944.

Cub Driver

December 30th 03, 09:10 PM

>When the term Vertiedigung was applied it represented the word
>"Reprisal or Retaliation" rather than the more emotional "Vengence".

Thanks for that!

When I was working in Germany in 1958, as an American involved in an
automobile accident I didn't go through the other guy's insurance
company to get reimbursed. Instead I applied to what I remember as
the: Amtfeurvertiedigungslassen

Which is to say: Bureau for Reparations Payments (again, that's
approximate).

How pleasant to think that I was getting money from the nephew of the
buzz bomb :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Sierk Melzer

December 31st 03, 01:23 AM

"The Enlightenment" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

> When the term Vertiedigung was applied it represented the word
> "Reprisal or Retaliation" rather than the more emotional "Vengence".
>

The term applied to the V-weapons was Vergeltung which indeed means
"reprisal" or "retaliation". Verteidigung translates to "defense".

Sierk Melzer

December 31st 03, 01:48 AM

It was an "Amt für Verteidigungslasten" ("bureau for defense costs"). Being
part of a local authority, it's main task is to reimburse civilians for
damage caused by Allied or German forces (in a maneuver for example).

"Cub Driver" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>
> >When the term Vertiedigung was applied it represented the word
> >"Reprisal or Retaliation" rather than the more emotional
"Vengence".
>
> Thanks for that!
>
> When I was working in Germany in 1958, as an American involved in an
> automobile accident I didn't go through the other guy's insurance
> company to get reimbursed. Instead I applied to what I remember as
> the: Amtfeurvertiedigungslassen
>
> Which is to say: Bureau for Reparations Payments (again, that's
> approximate).
>
> How pleasant to think that I was getting money from the nephew of the
> buzz bomb :)
>
>
>
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

December 31st 03, 10:55 AM

>It was an "Amt für Verteidigungslasten" ("bureau for defense costs"). Being
>part of a local authority, it's main task is to reimburse civilians for
>damage caused by Allied or German forces (in a maneuver for example).

By golly, you're right. It was a U.S. Army truck that came across the
autobahn median strip. Funny I'd forgotten that detail, while
remembering (more or less) the Amt that paid the damage.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

L'acrobat

January 4th 04, 10:36 PM

"Eugene Griessel" > wrote in message
om...

> >
> > From early 1944 onwards there was a concerted effort to knock out the
> > launching sites which required precision bombing ie medium/low/dive
> > bombing. The flak did the rest
>
> IIRC they tried radio-controlled bombers (obsolete marks of B17 rings
> a bell) on the ski-sites? A vast effort was expended trying to knock
> these out and perhaps an even greater one on the modified sites.
> Something over 60000 bombing sorties and over 100000 tons of bombs.
> I'm speaking from a poor memory now - that may include the bombing of
> the concrete V2 bunkers and even the V3 site.

Interestingly enough the Brits also seem to have developed the first AWACS
a/c (a converted Wellington with a fixed GCI radar and plotting system on
board) to support Mosquito night fighters that were out hunting He 111s
launching V1s.

robert arndt

January 5th 04, 05:37 AM

..
> >
> > From early 1944 onwards there was a concerted effort to knock out the
> > launching sites which required precision bombing ie medium/low/dive
> > bombing. The flak did the rest
>
> IIRC they tried radio-controlled bombers (obsolete marks of B17 rings
> a bell) on the ski-sites?

Aphrodite program.

A vast effort was expended trying to knock
> these out and perhaps an even greater one on the modified sites.
> Something over 60000 bombing sorties and over 100000 tons of bombs.
> I'm speaking from a poor memory now - that may include the bombing of
> the concrete V2 bunkers and even the V3 site.

There was more than one V-3 site other than the one in France. The
Germans fired two successful smaller-version V-3s from a railway line
as well as the test gun at Misdroy. Antwerp was the target of the
railway guns and could not respond to the shelling from 40+ miles.

Rob

David Lesher

January 14th 04, 04:13 PM

(Eugene Griessel) writes:

>IIRC they tried radio-controlled bombers (obsolete marks of B17 rings
>a bell) on the ski-sites?

This was used against the V2 underground factory, as I recall.
"Operation Aphrodite" killed JFK's older brother, Joe Kennedy Jr.

Using such against a ski ramp would be like using a M60 to kill a
fly....

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Eugene Griessel

January 15th 04, 06:23 AM

David Lesher > wrote in message >...
> (Eugene Griessel) writes:
>
>
> >IIRC they tried radio-controlled bombers (obsolete marks of B17 rings
> >a bell) on the ski-sites?
>
> This was used against the V2 underground factory, as I recall.
> "Operation Aphrodite" killed JFK's older brother, Joe Kennedy Jr.

IIRC Joe was killed in a remote controlled B24 Liberator during August
1944, flying from Wingfarthing-Fersfield in Norfolk and the intended
target was a suspected rocket launching site in Heligoland.

> Using such against a ski ramp would be like using a M60 to kill a
> fly....

Ski ramp? The ski sites took their name from the large concrete
ski-shaped bunkers used to store V1s. Those were the intended
targets.

Keith Willshaw

January 15th 04, 07:43 AM

"Eugene Griessel" > wrote in message
om...
> David Lesher > wrote in message
>...
> > (Eugene Griessel) writes:
> >

>
> Ski ramp? The ski sites took their name from the large concrete
> ski-shaped bunkers used to store V1s. Those were the intended
> targets.

True but the Germans switched to using portable steel ramps
when the allies were clearly bombing the fixed sites.

Keith

Eugene Griessel

January 15th 04, 11:28 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Eugene Griessel" > wrote in message
> om...
> > David Lesher > wrote in message
> >...
> > > (Eugene Griessel) writes:
> > >
>
> >
> > Ski ramp? The ski sites took their name from the large concrete
> > ski-shaped bunkers used to store V1s. Those were the intended
> > targets.
>
> True but the Germans switched to using portable steel ramps
> when the allies were clearly bombing the fixed sites.

The Germans partially abandoned the idea of on site storage facilties
altogether (some ski sites - obviously the less damaged ones - were
still used for storage). The modified sites were very simple, a quick
prefab launch ramp that could be assembled in 48 hours and the little
compass alignment room were often the only indication that they
existed at all. It also made them unprofitable targets as they were
easy to move and hard to hit. In fact if the Germans had not spent an
enormous effort on fixed ski sites (96 I think, in all) they probably
could have got the campaign off to a much earlier start.

Sometimes a modified site was erected near or on the facilities of a
less damaged ski site. I have, somewhere in my magazine collection, a
quite extensive article on a modified site/ski site with the skis
still usable but the assembly, alignment and launching all being done
from modified facilities.

M. J. Powell

January 15th 04, 11:54 AM

In message >, Eugene
Griessel > writes
>David Lesher > wrote in message
>...
>> (Eugene Griessel) writes:
>>
>>
>> >IIRC they tried radio-controlled bombers (obsolete marks of B17 rings
>> >a bell) on the ski-sites?
>>
>> This was used against the V2 underground factory, as I recall.
>> "Operation Aphrodite" killed JFK's older brother, Joe Kennedy Jr.
>
>IIRC Joe was killed in a remote controlled B24 Liberator during August
>1944, flying from Wingfarthing-Fersfield in Norfolk and the intended
>target was a suspected rocket launching site in Heligoland.
>
>> Using such against a ski ramp would be like using a M60 to kill a
>> fly....
>
>Ski ramp? The ski sites took their name from the large concrete
>ski-shaped bunkers used to store V1s. Those were the intended
>targets.

The launch ramps were ski-shaped. I have never been able to find out
why.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

Keith Willshaw

January 15th 04, 01:32 PM

"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...

> >
> >Ski ramp? The ski sites took their name from the large concrete
> >ski-shaped bunkers used to store V1s. Those were the intended
> >targets.
>
> The launch ramps were ski-shaped. I have never been able to find out
> why.
>

Its my understanding that the ramps looked like a ski-jump
rather than a ski. Certainly the one at Duxford appears that way.

http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/images/V2Rockets/rocketlaunchpad.jpg

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Eugene Griessel

January 15th 04, 02:07 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
>> >
>> >Ski ramp? The ski sites took their name from the large concrete
>> >ski-shaped bunkers used to store V1s. Those were the intended
>> >targets.
>>
>> The launch ramps were ski-shaped. I have never been able to find out
>> why.
>>
>
>Its my understanding that the ramps looked like a ski-jump
>rather than a ski. Certainly the one at Duxford appears that way.

The ski sites got their name from the three 270ft long storage
buildings. (Ok one was slightly shorter). I have a detailed
construction drawing of one here - it held 20 missiles.

Build three odd shaped buildings like that - and from the PRU photos
available to me, little effort at camouflage was made - and you are
just asking for bomber attention IMHO.

Just perusing some data as well - for about 4 months, 40% of allied
bombing effort in the European theatre was expended on the ski-sites,
the storage bunkers and the modified sites. In one month alone, 3000
tons of bombs was dropped on just one modified site. Obviously as a
bomber effort attractant they succeeded too!

Eugene Griessel

M. J. Powell

January 15th 04, 02:25 PM

In message >, Keith Willshaw
> writes
>
>"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
>> >
>> >Ski ramp? The ski sites took their name from the large concrete
>> >ski-shaped bunkers used to store V1s. Those were the intended
>> >targets.
>>
>> The launch ramps were ski-shaped. I have never been able to find out
>> why.
>>
>
>Its my understanding that the ramps looked like a ski-jump
>rather than a ski. Certainly the one at Duxford appears that way.
>
>http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/images/V2Rockets/rocketlaunchpad.jpg

That site appears to be a bit confused. It refers to V1's and V2's as
'Rockets'.

The V2's were launched vertically and had no ramp, only a concrete pad.
The V1's were launched along a ramp which looked like a ski laid on its
side, the curved bit near the 'adjustment house' where the compass was
set and the aircraft demagnetised with mallets.

They were called 'ski-sites' from the first aerial photographs IIRC.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

John Mullen

January 15th 04, 04:17 PM

M. J. Powell wrote:

> In message >, Keith Willshaw
> > writes
>
>>
>> "M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> >
>>> >Ski ramp? The ski sites took their name from the large concrete
>>> >ski-shaped bunkers used to store V1s. Those were the intended
>>> >targets.
>>>
>>> The launch ramps were ski-shaped. I have never been able to find out
>>> why.
>>>
>>
>> Its my understanding that the ramps looked like a ski-jump
>> rather than a ski. Certainly the one at Duxford appears that way.
>>
>> http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/images/V2Rockets/rocketlaunchpad.jpg
>
>
> That site appears to be a bit confused. It refers to V1's and V2's as
> 'Rockets'.
>
> The V2's were launched vertically and had no ramp, only a concrete pad.
> The V1's were launched along a ramp which looked like a ski laid on its
> side, the curved bit near the 'adjustment house' where the compass was
> set and the aircraft demagnetised with mallets.

No, actually as Keith said above, it was the bunkers which looked like
that. The ramps looked pretty much like ramps. If they had been bent at
the end, the V1 would have fallen off. The Germans were pretty stupid,
but not that stupid.

John

> They were called 'ski-sites' from the first aerial photographs IIRC.

Eugene Griessel

January 15th 04, 04:34 PM

"M. J. Powell" > wrote:

>>Its my understanding that the ramps looked like a ski-jump
>>rather than a ski. Certainly the one at Duxford appears that way.
>>
>>http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/images/V2Rockets/rocketlaunchpad.jpg
>
>That site appears to be a bit confused. It refers to V1's and V2's as
>'Rockets'.
>
>The V2's were launched vertically and had no ramp, only a concrete pad.
>The V1's were launched along a ramp which looked like a ski laid on its
>side, the curved bit near the 'adjustment house' where the compass was
>set and the aircraft demagnetised with mallets.
>
>They were called 'ski-sites' from the first aerial photographs IIRC.

You appear to be a bit confused.

Quote: Constance Babington-Smith's "Evidence in Camera": "Late that
evening, when Douglas Kendall got back from a day's meeting in London,
he made straight for the army section. With Simon and Rowell he
looked quickly at each of the eight sites - each one partly in a wood,
and each apparently to have a set of nine standard buildings, some of
them strangely shaped. Then he settled down to gaze at the site which
was furthest advanced. It was near Bois Carre. Three of the
buildings were unlike anything he had ever seen in his life. Except -
yes - they were like something. The took his mind back to winter
sports before the war, for they reminded him of skis.

'Skis', he thought aloud. 'That's what they look like - skis'."

Quote RV Jones "Most Secret War": "The information was confirmed by
photographic sortie E/463 of 3rd November, which showed that the most
prominent feature were ski-shaped buildings 240-270 feet long, from
which the sites were promptly named".

Quote: From Edward Leaf's "Above us all unseen": "The photographs
revealed three ski-shaped buildings (from which the sites took their
name) and a ramp which pointed directly at London".

The launch ramps were fairly straight, though a few do seem to have
saggy middles - I have a number of films of launches and none of the
ramps bears the slightest resemblance to a ski. The fixed concrete
ramps at the ski sites were all straight. The only ones that seem to
have a slight "dip" in the middle are the modified site ramps. I
doubt this was intentional. Probably the hastily laid concrete "pins"
had not been carefully aligned. Or had sunk into the ground a bit.

Eugene Griessel

M. J. Powell

January 15th 04, 05:47 PM

In message >, Eugene Griessel
> writes
>"M. J. Powell" > wrote:
>
>>>Its my understanding that the ramps looked like a ski-jump
>>>rather than a ski. Certainly the one at Duxford appears that way.
>>>
>>>http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/images/V2Rockets/rocketlaunchpad.jpg
>>
>>That site appears to be a bit confused. It refers to V1's and V2's as
>>'Rockets'.
>>
>>The V2's were launched vertically and had no ramp, only a concrete pad.
>>The V1's were launched along a ramp which looked like a ski laid on its
>>side, the curved bit near the 'adjustment house' where the compass was
>>set and the aircraft demagnetised with mallets.
>>
>>They were called 'ski-sites' from the first aerial photographs IIRC.
>
>You appear to be a bit confused.
>
> Quote: Constance Babington-Smith's "Evidence in Camera": "Late that
>evening, when Douglas Kendall got back from a day's meeting in London,
>he made straight for the army section. With Simon and Rowell he
>looked quickly at each of the eight sites - each one partly in a wood,
>and each apparently to have a set of nine standard buildings, some of
>them strangely shaped. Then he settled down to gaze at the site which
>was furthest advanced. It was near Bois Carre. Three of the
>buildings were unlike anything he had ever seen in his life. Except -
>yes - they were like something. The took his mind back to winter
>sports before the war, for they reminded him of skis.
>
>'Skis', he thought aloud. 'That's what they look like - skis'."
>
>Quote RV Jones "Most Secret War": "The information was confirmed by
>photographic sortie E/463 of 3rd November, which showed that the most
>prominent feature were ski-shaped buildings 240-270 feet long, from
>which the sites were promptly named".
>
>Quote: From Edward Leaf's "Above us all unseen": "The photographs
>revealed three ski-shaped buildings (from which the sites took their
>name) and a ramp which pointed directly at London".
>
>The launch ramps were fairly straight, though a few do seem to have
>saggy middles - I have a number of films of launches and none of the
>ramps bears the slightest resemblance to a ski. The fixed concrete
>ramps at the ski sites were all straight. The only ones that seem to
>have a slight "dip" in the middle are the modified site ramps. I
>doubt this was intentional. Probably the hastily laid concrete "pins"
>had not been carefully aligned. Or had sunk into the ground a bit.

Ok! OK! I was wrong! I was overloading the few memory cells that I have
left.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

Cub Driver

January 16th 04, 10:26 AM

>Its my understanding that the ramps looked like a ski-jump
>rather than a ski.

They headed downward before turning up? What a hoot!

Still, I was taught to do something similar when taking off from a
short field: head in the wribg direction, hit the right brake at the
last moment, then start the real takeoff run with a bit of momentum.
Called a J Takeoff.

Same logic here?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Eugene Griessel

January 16th 04, 03:25 PM

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >Its my understanding that the ramps looked like a ski-jump
> >rather than a ski.
>
> They headed downward before turning up? What a hoot!
>
> Still, I was taught to do something similar when taking off from a
> short field: head in the wribg direction, hit the right brake at the
> last moment, then start the real takeoff run with a bit of momentum.
> Called a J Takeoff.
>
> Same logic here?

Mmmmm - the steel piston which ran in the tube of the V1 launch ramp
and was powered by steam was quite a a long object. About 16 foot or
somewhere thereabouts. It would be interesting to see how this worked
in a curved steel tube.

Incidentally I have found a near complete set of drawings for an early
V1 ski-site. All I now need is planning permission from the local
council. And explain that the fact that the ramp being aligned with
the houses of parliament is purely coincidental and I'm in business!
Maybe not. Especially after the fuss they kicked up when I wanted to
test my homemade H-bomb.

Eugene

Merlin Dorfman

January 18th 04, 09:42 PM

Eugene Griessel ) wrote:

....

: Mmmmm - the steel piston which ran in the tube of the V1 launch ramp
: and was powered by steam was quite a a long object. About 16 foot or
: somewhere thereabouts. It would be interesting to see how this worked
: in a curved steel tube.

Is there a Web resource that explains how the V1 was boosted
into the air? Was the pulse jet engine capable of being started on
the ground or was it started after the missile had attained a
certain air speed?
Thanks.

Eugene Griessel

January 19th 04, 05:19 AM

Merlin Dorfman > wrote in message >...
> Eugene Griessel ) wrote:
>
> ...
>
> : Mmmmm - the steel piston which ran in the tube of the V1 launch ramp
> : and was powered by steam was quite a a long object. About 16 foot or
> : somewhere thereabouts. It would be interesting to see how this worked
> : in a curved steel tube.
>
> Is there a Web resource that explains how the V1 was boosted
> into the air? Was the pulse jet engine capable of being started on
> the ground or was it started after the missile had attained a
> certain air speed?

The pulse jet was started on the ground. It gave increasing thrust as
the ram effect increased but in a static state did not give enough
thrust to get the beast into the air. For this purpuse a steam
catapult was employed. 125 foot long and consisting of a tube with a
slot in it upper surface. A piston with a fin like projection was
inserted into the tube, the fin sticking through the slot and engaging
with a lug in the V1. There was a sealing strip, fed through the
piston, to close the slot. This strip was held in place by the
internal pressure of the steam. Firing consisted of running up the
pulse jet, and then launching the V1 - using approximately 220 pounds
of hydrogen peroxide decomposed with potassium permangate to generate
the steam. Launch velocity was around 105 metres per second. The
piston fell away as it emerged from the launch tube and could be
reused if undamaged. The score marks made by these pistons often gave
PRU vital clues as to where a launch site was. I cannot get a
reliable length for the piston - but it was fairly long. From
photographs I would judge it to be more than half the length of the
V1.

Eugene

Eugene Griessel

January 19th 04, 05:48 AM

robert arndt

January 19th 04, 05:48 AM

Merlin Dorfman > wrote in message >...
> Eugene Griessel ) wrote:
>
> ...
>
> : Mmmmm - the steel piston which ran in the tube of the V1 launch ramp
> : and was powered by steam was quite a a long object. About 16 foot or
> : somewhere thereabouts. It would be interesting to see how this worked
> : in a curved steel tube.
>
> Is there a Web resource that explains how the V1 was boosted
> into the air? Was the pulse jet engine capable of being started on
> the ground or was it started after the missile had attained a
> certain air speed?
> Thanks.

The Argus-Schmidt pulsejet was incapable of launching the V-1 by
itself so a steam-driven piston got it moving off the launch ramp at
an appreciable speed which gave enough forward energy to open the duct
flaps and commence the pulse detonation cycle.
The V-1 firing on the ramp does not mean it was operable. It was fired
for exactly 7 seconds to warm it up to operating temperature.
Afterwards, T-Stoff and Z-Stoff were remotely pumped into the steam
generation vessel. Pressure built up until it was sufficient to shear
a restraining bolt sending the launch piston up the tube carrying the
launch trolley and missile with it. By the time it reached the end of
the track (.5 seconds later) the missile had been accelerated at a
rate of 16g up to 250 mph with the pulse jet running independently.
On another thread there is dispute that a pulsejet is a form of
ramjet. I think the description of the firing of the V-1 proves
otherwise.

Rob

Keith Willshaw

January 19th 04, 09:49 AM

"Merlin Dorfman" > wrote in message
...
> Eugene Griessel ) wrote:
>
> ...
>
> : Mmmmm - the steel piston which ran in the tube of the V1 launch ramp
> : and was powered by steam was quite a a long object. About 16 foot or
> : somewhere thereabouts. It would be interesting to see how this worked
> : in a curved steel tube.
>
> Is there a Web resource that explains how the V1 was boosted
> into the air? Was the pulse jet engine capable of being started on
> the ground or was it started after the missile had attained a
> certain air speed?
> Thanks.
>

The pulse jet was started on the ground, the catapult was needed
for the same reason catapults were used on aircraft carriers
and aboard cruisers for launching seaplanes, it enabled the
use of a short ramp.

Keith

Eugene Griessel

January 19th 04, 10:37 AM

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> Merlin Dorfman > wrote in message >...
> > Eugene Griessel ) wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > : Mmmmm - the steel piston which ran in the tube of the V1 launch ramp
> > : and was powered by steam was quite a a long object. About 16 foot or
> > : somewhere thereabouts. It would be interesting to see how this worked
> > : in a curved steel tube.
> >
> > Is there a Web resource that explains how the V1 was boosted
> > into the air? Was the pulse jet engine capable of being started on
> > the ground or was it started after the missile had attained a
> > certain air speed?
> > Thanks.
>
>
> The Argus-Schmidt pulsejet was incapable of launching the V-1 by
> itself so a steam-driven piston got it moving off the launch ramp at
> an appreciable speed which gave enough forward energy to open the duct
> flaps and commence the pulse detonation cycle.
> The V-1 firing on the ramp does not mean it was operable. It was fired
> for exactly 7 seconds to warm it up to operating temperature.
> Afterwards, T-Stoff and Z-Stoff were remotely pumped into the steam
> generation vessel. Pressure built up until it was sufficient to shear
> a restraining bolt sending the launch piston up the tube carrying the
> launch trolley and missile with it. By the time it reached the end of
> the track (.5 seconds later) the missile had been accelerated at a
> rate of 16g up to 250 mph with the pulse jet running independently.
> On another thread there is dispute that a pulsejet is a form of
> ramjet. I think the description of the firing of the V-1 proves
> otherwise.

The priciples of the pulse jet were well understood by scientists. In
1906 an certain engineer by name of Karavodine had constructed and run
a simple tube pulse jet. Schmidt, during the period 1928 - 1930,
added spring-loaded flaps. He was awarded two British patents, in
1931, for his improved pulse jet and even forwarded a proposal for a
flying bomb to the German Air Ministry in 1934. When Argus started
work on its pulse jet they were unaware of Schmidt's work and started
from first principles. It was only after their third experimental
model that somebody at the Air Ministry remembered Schmidt's work and
Argus was then able to use Schmidt's spring-flap valves to produce a
satisfactory engine.

Bertil Jonell

January 19th 04, 02:51 PM

In article >,
Eugene Griessel > wrote:
>A piston with a fin like projection was
>inserted into the tube, the fin sticking through the slot and engaging
>with a lug in the V1. There was a sealing strip, fed through the
>piston, to close the slot. This strip was held in place by the
>internal pressure of the steam.

That sounds complicated in a very German way:) Any idea why they didn't
use a small solid booster?

>Eugene

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."

Alan Minyard

January 19th 04, 03:58 PM

On 18 Jan 2004 21:48:27 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Merlin Dorfman > wrote in message >...
>> Eugene Griessel ) wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> : Mmmmm - the steel piston which ran in the tube of the V1 launch ramp
>> : and was powered by steam was quite a a long object. About 16 foot or
>> : somewhere thereabouts. It would be interesting to see how this worked
>> : in a curved steel tube.
>>
>> Is there a Web resource that explains how the V1 was boosted
>> into the air? Was the pulse jet engine capable of being started on
>> the ground or was it started after the missile had attained a
>> certain air speed?
>> Thanks.
>
>
>The Argus-Schmidt pulsejet was incapable of launching the V-1 by
>itself so a steam-driven piston got it moving off the launch ramp at
>an appreciable speed which gave enough forward energy to open the duct
>flaps and commence the pulse detonation cycle.
>The V-1 firing on the ramp does not mean it was operable. It was fired
>for exactly 7 seconds to warm it up to operating temperature.
>Afterwards, T-Stoff and Z-Stoff were remotely pumped into the steam
>generation vessel. Pressure built up until it was sufficient to shear
>a restraining bolt sending the launch piston up the tube carrying the
>launch trolley and missile with it. By the time it reached the end of
>the track (.5 seconds later) the missile had been accelerated at a
>rate of 16g up to 250 mph with the pulse jet running independently.
>On another thread there is dispute that a pulsejet is a form of
>ramjet. I think the description of the firing of the V-1 proves
>otherwise.
>
>Rob

Wrong. The V-1 engine could operate at zero velocity, thus it was
definitely NOT a "ram jet". No one, other than herr Arndt, referrers
to a V-1 as having a "ram jet" engine.

Al Minyard

AnyBody43

January 19th 04, 05:05 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote
> "Merlin Dorfman" > wrote in message
> > Eugene Griessel ) wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > : Mmmmm - the steel piston which ran in the tube of the V1 launch ramp
> > : and was powered by steam was quite a a long object. About 16 foot or
> > : somewhere thereabouts. It would be interesting to see how this worked
> > : in a curved steel tube.
> >
> > Is there a Web resource that explains how the V1 was boosted
> > into the air? Was the pulse jet engine capable of being started on
> > the ground or was it started after the missile had attained a
> > certain air speed?
> > Thanks.
> >
>
> The pulse jet was started on the ground, the catapult was needed
> for the same reason catapults were used on aircraft carriers
> and aboard cruisers for launching seaplanes, it enabled the
> use of a short ramp.
>
> Keith

I agree pulse jets can run when stationary.

Here is a more recent valveless variant.

I have no idea how they work, but they are more or less a
tube with a U bend and a bulge. I find it really amazing. I
first saw it on Junkyard Wars or whatever it is called in the UK.

http://www.jetzilla.com/Vol01Num02/jetZilla.html#Article_1
A U-Bend "Lockwood" pulse jet.

More:-
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/lhkart.shtml
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/mylockwood.shtml

Keith Willshaw

January 19th 04, 05:40 PM

"AnyBody43" > wrote in message
om...

>
> I agree pulse jets can run when stationary.
>
> Here is a more recent valveless variant.
>
> I have no idea how they work, but they are more or less a
> tube with a U bend and a bulge. I find it really amazing. I
> first saw it on Junkyard Wars or whatever it is called in the UK.
>

Scrapheap challenge, in the UK version the winning team
built a pulsejet from scratch and used it to power a car

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/scrapheap/challenges/jet_racer/

Keith

Eugene Griessel

January 19th 04, 06:15 PM

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On 18 Jan 2004 21:48:27 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >Merlin Dorfman > wrote in message >...
> >> Eugene Griessel ) wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> : Mmmmm - the steel piston which ran in the tube of the V1 launch ramp
> >> : and was powered by steam was quite a a long object. About 16 foot or
> >> : somewhere thereabouts. It would be interesting to see how this worked
> >> : in a curved steel tube.
> >>
> >> Is there a Web resource that explains how the V1 was boosted
> >> into the air? Was the pulse jet engine capable of being started on
> >> the ground or was it started after the missile had attained a
> >> certain air speed?
> >> Thanks.
> >
> >
> >The Argus-Schmidt pulsejet was incapable of launching the V-1 by
> >itself so a steam-driven piston got it moving off the launch ramp at
> >an appreciable speed which gave enough forward energy to open the duct
> >flaps and commence the pulse detonation cycle.
> >The V-1 firing on the ramp does not mean it was operable. It was fired
> >for exactly 7 seconds to warm it up to operating temperature.
> >Afterwards, T-Stoff and Z-Stoff were remotely pumped into the steam
> >generation vessel. Pressure built up until it was sufficient to shear
> >a restraining bolt sending the launch piston up the tube carrying the
> >launch trolley and missile with it. By the time it reached the end of
> >the track (.5 seconds later) the missile had been accelerated at a
> >rate of 16g up to 250 mph with the pulse jet running independently.
> >On another thread there is dispute that a pulsejet is a form of
> >ramjet. I think the description of the firing of the V-1 proves
> >otherwise.
> >
> >Rob
>
> Wrong. The V-1 engine could operate at zero velocity, thus it was
> definitely NOT a "ram jet". No one, other than herr Arndt, referrers
> to a V-1 as having a "ram jet" engine.

Al, I suggest you put your prejudice aside for a moment, reread the
last paragraph and then, after wiping the egg of your face, apologise.

Eugene

M. J. Powell

January 19th 04, 07:22 PM

In message >, robert
arndt > writes

snip
>
>The Argus-Schmidt pulsejet was incapable of launching the V-1 by
>itself so a steam-driven piston got it moving off the launch ramp at
>an appreciable speed which gave enough forward energy to open the duct
>flaps and commence the pulse detonation cycle.
>The V-1 firing on the ramp does not mean it was operable. It was fired
>for exactly 7 seconds to warm it up to operating temperature.
>Afterwards, T-Stoff and Z-Stoff were remotely pumped into the steam
>generation vessel.

Robert, are you quite sure about that T-Stoff and Z-Stoff? I thought
that was the deadly stuff they used in the 163. Potassium Permanganate
comes to mind for the V1.

(But considering that I was wrong on the ski-sites, I may well be wrong
here)

Mike

--
M.J.Powell

Eunometic

January 20th 04, 02:20 AM

(Eugene Griessel) wrote in message >...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> > On 18 Jan 2004 21:48:27 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
> >
> > >Merlin Dorfman > wrote in message >...
> > >> Eugene Griessel ) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >> : Mmmmm - the steel piston which ran in the tube of the V1 launch ramp
> > >> : and was powered by steam was quite a a long object. About 16 foot or
> > >> : somewhere thereabouts. It would be interesting to see how this worked
> > >> : in a curved steel tube.
> > >>
> > >> Is there a Web resource that explains how the V1 was boosted
> > >> into the air? Was the pulse jet engine capable of being started on
> > >> the ground or was it started after the missile had attained a
> > >> certain air speed?
> > >> Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > >The Argus-Schmidt pulsejet was incapable of launching the V-1 by
> > >itself so a steam-driven piston got it moving off the launch ramp at
> > >an appreciable speed which gave enough forward energy to open the duct
> > >flaps and commence the pulse detonation cycle.
> > >The V-1 firing on the ramp does not mean it was operable. It was fired
> > >for exactly 7 seconds to warm it up to operating temperature.
> > >Afterwards, T-Stoff and Z-Stoff were remotely pumped into the steam
> > >generation vessel. Pressure built up until it was sufficient to shear
> > >a restraining bolt sending the launch piston up the tube carrying the
> > >launch trolley and missile with it. By the time it reached the end of
> > >the track (.5 seconds later) the missile had been accelerated at a
> > >rate of 16g up to 250 mph with the pulse jet running independently.
> > >On another thread there is dispute that a pulsejet is a form of
> > >ramjet. I think the description of the firing of the V-1 proves
> > >otherwise.
> > >
> > >Rob
> >
> > Wrong. The V-1 engine could operate at zero velocity, thus it was
> > definitely NOT a "ram jet". No one, other than herr Arndt, referrers
> > to a V-1 as having a "ram jet" engine.
>
> Al, I suggest you put your prejudice aside for a moment, reread the
> last paragraph and then, after wiping the egg of your face, apologise.
>
> Eugene

The Germans made several types of pulse jet both valveless and valved,
some which could resonate at zero intake velocity and auto ignite from
compression detonation. Post war a US company called Hillier
experimented with these and these are the basis of the pulse jets seen
on "Junkyard Wars".

The V1s engine as I recall reading somewhere could opperate
sustainably from the low velocity of about 20mph. Hence it could
preumably be opperated by a modest fan or a compressed air hose while
stationary.

The Germans also made ram jets. Most opperated well at around 200m/s
or 440mph. Infact the Germans developed supersonic diffusers for ram
jet cannon shells to allow ram jets to opperate at supersonic Mach 2+
speeds. The intake spike you seen on a Talos/Tartar missile, Sea Dart
Missile or SR71 intake derives from German ram powered cannon shell
research.

One type of ram jet known as an inductor ram jet used a small rocket
motor inside. This fired while ramjet was stationary and induced an
airflow which could burn a pure fuel in a secondary combstiuon zone.
Once at speed the rocket was switched of. Stationay thrust was about
100kg and full speed thrust was about 130kg on the test model I am
recollecting. I believe stationary specific fuel plus oxidiser
consumptioin was 700 seconds which is 1.5 times as good as the shuttle
enignes, 4 times as good as WW2 contempoary rocket engines but about
1/3rd of the thirsty turbojets of the day.

At one point the Germans were planning to used liquid fuel inductor
ramjets that burned powdered coal in the secondary zone. If you've
seen how effective blown powdered coal burners are in locomotives
(Henschell sold such equipement) or power stations (it goes of
vigorously) then this is quite feasable assuming the coal handing
equiment can be made compact enough. (other coal fired ramjet ideas
used a porus powdered sponge coal called schaumkhole cast into a
anulus and another Lippisch designe even used a Griticule Bed.

One promising designe was for an oxidiser and rocket free
monopropellant inductor ramjet. Alcahol fuel (which was resitant to
carbonisation and thermal cracking) was heated in a monotube
boiler/tube sorounding the ramjet body. It was then flashed into
high pressure vapour that provided thrust and induced a secondary
airflow. Once at speed a more energy dense fuel could be used.

This design was not practicable becuase of the sensitivity of thrust
and fuel flow control with the systems of the day. I suspect it
would be easy for the controls of today.

Eugene Griessel

January 20th 04, 02:24 AM

"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, robert
> arndt > writes
>
> snip
> >
> >The Argus-Schmidt pulsejet was incapable of launching the V-1 by
> >itself so a steam-driven piston got it moving off the launch ramp at
> >an appreciable speed which gave enough forward energy to open the duct
> >flaps and commence the pulse detonation cycle.
> >The V-1 firing on the ramp does not mean it was operable. It was fired
> >for exactly 7 seconds to warm it up to operating temperature.
> >Afterwards, T-Stoff and Z-Stoff were remotely pumped into the steam
> >generation vessel.
>
> Robert, are you quite sure about that T-Stoff and Z-Stoff? I thought
> that was the deadly stuff they used in the 163. Potassium Permanganate
> comes to mind for the V1.
>
> (But considering that I was wrong on the ski-sites, I may well be wrong
> here)

T-Stoff is an 80% concentration of hydrogen peroxide and Z-Stoff could
well have been the name for Potassium Permanganate. Can't remember
off-hand and will have to check.

robert arndt

January 20th 04, 07:53 AM

(Eugene Griessel) wrote in message >...
> "M. J. Powell" > wrote in message >...
> > In message >, robert
> > arndt > writes
> >
> > snip
> > >
> > >The Argus-Schmidt pulsejet was incapable of launching the V-1 by
> > >itself so a steam-driven piston got it moving off the launch ramp at
> > >an appreciable speed which gave enough forward energy to open the duct
> > >flaps and commence the pulse detonation cycle.
> > >The V-1 firing on the ramp does not mean it was operable. It was fired
> > >for exactly 7 seconds to warm it up to operating temperature.
> > >Afterwards, T-Stoff and Z-Stoff were remotely pumped into the steam
> > >generation vessel.
> >
> > Robert, are you quite sure about that T-Stoff and Z-Stoff? I thought
> > that was the deadly stuff they used in the 163. Potassium Permanganate
> > comes to mind for the V1.
> >
> > (But considering that I was wrong on the ski-sites, I may well be wrong
> > here)
>
> T-Stoff is an 80% concentration of hydrogen peroxide and Z-Stoff could
> well have been the name for Potassium Permanganate. Can't remember
> off-hand and will have to check.

T-Stoff was concentrated hydrogen peroxide while Z-Stoff was either:

a)Z-Stoff C, calcium permanganate or
b)Z-Stoff K, sodium permanganate

The V-1 combo was T-Stoff with Z-Stoff K for steam generation. The
Me-163 used T-Stoff with C-Stoff (see below).

A-Stoff: Liquid oxygen
B-Stoff: Hydrazine hydrate (92%) + water (8%)
C-Stoff: 50/50 mix of hydrazine hydrate + methanol
F-Stoff: Titanium tetrachloride
N-Stoff: CIF3
SV-Stoff: Nitric acid + nitrogen dioxide (RFNA)

Rob

M. J. Powell

January 20th 04, 10:47 AM

In message >, Eugene
Griessel > writes
>"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
>...
>> In message >, robert
>> arndt > writes
>>
>> snip
>> >
>> >The Argus-Schmidt pulsejet was incapable of launching the V-1 by
>> >itself so a steam-driven piston got it moving off the launch ramp at
>> >an appreciable speed which gave enough forward energy to open the duct
>> >flaps and commence the pulse detonation cycle.
>> >The V-1 firing on the ramp does not mean it was operable. It was fired
>> >for exactly 7 seconds to warm it up to operating temperature.
>> >Afterwards, T-Stoff and Z-Stoff were remotely pumped into the steam
>> >generation vessel.
>>
>> Robert, are you quite sure about that T-Stoff and Z-Stoff? I thought
>> that was the deadly stuff they used in the 163. Potassium Permanganate
>> comes to mind for the V1.
>>
>> (But considering that I was wrong on the ski-sites, I may well be wrong
>> here)
>
>T-Stoff is an 80% concentration of hydrogen peroxide and Z-Stoff could
>well have been the name for Potassium Permanganate. Can't remember
>off-hand and will have to check.

I think your right about the Hydrogen Peroxide. I didn't know of the
alternate names for the fuels.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

M. J. Powell

January 20th 04, 10:48 AM

In message >, robert
arndt > writes
(Eugene Griessel) wrote in message
>...
>> "M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
>...
>> > In message >, robert
>> > arndt > writes
>> >
>> > snip
>> > >
>> > >The Argus-Schmidt pulsejet was incapable of launching the V-1 by
>> > >itself so a steam-driven piston got it moving off the launch ramp at
>> > >an appreciable speed which gave enough forward energy to open the duct
>> > >flaps and commence the pulse detonation cycle.
>> > >The V-1 firing on the ramp does not mean it was operable. It was fired
>> > >for exactly 7 seconds to warm it up to operating temperature.
>> > >Afterwards, T-Stoff and Z-Stoff were remotely pumped into the steam
>> > >generation vessel.
>> >
>> > Robert, are you quite sure about that T-Stoff and Z-Stoff? I thought
>> > that was the deadly stuff they used in the 163. Potassium Permanganate
>> > comes to mind for the V1.
>> >
>> > (But considering that I was wrong on the ski-sites, I may well be wrong
>> > here)
>>
>> T-Stoff is an 80% concentration of hydrogen peroxide and Z-Stoff could
>> well have been the name for Potassium Permanganate. Can't remember
>> off-hand and will have to check.
>
>T-Stoff was concentrated hydrogen peroxide while Z-Stoff was either:
>
>a)Z-Stoff C, calcium permanganate or
>b)Z-Stoff K, sodium permanganate
>
>The V-1 combo was T-Stoff with Z-Stoff K for steam generation. The
>Me-163 used T-Stoff with C-Stoff (see below).
>
>
>A-Stoff: Liquid oxygen
>B-Stoff: Hydrazine hydrate (92%) + water (8%)
>C-Stoff: 50/50 mix of hydrazine hydrate + methanol
>F-Stoff: Titanium tetrachloride
>N-Stoff: CIF3
>SV-Stoff: Nitric acid + nitrogen dioxide (RFNA)

Thanks again, Robert. Very useful.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

Merlin Dorfman

January 25th 04, 09:34 PM

Eunometic ) wrote:
: (Eugene Griessel) wrote in message >...
: > Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
: > > On 18 Jan 2004 21:48:27 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
: > >
: > > >Merlin Dorfman > wrote in message >...
: > > >> Eugene Griessel ) wrote:
: > > >>
: > > >> ...
: > > >>
: > > >> : Mmmmm - the steel piston which ran in the tube of the V1 launch ramp
: > > >> : and was powered by steam was quite a a long object. About 16 foot or
: > > >> : somewhere thereabouts. It would be interesting to see how this worked
: > > >> : in a curved steel tube.
: > > >>
: > > >> Is there a Web resource that explains how the V1 was boosted
: > > >> into the air? Was the pulse jet engine capable of being started on
: > > >> the ground or was it started after the missile had attained a
: > > >> certain air speed?
: > > >> Thanks.

Thanks for the many answers.

....
: compression detonation. Post war a US company called Hillier
: experimented with these and these are the basis of the pulse jets seen
: on "Junkyard Wars".

Could this be Hiller? IIRC Stanley Hiller built a small copter
with a pulse jet on the tip of each (of 2) rotor. The Hiller Museum
in San Carlos, Calif., has a picture of the Hiller Hornet at
<http://www.hiller.org/exhibits/copter-news-v3n8/images/hiller-hornet.jpg>,
saying it had ramjets, but I'm not sure this is correct, or another
copter may have had the ramjets.