If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
V-4 Missile Possibilities
After reviewing the information provided on Unicraft's V-4 page, I
took a look at the dimensions of the missile and the ramjet engine, which is definately not an Argus or Lorin type. The Pabst ramjet, however, matches exactly in dimension and configuration. It had been successfully tested as evidenced by this 1944 photo: http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/5treib.jpg The question is if the ramjet was good enough to be mounted on the missile and production of a number of missiles could have occured in the early months of 1945. The Pabst ramjet was to be used on the Fw Triebflugel but that aircraft was never built, neither was the radical Epps Omega Diskus which would have also used the ramjet. However, the story of the threat to use this weapon against Sweden is known. Ian Hogg mentions the V-4 briefly in his "German Secret Weapons of the Second World War"... but gives no clear description of the missile except to say it was generally thought to refer to the Peenemunde A-9/A-10 ICBM project. Anyway, a Swedish diplomat claimed to know all about the V-4 project in 1945 and when Hitler was informed, he laughed and called the diplomat a conman. Hogg uses this to discredit the entire project, implying it didn't exist if Hitler wasn't aware of it. But I disagree. Hitler is only claiming that the diplomat didn't know what he was talking about when he claimed to know "all about the V-4". Missile launch ramps constructed in Poland and the German diplomatic warning to Stockholm over the V-4 threat contradict Hogg's beliefs. Anyway, the Russians who captured the launch areas moved all the German missile testing to N-II-88, Kaliningrad (former Konigsberg). There, they tested the Wasserfall, Schmetterling, and other captured missile technology. It is interesting that a few years later Russia was building missiles originating from these German designs and guidance systems, although improved by captured German scientists. It is claimed that the V-4 missile was actually turned into a SAM- the Lavochkin La-219 (V-300). Here is a pic of that 1949 missile: http://libraryautomation.com/nymas/Lavochkinmissle.jpg Of similar dimensions, minus ramjet propulsion. No conclusions there. The only thing I can think of is that many of the postwar "Ghost Rocket" sightings in the Baltic (coming from Peenemunde) might have been either extended range V-1s or maybe appearances of the mysterious V-4. Rob |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
B2431 wrote: From: (robert arndt) After reviewing the information provided on Unicraft's V-4 page, I took a look at the dimensions of the missile and the ramjet engine, which is definately not an Argus or Lorin type. The Pabst ramjet, however, matches exactly in dimension and configuration. It had been successfully tested as evidenced by this 1944 photo: http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/5treib.jpg That photograph only proves a piece of apparatus that may or may not be a ram jet test stand was built at some time and was photographed using poor quality equipment. It doesn't seem to be a running engine of any kind. If memory serves a ram jet needs at least 200 knots intake velocity. The "ram jet" in that picture doesn't seem to be moving at all let alone at that velocity. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired The thingy is in a windtunnel. I didn't think the "V-4" ramjet looked all that much like a Pabst ramjet though. Still think it might have been a Rheinbote like missile with a ramjet sustainer, which could have been done with a minimum of effort. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
steve gallacci wrote in message ...
B2431 wrote: From: (robert arndt) After reviewing the information provided on Unicraft's V-4 page, I took a look at the dimensions of the missile and the ramjet engine, which is definately not an Argus or Lorin type. The Pabst ramjet, however, matches exactly in dimension and configuration. It had been successfully tested as evidenced by this 1944 photo: http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/5treib.jpg That photograph only proves a piece of apparatus that may or may not be a ram jet test stand was built at some time and was photographed using poor quality equipment. It doesn't seem to be a running engine of any kind. If memory serves a ram jet needs at least 200 knots intake velocity. The "ram jet" in that picture doesn't seem to be moving at all let alone at that velocity. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired The thingy is in a windtunnel. First of all, it's not a "thingy". It is positively a Pabst ramjet as evidenced by its connection to one of the Fw Triebflugel's wings seen in the photo. And it is being windtunnel tested. I didn't think the "V-4" ramjet looked all that much like a Pabst ramjet though. Really? OK, here's a comparison of all the late-war ramjets available to the Germans: Lorin: http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/His...o17/Do-217.jpg Argus 044: http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Lis...3/As-044_1.jpg Pabst ramjet sketch: http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/3trieb.jpg Pabst ramjet for Fw Ta 283: http;//www.luft46.com/fw/fwta283.html Still think it might have been a Rheinbote like missile with a ramjet sustainer, which could have been done with a minimum of effort. On the Unicraft page the first depiction shows the V-4 missile with a RATO unit slung underneath for catapult launch. Rhinebote was powered by a rocket engine and launched off a SSM erector. The V-4 was launched like the V-1: V-1 catapult piston unit: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org...es/lrg1260.jpg V-1 launched off ramp, dropping piston unit: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org...es/lrg1271.jpg Compared to: Rheinbote on erector: http://www.worldwar.nl/secretweapons/rheinb_02.jpg They are nothing alike. Rheinbote was a short range artillery missile with a mere 40 kg warhead. The V-4, OTOH, was a long range flying bomb designed to hit targets in Sweden from Misdroy (incidentally, where a V-3 gun also was used to hit Luxembourg). The two other depictions of the V-4 on the Unicraft page suggest postwar research done by the Russians at N-II-88. The V-4 on top of the V-2 looks remarkably similar to the Russian EKR concept, but in that case the V-4 was replaced with a Sanger-looking missile. Rob |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On 6 Jan 2004 10:08:29 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
steve gallacci wrote in message ... B2431 wrote: From: (robert arndt) After reviewing the information provided on Unicraft's V-4 page, I took a look at the dimensions of the missile and the ramjet engine, which is definately not an Argus or Lorin type. The Pabst ramjet, however, matches exactly in dimension and configuration. It had been successfully tested as evidenced by this 1944 photo: http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/5treib.jpg That photograph only proves a piece of apparatus that may or may not be a ram jet test stand was built at some time and was photographed using poor quality equipment. It doesn't seem to be a running engine of any kind. If memory serves a ram jet needs at least 200 knots intake velocity. The "ram jet" in that picture doesn't seem to be moving at all let alone at that velocity. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired The thingy is in a windtunnel. First of all, it's not a "thingy". It is positively a Pabst ramjet as evidenced by its connection to one of the Fw Triebflugel's wings seen in the photo. And it is being windtunnel tested. I didn't think the "V-4" ramjet looked all that much like a Pabst ramjet though. Really? OK, here's a comparison of all the late-war ramjets available to the Germans: Lorin: http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/His...o17/Do-217.jpg Argus 044: http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Lis...3/As-044_1.jpg Pabst ramjet sketch: http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/3trieb.jpg Pabst ramjet for Fw Ta 283: http;//www.luft46.com/fw/fwta283.html Still think it might have been a Rheinbote like missile with a ramjet sustainer, which could have been done with a minimum of effort. On the Unicraft page the first depiction shows the V-4 missile with a RATO unit slung underneath for catapult launch. Rhinebote was powered by a rocket engine and launched off a SSM erector. The V-4 was launched like the V-1: V-1 catapult piston unit: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org...es/lrg1260.jpg V-1 launched off ramp, dropping piston unit: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org...es/lrg1271.jpg Compared to: Rheinbote on erector: http://www.worldwar.nl/secretweapons/rheinb_02.jpg They are nothing alike. Rheinbote was a short range artillery missile with a mere 40 kg warhead. The V-4, OTOH, was a long range flying bomb designed to hit targets in Sweden from Misdroy (incidentally, where a V-3 gun also was used to hit Luxembourg). The two other depictions of the V-4 on the Unicraft page suggest postwar research done by the Russians at N-II-88. The V-4 on top of the V-2 looks remarkably similar to the Russian EKR concept, but in that case the V-4 was replaced with a Sanger-looking missile. Rob Reality check time Rob, the Nazis lost, Hitler is dead, and the "V-4" never flew. I know that all of these facts just break your little Nazi loving heart, but they are facts. Al Minyard |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
First of all, it's not a "thingy". It is positively a Pabst ramjet as evidenced by its connection to one of the Fw Triebflugel's wings seen in the photo. And it is being windtunnel tested. That, except for the Triebflg. wing (more likely a simple streamlined strut)was what I was suggesting. The guy was being a dunderhead. Of course it wasn't moving, it was a test article in a wind tunnel! Jeez. I didn't think the "V-4" ramjet looked all that much like a Pabst ramjet though. Really? OK, here's a comparison of all the late-war ramjets available to the Germans: The Pabst engines were usually proportionally shorter, but all in all, that isn't all that important. Still think it might have been a Rheinbote like missile with a ramjet sustainer, which could have been done with a minimum of effort. On the Unicraft page the first depiction shows the V-4 missile with a RATO unit slung underneath for catapult launch. Rhinebote was powered by a rocket engine and launched off a SSM erector. The V-4 was launched like the V-1: You're not thinking like an engineer. The Rheinbote was a dirt simple rocket stack, a tube with fuel and fins. To rethink the function with a ramjet instead of solids is almost a no-brainer. That makes the development of the "V-4" more credible, even if it wasn't done by the Rheinbote team, anyone with some ramjet R&D and even a hint of a notion of V-1 or Rheinbote ops could easily put it together. The two other depictions of the V-4 on the Unicraft page suggest postwar research done by the Russians at N-II-88. The V-4 on top of the V-2 looks remarkably similar to the Russian EKR concept, but in that case the V-4 was replaced with a Sanger-looking missile. I suspect the "V-4" on top of an A-4 was little more than wishful thinking at the time. For that matter, the "V-4" was likely little more than a vaporware threat rather than a credible piece of hardware. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Reality check time Rob, the Nazis lost, Hitler is dead, and the "V-4"
never flew. I know that all of these facts just break your little Nazi loving heart, but they are facts. Al Minyard Hey Al, take a trip to Misdroy... but don't trip on the remnants of the launch catapults for the V-4, which are not pointing West. I guess your logic suggests that the Germans were just firing missiles out into the Baltic for practice and that the diplomatic threat to Sweden in 1945 was just a ruse (ignoring the fact that Germany depended on Sweden's iron ore for vital war production). But that's you Al, in a nutshell... someone who prefers inaccurate history book "official histories" as opposed to the truth. Ignorance is bliss, so be happy Rob |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
B2431 wrote: From: steve gallacci Date: 1/6/2004 6:08 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: First of all, it's not a "thingy". It is positively a Pabst ramjet as evidenced by its connection to one of the Fw Triebflugel's wings seen in the photo. And it is being windtunnel tested. That, except for the Triebflg. wing (more likely a simple streamlined strut)was what I was suggesting. The guy was being a dunderhead. Of course it wasn't moving, it was a test article in a wind tunnel! Jeez. Teuton said it was a picture of a running ramjet. I simply said it wasn't running in that picture and that apparatus could just as easily not been what he said it was. It didn't prove his point. As the "dunderhead" in question I felt the need to spell it out for you. you're still acting dense. The photo was of a Pabst engine in a windtunnel opening, which would have precluded the need for it to be moving.(and as it spent a lot of time burning hydrogen, odds are that even wide open, you might not be able to tell in a poor B&W that it was working at all) That's what windtunnels are for. Moreover, there is plenty of independent documentation of the engine being built and tested. Just because you've got a hardon for this guy doesn't mean he's always wrong. He still is a crackpot, since he was seeing a Triebflugel wing instead of a test pylon. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
steve gallacci wrote in message ...
First of all, it's not a "thingy". It is positively a Pabst ramjet as evidenced by its connection to one of the Fw Triebflugel's wings seen in the photo. And it is being windtunnel tested. That, except for the Triebflg. wing (more likely a simple streamlined strut)was what I was suggesting. The guy was being a dunderhead. Of course it wasn't moving, it was a test article in a wind tunnel! Jeez. You're possibly correct on the wing except that other simlar test rigs don't match the Triebflugels wing. Anyway the pic is from a Triebflugel site. I didn't think the "V-4" ramjet looked all that much like a Pabst ramjet though. Really? OK, here's a comparison of all the late-war ramjets available to the Germans: The Pabst engines were usually proportionally shorter, but all in all, that isn't all that important. It is when compared to the two other available ramjet engines of which we both agree CANNOT be the one depicted above the V-4. The Germans didn't have any other types... Still think it might have been a Rheinbote like missile with a ramjet sustainer, which could have been done with a minimum of effort. On the Unicraft page the first depiction shows the V-4 missile with a RATO unit slung underneath for catapult launch. Rhinebote was powered by a rocket engine and launched off a SSM erector. The V-4 was launched like the V-1: You're not thinking like an engineer. The Rheinbote was a dirt simple rocket stack, a tube with fuel and fins. To rethink the function with a ramjet instead of solids is almost a no-brainer. That makes the development of the "V-4" more credible, even if it wasn't done by the Rheinbote team, anyone with some ramjet R&D and even a hint of a notion of V-1 or Rheinbote ops could easily put it together. Not possible at all at that time. The V-1 (aka Fi-103, FZG-76) took years to develop. Rheinbote was started in 1943. One is a short range artillery rocket, the other a long range flying bomb meant to hit Sweden. There's no comparison between the two other than you thinking it is a derivative of the Rheinbote due to (I assume) general appearance without the ramjet. BTW, an engineer cannot simply strap on an experimental ramjet onto a Rheinbote-like missile, add wings, and hope it makes it to Sweden. On Misdroy they had catapults aimed towards Sweden, not the West. The ramps were for the V-4. Misdroy was also the testing ground for the long-range V-3 weapon which fired shells at Luxembourg. The Rheinbote, OTOH, was made by Rheinmetall-Borsig and used to shell Antwerp in Nov '44- 220 being fired. Its maximum range was 135 miles. No Rheinbote was on Misdroy. Misdroy was the testing ground for long-range missiles and shells. The two other depictions of the V-4 on the Unicraft page suggest postwar research done by the Russians at N-II-88. The V-4 on top of the V-2 looks remarkably similar to the Russian EKR concept, but in that case the V-4 was replaced with a Sanger-looking missile. I suspect the "V-4" on top of an A-4 was little more than wishful thinking at the time. For that matter, the "V-4" was likely little more than a vaporware threat rather than a credible piece of hardware. It wouldn't make any sense to threaten a neutral nation like Sweden with a non-existant weapon in 1945 with the Allies closing in on Germany. If you remember postwar it was Sweden that complained about the "Ghost Rockets" coming from the same region. Most "Ghost Rockets" were described as long cigar-shaped burning objects. These were suspected of being Russian modified extended-body V-1s but looking at the V-4... it looks like a strong possibility, especially if a Swede saw it from below, the ramjet unseen burning above the body. Rob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia to participate in US missile defence program | David Bromage | Military Aviation | 40 | December 13th 03 01:52 PM |
AIM-54 Phoenix missile | Sujay Vijayendra | Military Aviation | 89 | November 3rd 03 09:47 PM |
Poland: French Missile Report Was Wrong | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 8 | October 7th 03 10:54 PM |
Surface to Air Missile threat | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 14th 03 02:13 PM |
Rafael's AIM-AIR IR Missile Countermeasure | JT | Military Aviation | 8 | July 13th 03 03:41 AM |