A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

WeserFlug P.1003 Compared to V-22 Osprey



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 25th 03, 05:13 PM
robert arndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default WeserFlug P.1003 Compared to V-22 Osprey

http://www.luft46.com/misc/wes1003.html

Rob
Ads
  #2  
Old November 25th 03, 05:49 PM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.luft46.com/misc/wes1003.html

"Although this was a very novel idea for an aircraft at this time, the
concept never left the drawing board."

1/15 the loaded weight of the Osprey, some very optimistic numbers (400
MPH? Yeah, Right.), and no grasp of the difficulties in gearing and
power issues in a tilt-wing aircraft. The Nazis had a lot of Really
Cool Ideas that would have never worked (like the Sanger "America
Bomber," which would have melted quite nicely the first time they did a
reentry).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #3  
Old November 26th 03, 01:47 AM
The Enlightenment
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chad Irby wrote in message .. .
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.luft46.com/misc/wes1003.html

"Although this was a very novel idea for an aircraft at this time, the
concept never left the drawing board."

1/15 the loaded weight of the Osprey, some very optimistic numbers (400
MPH? Yeah, Right.), and no grasp of the difficulties in gearing and
power issues in a tilt-wing aircraft.


So you say they had "no grasp". They had built and put into naval
service in 1943 the Fletner Fl 282 Kolibri (hummingbird) intermeshing
rotor helicopter which was entirely succesfull despite the technology
of gearbox designe.
The only thing that prevented the production run of 70 extending to
1000 was allied bombing.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ettner/HE6.htm

They had flown and tested the Focke Achgelis Fa-223 Drache which has
the same configuration in vertical flight of the V22 and P.1003.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...a_223/DI52.htm



The Nazis had a lot of Really
Cool Ideas that would have never worked (like the Sanger "America
Bomber," which would have melted quite nicely the first time they did a
reentry).


How do you know? The aircraft never re-entered at full orbital
velocity, it skipped at sub orbital velocities to reach the required
range, take opportunity of cooling effects and a lower speed of
re-entry.

The wedge shapped wing profile shows a keen understanding of
supersonic aerodynamics.

The Germans had solved the hypersonic and heat shielding re-entry
problems of the V2.

They developed SR71 A12 like chine strakes becuase their theory and
supersonic wind tunnels allowed them to:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/a9a10.htm

Perhaps Eugene Sanger was a dreamer but he was heading in the correct
direction defining the problems that needed to be solved and then
solving them. He got pretty damed close and a testing program would
have refined the detail to a workable solution.

He for instance ground tested his regeneratively cooled LOX/Kerosene
engine at an Isp of 306 seconds. That's an entirely modern
performance.
http://www.luft46.com/misc/sanger.html

A lot of the work supersonic and hypersonic that the Germans did in
the Nazi era at Penemunde fed straight into the US. Walter Dornberger
(Head of the V2 program) ended up working for Bell.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm

http://www.luft46.com/misc/sanger.html
After the war, he was asked to work (along with mathematician Irene
Bredt) for the French Air Ministry, where in a bizarre plot, he was
almost kidnapped by Stalin, who recognized the value of the Amerika
Bomber.

The US could do with a few more Nazi Era engineers. Apart from Bono
and Hudson things have been **** with the US space program since they
retired.
  #4  
Old November 26th 03, 07:03 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(The Enlightenment) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.luft46.com/misc/wes1003.html

"Although this was a very novel idea for an aircraft at this time, the
concept never left the drawing board."

1/15 the loaded weight of the Osprey, some very optimistic numbers (400
MPH? Yeah, Right.), and no grasp of the difficulties in gearing and
power issues in a tilt-wing aircraft.


So you say they had "no grasp". They had built and put into naval
service in 1943 the Fletner Fl 282 Kolibri (hummingbird) intermeshing
rotor helicopter which was entirely succesfull despite the technology
of gearbox designe.


So you're comparing a small helicopter with two fixed rotors and a
simple fixed gearbox with a full-up tiltwing aircraft?

The only thing that prevented the production run of 70 extending to
1000 was allied bombing.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ettner/HE6.htm


Still, comparing a simple little helo to a tiltrotor.

That's funny.

They had flown and tested the Focke Achgelis Fa-223 Drache which has
the same configuration in vertical flight of the V22 and P.1003.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...a_223/DI52.htm


You might note that the FA-223 was a twin-rotor *helicopter*, not a
tiltrotor. Besides having the rotors out on booms at the sides, it was
not really very complicated (and slow, due to the massively increased
drag of those two side booms).

Once again, nothing like a tiltrotor, and nothing in these designs would
have prepared them for the problems inherent in tiltrotor flight. And
it *sure* wouldn't have let them build a 400 MPH tiltrotor right off the
bat.

The Nazis had a lot of Really Cool Ideas that would have never
worked (like the Sanger "America Bomber," which would have melted
quite nicely the first time they did a reentry).


How do you know? The aircraft never re-entered at full orbital
velocity, it skipped at sub orbital velocities to reach the required
range, take opportunity of cooling effects and a lower speed of
re-entry.


Actually, skip-reentry relies on a somewhat higher initial reentry
speed, as compared to the "plunge" method, and while max temps can be
higher, the plunge method has some advantages. Note also that the
"skip" method relies heavily on radiative heat emission, and that's not
very effective for dumping large amounts of heat in a short period of
time. You still need some very high-temp metals (Inconel or titanium,
to start), instead of the normal stainless steel Sanger proposed.

Even the X-15, which wasn't anywhere near as ambitious as the
Silverbird, had to have sprayed-on ablative coatings to hit high Mach.
The only reason the Dynasoar project went as far as it did was because
of the development work on the X-15.

Sanger never actually worked on the thermodynamic aspect of the
Silverbird, and that would have been a potential showstopper for the
program, even if he'd had more time to work on it. The plane was a
concept/mockup only, and very little actual engineering work had been
done when the war came to an end.

The wedge shapped wing profile shows a keen understanding of
supersonic aerodynamics.


No, it just showed a basic understanding of high-speed flight. Small
wings = high wing loading = higher speeds and lower maneuverability.
Landing speeds would have been high, even when empty.

The Germans had solved the hypersonic and heat shielding re-entry
problems of the V2.


....by not flying it at high hypersonic speeds for very long. The V-2
topped out at about 3500 MPH on reentry, and only managed that for a
very short time, in uncontrolled ballistic flight.

Nothing like the 13,000 MPH the Sanger was supposed to hit.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #5  
Old November 27th 03, 02:26 AM
The Enlightenment
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
(The Enlightenment) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

http://www.luft46.com/misc/wes1003.html

"Although this was a very novel idea for an aircraft at this

time, the
concept never left the drawing board."

1/15 the loaded weight of the Osprey, some very optimistic

numbers (400
MPH? Yeah, Right.), and no grasp of the difficulties in gearing

and
power issues in a tilt-wing aircraft.


So you say they had "no grasp". They had built and put into naval
service in 1943 the Fletner Fl 282 Kolibri (hummingbird)

intermeshing
rotor helicopter which was entirely succesfull despite the

technology
of gearbox designe.


So you're comparing a small helicopter with two fixed rotors and a
simple fixed gearbox with a full-up tiltwing aircraft?


In hovering fligh it has the same control configuration as a tilt
rotor in hovering flight.


The only thing that prevented the production run of 70 extending

to
1000 was allied bombing.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ettner/HE6.htm


Still, comparing a simple little helo to a tiltrotor.

That's funny.



Not at all. The controlability issues of hovering flight had been
solved.

What remains is lighter transmissions and powerplants and the problem
of transition from hovering to horizontal flight.



They had flown and tested the Focke Achgelis Fa-223 Drache which

has
the same configuration in vertical flight of the V22 and P.1003.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...a_223/DI52.htm


You might note that the FA-223 was a twin-rotor *helicopter*, not a
tiltrotor. Besides having the rotors out on booms at the sides, it

was
not really very complicated (and slow, due to the massively

increased
drag of those two side booms).


Now encase the booms inside wings that can tilt.


Once again, nothing like a tiltrotor, and nothing in these designs

would
have prepared them for the problems inherent in tiltrotor flight.

And
it *sure* wouldn't have let them build a 400 MPH tiltrotor right off

the
bat.


The small wings of tilt totors reduces drag considerably and helps
speed. Not having the propeller wash flowing over the fueselage also
helps. Lets assume they were wrong. Would you accept 330mph?
300mph?

Just an aside. When the XV-15 prototype for the XV-22 osprey was
built is was powered by the Allison T-53 (same as the huey). That
engine was designed by Franz Anselm, the same guy that designed the
jumo 004B for the Me 262 of WW2.

Anselm also designed the engine for the M1 Abrams tank.



The Nazis had a lot of Really Cool Ideas that would have never
worked (like the Sanger "America Bomber," which would have

melted
quite nicely the first time they did a reentry).


How do you know? The aircraft never re-entered at full orbital
velocity, it skipped at sub orbital velocities to reach the

required
range, take opportunity of cooling effects and a lower speed of
re-entry.


Actually, skip-reentry relies on a somewhat higher initial reentry
speed, as compared to the "plunge" method, and while max temps can

be
higher, the plunge method has some advantages. Note also that the
"skip" method relies heavily on radiative heat emission, and that's

not
very effective for dumping large amounts of heat in a short period

of
time.


Indeed but thats not a problem for winged re-entry vehicles that
unlike blunt bodies can fly and control their rate of entry hopefully
limiting the rate of hest buildup to that which can be radiated.


You still need some very high-temp metals (Inconel or titanium,
to start), instead of the normal stainless steel Sanger proposed.



Sangers aircraft the 'silver bird' was made of the high chrome steel
(stainless basically as used in the XB70 ) and I expect similar to
what was used in Boiler Tubes at the time. That can opperate at 600C
without loosing strength and beyond at reduced strength. Stainless
is more heat resistant than titanium and but less than inconel.


Even the X-15, which wasn't anywhere near as ambitious as the
Silverbird, had to have sprayed-on ablative coatings to hit high

Mach.
The only reason the Dynasoar project went as far as it did was

because
of the development work on the X-15.

Sanger never actually worked on the thermodynamic aspect of the
Silverbird, and that would have been a potential showstopper for the
program, even if he'd had more time to work on it. The plane was a
concept/mockup only, and very little actual engineering work had

been
done when the war came to an end.


Sure, sanger didn't know that blunt bodies provide some thermal
protection.

Here is the Sanger Thermal protection system.

The Sanger silver bird is stainless steel. Pilot and critical
components such as tires, control and crew cabin are insulted from the
over 600C heat of re-entry for as long as necesaary.

This is how I think it would have been tested:
1 The vehicle is run down its sled at mach 0.5, then mach 0.9 and
finaly mach 1.05 and mach 1.3.

2 Seperation tests from the sled are then performed with the vehicle
landing without powering up.

3 The vehicle is then powered up and aerodynamic and thermal
protection data is accumulated at progesssively higher speeds.

3 Sanger can land like a plane and it can carry a standard german test
pilot heinkel ejection seat for test pilot safety. This speeds up
testing becuase the vehicle is recoverable.

4 At some point they probably find hot spots than need better thermal
protection.

5 At that point they either have a technical fix (grapahite, high
nickel steels) or cooling systems (water or helium refrigerator like
the dyna soar)

The wedge shapped wing profile shows a keen understanding of
supersonic aerodynamics.


No, it just showed a basic understanding of high-speed flight.

Small
wings = high wing loading = higher speeds and lower maneuverability.
Landing speeds would have been high, even when empty.


It had a flat body to help both hypersonic re entry and landing and
braking parachutes.

If you look at the wings they are like triangular wedges like a
Sparrow missile.



The Germans had solved the hypersonic and heat shielding re-entry
problems of the V2


...by not flying it at high hypersonic speeds for very long. The

V-2
topped out at about 3500 MPH on reentry, and only managed that for a
very short time, in uncontrolled ballistic flight.


They had a heat shield. Graphite and plywood that turned to graphite.
No doubt other materials were in development. Eg dibule walled skins,
ablatives etc.
They had a problem defined and thus they could set about solving it.



Nothing like the 13,000 MPH the Sanger was supposed to hit.


Maybe Sanger would only have handeled a lower speed. say Mach 6 or
mach 10 instead of Mach 20. Sanger MkII on the otherhand?







  #7  
Old November 27th 03, 03:27 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"The Enlightenment" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...


Still, comparing a simple little helo to a tiltrotor.

That's funny.



Not at all. The controlability issues of hovering flight had been
solved.

What remains is lighter transmissions and powerplants and the problem
of transition from hovering to horizontal flight.


....and the technical problems inherent in that took over twenty years,
just to get a decent handle on it, and a half-century to start getting
to the point it's useful.

Any idiot could draw a plane that had a tilt-rotor configuration.
Making one work is a whole different thing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #8  
Old November 27th 03, 03:30 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"The Enlightenment" wrote:

The small wings of tilt totors reduces drag considerably and helps
speed. Not having the propeller wash flowing over the fueselage also
helps. Lets assume they were wrong. Would you accept 330mph?
300mph?


Try 150, *maybe*, once they got the massive problems involved with
workable tiltrotor configurations out of the way. It's a huge amount of
handwaving, though.

"If magical faries came to Earth and gave them a workable
transmission/power plant setup, and resolved the control problems, then
they might have made the design work..."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #9  
Old November 27th 03, 04:03 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"The Enlightenment" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Actually, skip-reentry relies on a somewhat higher initial reentry
speed, as compared to the "plunge" method, and while max temps can
be higher, the plunge method has some advantages. Note also that
the "skip" method relies heavily on radiative heat emission, and
that's not very effective for dumping large amounts of heat in a
short period of time.


Indeed but thats not a problem for winged re-entry vehicles that
unlike blunt bodies can fly and control their rate of entry hopefully
limiting the rate of hest buildup to that which can be radiated.


Nope. Velocity is velocity, and coming in out of vacuum means those
steel wings are just little flanges out in the Mach-20 airflow waiting
to be melted - or broken off altogether.

You still need some very high-temp metals (Inconel or titanium,
to start), instead of the normal stainless steel Sanger proposed.


Sangers aircraft the 'silver bird' was made of the high chrome steel
(stainless basically as used in the XB70 ) and I expect similar to
what was used in Boiler Tubes at the time. That can opperate at 600C
without loosing strength and beyond at reduced strength. Stainless
is more heat resistant than titanium and but less than inconel.


So the Silverbird could have managed about Mach 3 for a short period of
time, about 1/5 of the *necessary* speed for suborbital missions like
the one it was designed for... and then would have had to be scrapped
due to overheating of the structure.

Sanger never actually worked on the thermodynamic aspect of the
Silverbird, and that would have been a potential showstopper for
the program, even if he'd had more time to work on it. The plane
was a concept/mockup only, and very little actual engineering work
had been done when the war came to an end.


Sure, sanger didn't know that blunt bodies provide some thermal
protection.

Here is the Sanger Thermal protection system.

The Sanger silver bird is stainless steel. Pilot and critical
components such as tires, control and crew cabin are insulted from the
over 600C heat of re-entry for as long as necesaary.


Insulation of the insides isn't the problem. It's the skin melting off
in a very short period that's the issue, combined with the lack of time
to re-radiate the heat before hitting the atmosphere again. When a
spacecraft hits the atmosphere at Mach 20, the temps reach 9500 degrees.

At a "mere" Mach 6, the X-15 skin reached 650 to 700 degrees C, in a
minute and a half of powered flight. This would have happened to the
Sanger several times per mission, with a skin that didn't have the heat
resistance of the X-15's.

This is how I think it would have been tested:


(Magical handwaving imaginary ten year test program deleted)

....you also left out the two or three Silverbirds that would have been
lost due to the control problems inherent in supersonic flight. And
then the one or two they would have lost due to the skin peeling off.
And then one or two due to not knowing about how to support a man in
space...

...if the program had ever gotten that far.

The wedge shapped wing profile shows a keen understanding of
supersonic aerodynamics.


No, it just showed a basic understanding of high-speed flight.
Small wings = high wing loading = higher speeds and lower
maneuverability. Landing speeds would have been high, even when
empty.


It had a flat body to help both hypersonic re entry and landing and
braking parachutes.


....and would have come in at 200 MPH or so, like the Shuttle. So add
"develop high speed high load tires" to your development program. And
"redesign aircraft to really handle hypersonic flight."

If you look at the wings they are like triangular wedges like a
Sparrow missile.


Um, no. They're closer to the F-104 in shape and cross-section in every
image I've seen of the Silverbird. Much like the X-15 wings, as a
matter of fact.

The Germans had solved the hypersonic and heat shielding re-entry
problems of the V2


...by not flying it at high hypersonic speeds for very long. The
V-2 topped out at about 3500 MPH on reentry, and only managed that
for a very short time, in uncontrolled ballistic flight.


They had a heat shield. Graphite and plywood that turned to graphite.


....for the minute or two it took to reenter and impact.

No doubt other materials were in development. Eg dibule walled skins,
ablatives etc.


Replace "were" with would have to be once they started actually thinking
about it."

They had a problem defined and thus they could set about solving it.


....in several years. Which they didn't have, and had *not* anticipated
in the original idea.

Nothing like the 13,000 MPH the Sanger was supposed to hit.


Maybe Sanger would only have handeled a lower speed. say Mach 6 or
mach 10 instead of Mach 20.


....and been unable to complete its mission, which relied on long periods
of coasting in between moderate periods of slamming into the atmosphere
at 8,000 to 12,000 MPH and melting that stainless steel skin right off.

Then having to be redesigned for massive amounts of fuel to make up for
not being able to handle the original mission profile.

And a ten-year nuclear program to make a nuke small enough to carry in
the darned thing...

Sanger MkII on the otherhand?


Sure, and when they got the Ark of the Convenant out of that secret
American storage facility, they would have been unbeatable.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #10  
Old November 27th 03, 06:27 AM
John Keeney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"The Enlightenment" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
So you're comparing a small helicopter with two fixed rotors and a
simple fixed gearbox with a full-up tiltwing aircraft?


In hovering fligh it has the same control configuration as a tilt
rotor in hovering flight.


Which does not make it the same as a tilt rotor.

Still, comparing a simple little helo to a tiltrotor.

That's funny.


Not at all. The controlability issues of hovering flight had been
solved.

What remains is lighter transmissions and powerplants and the problem
of transition from hovering to horizontal flight.


You seem to be making light of that "transition from hovering to
horizontal flight", it's a bear.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Squadron formed to test Osprey for combat readiness Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 August 30th 03 07:33 PM
Osprey vs. Harrier Stephen D. Poe Military Aviation 58 August 18th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.