Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Those documents explain the changes to the Junkers engines, that were fitted to the Go 229.
For short: because of the very unfavorable conditions for the installation of the engines, they had
to be considerably modified, obviously causing severe headaches for Junkers engineers.
For example: Oil- and fuel reservoirs had to be "dented" (and it sounds, as this this was meant
more or less literally, by the carefull use of a hammer !), because of passing control rods.
An electric distributor had to be omitted, because of lack of space (so the related cables probably
connected directly), a bulkhead had to be slimmed down, pipes bent....
The installation of the engine seem to have been tricky, too, there are lots of clues like "use a wire
cable for provisionally mounting the engine, cant it 30 to the left for easier insertion and then cant
to the final position of 15".
The Go 229 of course was a prototype only, but this actually are handicraft instructions, showing that
at this point the construction was sloppy ! Would be very interesting to compare them against similar
instructions for an allied aircraft.
 

It certainly would. However, the reason I stuck this in 'designations' is because I've encountered something odd about that type's official designation. The RLM would give out a number - for example 8-190 - and the '8-' (signifying 'aircraft', as I understand it) would more or less immediately be replaced with, in this case, 'Fw' in company reports. Certainly some documents, and particularly tech drawings, would still use '8-190' but most reports etc. would use 'Fw 190'.
It's different with the 8-229. The earliest report I have on it from Gotha, dated September 7, 1944, explicitly uses 'Ho 229', as do reports on Sept 23 and Oct 2. Then a report on Oct 11 uses 'Ho IX', which is odd. Then from Oct 31 onwards Gotha refers only to the 8-229 without the 'Ho'. Even Reimar Horten, who you would think would always use 'Ho' if he could, uses '8-229' in a report on March 1, 1945. Have a look at the list below. Each date is a report I have on the design in question with the designation used in the report cited beside it. It seems to be commonly believed that it was never called the 'Go 229' but the document I posted above suggests otherwise. There also seems to be some sketchy evidence that the 8-229 was actually changed to 8-267 very late on.

7.9.44 Ho 229 - Gotha report
23.9.44 Ho 229 - Gotha report
2.10.44 Ho 229 - Gotha report
11.10.44 Ho IX - Gotha report
31.10.44 8-229 - Gotha report
20.11.44 8-229 - Gotha report
22.11.44 No designation given at all - Gotha report (and this is a full 'proposal' document from Gotha with description, drawings etc.)
22.11.44 8-229 - Gotha report
24.11.44 8-229 - Gotha report
12.12.44 8-229 - Gotha report
17.12.44 8-229 - Gotha report
28.2.45 8-229 - Gotha report
1.3.45 8-229 - report actually written and signed by Reimar Horten which uses '8-229' and also H IX b)
2.3.45 8-229 - Gotha report
7.3.45 Go 229 - Junkers report, but also making reference to the Hortens by citing it as 'Go 229 (Horten)'
2
Aerospace / Re: Dassault, 100 years of french aviation history
« Last post by Jemiba on Yesterday at 10:56:51 pm »
A silly question: Are those early post was scenes colorized (and maybe faded in the meantime), or were
they actually taken on colour film ? IIRC, Technicolor was rarely used even during the war.
3
Designation Systems / Re: Gothaer Waggonfabrik (Gotha, GWF) Designations
« Last post by Jemiba on Yesterday at 10:42:59 pm »
Those documents explain the changes to the Junkers engines, that were fitted to the Go 229.
For short: because of the very unfavorable conditions for the installation of the engines, they had
to be considerably modified, obviously causing severe headaches for Junkers engineers.
For example: Oil- and fuel reservoirs had to be "dented" (and it sounds, as this this was meant
more or less literally, by the carefull use of a hammer !), because of passing control rods.
An electric distributor had to be omitted, because of lack of space (so the related cables probably
connected directly), a bulkhead had to be slimmed down, pipes bent....
The installation of the engine seem to have been tricky, too, there are lots of clues like "use a wire
cable for provisionally mounting the engine, cant it 30 to the left for easier insertion and then cant
to the final position of 15".
The Go 229 of course was a prototype only, but this actually are handicraft instructions, showing that
at this point the construction was sloppy ! Would be very interesting to compare them against similar
instructions for an allied aircraft.
 
4
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: A drawing wanted to Lockheed CL-303
« Last post by taildragger on Yesterday at 10:37:18 pm »
History might have worked out differently if Lockheed had built the Electra with a high wing.  With the landing gear isolated from the wing and nacelle structure, it probably wouldn't have been vulnerable to the hard-landing induced structural damage that killed the Electra's commercial prospects.
5
The Bar / Re: Oats Studio
« Last post by Orionblamblam on Yesterday at 10:10:13 pm »
I normally like me some weird, but this is kinda incomprehensible.

Plus: again with the firearms with muzzle velocities measurable as fractions of c.  ::)
6
OATK's 30mm airburst rounds in action.

A different video with more details.

Thought that was R. Lee Ermey
7
Naval Projects / Re: Aerojet SES-100A
« Last post by jcf on Yesterday at 07:22:34 pm »
Not the SES-100A, rather the SES-100B launching an SM-1 missile on 8 April, 1976 while underway at 60.8 kts.

From Jane's Surface Skimmers 1976-77
8
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Ilyushin Unbuilt Projects
« Last post by blackkite on Yesterday at 07:02:44 pm »
Hi! IL-54 No.1 prototype and No.2 prototype.(Almost same scale)
Perhaps No.2 prototype wing span is smaller than No.1 prototype wing span.

http://www.airwar.ru/other/shawrov/htmls/glava03.html

I believe that there is a rare IL-54 second prototype flying picture in Jane's all the world's aircraft in 1956-1957 or 1958-1959.
Someone has this volume? Perhaps copyright is over. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10