Register here

Author Topic: Heinkel T  (Read 17211 times)

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22570
Re: Heinkel T
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2012, 01:45:32 pm »
Regarding the shape of the fuselage it is almost certainly not
a Stipa 'barrel' propulsion system.
Very few is published about Stipa and all the designs I saw
(not so much) were of multi duct configuration.
Model "203" 2 ducts
Model "S403" 4 ducts
Model "404" 4 ducts

AFN-Mureaux/Stipa 203 - 2 ducts
SAI S404 - 2 ducts

The ducted prop.propulsion system patented by Luigi Stipa
was maybe not so suitable for high speed aircraft...,6254.msg51668.html#msg51668

Offline Tophe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
    • Forked Ghosts
Re: Heinkel T
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2012, 08:19:41 pm »
Look there :
It is written there: "war broke out in 1939 the SS would come searching for him and his ideas based on his patents for an “air turbine” (...) In 1940, Schauberger began construction of the Repulsin(e) discoid motor in Vienna with help of the Kertl company. He patented his idea on March 4, 1940 in Austria under patent 146,141. (...) At this point Heinkel received reports on the early Repulsin A."
(with just after: the 3-view of the Heinkel T.
I have checked EspaceNet and have not found AT146,141 of Viktor Schauberger. But Patent AT145,141 (mistyping error above?) of 1935/36 (not 1940) was indeed from Viktor Schauberger and for an air turbine. Could that be the one in the mysterious Heinkel?

Offline peace

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 4
Re: Heinkel T
« Reply #17 on: March 07, 2012, 02:04:48 am »

lol, forget that site...Almost everything that's on this site is mainly fiction!

Could that be the one in the mysterious Heinkel?
The corresponding patent has never been granted, as also  other such patents during the war.

But to be honest, the letters I mentioned are really letters from/to Schauberger. But just to make things clear, his work has been completely hijacked by the esoterics or ufologists etc. although it doesn't seem like anyone of them ever read his corresponding patents or his many letters. Just FIY what's written on the Internet about Schauberger is surely more than 95% pure nonsense and does simply not correspond to the true history.
Any story about anti-gravity propulsion etc. is pure nonsense. Sure Schauberger's strange vocabulary (as not studied scientist) was not helpful in this relation, as people could interpret it as they wanted.

The story goes like this, as narrated by Schauberger and from his letter-correspondence:
At some point in time Schauberger met Heinkel. He mentioned his special "Turbine" for propulsion which shall have an extraordinary performance. Heinkel was interested and Schauberger explained the engine to him, drew sketches etc. He then said to Heinkel, that if he's interested in building a prototype, then he shall contact him for making an arrangement. But he didn't hear anything from him anymore, so he thought that Heinkel wasn't interested.
Much later Schauberger heard through the SS, that Heinkel actually built a prototype which flew over 1000km/h, but which had frequent completely unpredictable engine stalls, and that their technicians are out of ideas of how to fix this. When they explained to him, how Heinkel made the Piston-Engine/Turbine aggregate, he said, that he knew immediately what Heinkel was doing wrong, and that in this arrangement an engine stall would be logic.
Not much later Heinkel sent a guy to Schauberger with the following offer: Schauberger would get 6% of the profit for selling the machines, if he would join the project and get the thing to work.
Schauberger declined, calling Heinkel a cowardly fraudster, not even coming to him personally.
He also got to know through the SS, that Heinkel had contact with the patent-office, and told them that they shall not give Schauberger the patent, otherwise he would get problems.
This is then also, what the patent-office told Schauberger: Namely that he can have the patent if he takes out, that this engine is for driving airplaines. But Schauberger didn't wanted to get this foul deal, so he declined. So the patent in the end was never granted.
Later he then worked directly for the SS at Mauthausen. But there he wasn't interested at all in producing any workable result, as the leader of the concentration camp told him upon arrival, in a very drunk mood, that he had the order to execute everybody working on this project, if it proves to be successful.
But the SS never really believed strongly in it, as he had terrible problems getting the needed resources. So nothing like, the Nazis were all into these special "occult" projects. I think they rather thought: It cannot hurt. Maybe this crackpot is right, so let's let him work on it in a concentration camp (doesn't cost anyways anything). But when it was about putting some rare resources (metals) into the project. they were rather hesitant, probably thinking that these resources are better used in "real" projects. That's at least the impression I got.
If the engine really would have worked or not? I don't know. Guess we will never know.
I always wondered, what prototype Heinkel may have used. I always thought, perhaps a modified He 178. Then I stumbled upon this Heinkel "T" pic and remembered the sketch drawn from Schauberger, how a plane with this engine would look like:

And there are certainly similarities.
According to the letters, the SS told, that Heinkel let the exhaust of the piston engine out at the back. According to Schauberger this was a huge mistake, as these exhaust gases would have been needed in the front Turbine.
If this Heinkel "T" is really this prototype plane? I don't know.
But what really would interest me, as an open question for all the people more familiar with the procedures during WWII: Was it common practice to tow prototype planes into the air with a second plane for testing, or would that indicate, that e.g. a ramjet or some other engine was used, which needs higher airspeeds for starting.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: Heinkel T
« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2012, 04:24:26 am »
I googled "Viktor Schauberger" and honestly (and just my two cents, of course !), what I found
COULD give the following picture: He actually was a forester and seems to have good observation
skills and translated, what he had noticed, when wood was floated down a river, into better handling
systems, than were known before. That's seems to be proven fact indeed.
But what made him reseaching new ways of energy production, seems not to have been real scientific
discoveries, but a kind of esoteric philosophy, not actually based on technical knowledge. If he worked
for the KZ Mauthausen, or just in it (as a prisoner !) isn't that clear to me. But his story sounds a lot
like one about an unappreciated talent, met with hostility by the established scientists, who was first
robbed by the Nazis (and Ernst Heinkel) and later by the Americans, too.
At least his name still seems to be cherished today by a lot of people with a green-esoteric background.

It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline peace

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 4
Re: Heinkel T
« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2012, 06:24:43 am »
I think we should get back on topic, not discussing Schauberger anymore, there are other forums for that. I just wanted to show up the possibly relation. If it really is related is another story...
So my question to the more experienced is still open, namely if this towing of prototype planes was a normal procedure?

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: Heinkel T
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2012, 08:51:10 am »
... if this towing of prototype planes was a normal procedure?

Only rarely, I think. Examples would be the He 280,  because of unavailabilty of the intended
jet engine, the Me 163, which was a kind of a glider anyway, or the Bachem Natter, which was towed
at first, too, for basic flight tests. But generally: No. Not in German and not in other countries. The Me 262
even was fitted with a piston engine in the nose to allow for flight testing, although the jet engines
were still not ready.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline peace

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 4
Re: Heinkel T
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2012, 06:11:50 am »
Interesting, thank you for your answer.

So it doesn't seem too far fetched that there would be a probability that the engine of the plane did need some speed for working. So a ramjet could be a possibility.
I personally just think that the inlet to outlet ratio is too big for a ramjet, or is this just me?

To verify the reliability of the intelligence report (from the Heinkel source), I took some values from the He 280 to compare them, with the values we now know:

He 280 performance (as in the british intelligence report from  28. oct 1943):

Small mid-wing monoplane with one reaction propulsion unit on each wing. Single seater fighter.
Wing span: 38-39 ft
Length: 33.5-35.5 ft
Maximum Speed: 500mph (at 3?'000ft) [? because I cannot read this digit, sorry, maybe could be a one...]
Endurance: 2 hours at maximum power
Range: 930 miles at 20'000 to 33'000 ft at 495mph.
Rate of climb: 6'000 ft/min
Service Ceiling: 47'000 ft
Reported Weight Loaded: 8'800 lb

Compared with the values from Wikipedia, most data seems quite accurate. At least not too far off.
Crew: 1, pilot
Length: 34 ft 1 in
Wingspan: 40 ft
Loaded weight: 9,416 lb
Maximum speed: 512 mph
Range: 230 mi
Service ceiling: 32,000 ft
Rate of climb: 3,756 ft/min

Really far off is only the indicated range (had this plane really such a short range at that speed, that would have been a really short flight???). Also the climb rate and the service ceiling was indicated a bit high.

But all in all, the report seems quite reliable.

I just try to get, how reliable the reported speed of the Heinkel "T" is. For one thing is definitely strange, the huge  back fins and also the thick shape of the wings. To me it doesn't look like an usual highspeed plane would look like (e.g. if it had a ramjet).

For the sake of speculation. If it really had a Schauberger propulsion unit, it would have used a completely different type of propulsion. Normal engines use the expansion of the air with the help of heat (burning fuel) to get a reactive force. The Schauberger engine worked exactly the other way around, it decreased the volume of the air, so that it gets pushed forward by the air behind it (pressure difference).
As I understood the patents and letters he described that he recognized that you will always have some friction, therefore you should build an engine which makes use of that and use it for a means of propulsion. So that you get the more power out of the engine the faster the plane is. As I got it: He used friction/tribo/contact (whatever you call it) electricity to make use of that and ionize the air. With that and the help of a very complex arrangement of different catalysers he made a molecular recombination of the nitrogen and oxygen in the air. As he said it, the end products were now higher molecular nitrogen molecules (probably different NxOx combinations) and ozone. As only the amount of particles in the air determine the volume, and as you now got more complex molecules the total volume decreases. The piston engine delivers the power for this strange turbine/engine.
I take absolutely no responsibility that my interpretation of the patents is correct.
But if we assume, a plane would have such a way of propulsion (creating a vacuum in front), how would it affect the aerodynamic behaviour? Would it get less air speed at the control fins and therefore need bigger ones?
I'm definitely not an aerodynamic specialist.
What's your opinion/explanation for the strange shape?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 06:15:33 am by peace »

Offline Justo Miranda

  • Secret Projects Master
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3369
Re: Heinkel T
« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2012, 08:14:24 am »
My opinion
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 08:17:35 am by Justo Miranda »

Offline sienar

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
Re: Heinkel T
« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2015, 10:51:14 am »

This is an excerpt from an allied interrogation of a German pow. It describes the Heinkel 178 and 3 photos that are well known. The full report is reproduced in Hans Von Ohain: Elegance in Flight by Margaret Conner (pg 97-98) Emphasis is mine;

Air Materiel Command
Seymour, Indiana

Serial No. 46-11

A. Purpose:
       1. The purpose of this brief is to publish information and photographs on a German aircraft for further identification. This aircraft is not at Freeman Field.

B. Description:

     2. The photographs of a German aircraft were received at Freeman Field. The aircraft is believed to be of Heinkel design. The information contained in this brief was extracted from P/W [prisoner of war) interrogations and is not confirmed as to its accuracy. The Heinkel single seat experimental fighter is referred to as the HET. This aircraft is described as an all-metal mid-wing monoplane of 26.2 ft. span. The length of the fuselage is 19.6 ft. The wing was to have been fitted with a high lift device, possibly a Fowler flap, to increase the wing chord....."
« Last Edit: February 25, 2015, 10:54:48 am by sienar »

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: Heinkel T
« Reply #24 on: February 25, 2015, 11:09:11 am »

The "Heinkel T" (for "turbine" ?) as an early design of the He 178. Seems plausible to me.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...