Register here

Author Topic: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives  (Read 36870 times)

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4078
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2010, 05:06:32 am »
there one think i don't understand
the Cockpit is in Part were in Fi-103 are the two Air pressure tanks for puls engine fuel feed.
so were are they in Fi-103R or are they replace by a fuel pump ?
I love Strange Technology

Offline Wasp

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2011, 11:02:12 am »
How about the non-manned variants of the V-1?

For example has anyone some info on the so-called "short-nosed" V-1?
What was its designgoal?
I once saw a drawing and if I remember correctly the "Shortnose" was not only shorter, but had differntly shaped wings than the standard version.
Is this correct?

Also there is an enlarged probably nuclear warheaded V-1 project often named "Wotan" floating through the net and certain publications.
Does some hard facts about such a big V-1 (atomic or not) exist?
Or is it simply identical with the longe-range version mentioned earlier in the Peenemünde report?



« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 11:06:24 am by Wasp »
42 is just the beginning

Offline sagallacci

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2011, 08:52:07 am »
The short nose machines had a reduced size/weight warhead and larger mid-fuselage fuel tank for extended range. There was an alternate wooden wing of tapered shape, but not much info survives on what/where/when. Also, there was a wooden wing of standard shape and increased span intended for the long range versions and the Reichenbergs, but not much on them either.

There was a chemical and possibly radiological dispersing warhead designed. Since there were no serious atomic weapons in progress there were no atomic warheads for the V-1. However, the US did preliminary design work on a purpose-built atomic warhead for the JB-2 but didn't actually do any.

Offline airman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1045
    • my blogs
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #33 on: January 10, 2011, 12:17:10 pm »
A V-1 Zwilling (twin-fuselage, twin-pulse-jet) has been built, but maybe only as what-if model after the year 2000. I don't know if this has been industrially considered during WW2.

I'm afraid the V-1 Zwilling is a Internet Fake ...
Yes, could be !  ;D
Assembling a V-1 and guided V-1 you have, as result, V-1 Zwilling !  :D
writers , bloggers , content-curators ,  music composer and passionate of militaria and uchronia

Offline Nik

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 382
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #34 on: January 10, 2011, 12:26:23 pm »
Given the V1 was *just* catchable by RAF interceptors, I must wonder why a bigger, twin-jet (pulse) was not tried...

Of course, by then, the V projects were a bit mired in issues like the RAF 'earthquake-bombing' the London Guns, quality control in the slave-labour factories etc etc...

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7896
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #35 on: January 10, 2011, 09:36:06 pm »
A bigger, twin-jet V1 probably would have meant a design, with very few parts
unaltered and changes necessary for most steps in the production process and
certainly would have resulted in a temporary drop of production numbers. At least
for those of the German high command with some understanding it was clear, that
the only real value of the V1 was, that it absorbed quite a lot of fighters, AA guns
and effort, not actually the damage it did.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline sagallacci

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2011, 12:09:43 pm »
The pulse jets simply don't run all that much faster if you had two. The basics of it was both speed and altitude limited. 
On the other hand, the small gain might be considered enough to try. But for an unmanned version, it would simply mean twice as big a bang that missed and for a manned version, twice the number of airframes taken out of useful stocks for a project that was never used operationally.

Offline Johnbr

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 686
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #37 on: January 11, 2011, 01:55:29 pm »
What the V1 need was pabst ramjet or the 006 jet engine.

Offline Wasp

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2011, 02:04:43 pm »
Thanks for the info Sagallacci.

So no measures/angles on the short nose type and the alternate wings or even a drawing?

As for the twin V-1, I agree with your statement. The speedincrease wouldn't have been siginificant, only the payload or if they chose to increase the fuel amount instead of a second warhead i.e. the increased range (which would have been the only reasonable pro considering the lost or soon loosing of areas as starting points in reach of targets in Britain).
And although the building of a twin V-1 could have used most of the existing parts of the missile, all the ramps and starting mechanisms would have had to be adapted to this new types as well, which was probably a far more complicated matter than bashing the twin V-1 together itself.

42 is just the beginning

Offline shockonlip

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 605
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2011, 04:19:35 pm »

A little tidbit here.

When I was working on my PDE piece that was published in AW&ST some years back,
one of my expert PDE scientists had a copy of Paul Schmidt's (inventor of the pulsejet
used in the V-1) technical diary. In it, according to my source, Schmidt mentions that
he realized that the pulsejet used in the V-1 had poor pressurization and that increased
pressurization caused by detonation would be better.

So this should be verified, but it's a little piece of interesting information for someone say
writing a book.

A PDE is of course one of the more efficient (due to increased pressure) and modern forms
of the old pulsejet.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1837
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2011, 06:12:32 am »
Funny how the Russians went with a twin-pulsejet version of the V-1:



Offline Wasp

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2011, 07:44:41 am »
I find the wings of the russian version interesting. Is this possibly a copy of those tapered shaped V-1 wings?

As for the increased pressure by detonation, I'm not sure if that would have been easily applyable to the Argus Pulsejets, as they already had a hard time to limit the vibrations of those with lower pressure, experiencing distortions of the pulsejets exhaust.
42 is just the beginning

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4078
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2011, 08:36:44 am »
this twin-pulsejet is NOT A Fi-103 derivative
This is derivative on Junkers EF 60 and EF 126 Elly and EF 127 Walli Objektschutzjäger
had to used Argus-Schmidt pulsejet, (original one)
note in russia twin-pulsejet picture, the wing configuration is a Low wing and form is like Junkers EF 60 126 127


http://www.luft46.com/junkers/juef126.html
source:
Die Deutsche Luftfahrt
Hugo Junkers Pionier der Luftfahrt - seine Flugzeug
By Wolfgang Wagner
Bernard & Graete Verlag

« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 08:48:00 am by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1722
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2011, 01:48:01 pm »
Quote
I once saw a drawing and if I remember correctly the "Shortnose" was not only shorter, but had differntly shaped wings than the standard version.
Is this correct?

From 'The Flying Bomb', Richard Anthony Young, page 135.

The author states that the short-nose version "...appear to have been survivors of a pre-production batch."


cheers,
         Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline Wasp

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Fieseler Fi-103 (V 1) development, variants and derivatives
« Reply #44 on: January 14, 2011, 11:01:51 am »
this twin-pulsejet is NOT A Fi-103 derivative
This is derivative on Junkers EF 60 and EF 126 Elly and EF 127 Walli Objektschutzjäger
had to used Argus-Schmidt pulsejet, (original one)
note in russia twin-pulsejet picture, the wing configuration is a Low wing and form is like Junkers EF 60 126 127





Do you have any data that confirms the direct connection between these Junkers projects and the russian Twin-Pulsejet?

I really don't think that it was based on the EF60/126/127 Junkers project.
For one the russian wing looks far more like the tapered V-1 wing clearly showing in the drawing that Robin provided, than the wing of far great span of the EF 126 model.
Also the conclusion, that the EF 126 etc. was a low wing design, therefore the russian missile did develop from that is in my opinion very thin as well, because the finally build EF 126 from 1946 under soviet control was a midwing and early design drawings shows it as a midwing too.
It was common practice of course to test differend wing designs on the windtunnel models, which probably led to the model seen in the picture.

Changing the V-1s midwing design to a low wing simply makes sense from an aerodynamically point of view, because of the use of two engines. Becaus those engines now sit not directly abvoe the fuselage but angeled to the side, they also were closer in the line of the original midwing, which probably could have caused a worse airflow to the intakes due to the airflow around the wings especially the turbulence in angeled positions (during the start i.e.). So lowering the wings could have been an easy solution to avert this problem.



From 'The Flying Bomb', Richard Anthony Young, page 135.

The author states that the short-nose version "...appear to have been survivors of a pre-production batch."


Yes, I think this is it.
Thank you!

The author could have been very well correct with his statement, as the simple front attachement of the engine on a "pole" was indeed used on the prototypes.
42 is just the beginning