Gotha P3 Destroyer Project

hesham

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
26 May 2006
Messages
32,643
Reaction score
11,822
Hi,

the Gotha P.8 was powered by two 240 hp As 10C,and the P.14 was powered by
two 465 hp As 410,also the P.14.012 was a floatplane.
 
borovik said:
Concept :the Kampfzerstorer. - Twin-engined heavy fighter(1935-1939)
The specification was issued to AGO, Dornier, Focke-Wulf, Heinkel, Henschel, the Gothaer Waggonfabrik and somewhat surprisingly, to the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke.
Except above-mentioned
Arado Flugzeugwerke – Ar E-500 (1936)
-Ar E-561 (1937)
AGO Flugzeugwerke - AO 225 (1937)

Gothaer Waggonfabrik – Gotha P. 3 01 – 02 (twin-boom plane with 2x950 hp DB600, both engines disposed in centre of the fuselage, like Ar E-561)
Gotha P 8 01,
Gotha P 14 02
Gotha P 20 (all with As 410 engine)

My opinion: project Ju-85 did not participate in this competitions.
In more detail in chapter 4, page 73 “Luftwaffe secret project ground attack…” by D.Herwig & H.Rode.
“Die Deutsche Luftrustung 1933-45” Band 2 by Heinz J.Nowarra p.146
Click to expand...


what was the Heinkel proposal in the Messerschmitt BF.110 competition ?,may be from P series.
 
Hi,


here is a drawing to Messerschmitt Bf.110 in comparison with counter design (as translation),
what was this twin boom design ?.


http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Diverses/Schnellflug%20Messerschmitt.pdf
 

Attachments

  • a.png
    a.png
    128.1 KB · Views: 563
It's an explanation by Willy Messerschmitt himself, which pathes couldbe treaded to achieve
higher speeds. The drawing shows an aircraft with roughly the same area, as the Me 110,
but with a bigger part of that area for the wing. Additionally the engines are positioned in
instead of in front if the wing. As can be see, dimensions are the same, but this notional
design is said by Messerschmitt to be superior, although he admits, that the engine installation
in the wing brings structural problems.
Again, this isn't mentioned as a project, just as an explanatory sketch.
 
Thank you my dear Jemiba,


and excuse me,that's Google translation.
 
You're welcome ! Actually it's a work of Willy Messerschmitt (or at least of one of employees,
who knows ?), so historically interesting. It's just, that we quite probably won't get a design
number for it .
 
Yes my dear Jemiba,


and completely new for me.
 
Well, powerpoint presentations today are full of notional sketches, often taken from the web.
Back then, they still had to make them by themselves. ;)
 
hesham said:
Hi,


here is a drawing to Messerschmitt Bf.110 in comparison with counter design (as translation),
what was this twin boom design ?.


http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Diverses/Schnellflug%20Messerschmitt.pdf
Click to expand...


Not to derail the thread but that pdf has many photos of the 109v13 speed record setter. Several of them completely unknown to me. Too bad they aren't better quality.




Here is a cleaned of version of the drawing isolating the demonstration design.
 

Attachments

  • screenshot-www.deutscheluftwaffe.de 2015-03-12 17-51-46.jpg
    screenshot-www.deutscheluftwaffe.de 2015-03-12 17-51-46.jpg
    72.1 KB · Views: 762
Thanks for your effort!
Would be interesting to know, if this flower like layout of the props really would reduce
drag in reality.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    83.3 KB · Views: 630
Great indeed ! He just should change the inscription "Sitzungsperiode", I think.
It means "law term" or (political) session and quite probably isn't really appropriate
here. I would propose "Entwurfszeitraum" (design period).
 
Jemiba said:
Great indeed ! He just should change the inscription "Sitzungsperiode", I think.
It means "law term" or (political) session and quite probably isn't really appropriate
here. I would propose "Entwurfszeitraum" (design period).
Click to expand...


OK my dear Jemiba,


I edit the drawing.
 
In the recent Flieger Revue X :

http://www.fliegerrevuex.aero/fliegerrevue-x-59/

the twin boom project is described as the GOTHA P.3 , the Gotha contender at the competition won by the Messerschmitt Bf 110 ...
 
But that's impossible my dear Richard,

you can compare the drawing of Go P.3 with it,no way.
 

Attachments

  • Gotha_P-3-001_01.jpg
    Gotha_P-3-001_01.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 484
  • Gotha_P-3-002_01.jpg
    Gotha_P-3-002_01.jpg
    43.2 KB · Views: 477
The P.3 looks , at least for me , a more plausible contender to the Bf 110 than the P.3001 and P.3002 . Anyway , this could be another P.3xxx .

Flugzeug Revue is an very serious sixty years old magazine from the D.D.R : The source is certainly reliable and the info interesting .
 
OK my dear Richard,and,

please send the drawing in this magazine.
 
I only saw it , but this was the very same three views as the Thope one .

I think , Messerschmitt used this Gotha P.3 drawings in its report comparing a twin booms zerstsörer and its Bf 110 ...
 
The P.3 from Flieger revue X is of 1934 according to the text in the article (page 108)
The P.3.001 and P.3.002 are -1935- concepts.

It could be that the P.3 was the first variant in the Gotha heavy fighter /destroyer design series under this designator.
 
Thank you my dears Richard and Lark for explanations.
 
Richard,

does the magazine article include technical specifications, as well as the designer?
 
Estimated:

Crew :3
span:16,90m
lenght:11,10m
engines : 2xJunkers Jumo 210-12 cylinder in line mit 730PS startleistung
offensive weapons :2xMG-FF guns cal.20mm
4xMG 17 cal.7.9mm
defensive weapons :1MG 15 cal.7.9mm

Source :X-projekte Serie Teil 10-via Jemiba.

Designer should be Dipl.Ing.Albert Kalkert
 
Thank you Paul and Jens! Kalkert is my best choice too.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom