Dornier Canard Design

[Flitzer]

Hi
found this in 'Jet Planes of the Third Reich. The Secret Projects by Manfred Griehl.

Has anyone got any more data, info or schematics please?

Many thanks
Peter
;D

 

[Jemiba]

A very similar drawing was shown in Jet & prop 1/93, at least showing the
position of the retracted main gear.
It is said, that it was called a fighter design, but probably was intended as a
racer (maybe to overcome limitatons imposed by the RLM ?).
It should have been powered by three HeS011 engines, the intake would have been
a slot across the wing and fuselage, which additionally served as boundary layer
suction.

 

[Flitzer]

the intake would have been
a slot across the wing and fuselage, which additionally served as boundary layer
suction.

Hi Jemiba
I read something similar too.
I imagine the lower fuselage would be where the slot would be to feed the lower engine in the 'cloverleaf' layout.
But would it have been one continuous slot or split into 3 I wonder?

Are there any similar layouts from other aircraft for ref?

Cheers and thanks.

Peter
;D

 

[Jemiba]

The article speaks of a continous slot, probably shown by
the dotted line in the drawing.
I would supose, that it would have been similar to the shown sketch .

 

[Flitzer]

Many thanks Jemiba

It's a great help.

Cheers
Peter
;D

 

[airman]

Re: Dornier 3 jet canard.

yes, i have seen too : was an unfinished project , it was cancelled due problems arising the unperfected Heinkel-Hirth powerplants !

 

[Flitzer]

Oh dear, how my mind is working these days?
Apologies for doing the same thread twice..

Any ideas on dimensions anyone?

Many thanks
Peter

 

[Jemiba]

Don't worry, we all have other thoughts those days: Rising petrol prices,
rising costs for heating ... :-\

About dimensions, the only clue I can see are those He S011 engines. A rough,
very rough guesstimation based on the perspective drawing could lead me to
a length of about 16 m and a span of maybe 12 m, but I won't put any money
on it.

 

[Flitzer]

Thanks Jemiba.

As you mentioned it may have been a racer, I wonder as a fighter were the armaments may have been placed? There seems precious little room to spare with the extreme forward cockpit.

Many thanks
P

 

[Johnbr]

Maybe they were to go under the cockpit.

 

[richard]

Racer ,so late in the war ? I am doubtful ...

 

[Jemiba]

Read again the article abd actually it gives both versions.
1. This design, drawn 1945 actually was a fighter, but it was derived
from an earlier concept for a racer
2. It was proposed as a fighter, but was meant (by Dornier) to be a racer.

To my opinion, the first version is more plausible, although the second one may
mena not more, than to use one of those aircraft later for a record attempt.

 

[Flitzer]

It's been a while but I've had a play with drawing out a speculative basic layout.


I would be most grateful for any advice or corrective comments.


Many thanks.
Peter

 

[Jemiba]

To me the trailing edge seems to be more swept, so the whole wing has less taper.
The fuselage/trailing edge junction could be at around one third of the engines length,
and the tip not farther rearward, than the nozzles. The canard wing could be broader
and with less taper, too. But that's just an interpretation of the perspective drawing.
So, my sketch to illustrate the slot for boundary layer control, may have been wrong,
too, but it was just for that single purpose. Hope, it didn't distract you. :-\

 

[Orionblamblam]

For what it's worth, I've found that starting off by using "perspective correction" is often a good first step. As can be seen below it's hardly a one-step process leading to perfection, but it can ("can," not necessarily "will") help figure out the planform.

The last image shows a flipped version of the final overlaid with an unflipped. Thius shows that the canards line up well, but the wings, not so well. Still, it could be a useful step.

Of course, not every sketch is internally consistent, and thus any reconstruction will require compromises.

 

[Stargazer]

Jens, I think your drawing has wings that are too long and/or too narrow. Just my impression.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Thanks Jemiba.

As you mentioned it may have been a racer, I wonder as a fighter were the armaments may have been placed? There seems precious little room to spare with the extreme forward cockpit.

Many thanks
P

Maybe it was intended to have a towed weapon (such as one of those command detonated 10kg aerial mines) as it's primary armament?

 

[Jemiba]

Jens, I think your drawing has wings that are too long and/or too narrow. Just my impression.

You're right, and I not even stayed to my own guestimation about the length/span ratio. :
My main intention was, to point out, that to my opinion it was more a swept wing, than
a delta.
Deducing the correct sweep angle is especially difficult, as in the original illustration it is
a mixture of sweep angle and dihedral.

 

[Flitzer]

Many thanks Jens and everyone.


A very big help.
Looks like I've got a bit of nipping and tucking to do.


Re the intake slot, in the original text, it says
"Air was fed through a fuselage duct and from wing boundary layer suction slots."
Extract from Manfred Griehl's Jet Planes of the Third Reich, The Secret Projects Volume 1, Page74.

So I was thinking would the fuselage duct be separate from the wing slots and would it be on the underside to feed the bottom engine in the cloverleaf?
Or is it a continuation of the same slots similar to what has already been suggested, i.e. slots to wings and around the fuselage?


Again many thanks
Peter

 

[Jemiba]

IF those dotted lines really are there to mark the suction slots, then
it probably would be a continous slot on the upper and the under side,
although not necessarily in a line vertically.
But I don't know, if such a system would be useful on the underside of the
wing.

 

[Flitzer]

Many thanks Jens


I just love this site. So many great people and loads of help.


I've included my second attempt, based on your last schematic.
Got to remodel the side view yet.


Still a little undecided about the slots and ducts.


Many thanks again.
Peter

 

[Justo Miranda]

my opinion...

 

[Flitzer]

Wow.


Many thanks Justo.

 

[alfakilo]

Compare the chord lines at the root and wingtip. Seems more of a conventional wing planform than delta to me.

I go with Flitzer's picture.

 

[Flitzer]

Thanks alfakilo
I think Justo used my first version just to get the engine/intakes sorted.


It's my second version based on Jens drawing that has the more conventional wing layout.


P

 

[Justo Miranda]

Autocorrection for 11,5 m. span

 

[Flitzer]

Autocorrection for 11,5 m. span

Many thanks Justo.


Looking great. I'm really warming to this one.
P

 

[Flitzer]

I've thrown together a few examples based on, in my uneducated mind, suggestions discussed here.
On 'A' side view, the scoop is too squashed and high.


A. Intake scoops/ducts.


B. Series of slots to ducting.


C. Boundary layer suction method


As a point of interest, have any aircraft been built and successfully put into service using wing boundary layer suction intakes?


Many thanks
P

 

[Jemiba]

As a point of interest, have any aircraft been built and successfully put into service using wing boundary layer suction intakes?

From what I've found, the method was known since the 1920s and tested in some experimental aircraft, one of them
based on the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch. Ánd in the Arado AR 232 it should be used operationally, but by using a "Walter-Gerät"
and not with suction derived from the engine.

 

[Flitzer]

Thanks Jens.


So basically it works in theory and there have been a few experimental aircraft, but no full production ones?


Therefore if Dornier had had the time to develop the aircraft, would the boundary layer suction method have been ditched in favour of something more similar, and a safer bet, to Justo's scoops arrangement?


I could always do two versions of the profile I suppose.


Many thanks
P

 

[alfakilo]

As a point of interest, have any aircraft been built and successfully put into service using wing boundary layer suction intakes?Many thanksP

Perhaps the lessons learned from the XF-93 and its unique inlet design might be helpful to your question. While the NACA inlet theory "worked", it apparently didn't "work" well enough...and was replaced by conventional intakes.

 

[Stargazer]

As a point of interest, have any aircraft been built and successfully put into service using wing boundary layer suction intakes?Many thanksP

Perhaps the lessons learned from the XF-93 and its unique inlet design might be helpful to your question. While the NACA inlet theory "worked", it apparently didn't "work" well enough...and was replaced by conventional intakes.

The Northrop X-21A BLC demonstrator was a pretty successful program, but it never led to any service aircraft being fitted with that technology.

 

[Flitzer]

Thanks both.


So it looks like two versions of the profile even if one would be a bit more 'What -if'.


One as the illustration with the slots and one as Justo prescribed.


Busy busy busy.


P

 

[Justo Miranda]

additional info post-1

 

[Justo Miranda]

additional info post-2

 

[Justo Miranda]

additional info post-3

 

[Justo Miranda]

esoteric stuff :-\

 

[Justo Miranda]

additional info post-5

 

[Justo Miranda]

additional info post-6

 

[Justo Miranda]

Messerschmitt semi-suction inlets samples