• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

German EMW. A.9 / A.10

TsrJoe

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
342
Reaction score
27
DELETED POST (please remove from the thread)
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
282
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Not fully faired. What you're seeing is the chine-like wings of the original A-9 planform. I'd like to know what the source is for that drawing, though... I've seen it before, but I don't know if it's post-war or not.
 

shaba

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
124
Reaction score
0
just a thought, was there any suggestion of the A.10 proper being developed as a weapon without the A.9 upper stage?
yes I've read that the the A.10 was originally designed to deliver a 4,000lbs warhead to 500 miles iirc.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,280
Reaction score
111
i found this year ago in internet

i think this is real
because it show a 6 x A4 engine with nozzle
proposed by walter Thiel

and it show as propellants, Salbei and Gasöl

Gasöl = synthetic Gasoline from coal
Salbei = Nitric acid
there were two version for German rocketengine
S-Stoff = 98% Nitric acid and 4% Iron chloride
SV-stoff = 90-98% fuming nitric acid and 2-10% Sulfuric acid.
 

Attachments

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,280
Reaction score
111
at last bigger Picture !

THANKS JUSTO :D
 

Grif

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
The second drawing above may have been the inspiration for this kit:

http://renax.club.fr/sharkit/A9A10/A9A10.htm

Grif
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
282
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Michel Van said:
i found this year ago in internet

i think this is real
because it show a 6 x A4 engine with nozzle
It's a fairly silly concept. It'd be vastly easier to simply have six separate engines than to try to gang six engines together, and have them exhaust into a common nozzle.

Now, if the six engines were, instead, ganged *around* a common nozzle, that'd form an aerospike, and might be worth doing (but probably not for an ICBM).
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,280
Reaction score
111
Orionblamblam said:
It's a fairly silly concept. It'd be vastly easier to simply have six separate engines than to try to gang six engines together, and have them exhaust into a common nozzle.

Now, if the six engines were, instead, ganged *around* a common nozzle, that'd form an aerospike, and might be worth doing (but probably not for an ICBM).
your absolute Right !
this was a Idea by walter Thiel
the common nozzle look logical if you use jet vane for Control the rocket flight
but Thiel cont could not finish his work
he was kilt during bomberraid on Penemunde august 1943
 

Grzesio

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
212
Reaction score
20
Website
chemnitzer27kb.blogspot.com
It was not a simple common nozzle for six engines - there was an additional low pressure combustion chamber formed by the main nozzle. Thrust of this powerplant is given as 180 000 t, i.e. some 17 500 t more than six single engines.

Regards

Grzesio
 

agricola64

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Michel Van said:
Orionblamblam said:
It's a fairly silly concept. It'd be vastly easier to simply have six separate engines than to try to gang six engines together, and have them exhaust into a common nozzle.

Now, if the six engines were, instead, ganged *around* a common nozzle, that'd form an aerospike, and might be worth doing (but probably not for an ICBM).
your absolute Right !
this was a Idea by walter Thiel
the common nozzle look logical if you use jet vane for Control the rocket flight
but Thiel cont could not finish his work
he was killed during bomberraid on Penemunde august 1943
i once read (and if i can rmember the source i will post it) that the development of the fuel injection system of the A-4 engine was such a pain in the ass that it was decided - to reduce development time - to use the existing a-4 engines as "fuel injectors" / preburners for the much larger engine of the a-9/a-10

possibly even running some of them fuel rich and the other oxydiser rich to get proper combustion in the the main engine
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
282
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
agricola64 said:
i once read (and if i can rmember the source i will post it) that the development of the fuel injection system of the A-4 engine was such a pain in the ass that it was decided - to reduce development time - to use the existing a-4 engines as "fuel injectors" / preburners for the much larger engine of the a-9/a-10
Grzesio said:
It was not a simple common nozzle for six engines - there was an additional low pressure combustion chamber formed by the main nozzle.
The A-4 (V-2) engine was made by ganging a number of "burner cups" together. The individual cups - which were integrated fuel/oxidizer injectors - were developed individually; once the bugs were worked out and adequate combustion efficiency was established, putting a number of them together in a single change was an easy way to get much higher thrust with less development headache. You can see the cups here:




However, what's shown in the odd A-10 ganged engine diagram is quite different. This very likely would have involved *more* development effort than designing a new engine that used the complete injector faces of A-4 engines as its own "burner cups." Having multiple supersonic throats is a recipe for disaster, as is having a high temperature pressure chamber of such an unusual geometry.

Thrust greater than the sum of it's parts is likely due in part to having a higher expansion ratio than for the original A-4 engine.
 

Barrington Bond

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
926
Reaction score
21
From:

Report Of The General Board, United States Forces, European Theater.
V-2 Rocket Attacks and Defense.
Uncertain of date but stamped Library Apr 3 1952 Army War College. Also marked Antiaircraft Artillery Section Study Number 42.

J. The A-9 was similar in appearance and results to the A-4b, but was of different internal construction. It was proposed to develop and manufacture the A-9 in place of the A-4. However, the conversion would have been difficult, and the A-4b, which could be produced much more quickly, was being developed as a temporary substitute. The plan was to shoot the missile vertically into the air and then incline it toward the target. Its design included wings to enable it to glide until over the target, where it would go into a vertical dive. It was expected to travel about 375 miles (its maximum range) in 17 minutes. A proposal was made to launch it from a catapult to increase its range. It was also proposed to install a pressurized cabin, and to use a human pilot. The pilot would drop the warhead on the target, and then return to his base. A retractable landing gear would be used in the landing. Landing speeds as low as 100 miles per hour were inticipated.

K. The A-10 was never built, but plans for its production were completed. It was to be used as a take-off motor for the A-9, supplying a 200-ton thrust for this purpose. When the A-9 attained a velocity of approximately 1,500 miles per hour, its own motor would begin to function, and the A-10 would be jettisoned. It was expected that the A-9 would then attain a velocity of about 3,360 miles per hour and a range of about 3,500 miles.It was also proposed to use a human pilot in this combination.

Regards Barry
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
215
"indeed i had doubted them myself til now!"

There's no need to doubt, that there were such ideas. But there still is a difference
between having an idea and being able to realise it. "Report Of The General Board,
United States Forces, European Theater", that sounds very much like results from
interviews and interrogations, to my opinion not the most reliable source. To make a
sketch of a piloted V2 is one thing, it not even would have been hard, to make detailed
drawings, but actually building this thing, launching it and bringing it back with its pilot
alive would have been a whole new ball game !
Reading about such themes, I always have the strong feeling, that many still believe, things
like the piloted V2, A9/A10 or maybe supersonic jets were just around the corner in 1945.
A healthy lot of fundamental research would have been needed, and if you look to post-war times,
when comparable projects actually were realised, you can get a feeling of the needed time-
frame. From the very beginning of the war, the german industry simply wasn't able to develop
such things, that means to bring such ideas to realisation in a reasonable time. The capacities
for engineering and research already were already overstressed for bringing the more conventional
weapons to the front.
One of the main reasons for the defeat of Germany was that its economy in relation to that of
the US was like a middle sized workshop compared to factory. The craftsmen in that workshop
may have many ideas, when drinking a beer in the pub at the end of the work day. But when they
try to realise them, they may get whipping !
 

Barrington Bond

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
926
Reaction score
21
I'm not saying that I believe what was in this particular report as I think it was compiled from others. What I found intriguing was the mention of the catapult ;)

Regards,
Barry
 

agricola64

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
a question to archipepe drawings ---

i always understood the the engine of the A10 to consist of a number of A4 engines (as "preburners" / injectors - probably running overly lean and fat alternately) exhausting into a mixing / main combustion chamber ..

if that understanding is correct, i believe the size of the "preburners" of the A10 engine is wrong when compared with the A4 engine of the A9 ..
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
75
agricola64 said:
a question to archipepe drawings ---

i always understood the the engine of the A10 to consist of a number of A4 engines (as "preburners" / injectors - probably running overly lean and fat alternately) exhausting into a mixing / main combustion chamber ..

if that understanding is correct, i believe the size of the "preburners" of the A10 engine is wrong when compared with the A4 engine of the A9 ..
As far I know, this was the initial intention of the German designers (Walter Thiele before his death).
But the design changed after resulting in a single combustion chamber as represented.
Taking into account that all the drawings I saw depicted the engine in that way.

If someone has more infos about that will be very welcomed.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,295
Reaction score
1,064
Hi,


here is a drawings to EMW A.9,A.10 and A.4.


Aerei Nella Storia
 

Attachments

TsrJoe

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
342
Reaction score
27
Launch ramp ?... https://m.facebook.com/groups/1428504027459346?view=permalink&id=1441173219525760
 

Attachments

Top