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

Various Lippisch Tailless and Delta Projects

newsdeskdan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
1,073
Reaction score
744
Hello, I am currently building a Lippisch P.10 on a scale of 1:72. Except for small parts, it is scratch-made. I scaled up the three-sided plan at Heinz J. Nowarra, Die deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945, Bernard & Graefe Verlag Koblenz.
Now my question: If the machine had been ready for series production, it would certainly not have been named P.10. Would it have been included in the Messerschmitt series, or would it have been named after Lippisch (similar to FW and Tank) and what number could it have recieved?

Many Thanks,

Greetings, ford.prefect

The issue of names for Lippisch's designs had been settled by this point. Lippisch wasn't allowed to call them, for example, Li 163. He did make a case for this but it was rejected and the decision was that his designs had to have the 'Me' prefix (at least, while he continued to work for Messerschmitt!).
As you're no doubt aware, Lippisch pitched the P 10 (the version you are building) to Erhard Milch and received a contract to develop it. The RLM's engineers, however, were critical of the design and Lippisch decided to change it completely. The P 10 then became a tailless version of the Me 410 designed by Lippisch's assistant Walter Stender. Lippisch and Stender failed to inform the RLM about this change, however. Willy Messerschmitt, who did know about the change, went to the RLM to discuss the P 10 in September 1942 and was appalled to discover that 1) no-one knew anything about this new version and 2) because of the change, the development contract (which had applied to the original design) was now void.
The loss of this contract caused a great deal of animosity between Messerschmitt and Lippisch, and between Lippisch and Stender, with Lippisch seemingly blaming Stender for what had happened.
Ultimately, this seems to have hastened Lippisch's departure from the Messerschmitt company, with Stender going on to work for Zeppelin (I think).
Anyway, prior to all this acrimony, Messerschmitt (according to Lippisch) was going to apply 'Me 265' to the P 10 - the new version based on the Me 410. I guess that if the original P 10 hadn't been dropped, Me 265 might have been applied to that instead. I hope that answers your question.
 

ford.prefect

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
3
Reaction score
7
Hello,

@newsdeskdan, thank you very much for the extensive information. However, I now have a problem with the designation "Me 265": I also build the machine named in this way. Here is a picture of the model under construction. It will be built as a carrier-supported aircraft, the separate wing parts will be shown folded.
I know that both aircraft would not have been realized in the real world. In fact, both have been replaced by the Me 329. I just find the designs fascinating and that's why I build them.
 

Attachments

  • Me 265 01.jpg
    Me 265 01.jpg
    526.1 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:

newsdeskdan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
1,073
Reaction score
744
Hello,

@newsdeskdan, thank you very much for the extensive information. However, I now have a problem with the designation "Me 265": I also build the machine named in this way. Here is a picture of the model under construction. It will be built as a carrier-supported aircraft, the separate wing parts will be shown folded.
I know that both aircraft would not have been realized in the real world. In fact, both have been replaced by the Me 329. I just find the designs fascinating and that's why I build them.

Greetings, ford.prefect

The P 10 (designed by Lippisch) wasn't replaced by the Me 329 (designed by Hermann Wurster) - they were designed in parallel. In fact, the Me 329 has a slightly longer history, being derived from the P 04 line of development. A full report on the Me 329 - with the 'Me 329' designation already applied - was produced on March 15, 1942, whereas Lippisch's earliest known sketch for the P 10 dates from May 17, 1942.
At this time, Milch was pursuing a line of development he seems to have personally found very appealing - an unarmed bomber fast enough to avoid any attempt at interception by enemy fighters.
Wurster's Me 329 had two pusher props, each driven by a single engine (two engines, two props) - a configuration which in theory would make the aircraft faster than a machine with two tractor props. Lippisch's P 10 refined this concept even further by having just one pusher prop driven by a doubled engine (two engines, one prop).
It sort of made sense to pursue these two projects at the same time to see which would work out best. But when Lippisch's P 10 was scrapped and replaced by Stender's P 10/Me 265, there were now two designs which both had two engines and two pusher props. The advantage of Stender's P 10/Me 265 was its limited use of existing (Me 410) components.
What actually happened was, Messerschmitt decided to drop both of them and offer the RLM the Me 109 Zw instead (there is a consistent pattern of Willy Messerschmitt favouring designs from his Probue, rather than Abteilung L, which again contributed to Lippisch leaving the company). This was essentially two nacelles with no central fuselage - offering (in theory) an even better aerodynamic form, albeit with two tractor props, which had the advantage of using lots of existing components.
This eventually went head to head with Dornier's P 231 and lost at a crunch meeting on January 19, 1943. The P 231 (which refined the form even further to two engines and two props in a central fuselage with no nacelles) then became the Do 335.
 

ford.prefect

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
3
Reaction score
7
Hello, thank you very much for the in-depth information. Unfortunately, this is not shown in the literature available to me. In relation to my models, this would mean that both are to be classified as Me 265 and may not be shown in the same universe. ;)
 

newsdeskdan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
1,073
Reaction score
744
Hello, thank you very much for the in-depth information. Unfortunately, this is not shown in the literature available to me. In relation to my models, this would mean that both are to be classified as Me 265 and may not be shown in the same universe. ;)

I covered the P 10s and the Me 329 in Luftwaffe: Secret Wings of the Third Reich. My research on the Me 109 Zw and Dornier P 231 appears in Luftwaffe: Secret Designs of the Third Reich and I expand on the competition a little further in Luftwaffe: Secret Projects of the Third Reich. I really ought to compile the whole thing into a single book - the many designs which eventually led to the Do 335.
 

Similar threads

Top