Wasserfall antiaircraft rocket

[Justo Miranda]

Regarding the use of fuel booster rockets, I remember reading a long time ago (I don't remember the source) that EMW engineers were given the directive to minimize vibrations and sudden movements that could affect the delicate guidance system (they did not specify what type). Perhaps that was the reason why they decided to use the four fins installed in the midsection of the fuselage.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I’ve continued to dig on the question of whether the C2 Wasserfall jettisoned its thrust vector control vanes once its velocity was sufficient to depend on aerodynamic control.

Sources vary. A few say its was planned to improve efficiency but the vanes burned off anyway so wasn’t needed. A few others say the vanes burned unevenly, causing asymmetric thrust, making jettison critical.

Ive found a very good technical article on Wasserfall in a 1951 Interavia magazine by Rudolf Reichel. I think Reichel was at Peenemunde so can be regarded as a primary source ? His article stated that it was set up for vane jettison, each vane and backplate assembly being held in a slide rail by a squib operated bolt.

I have yet not found a wartime German language technical report that confirms this, so would say squib jettison on C2 is 80 percent but not certain.

I think a fair number of early missiles that followed the war also used graphite TVC vanes. Does anyone know if any of those had a scheme to jettison vanes once up to speed ?

That's new to me, I've always thought that they burned during flight without affecting the aerodynamic control surfaces

 

[Justo Miranda]

The warhead was really too small to accomplish that. From everything I've read on it, they intended it to shoot down planes but had serious doubts about its accuracy and the lack of a proximity fuze to do it. You needed to only get close to shoot down a plane. That was how most SAM's through at least the 60's worked.

What surprises me about the German SAM program is:

First, they didn't pursue a ramjet missile. This would have given them a SAM with greater range and reliability than a straight rocket, solid or liquid fuel.

They made little or no attempt to improve solid fuels.

They failed to consider a much larger proximity fuze using a small on board radar given the room their SAM's had internally. Command detonation was explored at least some.

They didn't aggressively try and improve their electronics technology.

Of their SAM designs, only Enzian might have worked to break up a bomber box. With a 500 kg warhead it had the possibility. Of course, any SAM in service really needed to be able to intercept RAF bombers at night flying in a stream too. Again, the only real option was being able to target and engage single bombers.

In my opinion, the reason why they did not use large quantities of solid propellants is the starvation of materials for the manufacture of ammunition. Also the ramjets needed rockets to reach the ignition speed.

Liquid propellants could be obtained from the air and the sun (through potatoes).