Air Vectors: V-1 Buzz Bomb
Greg Goebel
The V-1 Buzz Bomb
*v1.0 / 01 mar 97 / greg goebel (g...@lvld.hp.com) / public domain*
* While the history of the cruise missile was marked by failures and false
starts until modern times, one early attempt to build and operate such a
weapon became notorious: the German V-1 "buzz bomb", developed during World
War II. This short document describes the development and operation of the
V-1.
* Contents:
[1.0] DEVELOPMENT OF THE V-1
[2.0] THE V-1 IN DETAIL
[3.0] THE BUZZ-BOMB BLITZ
[4.0] AMERICAN BUZZ BOMBS
[5.0] COMMENTS & SOURCES
[%%]
[1.0] DEVELOPMENT OF THE V-1
* The Germans had performed experiments with autopiloted aircraft in the
1930s, but proposals made in 1939 and 1941 to develop operational flying
bombs were turned down.
In June, 1942, however, increasing RAF attacks on German cities and rising
losses of Luftwaffe bombers over England in attempts to retaliate persuaded
the Luftwaffe to consider a flying bomb. Work on the V-2 long-range rocket
was encountering difficulties (and it was an Army project in any case), so it
seemed appropriate to the Luftwaffe to build a small, cheap flying bomb --
with a range of about 250 kilometers and an 800-kilogram warhead -- that
could attack a city-sized area by flying in at high speed and low altitude.
Propulsion for the new flying bomb was provided by the "pulsejet", which had
been invented by Paul Schmidt in the early 1930s and had been under
development since 1937 by the Army Weapons Office. The pulsejet was little
more than a "stovepipe", with its sole moving part consisting of a shutter
assembly inside the air intake. Air entering into the pulsejet was mixed
with fuel and ignited by spark plugs, slamming the entry shutters closed and
generating a burst of thrust out the exhaust; the shutters then opened again,
with the cycle repeating from 50 to 250 times per second.
This pulsed operation caused the engine to emit a loud low buzzing sound that
would presently become familiar over the English countryside (and inspire the
nickname "buzz bomb"). However, the pulsejet required a compressed airflow
to start and operate, and had no means of generating such a flow itself; any
aircraft propelled by such an engine had to be accelerated to at least 240
KPH (150 MPH) by another source before it could actually fly on its own.
Despite this limitation, the pulsejet had major advantages: it was simple,
cheap, and powerful, with a thrust of 270 kilograms (600 pounds).
Furthermore, it could use low-grade gasoline as a fuel, rather than precious
high-octane aviation fuel.
Three companies collaborated in building the flying bomb: Fiesler built the
airframe; Argus (which employed Paul Schmidt) built the pulsejet engine; and
Askania built the guidance system. A glide test was performed in early
December, 1942, followed by a powered flight on Christmas Eve.
On 26 May, 1943, top Nazi officials visited the test facility at Peenemunde,
on the Baltic, to evaluate progress on the flying bomb. The conclusion was
that the weapon should be put into full-scale production. Work was similarly
started on building a hundred launch sites in the Pas de Calais area in
France, capable of launching a thousand flying bombs a day. London was only
about 200 kilometers (a little over 120 miles) from the launch sites.
Development of the flying bomb at Peenemunde was plagued by a series of
troubles. To resolve these problems, a piloted flying bomb was developed, in
which the warhead was replaced by a cockpit in which a test pilot could fly
the machine while lying prone. Test flights were performed and uncovered the
defects in the machine. The flying bomb was officially designated the
Fiesler Fi 103 or FZG-76, but was more informally referred to as the V-1, for
*Vergeltungswaffe Einz* -- Vengeance Weapon 1.
On 8 November, 1943, an RAF photo-reconnaissance aircraft took pictures of a
prototype flying bomb on a launch ramp at Peenemunde. British intelligence
began to see what the Germans were up to -- and recognized that the same
kinds of launch ramps were being built in the Pas de Calais. They were all
promptly bombed and destroyed.
Nonetheless, by this time the flying bomb was in production; new launch sites
that were more readily concealed were built. Several flying bombs were
launched towards Sweden to determine their range and other performance
characteristics; and on 13 June, 1944, the first V-1 was launched towards
London.
[%%]
[2.0] THE V-1 IN DETAIL
* The V1 itself was an odd and ingenious aircraft, designed to be cheaply
produced in large quantities. It had a wingspan of 5.4 meters (17 feet 8
inches), a length of 8.3 meters (27 feet 4 inches), and weight of 2,160
kilograms (4,760 pounds) -- including an 850 kilogram (1,870 pound) warhead.
The V-1s were launched off a 48 meter (157 foot) ramp by a catapult rocket
fueled with hydrogen peroxide (HO) and potassium permanganate (KMnO4). They
were guided to their target by a simple guidance system using a compressed
air driven gyroscope system and magnetic compass to control bearing, and
barometric altimeter to control altitude.
Maximum speed was around 645 KPH (400 MPH). It was typically set to fly at
an altitude of about 600 meters (2000 feet), using the barometric altimeter
as a reference. A spinner on the nose armed the warhead after about 100
kilometers of flight and determined when the weapon would fall to earth.
Flight time from launch to impact was usually about 22 minutes. Accuracy
was very poor, with impacts scattered all over southeastern England.
However, some documents state that rather than using a nose spinner this
function was performed by a simple clock. Illustrations are ambiguous on
this issue and it is very possible that different production runs used
different systems.
The little aircraft's wings had no control surfaces; the V-1 was directed by
the rudder and elevators of its tail assembly. This was a crude means of
control, but since there was no possibility of manouvering anyway, adequate
as well as cheap.
When the guidance system determined that it was at the target point, it would
cut off the pulsejet and lock the control surfaces to put the bomb into a
steep dive. The abrupt cessation of the loud buzz inspired terror, since it
meant there would be a terrific explosion a few moments later.
[%%]
[3.0] THE BUZZ-BOMB BLITZ
* The Allies had landed on the Normandy beaches on 6 June, a week before the
first launch of the V-1, but the attacks continued at a brisk pace until the
advancing Allies forced the Germans to abandon the launch sites in
mid-August. A total of roughly 10,000 V-1s would be fired on Britain in all.
When the French launch sites were lost, the Germans then began launching the
V-1 from Heinkel 111 bombers -- a particularly dangerous mission, since the
flying bomb was very heavy and could be lethally tricky to launch. 1,200
V-1s were launched in this fashion, with the loss of 77 bombers; 12 were
lost on two missions alone simply due to the premature detonation of the
V-1's warhead after the He-111 left the runway. Eventually, this approach
was abandoned due to the high attrition.
As the Germans retreated back to the Reich, they launched many thousands more
-- anywhere from 7,400 to as many as 9,000 -- buzz-bombs against continental
European targets, particularly the Belgian port city of Antwerp and the
neighboring city of Liege.
* When the V-1 first appeared, it presented a challenge to English air
defenses, as it was fast and destructive; although inaccurate, the Germans
were launching enough of them to inflict severe damage. On 18 June, 1944,
for example, one hit a chapel not far from Buckingham Palace, killing 119 and
wounding 141.
It took fast fighters -- such as the Hawker Tempest or North American P-51 --
to keep up with the buzz-bombs. When the first British operational jet
fighter, the Gloster Meteor, was fielded in July 1944, it was assigned to
intercept V-1s. Fighter pilots had to be careful to not come in too close
when firing on the flying bombs, since the big warhead could easily detonate
and blast them out of the sky.
Some pilots became skilled at "tipping" the V-1s into a crash by slipping
their wing underneath one of the bomb's and then rolling over, throwing the
flying bomb into a crash dive. This was a tricky technique, since making
physical contact could damage the fighter; the pilot had to instead generate
air pressure to disrupt the V-1's flight.
The most significant enhancement in air defenses was the introduction of
American radar-guided anti-aircraft guns firing proximity-fuzed shells.
Over 60% of the casualties inflicted by the V-1 occurred in the first five
weeks of the offensive, although the attacks continued to the end of March,
1945.
* The effectiveness of the V-1 is debatable. Detractors point out that the
V1 was far too inaccurate to be considered a militarily effective weapon; it
was a weapon of mass terror that struck almost at random. Its effects were
undeniably destructive; it inflicted almost 46,000 casualties, with over
5,000 killed outright, and destroyed 130,000 homes and damaged 750,000 more.
However, it had no real effect on the outcome of the war and absorbed
resources that might have been better used for the defense of the Reich.
Others point out that the weapon was cheap to build but required the
deployment of extensive defenses to defeat.
[%%]
[4.0] AMERICAN BUZZ BOMBS
* Despite the weapon's limitations, the US military was very interested in
the V-1. The Americans had performed various inconclusive experiments with
drone aircraft from the mid 1930s; during the war, attempts had been made to
use converted B-17 and B-24 bombers, loaded full of explosives, to attack
German targets, but these efforts failed wretchedly.
Given this dismal background, the German V-1 looked pretty good, and in July
1944 captured V-1 components were shipped to Wright-Patterson Field in Ohio.
Three weeks later, the US Army Air Force (USAAF) had their own V-1, which
they named the JB-2. In August, the USAAF placed an order for 1,000 JB-2s
with improved guidance systems: Ford built the pulse-jet engine (to be
designated the PJ-31), Republic built the airframe, and other manufacturers
built the control systems, launch rockets, launch frames, and other
components.
The USAAF then experimented with air-launching the JB-2 from a B-17 bomber,
and were so enthusiastic with the results that they increased the order to
75,000 in January, 1945. However, the end of the war in August dampened
enthusiasm for the weapon, and the program was terminated in September of
that year after 1,400 had been built. The US Navy would also experiment with
their own V-1 variant, called the Loon, performing a launch from a surfaced
submarine in 1947.
* In the meantime, the Army had been working with Northrop to build another
cruise missile, based on Northrop's famous flying wing concepts. The first
model, the JB-1, was a flying wing with a central fuselage housing twin GE
turbojets; pods on each side of the fuselage each contained a single
900-kilogram (2,000 pound) bomb.
Only two JB-1s were built, one as a piloted glider and the other with the GE
engines. It proved to be underpowered, and so the design was modified to
accommodate a single Ford PJ-31 pulsejet. The weapon was renamed the JB-10,
and ten were built. However, Northrop had designed the missiles to aircraft
quality and the costs were unacceptable; the project was cancelled in 1946.
A truly effective cruise missile would not be available for several more
decades.
[%%]
[5.0] COMMENTS & SOURCES
* Information on the V-1 is sketchy and hard to come by, with contradictions
in details; even illustrations tend to show confusing small differences.
Some of these differences are, as suggested earlier, possibly due to changes
in V-1 production ... but I also suspect that wartime misinformation on the
weapon has been propagated to the present day.
Of the odd details associated with the weapon, one is peculiarly interesting:
the Germans converted the V-1 into a "drop tank" that could be towed behind
an aircraft by a long pipe that acted as both a tow bar and fuel connection.
The scheme was apparently tested with an Ar-234 jet bomber but never got
beyond preliminary tests.
* Sources include:
% TOMAHAWK CRUISE MISSILE, by Nigel MacKnight, Motorbooks
International, 1995. This is an excellent little book with background
on the development of the cruise missile.
% THE FLYING WINGS OF JACK NORTHROP by Garry R. Pape and others,
Schiffer Military / Aviation History, 1994. This book had some
interesting information on the JB-1 and JB-10 flying bombs.
% Web page for the Centre For Defence & International Security Studies
(CDISS) at Lancaster University in the UK, at "www.cdiss.org". This
site has substantial materials on cruise missile technology but also
seems to have some subtle axes to grind.
[<>]
Malcolm Hopkins
g...@lvld.hp.com (Greg Goebel) wrote:
>The V-1 Buzz Bomb
>nickname "buzz bomb"). However, the pulsejet required a compressed airflow
>to start and operate, and had no means of generating such a flow itself; any
>aircraft propelled by such an engine had to be accelerated to at least 240
>KPH (150 MPH) by another source before it could actually fly on its own.
I do not think this is at all correct as I have a number of videos
that show them (buzz bombs) on their launch ramps stationary with the
pulse jet running and also being started whilst stationary.
I belive once an initial charge of fuel/air is admitted to the
combustion chamber/tube and ignited it then becomes self-sustaining.
The launch ramp/catapault is only to get it up to flying speed in the
shortest time/distance without the need for a runway and
undercarriage.
If I am not mistaken the piloted version (with under carriage) could
be started, taxi, take off, fly etc. without having to be accelerated
to 240Kph before the pulse jet could be started (was Hanna Reisch sp.?
that flew the piloted test version).
Isn't the tube of the pulse jet a "tuned' length for the frequency of
operation (a bit like 2 stroke expansion chambers) with the exhausting
pulse creating a partial vacuum that draws in the next charge without
requiring any forwad movement to sustain its operation.
On the other hand Ramjets do have to be accerated to a suitable
(cannot remember off-hand) speed before the become sef-sustaining.
Malcolm Hopkins
Wellington, New Zealand.
Please remove "no.spam" from address to reply.
IanDTurner
I remember reading, a few years ago, of a UK museum with a V1, where it was
regulary "run up". If I can find the article, I'll let you know!
Don Friedman
On 11 Mar 1998 07:25:31 GMT, iandt...@aol.com (IanDTurner) wrote:
>I remember reading, a few years ago, of a UK museum with a V1, where it was
>regulary "run up". If I can find the article, I'll let you know!
I know there is a V-1 hanging from the ceiling at the Armament Museum
outside of Eglin AFB. Its is one of the ones my father helped build in
the early 1940's while working at Republic Aviation. It seems we came
up with the blueprints and since my father knew some german he and
others were asked to help build them from the german blueprints. I
even have a couple black & white photos of him and his crew around the
V-1. Just thought I'd add a little history here....:)
Regards,
Don Friedman
Air-to-Air Lead
Lockheed-Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
In article <3506b09e.158914904@news>,
Don Friedman <don.s.f...@lmco.com> wrote:
>On 11 Mar 1998 07:25:31 GMT, iandt...@aol.com (IanDTurner) wrote:
>
>>I remember reading, a few years ago, of a UK museum with a V1, where it was
>>regulary "run up". If I can find the article, I'll let you know!
>
>I know there is a V-1 hanging from the ceiling at the Armament Museum
>outside of Eglin AFB. Its is one of the ones my father helped build in
>the early 1940's while working at Republic Aviation. It seems we came
>up with the blueprints and since my father knew some german he and
>others were asked to help build them from the german blueprints. I
>even have a couple black & white photos of him and his crew around the
>V-1. Just thought I'd add a little history here....:)
The machine at Eglin is a JB-2, an American copy of a V-1. Actually, it
was not a matter of blueprints, but simply recovering unexploded weapons
and copying them, with little details changed for American style
manufacturing processes and such. On Santa Rosa Isalnd near Eglin, ther
are the remains of several "ski-sites" of various lengths as well as the
remains of dozens of wreaks of failed launches scattered about.
The Army was planning to use JB-2s as stand-off weapons against Japanese
strong points late in the war, and though never used in combat, they were
used for early cruise missle developemant in the '40s and '50s. There was
even a plan for an atomic warhead for it, but that never got to the
hardware stage.
wil...@hotmail.com
g...@lvld.hp.com (Greg Goebel) wrote:
>
> [3.0] THE BUZZ-BOMB BLITZ
>
> * The Allies had landed on the Normandy beaches on 6 June, a week before the
> first launch of the V-1, but the attacks continued at a brisk pace until the
> advancing Allies forced the Germans to abandon the launch sites in
> mid-August. A total of roughly 10,000 V-1s would be fired on Britain in
> all.
According to "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945" by Fritz
Hahn, the Flak-Regiment 155(W) land-launched 8839 V 1s on London and 53 on
Southampton. 1052 of these crashed during the launch phase. An additional 1776
were air-launched into the general direction of England from He 111s. The
total number of succesful launches on Britain was thus 9616 or less.
> When the French launch sites were lost, the Germans then began launching the
> V-1 from Heinkel 111 bombers -- a particularly dangerous mission, since the
> flying bomb was very heavy and could be lethally tricky to launch. 1,200
> V-1s were launched in this fashion, with the loss of 77 bombers; 12 were
> lost on two missions alone simply due to the premature detonation of the
> V-1's warhead after the He-111 left the runway. Eventually, this approach
> was abandoned due to the high attrition.
The 1200 number is probably a little shy of the total. In addition to the 1776
V 1s launched on Britain by KG 3 and KG 53 Legion Condor, 23 were air-launched
on Paris on the night of 2 September 1944 bringing the total launches from He
111s to at least 1799. The attrition rate was thus not more than 4,34%, a bit
on the high side but not totally prohibitive. I would imagine that the German
fuel shortage and the virtual disbandment of the Luftwaffe bomber force in the
Autumn of 1944 contributed more to the abandonment of the scheme than the
initial troubles which could otherwise have been overcome.
> As the Germans retreated back to the Reich, they launched many thousands
> more
> -- anywhere from 7,400 to as many as 9,000 -- buzz-bombs against continental
> European targets, particularly the Belgian port city of Antwerp and the
> neighboring city of Liege.
11988 V 1s were land-launched on Continental targets, 8696 on Antwerp and 3141
on Liege. 10595 of the launches were succesful.
Wilhelm Wirén
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
wil...@hotmail.com
> >to start and operate, and had no means of generating such a flow itself;
> >any aircraft propelled by such an engine had to be accelerated to at least
> >240 KPH (150 MPH) by another source before it could actually fly on its
> >own.
>
> that show them (buzz bombs) on their launch ramps stationary with the
> pulse jet running and also being started whilst stationary.
Were these original V 1s or some American version which perhaps was equipped
with a turbojet engine?
> I belive once an initial charge of fuel/air is admitted to the
> combustion chamber/tube and ignited it then becomes self-sustaining.
AFAIK the pulsejet does need a continuous airflow to open the engine's air
valves for self-sustained operation. Running pulsejets in a stationary a/c is
probably possible only in a wind tunnel or with one of the helicopters or
VTOLs with pulsejets in rotor blades (even these required initial rotor
acceleration by other means like the rockets in the FW Treibfluegel).
> The launch ramp/catapault is only to get it up to flying speed in the
> shortest time/distance without the need for a runway and
> undercarriage.
>
> If I am not mistaken the piloted version (with under carriage) could
> be started, taxi, take off, fly etc. without having to be accelerated
> to 240Kph before the pulse jet could be started (was Hanna Reisch sp.?
> that flew the piloted test version).
The piloted Fieseler Fi 103 Reichenbergs were almost invariably launched from
He 111s, the launch aircraft providing the forward momentum necessary for the
pulsejet's operation. In the initial prototype stage the Fi 103 was towed into
air though.
> Isn't the tube of the pulse jet a "tuned' length for the frequency of
> operation (a bit like 2 stroke expansion chambers) with the exhausting
> pulse creating a partial vacuum that draws in the next charge without
> requiring any forwad movement to sustain its operation.
>
> On the other hand Ramjets do have to be accerated to a suitable
> (cannot remember off-hand) speed before the become sef-sustaining.
AFAIK the main effect of the exhaust pulse in addition to providing thrust is
creating overpressure to momentarily close the air valves which in turn are
opened by the airflow before the next exhaust pulse to mix air with fuel. I
don't think that the minor vacuum possibly created at the end of the exhaust
pulse is sufficient for self-sustained operation. The pulse jet's air intake
is also probably suitably formed to give the air some compression when the a/c
is moving which would reduce the efficiency of a possible stationary pulse
jet.
Zorak
no, pulsejets can run stationary once started.
wil...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6e7208$56h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>m.hopkins@"no.spam"niwa.cri.nz wrote:
>>
>> g...@lvld.hp.com (Greg Goebel) wrote:
>>
>> >The V-1 Buzz Bomb
>>
>> >nickname "buzz bomb"). However, the pulsejet required a compressed
airflow
>> >to start and operate, and had no means of generating such a flow itself;
>> >any aircraft propelled by such an engine had to be accelerated to at
least
>> >240 KPH (150 MPH) by another source before it could actually fly on its
>> >own.
>>
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>>
>> I do not think this is at all correct as I have a number of videos
>> that show them (buzz bombs) on their launch ramps stationary with the
>> pulse jet running and also being started whilst stationary.
>
>Were these original V 1s or some American version which perhaps was equipped
>with a turbojet engine?
>
>> I belive once an initial charge of fuel/air is admitted to the
>> combustion chamber/tube and ignited it then becomes self-sustaining.
>
>AFAIK the pulsejet does need a continuous airflow to open the engine's air
>valves for self-sustained operation. Running pulsejets in a stationary a/c is
>probably possible only in a wind tunnel or with one of the helicopters or
>VTOLs with pulsejets in rotor blades (even these required initial rotor
>acceleration by other means like the rockets in the FW Treibfluegel).
Pulse jets can run at zero forward airspeed, but simply don't produce
enough thrust to accelerate worth a damn. That's why they always relay on
catapults or rocket boosters for take offs (the various Argus jet powered
aircraft all used solid boosters for inital acceleration)
But, again, the engine, once warmed up, can keep going without any
external support, which is ususally just electricity for the glow-plug
igniter.
RAM jets do need forward airflow to work, often fairly high speed, but
pulse jets don't.
Bill Finch
The V-1's were started with compressed air and fuel. Once ignited they continued
to burn until they were out of fuel. They were launched from a track angled about
30 degrees above the horizon. We called them Ramjets at the time but I guess
Pulsejets is the proper term now.
After the war my friends and I had a working half scale replica. We started it
with a compressed air charge. It ran until the fuel ran out. We could stop it by
interrupting the fuel flow. We mounted it on a bicycle and ran it up and down
Segrave Avenue in Daytona Beach. This lasted about 5 minutes before the cops
came. They told us we would have to cut it out because of the (really loud)
noise. They blocked off each end of the block and they all took a ride. We then
went home and mounted the jet on a balsa glider with a 6 foot wing span. We used
a rubber band powered homebuilt mechanical timer to climb, then circle. This
worked for about 3 flights. On the 4th flight it just kept climbing until a wing
ripped off and the thing spun like a balloon deflating until it went splat into a
sugarcane patch. It bent. We put it away in my grandfather's storeroom. That was
about 1946. The grandfather and storeroom are gone now. I have no idea whatever
happened to the bent ramjet. Those were the days. ...Bill
wil...@hotmail.com
bev...@netcom.com (Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I do not think this is at all correct as I have a number of videos
> >> that show them (buzz bombs) on their launch ramps stationary with the
> >> pulse jet running and also being started whilst stationary.
> >AFAIK the pulsejet does need a continuous airflow to open the engine's air
> >valves for self-sustained operation.
Correction, the V 1's Argus apparently did have automatic air intake valves
which opened after the chamber pressure dropped sufficiently.
> >Running pulsejets in a stationary a/c
> >is probably possible only in a wind tunnel or with one of the
> >helicopters or VTOLs with pulsejets in rotor blades (even these required
> >initial rotor acceleration by other means like the rockets in the FW
> >Treibfluegel).
>
> Pulse jets can run at zero forward airspeed, but simply don't produce
> enough thrust to accelerate worth a damn.
To nitpick, I wouldn't say that a static pulsejet runs since it's not
functioning as an a/c engine should, producing sufficient thrust to fly the
thing. The original question was after all WRT a V 1 taking off unassisted.
Without airflow the pulsejet is merely an automatic smoke-signalling device.
I'd rather call the stationary pulsejet's operations an ignition and fuel
systems check.
> That's why they always relay on
> catapults or rocket boosters for take offs (the various Argus jet powered
> aircraft all used solid boosters for inital acceleration)
Not the manned V 1, the Fi 103 Re which was towed into the air or air-launched
from a He 111. The V 1 catapult launching was rejected outright for the Fi 103
Re since the peak acceleration was IIRC 17 Gs. Compressed air has also been
used to stimulate pulsejets with a simulated airflow.
> But, again, the engine, once warmed up, can keep going without any
> external support, which is ususally just electricity for the glow-plug
> igniter.
>
> RAM jets do need forward airflow to work, often fairly high speed, but
> pulse jets don't.
A static run of a ramjet would probably produce a two-way smoke-signal with
exhaust gases emerging from both the intake and the exhaust.
Greg Goebel
Nice set of responses, ya'll. I've been slumming for a while, just working
on bitmaps (I'm backlogged!), short articles on cruise missiles and UAVs,
and updating some existing materials.
Didn't think this one would attract too much interest, but I wuz wrong. Does
anybody ever use the bitmaps, though?
BTW, every time I write one of these things I end up "adopting" the aircraft
involved: every time I see new materials on one of them I *have* to get my
hands on them. That one I did on the F-8 Crusader has led to a *lot* of
information on the type.
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wile E. Coyote at Acme Electronics Corporation
Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Goebel / g...@lvld.hp.com HOME: 970-203-9326
Hewlett-Packard / MXD Marketing WORK: TN/970-679-3424
POB 301 / MS-CU326 / Loveland CO 80539 FAX: TN/970-679-5971
----------------------------------------------------------------------
User798511
Greg Goebel wrote:
>When the guidance system determined that it was at the target point, it
>would<BR>
>cut off the pulsejet and lock the control surfaces to put the bomb into a<BR>
>steep dive. The abrupt cessation of the loud buzz inspired terror, since
>it<BR>
>meant there would be a terrific explosion a few moments later.<BR>
There is lots of interesting info in R.V. Jones book "Most Secret War". From my
recollection, Jones reported stand that the behaviour of the engine cutting out
before impact was unintentional, after the desired flight time (distance?) the
V-1 was put into a dive by moving the elevator and the engine only cut because
the supply of fuel was interrupted. After finding out about the engine
cuttting, the Germans are supposed to have modified the fuel system to avoid
this.
There could be some question as to which approach had the greatest
psychological effect. In the first case most people, on hearing the engine,
will hope that it doesn't stop and the missile overflys them. In the second,
there is no significant warning as to when the missile will impact, so the
sound of one can't be taken lightly.
Also, Jones pointed out that if the V-1 reached service 6 months sooner, it
would have had much more effect. First, its performance at the low altitudes at
which it opperated was sufficiently good that only recently introduced aircraft
with exceptionally good low altitude performance, such as the Tempest, could
effectively intercept it. Even P51s apparently had some difficulty effecting
interceptions. Second, proximity fuse anti-aircraft ammunition and
sophisticated predictive fire control equipments employing high resolution X
band radars were just becoming available at the time the V-1 debuted.
Robert Inkol
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>
>Also, Jones pointed out that if the V-1 reached service 6 months sooner, it
>would have had much more effect. First, its performance at the low altitudes at
>which it opperated was sufficiently good that only recently introduced aircraft
>with exceptionally good low altitude performance, such as the Tempest, could
>effectively intercept it. Even P51s apparently had some difficulty effecting
>interceptions. Second, proximity fuse anti-aircraft ammunition and
>sophisticated predictive fire control equipments employing high resolution X
>band radars were just becoming available at the time the V-1 debuted.
I don't know about that. The V-1s were terribly inaccurate, so they were
more a deadly nucance than a real miliatry threat.
Harry Curzon
User798511 wrote:
>
> Greg Goebel wrote:
>
> >When the guidance system determined that it was at the target point, it
> >cut off the pulsejet and lock the control surfaces to put the bomb into a<BR>
> >steep dive. The abrupt cessation of the loud buzz inspired terror, since
> >meant there would be a terrific explosion a few moments later.<BR>
One of the tests for randomness we did in my University course on
statistics was to replicate the tests done by British statisticians
during WW2 before we got our hands on a V-1. A map of London was marked
into grids and then the locations of V-1 impacts were plotted. Using
some basic statistical analysis of the clustering, or lack of, V-1
impacts, our scientists proved before they got hold of the V-1 intact,
that there was no effective guidance system and that for practical
purposes, its impact points were random. There was no effective
guidance system that steered the V-1 towards a pre-set point on the map,
and no mechanism determined the V-1 was at its target. Keeping a
heading and having a timer for dead reckoning are not what we would call
guidance mechanisms nowadays, and neither did the British scientists in
1944!
Harry
MMillard0
...... remember them well, the engine noise was raucous. I lived in NE England.
The engine was a pulse jet with "reed spring valves" on the inlet. By the time
they had flown that far many of the valves had "fatigued" allowing frontal blow
back.
For further information see Roland Beamonts book, "Against the Sun". Beamont
commanded an RAF squadron charged with the mission of shooting down V1's. V1's
were small and not easy to hit. Pilots would pump shells into them with no
effect. Sometimes the warhead would be touched off. The shooter would them fly
into and through the fieball. Serious lung damaged was incurred by pilots.
One technique frequently used was to put your wing tip under the V1 wing tip.
This would cause lift assymetry in the V1's wings, bejond the ability of hte
autopilot to correct and it would roll over and spin into the ground.
Maurice Millard
Martin Paul Bishop
In article <199803311511...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, MMillard0 (mmil...@aol.com) writes:
>
>
>One technique frequently used was to put your wing tip under the V1 wing tip.
>This would cause lift assymetry in the V1's wings, bejond the ability of hte
>autopilot to correct and it would roll over and spin into the ground.
>
>Maurice Millard
>
the time. At 400 to nearly 500 MPH it was so easy to catch up with
them and play a little joystick jockey.....And if you flipped them
just right they flew all the way back to Germany and landed back
on the launch ramp