German Research Aircraft

Berlin B9:

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Goppingen Go-9:

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Rob

r***@aol.com

2006-09-30 03:47:02 UTC

Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-3.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-4.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-2.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-1.jpg

SNIP

I detect a definate French influenece

Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-3.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-4.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-2.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-5.jpg

SNIP

Nice toy

Rob Arndt

2006-09-30 04:15:55 UTC

Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-3.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-4.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-2.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-1.jpg

SNIP
I detect a definate French influenece

With prone pilot?

Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-3.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-4.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-2.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-5.jpg

SNIP
Nice toy

I should say so, it led to this:
Loading Image...

Rob ;)

Gordon

2006-09-30 05:21:34 UTC

Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-3.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-4.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-2.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-5.jpg

Nice toy

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_005/Do%20335%20V1%20prototype%20over%20Oberpfaffenhofen%20-%20late%201943.jpg

Quick question - I thought the prefix for Gotha designs was Go; is this
the rare exception to the rule where two design houses were both given
the identifier of Go?

Gordon

Alan Dicey

2006-09-30 10:18:25 UTC

Post by Gordon

Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-3.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-4.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-2.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-5.jpg

Nice toy

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_005/Do%20335%20V1%20prototype%20over%20Oberpfaffenhofen%20-%20late%201943.jpg

Quick question - I thought the prefix for Gotha designs was Go; is this
the rare exception to the rule where two design houses were both given
the identifier of Go?
Gordon

Ah, the limits of the teletype character set. Gotha is spelled with an
o, whereas Göppingen is spelled with an ö, a different letter :-) If
your application won't show umlauts, the approved dodge is to postfix an
e, so Gö 9 becomes Goe 9, with the oe standing for one letter.

Mind you, I'd have confused the two as well.

A brief google shows Göppingen to have been a glider manufacturer, which
may be why the name isn't so familiar to warbird fans like me.

r***@aol.com

2006-09-30 11:25:14 UTC

Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-3.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-4.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-2.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-1.jpg

SNIP
I detect a definate French influenece

With prone pilot?

SNIP

Seeing the French tried everythng but anigravity paint, probably....

I was thinking more along the lines of butt ugly, though

And becuase a prone pilot was another dead end (name how many
production aircraft have featured such an arrangment. Ands YES, I am
aware of the advantages of the prone position regarding G-forces

1) Why not adopt supine - that's even better at resisting G-forces

2) The number of WWII era aircraft that could pull G-loads for the
length of time giving the unconventional positions an advantage was
miniscule)

Just about everyone tried the prone position and came away concluding
that the lack of rearward vision was fatal in a tactical aircraft (made
even worse by the bracing the pilot's neck required to avoid sparined
muscles). While the limitation cold be accepted in heavy airctaft, no
one was throwing B-29's or C-54's around the sky like fighters (yes, I
am aware of the limited exceptions the He-177 wa ssupposed to be
capable of making dive bombing runs - a requirement that needleesly
complicated the design and construction - because of the perceived lack
of accuracy of the LE's bomb siights. BTW, did the He_177 ever perform
a divebombing mission?

Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-3.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-4.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-2.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-5.jpg

SNIP
Nice toy

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_005/Do%20335%20V1%20prototype%20over%20Oberpfaffenhofen%20-%20late%201943.jpg
Rob ;)

Eunometic

2006-09-30 13:52:45 UTC

Post by r***@aol.com
I was thinking more along the lines of butt ugly, though

Test bed aircraft are meant to be functional not aeshetically pleasing
to someones pecadelos.

Post by r***@aol.com
And becuase a prone pilot was another dead end (name how many
production aircraft have featured such an arrangment. Ands YES, I am
aware of the advantages of the prone position regarding G-forces
1) Why not adopt supine - that's even better at resisting G-forces

It was to be used in dive bombing where the forward vision is usefull.

It was also to be used in a number of Vertical Take Of & Landing
vehicles such as the Heinkel Wespe.

It provides lower frontal area than supine.

Post by r***@aol.com
2) The number of WWII era aircraft that could pull G-loads for the
length of time giving the unconventional positions an advantage was
miniscule)

The G limit of the pilot was lower than that of the airframe for
fighters for Dive bombers the G limit of the pilot was the limitation.
That's why G suits started to come in as well.

Post by r***@aol.com
Just about everyone tried the prone position and came away concluding
that the lack of rearward vision was fatal in a tactical aircraft (made
even worse by the bracing the pilot's neck required to avoid sparined
muscles).

There was no 'neck bracing' there was a chin and forhead rests.

While the limitation cold be accepted in heavy airctaft, no

Post by r***@aol.com
one was throwing B-29's or C-54's around the sky like fighters (yes, I
am aware of the limited exceptions the He-177 wa ssupposed to be
capable of making dive bombing runs - a requirement that needleesly
complicated the design and construction - because of the perceived lack
of accuracy of the LE's bomb siights. BTW, did the He_177 ever perform
a divebombing mission?

The dive bombing requirment was removed in 1942. It was not a
screaming 90 degree or even 60 degree dive but a shallow one. When the
Stuvi computing bomb site came in a good Ju 88 crew could conduct a
400mph 23 degree dive from 8000ft to 5000ft and deliver its bombs to
within 10m.

r***@aol.com

2006-09-30 12:08:27 UTC

Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-3.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-4.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-2.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-1.jpg

SNIP
I detect a definate French influenece

With prone pilot?

Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-3.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-4.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-2.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/images/go9-5.jpg

SNIP
Nice toy

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_005/Do%20335%20V1%20prototype%20over%20Oberpfaffenhofen%20-%20late%201943.jpg

SNIP

Sorry, but a 137 mph light (about 1500 lbs) aircraft - with or without
a pusher propellor - is still a toy

As far as it leading to the Pfeil, presumably the Go-9 was to
investigate torsional vibration in a long prop shaft - I would think
that the concept of a pusher propellor needed no proof (some folks
named Wright had used them in 1903) and their had been mid-engined
aircraft during the Great War period, so I discount the story it was
needed to prove that concept.

While the Germans weer messing around with their toy, the stupid
Americans just went ahead and built mid-engined airacrft with long prop
shafts - and the P-39 and P-63 they were built by the thousands and
compiled a respectable war record (how many of teh Dorniers weer built
andf how many victories did they score?). Bill Gunston recounts in
"Plane Speaking" talking with the Soviet Ait Attache at a reception in
London in the Fifties and was told that the Red Air Forcce liked the
Airacobra very much - especially for its tricycle landing gear and
toughness - and his unit had been employed it quite successfully
against the LW in air to air missions (spiking the myth that the
Russians had mainly employed it ground attack sorties). He sould never
understand why everyone was supposed to be impresesed with the
Spitfires that Britain had sent to the USSR....There was only one
prooblem with the P-39, the Colonel said after swallowing his vodka,-
"Some pilots balls too big, get caught in prop shaft"

Eunometic

2006-09-30 14:34:52 UTC

Post by r***@aol.com
SNIP
Sorry, but a 137 mph light (about 1500 lbs) aircraft - with or without
a pusher propellor - is still a toy
As far as it leading to the Pfeil, presumably the Go-9 was to
investigate torsional vibration in a long prop shaft -

Err no.

I would think

Post by r***@aol.com
that the concept of a pusher propellor needed no proof (some folks
named Wright had used them in 1903) and their had been mid-engined
aircraft during the Great War period, so I discount the story it was
needed to prove that concept.

The Go-9 was to investigate the stabillity and aerodynamics issues of
the tail pusher arrangment and provide proof of concept for the radical
arrangment. The gearbox and shaft issues were no brainers.

Post by r***@aol.com
While the Germans weer messing around with their toy, the stupid
Americans just went ahead and built mid-engined airacrft with long prop
shafts - and the P-39 and P-63 they were built by the thousands

The unique advantage of the Do 335's arrangment was the impressive
speed it could develop on ordinary engines
Nearly 450mph with the DB603A
Over 476mph with the DB603E
Over 495mph with the DB603L (about 2200hp added a two stage
supercharger but still using only 91 octane B4 fuel)
With the DB603N, which was only on the test bench, but used a two stage
intercooled engine running late war C3 fuel (95/125 octane) of 2700hp
its speed surely would have pushed well over 510-520mph

All of this with a production engine and would have been with an
interior bomb bay able to carry over 1000kg/2200lbs of bombs and while
2 15mm and 1 x 30mm canon fitted: two sychronised above the nose and
one firing through propeller boss gave a self defense abillity in an
aircraft that manouvered and climbed well.

With parameters like that no Spiteful, P-51H or XP-72 could have gotten
much chance of an interception of a Do 335 on a bombing run and would
have faced an aircraft that could fight back on approximetly equal
terms had it managed an interception.

The point I make has nothing to do with superior German or Allied
technology.

It''s simply to point out that the push pull arrangment is succesfull
at giving the twin engined aircraft the speed performance associated
with a single engined aircraft while maintaining the twins abillity to
carry internal weapons in a bomb bay and have better range.

The aircraft was extremely safe in an engine out situation and managed
over 350mph on one prop.

Dan

2006-09-30 13:07:02 UTC

Post by Rob Arndt
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-3.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-4.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-2.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/b9-1.jpg

SNIP
I detect a definate French influenece

With prone pilot?