El mito de las armas maravillosas de la Luftwaffe

[ivasam]

Estimados foreros esta vez quisiera departir con ustedes acerca del mito de las armas maravillosas de la Luftwaffe, pues he leido en muchos sitios opiniones de personas que dicen que si la guerra se prolongaba un año mas Alemania hubiese ganado el conflito, lo cual no estoy de acuerdo por las siguientes circustancias:

1) En 1945 Alemania tenia gravez problemas para conseguir materiales de construccion, es así que hasta a la madera se le podia considerar material estrategico.

2) En 1945 todo el Eje tenia gran deficiencia en combustible y deribados del petroleo.

3) Los aliados practicamente ya disponian de la bomba atomica, destacando que los alemanes estaban muy retrasados en el desarrollo de esta tecnologia, de todas formas así las hubiesen querido desarrollar no contaban con la suficiente electricidad para hacer funcionar a los necesarios coclotrones.

4) Los aviones y cohetes de vanguardia alemanes tenia serios problemas, analicemos los mas significativos y los que me acuerdo en este momento:

Me-262
a) Tenia con ventaja una gran velocidad, pero una baja capacidad de maniobra, y giros cerrados.
b) Los motores Humo de este avión solo tenian una fiabilidad de 10 horas.
c) Eran relativamente caros de producir.
d) Necesitaban combustibles altamente refinados los cuales los alemanes casi no tenian.

Me 163
a) Avión extremadamente rapido, pero con una muy baja autonomia, solo podia estar en vuelo 10 minutos aproximadamnete.
b) Tenia la desagradable tendencia a explotar a causa de su conbustible hipergolico.(combustible que se inflama con el contacto con otro líquido)
c) Dificil aterrizaje

V-2
a) Bomba muy veloz pero muy impresisa, necesitaba balncos muy grandes para acertar, de hecho del tamaño de ciudades.
b) Muy caras de producir
c) Necesitaban grandes cantidades de combustible en base de alcohol muy dificil ya de producir para los alemanes en 1945.

Ar- 234
a) Como avión de reconocimiento excelente, pero no podia cargar una gran cantidad de bombas.
b) Necesitaba de combustible muy refinado
c) Tampoco era un avión de caza, es decir no era un arma ofensiva.

Bachem 8-349A1 "Natter"
a) Interceptor cohete muy veloz pero impractico, ya que no tenia posibilidad de aterrizar, sino que luego de una misión el piloto tenia que lanzarse en paracaidas, de he hecho se hizo una sola prueba a causa de que el piloto murio en ella.

Horten Ho-IX
a) Ala voladora muy rapida pero con escaso poder de maniobra
b) Util para reconocimiento pero no como arma ofensiva.
c) Posible inestabilidad en el aire, ya que en la actualidad las alas voladoras necesitan de computadoras para corregir estas deviaciones.



5) Los aliados en lo referente a aeronautica practicamente igualaban o superaban a los alemanes pues disponian ya listos los sigientes aparatos:


a) McDonnell FD/FH Phantom
b) P-80 Shooting Star
c) De Havilland Vampire
d) Gloster Meteor


6) Los alemanes ya no tenian los recursos de ningun tipo para desarrollar sus famosos modelos Luft 46, pues una cosa es tener una gran idea y otra ponerla en practica, para llegar a lo segundo a veces se necesitan de muchas decadas de continua investigación y deasarrollo, tambien hay que añadir que muchos modelos de la Luft 46 eran unas gilipolleses como dicen los españoles, pues algunos ni en la actulidad se les podria fabricar como el caso de Focke-WuIf "Triebfluegel".


Por todo lo anterior pienso que es un mito eso de las armas maravillosas alemanas, que nada pudo salvarles de la total derrota a partir de 1941.


Saludos

Iván

[japa]

Desde luego el esfuerzo alemán en armas milagrosas fue admirable desde un punto de vista tecnológico, pero en la práctica supuso un absurdo derroche de medios en proyectos paralelos e incluso solapados (pienso en el Me262 / he-280: tal vez hubiera sido más rentable centrarse en corregir los defectos del Heinkel y haberlo tenido en servicio en 1943), por no decir simplemente inútiles: por mucho que Hitler se entusiasmara con las V2, lo cierto es que su utilidad militar era nula, puesto que se concibieron como armas de represalia y no como medios de combate: la idea de Hitler (bastante estúpida, dada la disparidad de medios) era que el terror causado por las represalias alemanas obligaría a los aliados a cesar el bombardeo de las ciudades alemanas, cuando estaba muy claro que la única manera eficaz de detener los bombardeos era causar a los bombarderos pérdidas inaceptables (lo que tal vez se hubiera logrado dedicando el monstruoso esfuerzo económico que supusieron las V2 y V1 a los sistemas de defensa antiaérea basados en misiles, que jamás pasaron de las pruebas)
El Me163 era uno de los proyectos más estúpidos: ya existía un caza a reacción con muchas más prestaciones (el 262), su uso en combate concluyó en la pérdida de 1,4 cazas por bombardero derribado (pérdidas no ya en combate, sino al despegar) y su sistema de combustible era tan peligroso que los vapores bastaron en ocasiones para matar a los pilotos.
Y además hay un factor que nunca ha dejado de sorprenderme: todas estas armas milagrosas, al igual que los submarinos XXI, se pensaron para intentar frenar a los aliados occidentales entre 1944 y 1945, cuando la principal amenaza para Alemania era el ejército soviético ¿Alguien conoce algún arma secreta nazi que fuera usada en el frente oriental? ¿De qué iba a servir bombardear Londres para frenar a las fuerzas de Rokossovsky en el Vístula? La ayuda americana a la URSS llegaba sobre todo a través de Persia y no tenían ningún medio de ataque que pudiera frenarla. Aún en el supuesto caso de que las armas milagrosas hubieran frenado a los aliados occidentales en el otoño de 1944 (y no lo hicieron) no hubieran servido de nada: la marea roja se las hubiera llevado por delante junto a las tropas alemanas aunque hubieran ganado unos pocos meses de margen (muy pocos, puesto que sin los pozos de Rumanía los alemanes perdieron casi por completo su capacidad para mover sus fuerzas. Simplemente era inútil, escaso y demasiado tarde.

[miguel2]

..............Horten Ho-IX
a) Ala voladora muy rapida pero con escaso poder de maniobra
b) Util para reconocimiento pero no como arma ofensiva.
c) Posible inestabilidad en el aire, ya que en la actualidad las alas voladoras necesitan de computadoras para corregir estas deviaciones. ...........

Llegaron a volar las Horten Ho-IX? alguien sabe de alguna foto de ellas? y volando?

Saludos.

[Von Kleist]

Buenas

Muy de acuerdo con vuestro comenarios, Ivasam y japa. Las Wunderwaffe fueron un despilfarro de recursos, económicos e industriales, y con su rendimiento no compensaron ni por asomo el esfuerzo invertido en su diseño, desarrollo y producción. Los alemanes llevaron los diseños de armas más allá de los umbrales de la tecnología punta que existía en los años 40, pero lo cierto es que la guerra la ganaron aviones de hélice, tanques como el Sherman o el T-34 producidos en serie, y buques de diseño probado.

Respecto al comentario de japa:

Y además hay un factor que nunca ha dejado de sorprenderme: todas estas armas milagrosas, al igual que los submarinos XXI, se pensaron para intentar frenar a los aliados occidentales entre 1944 y 1945, cuando la principal amenaza para Alemania era el ejército soviético ¿Alguien conoce algún arma secreta nazi que fuera usada en el frente oriental? ¿De qué iba a servir bombardear Londres para frenar a las fuerzas de Rokossovsky en el Vístula?

Bueno, hay que entender como pensaba Hitler. En 1944 era una especie de fantasma de sí mismo que alternaba periodos de lucidez con otros de absoluto despego de la realidad militar que implacablemente se volvía contra Alemania. En esos últimos meses de la guerra, Hitler cada vez mas fantaseaba con una disolución de la coalición aliada, como le ocirrió a Federico el Grande de Prusia en la guerra de los 7 años, lo que daría un giro a la guerra (recordemos que aun a finales de 1944 esperaba poder derrotar a los aliados occidentales en Las Ardenas y volcarse contra la URRS, aun cuando de ser así, la guerra estaba perdida de todos modos).

Eso y la patólogica tendencia de Hitler a buscar la venganza contra Gran Bretaña, explica en gran medida el tiempo, recursos y dinero empleados en los programas de bombas volantes.

Vistos los resultados, Alemania habría hecho mejor dedicando sus recursos a la fabricación y mejora de los aviones y armas convencionales.

Saludos

[ivasam]

..............Horten Ho-IX
a) Ala voladora muy rapida pero con escaso poder de maniobra
b) Util para reconocimiento pero no como arma ofensiva.
c) Posible inestabilidad en el aire, ya que en la actualidad las alas voladoras necesitan de computadoras para corregir estas deviaciones. ...........

Llegaron a volar las Horten Ho-IX? alguien sabe de alguna foto de ellas? y volando?

Saludos.

Hola, por increible que paresca este aparato volo duarante dos horas aproximadamente, pero se estrello a causa de un incendio en el motor, sin embargo fue elegido para ser producido en serie, cuando los aliados se apoderaron de la fabrica solo habia uno terminado.

Respecto a la existencia de fotos de esta maravilla volando existen muy pocas.

Saludos
Iván

[miguel2]

.............
Hola, por increible que paresca este aparato volo duarante dos horas aproximadamente, pero se estrello a causa de un incendio en el motor, sin embargo fue elegido para ser producido en serie, cuando los aliados se apoderaron de la fabrica solo habia uno terminado.

Respecto a la existencia de fotos de esta maravilla volando existen muy pocas.

Saludos
Iván

Gracias por la pronta aclaración.

Saludos.

[miguel2]

No sé si es una imagen auténtica.

Horten HO IX

http://aerostories.free.fr/constructeur ... page2.html

[miguel2]

[miguel2]

[miguel2]

[miguel2]

[miguel2]

En http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~FlyWing/ima ... N_IX-6.JPG , he podido ver fotos en color de algo similar al Horte IX, muy mal conservados.



Saludos.

[miguel2]

En teoría esto es un HORTEN XIII.

[alfavega]

Horten XIII, un planeador


Horten Ho IX en vuelo

General

The H IX was a single seat fighter bomber of 16 m span with twin jet engines, being a further development of the H V and H VII designs. Fig. 19 is a general arrangement drawing made from a wooden model found at Gottingen, where the first two of the type were built.
Four aircraft of the H IX type were started, designated V.1 to V.4. V.1 was the prototype, designed as a single seater with twin B.M.W. 003 jets, which were not ready when the airframe was finished. It was accordingly completed as a glider (Fig. 20) (not reproducible) and extensively test flown. D.V.L. instrumented it for special directional damping tests to determine its suitability as a gun platform. V.2 was completed (also at Gottingen) with two Juno 004 units and did 2-hours flying before crashing during a single engine landing. The pilot (Ziller) apparently landed short after misjudging his approach. V.3 was being built by Gotha at Friedrichsrodal as a prototype of the series production version. V.4 did not get beyond the project stage but was to be a two-seater night fighter with an extended nose to house the extra man (Fig. 19) (missing).
In shape, the H IX was a pure wing with increased chord at the center to give sufficient thickness to house the pilot and the jet units, which were placed close together on either side.

Aerodynamic Design

The H IX started as a private venture and the Hortens were very anxious to avoid failure so they avoided aerodynamic experiments wherever possible. A lower sweepback was used than on the H V and H VII and laminar flow wing sections were avoided as a potential source of trouble. Wing section at the junction with the center sections was 14% thick with maximum thickness at 30% and 1.8% zero Cmo camber line. At the centerline thickness was increased locally to 16% to house the crew. The tip section was symmetrical and 8% thick. Horten also believed that since the compressibility cosine correction to drag was based on the sweepback of the maximum thickness line, the ordinary section would show little disadvantage.
Wing twist was fixed by consideration of the critical Mach number of the underside of the tip section at top speed. This gave a maximum washout of 1.8°. Having fixed this, the CG was located to give trim at CL = 0.3 with elevons neutral. In deciding twist for high speed aircraft, CD values were considered in relation to local CL at operational top speed and altitude (10 km in the case of the H IX). Twist was arranged to give minimum overall drag consistent with trim requirements. The wing planform was designed to give a stall commencing at 0.3 to 0.4 of the semi-span.

Structure

Wing structure comprised a main spar and one auxiliary spar or wooden construction with ply covering. The center section was built up from welded steel tube. Wing tips were all metal. The undercarriage was completely retractable and of tricycle type the front wheel folding backwards and the main wheels inwards. The nose wheel was castering and centered with a roller cam. When resting on the ground, wing incidence was 7° and the nose wheel took about 40% of the total weight.

Engine Installation

The jet engines were installed at -2° to the root chord and exhausted on the upper surface of the wing at 70% back from the nose (Fig. 22a & 22b). To protect the wings the surface was covered with metal plates aft of the jet pipe and cold air bled from the lower surface of the wing by a forward facing duct and introduced between the jet and the wing surface. The installation angle was such that in high speed flight the jest were parallel to the direction of flight.

Control System

Lateral and longitudinal control was by single stage elevon control flap with 25% Frise nose and compensating geared tap balance. (This system was also used on the H VII, see para. 4.6.) The pilots control column was fitted with a variable hinge point gadget, and by shifting the whole stick up about 2” the mechanical advantage could be doubled on the elevons for high-speed flight.
Directional control was by drag rudders. These were in two sections, slight movements of the rudder bar opening the small (outboard) section and giving sufficient control for high speed. At low speeds when courser control was necessary the large movement also opened the second spoiler, which started moving when the small one was fully open. By pressing both feet at once, both sets of spoilers could be operated simultaneously; this was stated to be a good method of steadying the aircraft on a target when aiming guns. The Hortens stated that the spoilers caused no buffeting and claimed an operating force of 1 kg for full rudder, with very little variation in speed. The operating mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 28. A change was made from the original H VII parallel link system to improve the control force characteristics. With the new system, aerodynamic forces could be closely balanced by correct venting of the spoiler web, leading the main control load to be supplied by a spring. The cover plate of the spoilers was spring loaded (Fig. 27) to form an effective seal with the rudders closed; this device was used on most Horten spoiler and dive brake designs.
On further models of the H IX it was proposed to fit the “trafficator” type rudder tried experimentally on the H VII.
Landing flaps consisted of plain trailing edge flaps (in four sections) on the wings, with a 3% chord lower surface spoiler running right across the center section, which functioned as a glide path control. The outer pair of plain flaps lowered 27° and the inner pair 30° – 35° on the glider version V.1. On V.2 mechanical trouble prevented the inner pair operating and all flying was done with the outer pair only. The center section spoiler could be used as a high speed brake and gave 1/3 g at 950 kph. No dive recovery flap was considered necessary.

Performance

Proper performance tests were not done on V.2 before its crash and top speed figures were calculated values, checked by Messerschmitts. The following figures were remembered by Reimar Horten:

Dimensions

All Up Weight, Including Ammunition and Armor 8,500 kg (18,700 lbs.)
All Up Weight, Excluding Ammunition and Armor 7,500 kg
Wing Area 52 sq.m (566 sq.ft.)
Wing Loading 33 lb./sq.ft.
Fuel (I2 Crude Oil) 2,000 kg (4,400 lbs.)

Performance at 7,500 kg (16,500 lbs.)

Takeoff Run 500 m
Takeoff Speed (10° Flap) 150 kph (95 mph)
(Note: This corresponds to a CL of 1.30 which is the stated stalling CL of the aircraft.)
Top Speed (at Sea Level) 950 kph (590 mph)
(CDo estimated to be 0.011)

Calculated ceiling was 16 km (52,000’). Engines would not work above 12 km as the burners went out.

Rate of Climb at Sea Level 22 m/sec (4,300 ft/min)
(Note: This has been checked roughly by observation.)

In tests against the Me 262 speeds of 650-700 kph (400-430 mph) were obtained on about 2/3 throttle opening. This appears to be the only flight test figure available.
Messerschmitt sent performance calculators to the Horten works to check their estimates. The method suggested by D.V.L. for getting the sweepback correction to compressibility drag was to take an area of 0.3 x the root chord squared at the center section as having no correction applied, and then apply full cosine correction over the outer wing. Sweepback angle was defined as that of the quarter chord locus. Test data was available for CDv. for zero sweepback.
The Messerschmitt method was to base sweepback on the max t/c locus and to scale Mach number by the square root cos Ø.

Stability and Control

The H IX V.1 was flown by Walter Horten, Scheidhauer and Ziller. Scheidhauer did most of the flying (30 hours) at Oranienberg, Horten and Ziller flew for about 10 hours.
D.V.L. instrumented the aircraft for drag and directional stability measurements. No drag results were obtained because of trouble with the instrument installation – apparently an incidence measuring pole was fitted which could be lowered in flight and glide path angle was obtained from the difference between attitude and incidence measurements. One day they landed without retracting the pole. Directional oscillation tests were completed successfully and an advance report was issued (10 pages of typescript) by Pinsker and Lugner fo D.V.L.
The essence of the results was that the lateral oscillation was of abnormally long period – about 8 sec. At 250 kph and damped out in about 5 cycles. At low speeds the oscillation was of “dutch roll” type but at high speed very little banking occurred. Many fierce arguments took place at D.V.L. on desirable directional stability characteristics , the Hortens naturally joining the “long period” school of thought. They claimed that the long period would enable the pilot to damp out any directional swing with rudder and keep perfectly steady for shooting. It was found that by using both drag rudders simultaneously when aiming, the aircraft could be kept very steady with high damping of any residual oscillation.
Lateral control was apparently quite good with very little adverse yaw.
Longitudinal control and stability was more like a conventional aircraft than any of the preceding Horten types and there was complete absence of the longitudinal "wiggle" usually produced by flying through gusts. Tuft tests were done to check the stall but the photographs were not good enough for much to be learned. Handling was said to be good at the stall, the aircraft sinking on an even keel. There seems to be some doubt, however, as to whether a full stall had ever taken place since full tests with varying CG and yaw had not been done. Although the stick was pulled hard back, the CG may have been too far forward to give a genuine stall.
Directional stability was said by Scheidhauer to be very good, as good as a normal aircraft. He did not discuss this statement in detail as he was obviously very hazy about what he meant by good stability and could give very little precise information about the type and period of the motion compared with normal aircraft.
Scheidhauer had flown the Me 163 as a glider and was obviously very impressed with it; he was confident enough to do rolls and loops on his first flight. We asked him how the H IX V.1 compared with the 163; he was reluctant to give an answer and said the two were not comparable because of the difference in size. He finally admitted that he preferred the 163 which was more maneuverable, and a delight to fly (he called it “spielzeug”).
The H IX V.2 with jet engines was flown only by Ziller and completed about 2 hours flying before its crash. This occurred after an engine failure – the pilot undershot, tried to stretch the glide and stalled. One wing must have dropped, for the aircraft went in sideways and Ziller was killed. Before the crash a demonstration had been given against an Me 262; Horten said the H IX proved faster and more maneuverable, with a steeper and faster climb.
In spite of the crash, Horten thought the single engine performance satisfactory and said the close spacing of the jets made single engined flying relatively simple.

[ivasam]

Muchas gracias miguel2, las fotos estan de fàbula.

Saludos

Ivàn